Current WWE

[air_raid]

I just think doing all these part timers in big/title matches @ Mania just screams of WCW(like running Piper-Hogan @ Starrcade in '96, 10 years after they were close to full timers).

Forgetting of course that Hogan was a red-hot heel at the time which the WcW fanbase were dying to see someone beat, that Piper was someone they bought into, and that they went batshit crazy when Piper did beat him, with the nWo showing cracks for virtually the first time. A PPV that earned 240,000 buys (considered an enormous success at the time) and grossed nearly $3 million.

 

This "part-timers" shit needs cutting out, it really does. Pro wrestling always has and always will be about finding matches that people want to see and making them pay to see them. WrestleMania is where they put on the biggest matches, and if those biggest matches involve people that don't want to/can't work a full-time schedule all year (but can still go, without doubt), so be it. The last two 'Manias would have been far less memorable without Hunter and Rock's matches, and in truth many more without Taker. Yes, the future of the company is sacrificed by putting those older stars at the top of the card over their existing pack (with the exception of Cena), but WWE doesn't think about it, so neither should we. We should just enjoy the show and be grateful we're not still treated to endless Cena/Orton matches. WrestleMania with Rock/Cena, Brock/Hunter and hopefully Taker/Punk will be incredible, and as an aside, Cena finally proving he is (kayfabe) as good as one of the best ever and avenging his loss to The Rock - and regaining his belt - will be a phenomenal piece of pro wrestling drama, and anyone suggesting the main event should be anything other than a straight Rock/Cena one on one has their head up their backside.

[rzombie1988]

I don't have any problems with "part timers". Part timers have historically drawn some of the biggest houses ever. What I like about part timers is that they come in, draw, and leave before it gets old. Territories were built around people coming in and leaving to keep things fresh and to leave room for them to draw big down the line. I wish all wrestlers were part timers.

[Loss]

I do think people like Rock, HHH, Undertaker and Jericho would be horribly exposed if they were around week-to-week these days, so I get that. It's not the part-timer thing that bugs me. It's that it plays into the perception that the past is better than the present, which true or not, makes me wonder why I should care about what happens now. It's also that the part-timers generally face each other instead of full-timers that could really benefit from the match. Why isn't it a priority of WWE to make their B-level PPVs more meaningful? Why would they think putting someone who isn't around every week over John Cena is a good idea? I think it would be a noble goal to make their roster so strong that they could run a loaded Mania without bringing in outside help. I think the talent is there. The portrayal is the problem.

[jpchicago23]

Shrek? Really?

Really. Apparently it puts me in the minority but Sheamus does absolutely nothing for me.

 

 

The Shield just beat a who's who of babyfaces and now they are going back to Orton on team Sheamus? It sucked shit. They need to be upping the ante, not running backwards.

Why would Sheamus and Orton just forget about the three guys who have beaten them and attacked them over and over? The good guys are holding a grudge and they got to strike back a little. If Shield always comes out on top, it'd be NWO all over again. And Orton and Sheamus are top level guys, it's not like Zach Ryder and Santino got one over on them.

 

No one is arguing The Shield always come out on top. They should probably lose at Mania. But I don't think The Shield should be used as a vehicle to get Orton back into the upper tier.

 

 

I think Orton is pretty well locked into his current slot unless he gets a reset under the wellness policy. As for The Shield, any definitive defeats they eat should be used to further their character and transition into a new program, not provide happy ending #4 on the PPV.

 

 

 

I agree with you on this one. Sheamus does nothing for me as well. And i think Shrek is actually a pretty funny nickname, i can picture him saying Donkaaay

[Dylan Waco]

I agree with Loss. The problem with the part timers isn't that they are part timers. The problem is that much of WWE booking appears centered around promoting them at the expense of others. And I don't just mean "I LIKES THE CM PUNX HE SHOULD HAVE SQAUSCHED ROCKY" either. I mean that they should be building guys in a coherent, meaningful way while also using the part timers for what they are worth. Otherwise the part timer talking point won't be bullshit in a few years when there aren't any part timers left that are willing or able to work/draw money and no new stars to fill in the gaps.

[jackwebb]

Why isn't it a priority of WWE to make their B-level PPVs more meaningful?

Good question. The minor uproar over Cena and Lesnar fighting at Extreme Rules, rather than saving it for Summerslam or Mania, was puzzling for that reason. They charge a lot for those shows. They should be doing everything they can to have them as equal as possible to the other shows. Byproduct of Dave Meltzer Syndrome where you have people that are fans now of the wrestling business rather than wrestling matches.

