Current WWE

[goc]

I still think it's how you watch Raw. I did it in maybe an hour this morning on youtube. I fast forwarded through the singing in the Bray promo to the real thing. I heard Steph. I watched Adam Rose. I watched the Rollins match and the Cena match. I caught Bad News Barrett's promo. I saw Paige's entrance and Alicia's post match antics. I saw the Mark Henry match. I saw Cesaro. I saw R-Truth's entrance because I was confused by it. I saw the Cena/Usos backstage promo since that felt kind of new, and that was it. No recaps. No RVD.

 

In and out and thinking that it was a pretty fun Raw.

This is true. Your enjoyment of WWE is all about knowing what to just skip over. Even on the rare occasions that Raw is on my TV I only pay attention when someone I care about is on. Under that criteria, I still find that the time period of WWECW around the Mark Henry/Matt Hardy/Christian runs as ECW champion as the highest quality product that WWE has put out in the past decade. There were some episodes that you really didn't skip anything but recaps. WWE does one hour of TV much better than it does 2 and DEFINITELY better than it does 3.

[Loss]

I think people overblow the "give it away on TV" thing quite often, but sometimes, you want a better build for a match, and matches are often better in the context of a feud than they are as a one-off. To me, it's not so much about PPV vs free TV. It's more about building anticipation than not building anticipation. Wrestling is as much (or more) about the journey as it is the destination.

[anarchistxx]

 

 

Why do some fans complain about them "giving away money matches on TV"? What's it to you?

 

Because Batista vs Roman Reigns could have been a well built feud, with teases and promos and finally a good match at the end of it all that I was looking forward to. It ended up being meaningless and dour. I was using it as an example of bad booking. On a personal level, I'm a sucker for the 'big match feel' and fresh, interesting pairings. The pairing is no longer fresh and will no longer have a bg match feel if they eventually headline a PPV in the future. My attitude will be 'meh' rather than anticipative. It dimished my future enjoyment. We often complain about repetitive main events and constant rematches at the top of the card, so it is right to complain when potentially new combinations are wasted in the middle of the weekly show with no buildup.

 

The Rock vs Brock Lesnar match at SS02 would have been far less enjoyable had they run it as a midcard match on free television a few months earlier. Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels means very little if they work each other on Smackdown every other week. Do we enjoy Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior to the same degree if we saw them work a ten minute no contest on SNME the year before?

 

Obviously, part of my crticism was also from a business point of view, because it makes no sense whatsoever to run that match. I don't think it is wrong that I express my bemusement and criticise them for doing it, criticism shouldn't be be restricted to the actual content, especially on a board like this where the finances and mechanics of WWE as a public company are debated, often in great depth. I like to analyse both the business and the product; as my interest in actual wrestling has declined, my interest in the wrestling industry has heightened.

 

 

 

still think it's how you watch Raw. I did it in maybe an hour this morning on youtube.

 

I Sky +'d it and got through the show in forty five minutes - it still sucked. Watching live is something I rarely do anymore unless I have it on in the background whilst doing something else - too many commercials, too much time filling rubbish. But over the last few weeks I've been stopping the FF button less and less. Even Cesaro who I was loving a few months back gets span on a bit, every show it is just a good midcard match that really progresses nothing. JBL is truly awful on commentary at the minute as well, they need to look to replace him.

[Strummer]

Holy shit Hunter was hilarious in the post show dark stuff. He and Steph should do a George Burns Gracie Allen act. Or Jerry Stiller/ Anne Meara

[cm funk]

It's funny that you're complaining about Batista vs. Roman when the match last night was Batista vs. Rollins

 

I actually think they're doing a pretty good job with the Shield vs. Evolution stuff......and a proper Batista vs. Roman match would be a big deal still. At the same time.....I have no idea how long Batista is actually going to be around for....it was reported that he signed up for a couple years....but he's going to be off doing Guardians of the Galaxy promotion for quite a bit, and his contract allows him to pretty much come and go as he wants depending on what movie roles he's offered post-GotG (and that movie is looking like it's going to be pretty huge, so I expect him to have his choice of a lot of roles afterwards)......so....

 

Plus Roman isn't ready for main event level singles matches yet.....and even if he was.....Batista isn't the guy I'd put him in there with just yet. I think the best singles pairings at this point are Roman-Orton (which they've been doing on house shows), HHH-Ambrose and Batista-Rollins....at least at the first go through. But this is a 3 on 3 feud......did people complain that Gordy and David had their interactions too early in Freebirds-Von Erichs?

