The Chief Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 One cheap finish that I actually like is seeing the babyface get DQ'd. It fits with the Bill Watts philosophy of having the babyface beat himself. It's great for building to a rematch, as the babyface has to control his temper to gain a victory, and it doesn't require the heel to look weak by angling for a cheap win. What was the last really good babyface DQ loss of theirs, Judgment Day '04? You know, the storyline for that Reigns/Wyatt match could have definitely used a babyface DQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bierschwale Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 I think that I'd agree. They were definitely teasing it with Roman borrowing the "throw a shitload of chairs into the ring" move from Ambrose (who did have the babyface DQ match with Wyatt at SS last year, which was a good DQ but certainly not Eddie-level). I actually wonder if it was a direct reference to that match now, though, which would have been more meta than learned psych to me (tag partners against the same opponent in the same building). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketCrypt Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. One thing I'd like to add is the reintroduction of the time limit draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. One thing I'd like to add is the reintroduction of the time limit draw. Yes. It would get some backlash at first, but if used right attention to the time limit and time limit draw could do wonders to mix things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. One thing I'd like to add is the reintroduction of the time limit draw. Yes. It would get some backlash at first, but if used right attention to the time limit and time limit draw could do wonders to mix things up. Yes, and without hammering it home beforehand by hyping a time limit. You could even introduce it by bell ringing at the 10 or 20 minute mark of a match to introduce the concept. The key is mixing things up and not relying on the same tropes hour in and hour out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. One thing I'd like to add is the reintroduction of the time limit draw. Yes. It would get some backlash at first, but if used right attention to the time limit and time limit draw could do wonders to mix things up. Yes, and without hammering it home beforehand by hyping a time limit. You could even introduce it by bell ringing at the 10 or 20 minute mark of a match to introduce the concept. The key is mixing things up and not relying on the same tropes hour in and hour out. Exactly. It is that sort of subtly that is needed here. They don't need to bash the audience over the head with everything. They can do that with certain things for the kids while still being nuanced and diverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAC Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I agree with the foregoing re bringing back the time-limit draw. It makes even more sense now that they're willing to give matches some time on TV. It also seems like something that they're unlikely to overdo (unlike cheap finishes). This would be great for TV matches involving the IC or US Titles, with the payoff coming during the next PPV when the time limit gets rolled back to 30 or 60 minutes and the promise that the champ won't be able to use stalling and retreating to retain his title when over-matched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 Haven't they actually said "we are not a wrestling company, we are an entertainment company" multiple times. This has always struck me as nothing more than marketing language and yet another crutch for bad creative. If they weren't a wrestling company, why would they care about taking it to a wrestling show on Destination America that draws 80,000 viewers a week? The real issue here is that they fail pretty badly at presenting an entertainment show with viable characters and motivations. I don't have a connection to more than half the roster who are just floating around. They have guys who have been on TV for years and they have less meat to them than say Badger on Breaking Bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 also because Vince felt personally burned when it came to some guys (and Divas as well) who became bigger than the WWE. Off topic, but who does that entail besides the obvious names like Austin, Rock and Hogan. Lesnar was mainly known as the "fake wrestling guy" in UFC and despite his recent film success, Batista isn't really a large name yet. Every one of those names eventually came back and made nice, sometimes more than once. Only exception I can think of is Savage. Maven appearing on infomercials and the Surreal Life and Stacy Keibler being the arm candy of Clooney for few years before promptly disappearing after breaking up aren't people I would say became bigger than the company. trish stratus has also become a thing in the fitness world with her yoga DVDs or w/e. steadier & easier money than wrestling, i'd imagine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 also because Vince felt personally burned when it came to some guys (and Divas as well) who became bigger than the WWE. Off topic, but who does that entail besides the obvious names like Austin, Rock and Hogan. Lesnar was mainly known as the "fake wrestling guy" in UFC and despite his recent film success, Batista isn't really a large name yet. Every one of those names eventually came back and made nice, sometimes more than once. Only exception I can think of is Savage. Maven appearing on infomercials and the Surreal Life and Stacy Keibler being the arm candy of Clooney for few years before promptly disappearing after breaking up aren't