Wade Garrett Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Are folks here still following/watching RAW/WWE out of habit/addict or because you truly enjoy what your watching? Is it the matches themselves that keep your interest? Is it the characters/storylines? Combo of the two? Other? I really want to know because it's a waste of time at this point imo. It's horseshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I watch because its my team. When the Jets were 3-12 in 1995 I went and set in the upper deck freezing my balls off to see us go 3-13. Then came Keyshawn, then came 1-15 and then came Peyton Manning staying in school and us trading down. Most years are like that. But eventually things fall your way and you get '98 and a conference title game in Denver, and then '09-'10 and back to back title games. Eventually, maybe, perhaps, in my lifetime we'll win the big one. Have to stick with your team because things will turn around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The WWE is your team? You view the WWE as your home team like you view the NYJ? That's a first. Never heard that one before. I could see that point of view being prevalent in the territory heyday but now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 i'm not so sure about that, loss. the MMA cred probably counts for more than you think it does, as there is a lot of overlap between people who watch that and wrestling. this actually reminds me of an old scott keith post where he basically said that if you gave chris benoit the undertaker's music & entrance & presentation, he would get just as over as undertaker did. i don't really buy that, just from the lack of height alone. guys come off dorky when they're doing a gimmick that doesn't fit them, and that will always be a factor no matter how much they win. maybe you just mean that guys will get a strong reaction period if they win all the time, in which case i'm with you...but i'm not sure how much that's really worth. IIRC you generally view cena's reactions as a positive, whereas i consider them a reflection of his low ceiling as the company ace. A better way for Scott Keith to present his point would have been that if you protect Benoit and present him in a way that best suits him in the same way Undertaker was protected and presented in a way that best suited him, Benoit would be just as over. And I do think he's right on that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I don't see WWE as my team at all, nor do I make it a priority to watch regularly. But it's nationally televised, major league wrestling, and for people who just want to continue that tradition, that's all they have. Yes, ROH, TNA and Lucha Underground are nationally televised too, but they don't play to big buildings. Also, the reason to keep watching is that at a moment's notice, it could become good. If WWE had a couple of great ideas pop into their heads tomorrow, Raw could be a great show Monday. The problem is that we don't really get those sustained periods of great shows at all anymore. They are isolated and fleeting. And those out-of-nowhere strong shows are fewer and farther between than they've ever been too. So I keep up to a degree and always will because it's Hotel California where I can check out, but never leave. But I don't have it in me to watch every show in full every week, although I admire those that do even though it's not fun. People who bitch all the time and keep watching are often demonized, but I think there's something cool about them being unwilling to give up. WWE should be so lucky to have more fans like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 So the WWE is a pro wrestling anchor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 A lot of it is the sheer surprise of not knowing what's going to happen next. They're so terrible at that now, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 there's the other Keith hypothesis that anyone could have played the Hulk Hogan character. I don't really agree with that at all but if they had someone *booked* exactly like Hogan that person could have got over huge. I guess there is a difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 On Brock, and criticizing him? Seriously? This is a board that hates on WWE consistently, and someone like him who's his own man, bucked the system and is a true wrestling success story in an industry where it's pretty rare.......c'mon And any of "the boys" that are jealous about his "special treatment". They should be. They should be thinking "how can I be more like Brock". He's not the only one who's gotten it, and won't be the last. When you're a special talent and a draw you get special treatment. Brock is pretty much the reason for ESPN covering WWE. Who the fuck else on the roster could have caused that? It's like when all those rumours about guys being unhappy about Rock coming back and "taking their spots". lol. He's The Rock. You're not. This is not a board that hates on WWE nearly as consistently as you defend WWE. It's great that he's a self-made man. He's not a likable person and his attitude is a turn-off. I could acknowledge that he's special and deserves his spot if I was a wrestler while still resenting the hell out of him for it. Those ideas are not in conflict with each other. I think where we differ is that I truly believe that 90% of what makes a guy a star is not whatever talents or qualities he possesses as much as it is being presented as a winning winner who wins. That's obviously a very surface description of it, and winning at the right times against the right opponents matters too. Just as there are some cases where a loss is good for a guy. Still, the point is, booking matters far, far more than whatever talents or traits a guy has. If other guys were booked like Brock, Austin and Undertaker, wrestling would have a bunch of full-time Brocks, Austins and Undertakers. I'm not a consistent WWE defender, but I am a glass half full kind of person. I will criticize the bad booking/writing/use of guys etc. as much as anyone, overall the product is not good right now and they've dropped the ball on numerous