 

I just find it hard to complain about this when Shield-Evolution is the hottest angle going and you can't exactly do it and do matches without Roman and Batista interacting physically....plus all the other variables I just outlined. The fact that Roman has landed the spear on Batista a few times, and pinned him once, can easily play into a story with Big Dave and lead to a big 1 on 1 match between them that won't be lacking for heat at all. The fact that Batista has had the fan backlash and has been eating pins can easily work for him if done right. After watching Batista over the years.....I have a lot of faith in him as a performer....he takes this stuff, works with it, and it generally turns out awesome in the end

[anarchistxx]

 

 

It's funny that you're complaining about Batista vs. Roman when the match last night was Batista vs. Rollins

 

They ran Batista vs Reigns last week. Both matches should have been saved, or at least given some major build.

 

 

 

Plus Roman isn't ready for main event level singles matches yet..

 

This is debatable - he could pull off a well laid out, well rehearsed match, as long as it played to his strengths. He is already on the same level as a Kevin Nash, who worked a ton of main events, and at least a few of them were decent enough. And not being ready for a main event singles match really isn't an excuse for wasting money matches down the road.

 

 

 

I just find it hard to complain about this when Shield-Evolution is the hottest angle going and you can't exactly do it and do matches without Roman and Batista interacting physically..

 

It has been a well booked feud thus far, and you don't have to physically keep them apart. Just don't run a load of meaningless singles matches, it really doesn't help the feud. Reigns/Batista should have been an epic, beautifully teased clash of the monsters, and instead they are working a second hour match with no build.

[Sean Liska]

I just don't think they have plans for a Batista/Reigns match, and honestly, it wouldn't exactly give Reigns a lot of momentum as a single.

 

Reigns-HHH has been discussed as a big match, and that's been protected. Cena and Bryan haven't wrestled since SummerSlam. Cena and the Wyatts were kept apart until their program. They did an awesome job keeping the Shield and Wyatts separate and then making it a big deal when they crossed paths. Bryan and Wyatt was a first-time match at the Rumble.

[KrisZ]

Is there really still a discussion of PPV vs. TV these days hell PPV is pretty much a dead talking point...it's all Network now.

[cm funk]

Roman is already better than Nash in a lot of ways (definitely a much better athlete with better high spots) but you can't really compare them. Roman has only been in the business for a few years, entirely in the WWE system, and he's still pretty green. Nash's high end WWF matches were basically carry jobs by the best workers in the company, and all-time greats, Bret & Shawn. He could hold up his, limited, end of a match. And that isn't a knock on Nash at all, he had good timing and good spots and a good understanding of how to work.....but he was very limited.

 

Which is kind of my point here with Roman and Batista. I like both of them a lot.....but a big singles match with them, even well laid out, could be a complete clusterfuck that the crowd would shit on, and it would hurt both of them. Batista is not a "carry a match/carry a green guy" kind of worker. Roman isn't good or experienced enough yet to compensate for that. It would be a roll of the dice. Which is why I'm glad they're pairing Roman with Orton on the road now and having him work singles matches. I know a lot of people don't care for Orton....but the guy is good, he's a total pro, and Roman will learn a lot working with him. Eventually Roman will be very good and ready for main event caliber singles matches.....but he isn't nearly ready yet, and that's not his fault. But the only good singles match I've seen from him on TV was with Bryan, the best worker in the company. Him and Orton had a match on RAW that was the drizzling shits and completely died with the crowd. And the Roman-Batista "match" wasn't even really a match.....it was a setup for a Shield-Evolution brawl and a show closing angle. It was a tease of a match. No harm done there.

[anarchistxx]

 

 

Is there really still a discussion of PPV vs. TV these days hell PPV is pretty much a dead talking point...it's all Network now.

 

The discussion was more related to match with build vs match without build. They don't necassarily have to run Batista vs Reigns on PPV to take advantage of the fresh, big occasion feel, but they do have to give it some build and hype.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

Why do some fans complain about them "giving away money matches on TV"? What's it to you?

I think there are a couple of levels. One is that people do follow things on a business level. The other is something you can appreciate a bit more and that's build and payoff. Why do Austin vs Brock on a random Raw when you can spend weeks building up to it on PPV. I think most people would be fine if you spent weeks building up to it and making it matter for a well-hyped Raw. Sort of like the NXT specials, but it means less if you just toss it on TV without build.

The problem with Austin/ Brock was that there was no build. What Im talking about is people actually complaining about seeing cool matches for free. It's silly.

[rovert]

Love the song choice for ICW's Fergal's Last Stand video
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6aLD2L3Q4[/YOUTUBE]

 

Devitt is WWE bound obviously and ICW is like a Glasgow, Scotland version of ECW - which is expanding into England soon.