people I would say became bigger than the company. trish stratus has also become a thing in the fitness world with her yoga DVDs or w/e. steadier & easier money than wrestling, i'd imagine Maria was fired preemptively simply for being a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice, because they figured that would lead to her getting too big for them, which suggests that it's not so much a matter of them actually being bigger than WWE, but Vince et al. being so insecure that they saw the mainstream acting career of Stacy Kiebler as a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LariatMMBOPPO Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh, I can see him/them being insecure, I just don't see many former wrestlers actually being bigger than the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 I reckon WWE creative are reading my threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 They've always read mine. Becky Lynch has started using those joshi bridging kickouts that I told her to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 I reckon WWE creative are reading my threads. if by "threads" you mean your clothes, the only people reading them are CSI Wales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Can we turn likes on just for Johnny Sorrow's posts? Been a strong month for everyone's least favorite positive poster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 "Oh vey" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Yes and no. First off I don't have faith in WWE's ability to actually do a cheap finish in a way that gets the right kind of heat. I think even the most calloused fans have all come around to realizing what it means when WWE does a fuck finish: That they couldn't figure out how to deliver a proper win in a main event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 The problem isn't so much clean wins, as opposed to even Steven booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Anyone else noticed that every single WWE PPV has been ending cheaply for months now? Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules, Payback, Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Battleground, and now Summerslam have ALL had fuck-finishes. Seth Rollins has been booked as a "world champion" who couldn't beat Gillberg without someone running in to help him, and Brock Lesnar hasn't had a clean ppv win since the Royal Rumble. I'll take even-steven pinfall booking every day of the week over some neverending bullshit like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Clean finishes on TV to build to the non-finish on the PPV. That doesn't make sense, you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LariatMMBOPPO Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Anyone else noticed that every single WWE PPV has been ending cheaply for months now? Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules, Payback, Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Battleground, and now Summerslam have ALL had fuck-finishes. Seth Rollins has been booked as a "world champion" who couldn't beat Gillberg without someone running in to help him, and Brock Lesnar hasn't had a clean ppv win since the Royal Rumble. I'll take even-steven pinfall booking every day of the week over some neverending bullshit like this. Anyone else notice this is how the company has ALWAYS BOOKED HEEL CHAMPIONS. Unless you're a rare monster heel like Brock was, heel champions almost never have clean wins. How many clean wins did Superstar Graham have? Randy Savage? Ric Flair? Even Yokozuna had a bunch of fuck finishes. The next long term heel champions didn't pop up until the Attitude era which was full of screw jobs and interference. Big Evil Undertaker was a fairly dominant champion when put against midcarders, but his title defenses usually had a fair of interference. Hunter was the long term heel champion for RAW and how many of his defenses came down to sledgehammer/Flair/Evolution->Pedigree? When in the past 20 years has there been a sustained heel champion run that wasn't full of interference, cheap wins and DQ/count-outs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Which I think fairly well explains why I don't like the idea of the perennial heel champion at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Unless you're a rare monster heel like Brock was, heel champions almost never have clean wins. How many clean wins did Superstar Graham have? Randy Savage? Ric Flair? Even Yokozuna had a bunch of fuck finishes. The next long term heel champions didn't pop up until the Attitude era which was full of screw jobs and interference. Big Evil Undertaker was a fairly dominant champion when put against midcarders, but his title defenses usually had a fair of interference. Hunter was the long term heel champion for RAW and how many of his defenses came down to sledgehammer/Flair/Evolution->Pedigree? When in the past 20 years has there been a sustained heel champion run that wasn't full of interference, cheap wins and DQ/count-outs?In the big matches? Sure, most of the time. But in EVERY match? Graham, Savage, Flair, and Yokozuna all had a ton of jobber squashes. Undertaker beat people clean all the time, as did Triple H. (And how often were those guys getting pinned in non-title matches like Seth has been?) Rollins seems incapable of beating anyone ever (hence the namedrop of Gillberg, which I guess you missed). And even when all those other guys cheated to win, most of them did their own cheating. Rollins usually has someone else to interfere, and nothing makes a wrestler look weaker than constantly needing someone else's help in order to defeat any opponent ever. 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.