guys who could have been big stars for them, but I like to generally be positive about things I post, especially here where weekly WWE threads are full of bitching and complaining And, I happen to like and respect Brock, both as a performer and a person. Lots of people like him. You don't like him and don't find him likeable, and that's fine, but don't project your opinion on others. Also, that whole "anybody can be a huge star with good booking and if they win all the time" argument is horseshit, and you know it's horseshit. Let's not name the laundry list of guys that that was tried and failed with and it didn't work because either they weren't any good or they didn't connect with the crowd, or the push felt forced and the fans resented it being forced upon them. This happens all the time, in every promotion of every size, all over the world, past present and future. So give a fucking break. As far as the "home town promotion" thing goes. yeah, WWF/E is my home town promotion. I grew up in the North East in the 80's. That's what was on tv, that's what ran house shows, and that was my brand of wrestling. I obviously have a much larger frame of reference now, but it wasn't like AWA and JCP were even an option for me then, other than the magazines and reading about guys in other promotions. When I finally started getting WCW on TV in the early 90's I became a big fan of that promotion. I was a big ECW fan since around 94. Criticizing somebody for that is just stupid . Everybody has a "home town promotion" mine just happens to be the one that put all the territories out of business, outlasted WCW, and is "the world leader in sports entertainment", for better or worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The Benoit/Taker thing I don't agree with. There are finite amount of gimmicks or characters that would be once in a lifetime character. Let's assume the best presentation of Chris Benoit is that of a ruthless wrestling kill machine who suplexes people out of their boots, wins every match convincingly via tap out, holds the world championship for long reigns while everyone tries to figure out how to finally outwrestle this machine. That guy is still no Undertaker. Fans would appreciate the work Benoit does, but he isn't going to connect with the fans like Undertaker does. Taker has more of a mass appeal- kids see him as something out of comic books or movies and adults would see how strong of character he is. Benoit isn't going to reach that far even with the best presentation. Same thing with Hogan. You probably could plug in Savage or JYD or whatever and be fairly successful in the long run but no one is going to get Hogan's level of overness because it is Hulk Hogan's tools being used to get over. Same thing with Austin. You could have Jeff Jarrett kicking Vince's ass all over the place but he's not going to connect with the fans like Steve does. My point is, while it is true that if they wanted to get someone over, they will but there is something to be said about those specific guys being the right people at the right time. If you took Tom Brady out of New England, no doubt Bill Belichick would find a way to make it work with the backup quarterback (like Matt Cassel) but they won't reach the same heights as if when they have Brady under center. Same thing applies here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 On Brock, and criticizing him? Seriously? This is a board that hates on WWE consistently, and someone like him who's his own man, bucked the system and is a true wrestling success story in an industry where it's pretty rare.......c'mon And any of "the boys" that are jealous about his "special treatment". They should be. They should be thinking "how can I be more like Brock". He's not the only one who's gotten it, and won't be the last. When you're a special talent and a draw you get special treatment. Brock is pretty much the reason for ESPN covering WWE. Who the fuck else on the roster could have caused that? It's like when all those rumours about guys being unhappy about Rock coming back and "taking their spots". lol. He's The Rock. You're not. This is not a board that hates on WWE nearly as consistently as you defend WWE. It's great that he's a self-made man. He's not a likable person and his attitude is a turn-off. I could acknowledge that he's special and deserves his spot if I was a wrestler while still resenting the hell out of him for it. Those ideas are not in conflict with each other. I think where we differ is that I truly believe that 90% of what makes a guy a star is not whatever talents or qualities he possesses as much as it is being presented as a winning winner who wins. That's obviously a very surface description of it, and winning at the right times against the right opponents matters too. Just as there are some cases where a loss is good for a guy. Still, the point is, booking matters far, far more than whatever talents or traits a guy has. If other guys were booked like Brock, Austin and Undertaker, wrestling would have a bunch of full-time Brocks, Austins and Undertakers. I'm not a consistent WWE defender, but I am a glass half full kind of person. I will criticize the bad booking/writing/use of guys etc. as much as anyone, overall the product is not good right now and they've dropped the ball on numerous guys who could have been big stars for them, but I like to generally be positive about things I post, especially here where weekly WWE threads are full of bitching and complaining And, I happen to like and respect Brock, both as a performer and a person. Lots of people like him. You don't like him and don't find him likeable, and that's fine, but don't project your opinion on others. Also, that whole "anybody can be a huge star with good booking and if they win all the time" argument is horseshit, and you know it's horseshit. Let's not name the laundry list of guys that that was tried and failed with and it didn't work because either they weren't any good or they didn't connect with the crowd, or the push felt forced and the fans resented it being forced upon them. This happens all the time, in every promotion