[Matt D]

 

 

Why do some fans complain about them "giving away money matches on TV"? What's it to you?

I think there are a couple of levels. One is that people do follow things on a business level. The other is something you can appreciate a bit more and that's build and payoff. Why do Austin vs Brock on a random Raw when you can spend weeks building up to it on PPV. I think most people would be fine if you spent weeks building up to it and making it matter for a well-hyped Raw. Sort of like the NXT specials, but it means less if you just toss it on TV without build.

The problem with Austin/ Brock was that there was no build. What Im talking about is people actually complaining about seeing cool matches for free. It's silly.

 

I think it's more intertwined than you think.

[SomethingSavage]

I honestly don't know how anyone could complain too much about this week's RAW. Can't speak for everyone obviously, but it was plenty of freaking fun to watch at my place. Surely "how" you watch adds a lot to the overall viewing experience, and I watched with mostly casual friends & fam. But the crowd was ALIVE for this one. So that helped a ton on that end. The energy & atmosphere from the arena just felt exciting, and that translates SO WELL on television.

 

The main event was great. Don't know about you guys, but the people I watched with were popping left & right for some of the stuff Harper was busting out. Big Brodie had 'em eating out the palm of his hands by the time the match was wrapping up. Just the sight of a big bearded bro breaking out superkicks, suicide dives, and flying headscissors? Yeah. My buddies were ALL OVER THAT shit.

 

I don't know how people can be too sour on the singles matches we've been given with the Shield and Evolution program so far though. These aren't top billed money matches ANYTIME SOON, so I don't see what it hurts. That clearly wasn't the case in some of the other matches proposed and used as examples. Shawn/Kurt, Warrior/Hogan, and Brock/Austin were at another level. These guys are still coming up. Plus, they aren't tossing out Reigns/Hunter on free TV or anything. I think they've been fairly wise in the selections they've made with the program so far, to be honest.

And, while I honestly think Batista's only good matches since returning were at 'Mania and Extreme Rules, at least this one had a hot finish. Again, the crowd came alive for it - which definitely helped - but they stayed true to the feud & painted that same portrait of "frantic violence" that they've been doing in ALL the Shield versus Evo encounters. It makes for some incredibly fun TV, in my honest opinion.

 

Unhinged Alicia is fresh. I mean, I get the comparisons to AJ, but hell - even AJ wasn't that enjoyable to watch in the last year. They turned the "crazy" down on her a long time ago, and her whole act suffered so much for it. We're getting the early phase of the AJ approach with Fox right now, so enjoy it while it lasts. That's all I'm doing.

 

The reaction to Adam Rose was fantastic for once. THIS is how it felt when he debuted in NXT, and THIS is what was missing from day one with his arrival on the big stage. Loved it here in this setting though.

 

I guess I just don't see where all the "bad" moments were with this week's episode. It had some dull spots, for sure. But that's what you'll get with ANY 3-hour block of programming. Especially pro wrestling. You can only do so much. But I didn't walk away disappointed with this week's offering.

 

For the most part, it was good stuff. I think some people just spend way too much time worrying about things, predicting what MIGHT go wrong, and then getting legitimately upset when it turns out to be all good & their plans for everything to fall apart didn't become a reality. I don't get that line of thinking, but hey. Each fan's entitled to their own way of enjoying the product, I guess.

[Strummer]

Raw had its lowest rating of the year last night. I'm sure that will be tied into the stock fiasco

[Coffey]

Well, it was also a taped show, so people could read the spoilers ahead of time & see that nothing happened.

[Exposer]

I still think it's how you watch Raw. I did it in maybe an hour this morning on youtube. I fast forwarded through the singing in the Bray promo to the real thing. I heard Steph. I watched Adam Rose. I watched the Rollins match and the Cena match. I caught Bad News Barrett's promo. I saw Paige's entrance and Alicia's post match antics. I saw the Mark Henry match. I saw Cesaro. I saw R-Truth's entrance because I was confused by it. I saw the Cena/Usos backstage promo since that felt kind of new, and that was it. No recaps. No RVD.

 

In and out and thinking that it was a pretty fun Raw.

I watch RAW like this every week now except I'm actually watching it live. I just don't pay attention to the stuff that I think sucks or don't really care about.

[Russellmania]

so the last couple pages of this thread has half the people saying basically that "WWE sucks lately" and the other half saying "That's not fair, it's really good if you ignore 70% of what they do". I really hope that 2nd group can see the flaw in that argument. If you have to fast forward through more than half the show for it to be enjoyable then I think that supports the claim that WWE sucks right now. Granted 3 hours every week is a lot of TV to fill (for RAW alone), but at the same time they have a ton of talent and I don't think anyone would argue they're making the most efficient use of their roster. They could totally run a stacked 3 hour show every week if they had the right creative in place.