[khawk20]

And I don't just mean "I LIKES THE CM PUNX HE SHOULD HAVE SQAUSCHED ROCKY" either.

Gold!

[El-P]

I agree with Loss. The problem with the part timers isn't that they are part timers. The problem is that much of WWE booking appears centered around promoting them at the expense of others. And I don't just mean "I LIKES THE CM PUNX HE SHOULD HAVE SQAUSCHED ROCKY" either. I mean that they should be building guys in a coherent, meaningful way while also using the part timers for what they are worth. Otherwise the part timer talking point won't be bullshit in a few years when there aren't any part timers left that are willing or able to work/draw money and no new stars to fill in the gaps.

Agreed. The other thing is that they aren't just part-timers. They are, for the most part, nostalgia part-timers. Guys from the past.

[Childs]

And I don't just mean "I LIKES THE CM PUNX HE SHOULD HAVE SQAUSCHED ROCKY" either.

Gold!

 

Khawk, can you just post in every thread so I can see the cats and dogs more often.

[rvd356]

I just think doing all these part timers in big/title matches @ Mania just screams of WCW(like running Piper-Hogan @ Starrcade in '96, 10 years after they were close to full timers).

Forgetting of course that Hogan was a red-hot heel at the time which the WcW fanbase were dying to see someone beat, that Piper was someone they bought into, and that they went batshit crazy when Piper did beat him, with the nWo showing cracks for virtually the first time. A PPV that earned 240,000 buys (considered an enormous success at the time) and grossed nearly $3 million.

 

This "part-timers" shit needs cutting out, it really does. Pro wrestling always has and always will be about finding matches that people want to see and making them pay to see them. WrestleMania is where they put on the biggest matches, and if those biggest matches involve people that don't want to/can't work a full-time schedule all year (but can still go, without doubt), so be it. The last two 'Manias would have been far less memorable without Hunter and Rock's matches, and in truth many more without Taker. Yes, the future of the company is sacrificed by putting those older stars at the top of the card over their existing pack (with the exception of Cena), but WWE doesn't think about it, so neither should we. We should just enjoy the show and be grateful we're not still treated to endless Cena/Orton matches. WrestleMania with Rock/Cena, Brock/Hunter and hopefully Taker/Punk will be incredible, and as an aside, Cena finally proving he is (kayfabe) as good as one of the best ever and avenging his loss to The Rock - and regaining his belt - will be a phenomenal piece of pro wrestling drama, and anyone suggesting the main event should be anything other than a straight Rock/Cena one on one has their head up their backside.

 

Well I guess your forgetting that 3 years later Starrcade '99 drew one of WCW's worst buyrate ever(can't confirm that but I have read it several times) when ALL the part time guys were gone and they had done 0 to establish Bret Hart as a credible World champion. Now of course WWE 2013 is in a MUCH better financial position than WCW 1996 and can survive with 1/4 of the buyrates that they get now, just on dvds, merch & Tv advertising but any big company can stumble.

 

Now maybe a better comparison would be Wrestlemania 8 sold out the Hooiser Dome & drew a big buyrate with Hogan's 'Last Match' & a 40+ year old Flair vs. A 40+ year old Savage for the WWE title(Bret did get put over HUGE by Piper in the IC title match though. Great, great match & moment) and a few years later @ WrestleMania 11 they were in that tiny arena in Connecticut and drew a shit buyrate because Bret, Shawn & Nash were not properly(or at all honestly) put over in big shows by Hogan & Savage.

 

I'm not saying 'WWE is dying'. In fact their in a damn good spot financially. I just think the Mania where all these guys are gone is going to come off real flat & draw less than 500k buys. As for Mania 29, it will mark 10 years since I've bought a live ppv(still got the Mania 19 vhs in my wrestling tape box in the parentals attic heh). 1st off don't have cable, 2ndly I just can't believe they cost what, $65 now? I will be searching Youtube and tons of WWE '13 matches that night to try and find the real matches.

[Ricky Jackson]

Mania VIII actually didn't sell out, was heavily papered, and is considered by the WWE to be one of their biggest letdowns. It did 360,000 buys, lower than the previous five Mania's and also the next two (Mania IX--430,000, Mania X--420,000). Mania XI did 340,000 buys, so only 20,000 less.

[rvd356]

Mania VIII actually didn't sell out, was heavily papered, and is considered by the WWE to be one of their biggest letdowns. It did 360,000 buys, lower than the previous five Mania's and also the next two (Mania IX--430,000, Mania X--420,000). Mania XI did 340,000 buys, so only 20,000 less.