of every size, all over the world, past present and future. So give a fucking break. As far as the "home town promotion" thing goes. yeah, WWF/E is my home town promotion. I grew up in the North East in the 80's. That's what was on tv, that's what ran house shows, and that was my brand of wrestling. I obviously have a much larger frame of reference now, but it wasn't like AWA and JCP were even an option for me then, other than the magazines and reading about guys in other promotions. When I finally started getting WCW on TV in the early 90's I became a big fan of that promotion. I was a big ECW fan since around 94. Criticizing somebody for that is just stupid . Everybody has a "home town promotion" mine just happens to be the one that put all the territories out of business, outlasted WCW, and is "the world leader in sports entertainment", for better or worse How am I "projecting" my opinion on others by merely stating it? Do I need to put a disclaimer in my signature? And it's not horseshit. There is more to it than that and as I said, it's a simplified way to say it and it's not quite that straightforward, but it's still generally speaking the case. We could name guys where they forced the issue too much for sure, but I'd call most of those cases either beating the wrong guys or getting the timing or specifics of it wrong. People like winners, and if you were to list every guy on the roster right now and point to their peak in popularity and when it started to fade, in nearly every case, it would be that they lost a match at the wrong time and it began a downward spiral. Generally speaking, a guy gets big pops without a push, then he's given a sustained push and he becomes a big star. Even in the case of someone like Diesel where it seems like that would be the case because they stuck with him so long, he was put opposite a more over babyface (who he couldn't beat) on his first encounter and put opposite a heel on the verge of a babyface turn who upstaged him in his second big feud as champ. WCW presented him as a Winning Winner and didn't place him in those no-win situations and what do you know, he became a bigger and far more effective star. And that's Kevin Nash, a guy who most of the current roster could work circles around. If that doesn't show that it's mostly booking, I'm not sure what does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Funny, I was thinking of Diesel for complete opposite reasons. They pushed him to the moon and it didn't click because the two best and most popular guys on the roster were right there and got slotted below him. And Diesel was really over before they hotshotted the belt onto him, changed his character, and tried to push him like he was the new Hulk Hogan. He was a failure on top and got progressively less over the longer that push lasted. He was very over in both WWF and WCW, and was a complete failure when pushed like "The Man" in both promotions. That disproves your "take a guy who's over and give him a big push and have him win all the time = success" theory. It proves the opposite in fact. They pushed HHH like he was an unbeatable wrestling god in 02-03 and built RAW around the guy, and it tanked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 It's true that presentation is important for everybody and they generally suck at building characters these days. That said, they've hung stupid losses and feuds on Lesnar as well and it's to his credit that he's retained his aura. Part of that is them letting him work a style no one else is allowed to work. But again, you could argue he made his own destiny on that front. I do think he's special in a way Ryback could not be, just as Austin was special in a way Kevin Nash could not be (not that Lesnar's level of stardom is more than a pimple on the ass of peak Austin). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The primary reason Brock has the aura he has now is that he beat Undertaker. The HHH feud really made him lose his luster because of the bad matches and Even Stephen booking, and the Undertaker win wiped the slate clean to allow him a fresh start. As far as HHH in 2002-2003, was his win-loss record the problem? He did TV jobs in tag matches for guys like Booker T, Rob Van Dam and Kane just as he traded PPV wins with Shawn and Goldberg. Or was the problem more that he was overexposed with too much TV time and long, boring promos? He was smart and certainly presented as a Winning Winner, which at least benefitted them in the sense that he had the occasional successful program when it was promoted properly. You could argue that the Batista program was better than anything the company has done since, which was sort of the blowoff to that period of HHH's career. I would argue that in the case of RVD and Booker, their losses were the reason they never made it past a certain level. I'm not saying RVD would have been the next top babyface who would have carried the company with a clean title win over HHH, but I do think he could have at the very least had a short, hot run. The same would be true for Booker T. Anyway, I don't want to argue this much with a poster I like. I'll concede that it's not the only factor and that part I overstated. But I won't concede that it's the most important factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Yeah, Brock has had some questionable and downright bad booking since his return. I didn't mind him losing to Cena in his first match back, because it was a great match and portrayed as a war that John Cena barely survived after taking a hellacious beating, and that Cena was lucky to walk away with a victory. I didn't like Brock losing to HHH at WM, but he did win 2 out of 3 matches in the feud in pretty convincing fashion. The losses didn't hurt him much because he's Brock Lesnar. It didn't destroy his invincible monster aura at all As for Ryback, he doesn't have the special "it factor" aura that someone like Lesnar or Goldberg has. Put Ryback in the exact same role in 97-98 WCW, same matches, same booking, same everything.......he doesn't get anywhere near as over as Goldberg did. Put him in 02 WWF with the Lesnar monster