El-P Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I think it hurt because - at least in the case of RnR and the Freebirds - part of the gimmick is that they were pretty boys who girls screamed for. The Freebirds were two delusionnal disgusting assholes pretending to be rock stars. No one who suppose to cheer for them. Now, I've said it many times, that RnR were two of the ugliest guys I've ever seen, but the fact is they had girls screaming. How can you have girls screaming being THAT ugly AND with a beer gut when you've got the likes of Shawn Michaels in the Rockers in WWF or even people like Zenk around in WCW? Ricky Morton was not an ugly guy in a 80's übermullet southern way. The fact that they had girls screaming is a testament to how good they were. Zenk was good looking but dull and a mediocre worker who never drew a dime. So... I find the early 90s Freebirds pretty fascinating, in how they were booked, how many chances they were given, the fact both Hayes and Garvin were pretty smart guys when it came to psychology and wrestling in general so they couldn't be COMPLETELY deluded, the music video/live performance disaster, the match vs the Dynamic Dudes where they were hugely cheered, Badstreet/Fantasia, Big Daddy Dink, Precious as the behind the scenes GM, the weirdness with the late Johnny B Badd match, JR's completely and utter lack of caring when Jimmy Garvin was announced as the mystery Freebird. I fucking hated the Freebirds during the first six months of 1990. They were just awful, particulary Garvin. Then all of a sudden, they become decent again, working harder (especially Hayes), being thrown around by the Steiners and having a fun undercard feud with the Southern Boys. It really depends on will they show up or not. Garvin didn't had much to bring to the table at this point, but as long as he doesn't kill the match with overlong restholds and shitty looking stuff, he can be watchable in spots. Hayes still had tons of charisma. Plus I admit I'm a mark for outrageous looks, and the Freebirds delivered in spades. Let's see for how long they can stay out of my shithouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmakerrtv Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Losing to Zhukov after the Bolsheviks split is arguably worse than teaming with job guys. I'd have to disagree in this case, as it was an angle loss. If he had been pinned by Zhukov, that would be bad. But here he lost by DQ when Zhukov's ex-partner attacked him. The loss is not significant, as the match was just a backdrop to the feuding ex-partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 What makes Ricky Morton so awesome is that he wasn't an attractive guy, but he was a great enough worker to get over with women because he was so good at getting sympathy in the ring. Morton never needed to look a certain way to be effective. The whole point was that he was good enough to portray something bigger than what he actually was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Sorry for bumping this, but I wanted to talk about wins and losses in a modern-day WWE context somewhere. Do losses hurt anyone any more? And do wins put guys over? I found the Orton angle at Summerslam alienating because in my mind the big win over Cena had just established Bryan as a guy on the next level -- it was a step up for him. And then in the next moment they killed it. I want to drill into that a bit. Can someone who really understands the modern WWE booking mentality explain what's going on there and how that Orton angle wouldn't actually *hurt* Bryan in the long run? To my way of thinking it's counter-intuitive booking. Bryan is just given the rub of all rubs in the middle and then you take it away? I didn't get the strong impression that it translated into great heel heat for Orton/ HHH either. I'm just using that match and angle as a lens to get at how losses actually work in modern WWE. Feels like everyone beats everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 They didn't kill it. They gave the fans something they wanted and snatched it away in order to make them hate the heels and root for the babyfaces. It's what the chase is all about, tugging on the heartstrings. It matters a lot more on a narrative level for good to beat evil. Bryan beat Cena, sure, but that was fair and straight and even. He won and he won clean like very few people ever get to do against Cena. Then it was snatched away. Now, he has the legitimate higher ground so when he finally vanquishes evil, it'll matter even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 LOD losing to the Outlaws, and getting beaten up by them on TV a lot was kind of the end of their aura. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious&delicious Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Current WWE is confusing because at least 50% of the roster is in a constant mid-card holding pattern. They have limited angles and are forever trading wins and losses. These wins and losses have no meaning. They don't help and they don't hurt. The main event scene is a place where most of the focus is and wins and losses can make or break you. In the main event, people actually get a chance to cut promos on each other. Chunks of storyline are recapped for weeks on tv leading up to ppvs. If you are in a main event program you better hope creative has a plan for you. If creative has a plan for you following a tough loss to keep you hot, the loss does not matter and you can keep your spot and maybe even move on to better things. Bryan is a great example. The loss at Summerslam to Orton is part of a larger storyline. Henrys loss at Money in the Bank was followed up by a face turn the following night against the Shield which made him look badass. Thus the loss did not hurt him. Now, lets look at someone like Ryback. They spent a year building him up as an unstoppable monster. Cena clearly got the better of him in their feud and afterwards there was no storyline for him. He immediately slid down the card. Overnight the poor guy got zero reactions and now they're building him up almost from scratch. Dolph is another example. His championship feud with Del Rio was pretty hot. The storyline about Dolphs concussion and Del Rio taking advantage of it was playing out nicely. The WWE then decided to lazily drop Dolph back down to the mid-card and put him in a never-ending feud