 

also @Johnny Sorrow how the fuck does an old guy watching this shit for literally decades not understand how fucking lame it is to throw Reigns and Batista out there in a shitty nothing TV match when they could potentially build that into an epic match at some point?

[cm funk]

I'm defending RAW and WWE and my argument certainly wasn't "ignore 70% of what they do" at all. I'm more along the lines of "ignore 20% of it" and nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to like everything or watch every segment. You're allowed to change the channel for a bit or go to the kitchen, or walk your dog or put it in the background and surf the web a bit. That's how I watch it. WWE's shows are for the most part pretty good and entertaining and have been for quite a while, IMO of course

[Matt D]

I don't think anyone is saying that a show that they skip 70% of is necessarily good. What they're saying is that they enjoy watching it the way that they watch it, that if they watch it a certain way, a way that's in a lot of ways, easier and less time consuming than catching it live, they find it really enjoyable.

[The Chief]

To those types, when has wrestling ever been 50, 60, 70 whatever percent "good?"

 

Even during really good periods of the WWF like 1997 and 2000, one could argue that there was a LOT of crap on those shows to go with the good. That's just how things work. Was there ever a time in WWE history when everyone on the roster was utilized to their full potential?

 

It just is what it is. I actually do watch Raw live every week. I don't like everything I see, but I'm not under the impression that wrestling was ever at a point where everything was great.

[SomethingSavage]

Exactly. It is what it is. I happen to enjoy A LOT of what they're doing right now. If you don't, then ya don't. Everyone's entitled.

 

But it is what it is. And what it IS - is better than it has been in a long, LONG time.

 

They have so much talent set in place for the future, just ready to be launched. They're featuring and utilizing so many strong characters on a weekly basis. Things feel progressive, rather than in a holding pattern. They're building a lot of guys up all at one time - to a point where there's actually risk of creating a logjam in the list of successors for the current main event players. But damn if it ain't entertaining in the meantime.

 

There's just a lot, as a fan, to get genuinely excited about and look forward to down the road. And while we're waiting? We're getting an abundance of incredible matches along the way.

 

Maybe it's a mindset you develop over time, but I just don't subscribe to the whole pessimistic line of thinking. When given the option to either piss & moan or enjoy something that's actually WORTH enjoying, it's not much of a difficult choice. Maybe that's just me. But the good so clearly outweighs the bad on this one. So I don't get it.

[Loss]

There are still good things happening in WWE, but the night after Wrestlemania suggested a new era and creative direction that hasn't happened. It's natural for people to be disappointed by that.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

The WWE does suck right now, but setting that aside for a moment, let's have an apples to oranges discussion because I'm curious about the responses:

 

I DVR Raw and watch maybe 15-20 percent of the show. How does this percentage compare to other things I watch on TV?

 

Football: I plan my life around Packers games and watch as much NFL as possible. It's probably fair to say I watch 90-95 percent of NFL games that are realistic for me to watch (i.e. I can't watch five games at once, but I do often go back and watch non-Packers games I missed or re-watch Packers games because I'm a nerd and think I can do film study).

 

Baseball: When the Twins were a good team, I watched probably two-thirds of their games. Now that they suck, and baseball is intentionally trying to drive away fans with its pace of play issues, I maybe watch 10-15 percent of Twins' games.

 

Basketball: When the Timberwolves were half-assed contenders, I'd watch maybe 40 percent of their games. Now that's down to like 15 percent. I used to watch about 75 percent of the NBA playoffs, but that's dipped to around 50 percent the last two years (probably because I have a kid).

 

Hockey: I'm not a huge hockey fan, but I did watch every Wild playoff game this season.

 

What's my point? When it comes to legit sports, if the "content" is good, i.e. my favorite teams are winning and playing well, I watch a helluva lot more than if they aren't. The exception is the NFL, which I am (unhealthily) addicted to.

 

So, is it really that bad if someone only watches 15-20 percent of Raw every week, then bitches about how awful the rest of it is? I only watch 15 percent of the Twins' games at most, and I also spend a whole lot of time bitching about how terrible they are. I'm still engaged in the product, not as much as someone who watches every inning, but I'm still engaged. That means something.

 

Right?

[Matt D]

There are still good things happening in WWE, but the night after Wrestlemania suggested a new era and creative direction that hasn't happened. It's natural for people to be disappointed by that.

 

That happens almost every year now. Take a look at last year's Raw-After-Wrestlemania.

 

Frankly, if I had to choose between going to Mania or the Raw after Mania, I'd pick the latter.