Whatever the point is business was way down in '95 partly because the big stars just bolted & didn't do the right thing. Also it was just a case of burn out to the general fanbase I'd say. And I highly doubt Rock, Taker & Brock are putting over Danielson, Sheamus & Punk next year.(I hope I'm wrong. In fact, Sheamus v. Rock sounds like a damn fine match to me).

 

In fact, Next Gen v. Old Guard would be a sweet theme for WrestleMania 30. And please do Brock v. The Rock II @ SummerSlam '13 because I hope to be in attendance @ The Staples Center. It would make more sense to have in LA than in New Orleans IMO. Ideally for me they would bring back "Hollywood" Rock(as a heel) saying he owns the town etc... & "Asskicker" Brock as a babyface(I say the fans turn him face at Mania this year. Although he got boo'd out of MSG @ his last Mania).

[khawk20]

And I don't just mean "I LIKES THE CM PUNX HE SHOULD HAVE SQAUSCHED ROCKY" either.

Gold!

 

Khawk, can you just post in every thread so I can see the cats and dogs more often.

 

 

I'll try.

 

Best part is the other cat sitting by the tire, who never moves throughout the whole fight and eventually gets up to move, like he's saying "fuck this, too noisy to sleep here".

[Strummer]

Never knew Wrestlemania VIII did so poorly. I guess that's why the company always trashes it in their retrospectives. And praises WM 9

[RWOOD]

In another strange world, Wrestlemania VIII was probably going to be Flair/Hogan, a Savage/Roberts blowoff where the loser leaves town and still heel Taker/Sid, unless they still worked the Sid heel turn after the Rumble and used the SNME tag match to set it up... It would NOT have been better. Taker probably would have lost fuck.

 

Personally, I hold VIII near and dear to my heart because I was 8 and a mark and watched it live. It had a 4PM EST start time.

 

So many good memories. I hate the way they talk about VIII.

 

/rant off.

 

Back to the recent stuff, Punk/Cena is an early match of the year. I agree with just about every sentiment spat out here so I won't go over them again.

 

I will say that my actual reaction to the piledriver was "holy fuck i havent seen that in years". Didn't realize they banned the move but I guess there are a lot of things they dont do anymore... like have matches like these.

 

AND I will say this about the rana. Cena can't do a rana and its a well established part of his gimmick that he doesnt do moves. If he pulled it off like Juvi or whoever it woulda looked silly.

 

Is the general consensus that Swgger should be punished for his weed use?

 

I thought we lived in a semi-Liberal society where weed was becoming socially (and legally) acceptable.

[Slasher]

In fact, Next Gen v. Old Guard would be a sweet theme for WrestleMania 30. And please do Brock v. The Rock II @ SummerSlam '13 because I hope to be in attendance @ The Staples Center. It would make more sense to have in LA than in New Orleans IMO. Ideally for me they would bring back "Hollywood" Rock(as a heel) saying he owns the town etc... & "Asskicker" Brock as a babyface(I say the fans turn him face at Mania this year. Although he got boo'd out of MSG @ his last Mania).

Not gonna happen. Fans might respect Brock as a wrestler but he is widely regarded as a jackass. I know the long time perception of Triple H has been negative but I think he gets the cheers and Brock the boos. Summerslam was different because people were expecting Triple H to beat Brock, and they were happy to be surprised. Then there was that phony segment post match transparently designed to get sympathy for HHH, getting fans to turn on the whole thing instead. Plus, if he does the same thing again, Hollywood heel Rock would be the most over babyface all over again.

[air_raid]

Well I guess your forgetting that 3 years later Starrcade '99 drew one of WCW's worst buyrate ever(can't confirm that but I have read it several times) when ALL the part time guys were gone and they had done 0 to establish Bret Hart as a credible World champion.

He'd only been champion a month! What a redundant statement.

 

WCW went to shit because of crap booking, the "equal pay" element of certain talents' contracts creating a financial sinkhole underneath them, and a multitude of top guys having the dreaded "creative control" in their contracts and not having to do any favours they didn't want to. Not because any of their talents were part time. Their strongest buyrate of all time was for Hogan vs Sting who hadn't wrestled on TV for 15 months. You can hardly get more part-time than that.

 

Now maybe a better comparison would be Wrestlemania 8 sold out the Hooiser Dome & drew a big buyrate with Hogan's 'Last Match' & a 40+ year old Flair vs. A 40+ year old Savage for the WWE title

Why? Out of Hogan vs Sid and Flair vs Savage, who's "part time" there? Hogan, because he didn't work the house show schedule the others did at the time? But then, he sure as hell was on TV as much as all the other names. I think you're muddying the waters between "part time" and "getting on a bit in years." Which is irrelevant if they still go (Flair's most satisfying year in the ring being 1989 when he was 40, Shawn Michaels and those participating in Mania 29 all being great wrestlers still well into their 40s) and/or draw a big number (see aforementioned Hogan/Sting where Hogan was 44). Like Rock being in the main event last year, which was the most ordered wrestling pay per view of all time.