with Big E. Now, in order to build him up a main event player, they are going to have to push him al over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 Ring of Honor is notorious for jobbing their guys in title matches one or two too many times before pulling the trigger. They did it to Nigel McGuinness and Tyler Black and it ultimately hurt them within RoH. They're also getting ready to do the exact same thing to Michael Elgin. Goldberg got double fucked when you think about it. The Nash loss cut his balls off and then he turns around and briefly recaptures his magic in the Elimination Chamber only to job to HHH in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alucard Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Dolph is another example. His championship feud with Del Rio was pretty hot. The storyline about Dolphs concussion and Del Rio taking advantage of it was playing out nicely. The WWE then decided to lazily drop Dolph back down to the mid-card and put him in a never-ending feud with Big E. Now, in order to build him up a main event player, they are going to have to push him al over again. I feel like Dolph had lost so many times that it was hard to ever take him seriously as world champ. He's had two reigns now and both were more or less jokes. Even when he does get a "big win" like he beat Cena at TLC last year, that was followed by losing to Cena even with interference in a long Raw match and then losing to Cena in a cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 This may be tangentially related so I'll throw it in the pot. I was looking at which wrestlers had the largest consistent gaps in Meltzer star ratings between their singles wins and their singles losses over the last five years: http://bit.ly/17JsqEz The seven people who jumped out where Karl Anderson, Kane, Mickie James, HHH, Batista (all fared better in losses than wins) and Undertaker and Tetsuya Naito (fared better in wins than losses). (It's also interesting to see who had the smallest amount of variation between singles wins & losses which were: Hiroshi Tanahashi, Matt Morgan, Prince Devitt, Edge, Shelton Benjamin, Matt Hardy, Daniel Bryan. Basically, you got a similar rated match either way.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnival Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 This may be tangentially related so I'll throw it in the pot. I was looking at which wrestlers had the largest consistent gaps in Meltzer star ratings between their singles wins and their singles losses over the last five years: http://bit.ly/17JsqEz The seven people who jumped out where Karl Anderson, Kane, Mickie James, HHH, Batista (all fared better in losses than wins) and Undertaker and Tetsuya Naito (fared better in wins than losses). (It's also interesting to see who had the smallest amount of variation between singles wins & losses which were: Hiroshi Tanahashi, Matt Morgan, Prince Devitt, Edge, Shelton Benjamin, Matt Hardy, Daniel Bryan. Basically, you got a similar rated match either way.) That might be worth a whole new thread, haha. Which wrestlers tended to dog it when they were scheduled to lose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 I think the Undertaker one can be explained somewhat by noting that his best rated matches include a lot of Streak matches, which are matches he always wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 I think the Undertaker one can be explained somewhat by noting that his best rated matches include a lot of Streak matches, which are matches he always wins. I think Kane is the interesting example. (As always, I recognize that these star ratings are only one person's opinion.) WIN: AVERAGE 0.875 STARS + Backlash 2009: 3. Kane pinned CM Punk in 9:25. *1/2 + Summerslam 2009: 4. Kane pinned Great Khali in 5:56. -* + Breaking Point 2009: 4. Kane pinned Great Khali in a Singapore Glen Jacobs match in 5:50. -* + Summerslam 2010: 5. Kane pinned Rey Mysterio to keep the world title in 13:32. **½ + Night of Champions 2010: 5. Kane pinned Undertaker in 18:27 to retain the World title. *3/4 + Hell in a Cell 2010: 6. Kane pinned Undertaker in 21:37 in a Hell in a Cell match to keep the world title. ½* + Bragging Rights 2010: 5. Kane beat Undertaker in 16:53 in the Buried Alive match to keep the World title. * + Wrestlemania 2012: 2. Kane pinned Randy Orton in 10:55. *3/4 LOSE: AVERAGE 2 STARS + Elimination Chamber 2010: 3. Drew McIntyre retained the IC title pinning Kane in 10:16. *1/4 + No Mercy 2008: 3. Rey Mysterio beat Kane via DQ in 10:10 in a match where Mysterio's mask was at stake. **3/4 + Cyber Sunday 2008: 1. Rey Mysterio pinned Kane in 10:17 in a No Holds Barred match. ** + Elimination Chamber 2012: 6. John Cena beat Kane in 21:20 of an ambulance match, only the second of its kind in WWE history. Cena *** + Extreme Rules 2012: 1. Randy Orton pinned Kane in 16:43 in a falls count anywhere match. *** + Summerslam 2012: 2. Daniel Bryan pinned Kane in 8:02. ** + Payback 2013: 4. Dean Ambrose beat Kane to retain the US title via count out in 9:33. **1/4 + Summerslam 2013: 2. Bray Wyatt pinned Kane in a Ring of Fire match in 7:48. DUD. DRAW: 1.75 + Royal Rumble 2012: 3. John Cena went to a double count out with Kane in 10:56. ** + Survivor Series 2010: 6. Kane retained the World title going to a double pin draw with Edge in 12:47. *1/2 It's interesting to look at some PPV feuds where Kane was on both sides with Cena, Rey, Orton: in all three cases, Kane's losses were rated higher than his wins. It's certainly not hard & fast evidence, and clearly could be rater's bias, though last time I looked at it, I did find that Kane seemed to have a negative effect on other people's singles' matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted September 4, 2013 Report Share Posted September 4, 2013 I did find that Kane seemed to have a negative effect on other people's singles' matches. You don't say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted September 4, 2013 Report Share Posted September 4, 2013 This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I really like that Cena/Kane Rumble match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted September 4, 2013 Report Share Posted September 4, 2013 I did find that Kane seemed to have a negative effect on other people's singles' matches. You don't say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.