 

a few years later @ WrestleMania 11 they were in that tiny arena in Connecticut and drew a shit buyrate because Bret, Shawn & Nash were not properly(or at all honestly) put over in big shows by Hogan & Savage.

Business was low because the company had hit the skids post steroid scandal and a load of top stars leaving. Wrestling just wasn't "in" any more, and it took swearing, tits and Steve Austin to get it back "in" again. Incidentally, when Stone Cold sparked wrestling's big revival on that particular episode of Raw, he hadn't been "properly put over" by any of the big stars - Bret, Shawn or Undertaker - by that point, which kind of illustrates that you don't especially need the top guys to lie down for you. If you're good enough, you'll make it. It's got far less to do with wins and losses than anyone thinks. And I don't see what the 'Mania VIII - 'Mania XI stream of consciousness has to do with the "part timers" debate anyway, unless you want to criticize them for putting LT on last in the latter.

 

Any chance you have to put a big marquee name on your big show to draw money, you should do it. Anyone criticizing the positioning of Rock, Hunter, Lesnar or Undertaker on the 'Mania card in favour of Sheamus or Ziggler, quite frankly I do not understand. If the problem is "old guys should move out the way for the new stars" - wake the fuck up. We've had ten years of Cena, Batista and Orton main events. They all got put on the map - mostly by Hunter - so if anyone should be used to get the next headliners ready, it should be them.

[anarchistxx]

Got round to seeing Punk/Cena today and absolutely loved it. They should use it as a training example of how to work a big, high calibre match. They were helped out by the hot crowd, but pretty much the last ten minutes was perfect. Brilliant flow, believable, everyone busting out separate stuff, important match feel. Best WWE match I've seen since their first match at Money In The Bank.

 

Makes me kind of disappointed they didn't do it at Wrestlemania: it would have been the perfect blowoff to the two year feud, with almost the feel of a Rock/Austin type era defining match. Rock himself could have wrestled someone fresh like Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan, Ryback, Sheamus, given them the rub. With Lesnar and presumably Taker on the same card the buy rate would have taken care of itself.

 

Not usually one for fantasy booking, but:

 

John Cena v CM Punk

The Rock v Randy Orton

Triple-H v Brock Lesnar

The Shield v Sheamus/Ryback/Undertaker

Jack Swagger v Alberto del Rio

Chris Jericho v Dolph Ziggler

Big Show/Mark Henry v Team Hell No

 

Not the greatest card ever but it works for me with what they have.

[air_raid]

Rock/Orton is bound to happen at some point. If they can keep bringing Rocky back here and there, I'd actually imagine that to main event SummerSlam with the right build. Presumably Randy will have turned heel by then.

[blueminister]

Rock/Orton is bound to happen at some point.

Maybe if Rock discovers a time machine and makes his long-awaited return in 2006.

[air_raid]

Maybe if Rock discovers a time machine and makes his long-awaited return in 2006.

They're both still wrestling and star names, I don't understand. Unless this is just a terrible joke.

[Slasher]

Maybe if Rock discovers a time machine and makes his long-awaited return in 2006.

They're both still wrestling and star names, I don't understand. Unless this is just a terrible joke.

 

Orton is never getting a major push again. I mean "dream match" level push. His two wellness strikes made sure of it.

[Jimmy Redman]

Orton is on two strikes and now firmly in that upper-midcarder role. They arent going to put him on PPV with Rock, and there are better options for Rock to face anyway.

 

I dont think anyone is really clamouring for that match.

[blueminister]

Even discounting drug/reliability issues (I can't see them holding two strikes against him in perpetuity) I just see Orton at some weird point where he's too entrenched as mid-tier to waste one of Rock's dates yet his credibility's established enough that he no longer qualifies for the dice roll program with the visiting megastar.

 

That said, the possibility of a Punk exit would seemingly promise new opportunities for him and this was a company that decided this time last year that CM Punk should bloodfeud with Jericho on the flimsiest of pretexts and Daniel Bryan would be best employed as a comedy midcard crutch for Kane, so who knows.

[Mini Bennett]

If Randy Orton didn't have the two wellness strikes, I would say he's about as "permanent" an upper-midcarder as Undertaker was in 2003 (who somehow found a way to lose to A-Train, John Cena and the FBI on different occasions).