push and beating Rocky at SummerSlam.....it wouldn't work. Because he's not Goldberg, and he's not Brock Lesnar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Can I ask what you think was the key in the CM Punk-Ryback HIAC match being so successful on PPV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 probably because it was a new and intriguing matchup to fans, and Ryback had been pushed like he was the next Goldberg or Ultimate Warrior with nothing but squash matches on tv, and even then he was pretty slow to catch on and was heckled with "GOLDBERG!" chants at every other arena It was a bad hotshotted booking choice and very shortsighted, and ended up doing more damage than good for Ryback, and it took him a long time to get back on track. They weren't taking the belt off Punk, but they weren't going to beat Ryback either. They booked themselves into a corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 You could almost compare that to Luger-Flair and all the bad Dusty finishes. Would Lex have been the next Hulk Hogan if he beat Flair for the title? Would Ryback have been the next megastar if he beat Punk for the belt? Probably not. He would have been the modern day Diesel most likely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The primary reason Brock has the aura he has now is that he beat Undertaker. The HHH feud really made him lose his luster because of the bad matches and Even Stephen booking, and the Undertaker win wiped the slate clean to allow him a fresh start. As far as HHH in 2002-2003, was his win-loss record the problem? He did TV jobs in tag matches for guys like Booker T, Rob Van Dam and Kane just as he traded PPV wins with Shawn and Goldberg. Or was the problem more that he was overexposed with too much TV time and long, boring promos? He was smart and certainly presented as a Winning Winner, which at least benefitted them in the sense that he had the occasional successful program when it was promoted properly. You could argue that the Batista program was better than anything the company has done since, which was sort of the blowoff to that period of HHH's career. I would argue that in the case of RVD and Booker, their losses were the reason they never made it past a certain level. I'm not saying RVD would have been the next top babyface who would have carried the company with a clean title win over HHH, but I do think he could have at the very least had a short, hot run. The same would be true for Booker T. Anyway, I don't want to argue this much with a poster I like. I'll concede that it's not the only factor and that part I overstated. But I won't concede that it's the most important factor. Do you really think ending the streak helped him that much? The match itself might have been the worst of his comeback. But I guess WWE pushing it as a huge moment mitigated that for non-hardcores. Not arguing the point; I just hadn't thought of it as key to his aura. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Brock being a legit UFC champion means absolutely dick if he is being booked like shit. Look at Mark Henry. Mark Henry is legit one of the world's strongest men and has a legit powerlifting resume, however there are some points in his career (i.e. Sexual Chocolate) where his legit accomplishment meant NOTHING because they were presented as nothing/not mentioned at all. I believe its a combination but more so leaning toward the booking aspect and if the guy is legit IRL then that's the cherry on the sundae. Michael Cole mentioning Lesnar being a former NCAA champion and former UFC champion is brings out an "Oh that's cool!" from the inner me, but the me who is watching Raw/Smackdown wants to see Brock Lesnar tossing car doors, F5 Michael Cole, and get into a big brawl with Undertaker. Having a nice resume is all well and good,however, its about what you do on the job that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The primary reason Brock has the aura he has now is that he beat Undertaker. The HHH feud really made him lose his luster because of the bad matches and Even Stephen booking, and the Undertaker win wiped the slate clean to allow him a fresh start. As far as HHH in 2002-2003, was his win-loss record the problem? He did TV jobs in tag matches for guys like Booker T, Rob Van Dam and Kane just as he traded PPV wins with Shawn and Goldberg. Or was the problem more that he was overexposed with too much TV time and long, boring promos? He was smart and certainly presented as a Winning Winner, which at least benefitted them in the sense that he had the occasional successful program when it was promoted properly. You could argue that the Batista program was better than anything the company has done since, which was sort of the blowoff to that period of HHH's career. I would argue that in the case of RVD and Booker, their losses were the reason they never made it past a certain level. I'm not saying RVD would have been the next top babyface who would have carried the company with a clean title win over HHH, but I do think he could have at the very least had a short, hot run. The same would be true for Booker T. Anyway, I don't want to argue this much with a poster I like. I'll concede that it's not the only factor and that part I overstated. But I won't concede that it's the most important factor. Do you really think ending the streak helped him that much? The match itself might have been the worst of his comeback. But I guess WWE pushing it as a huge moment mitigated that for non-hardcores. Not arguing the point; I just hadn't thought of it as key to his aura. I think of how he worked his match with Punk at Summerslam. He was dominant but very giving by his standards, and he was even relying on Heyman interference. He didn't work that way a year later opposite Cena at Summerslam and was going to have the same squash match against Daniel Bryan. It seemed to me like he had been almost completely devalued by trading wins with HHH and losing to Cena until the streak ended. Then it was like he was a brand new guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 probably because it was a new and intriguing matchup to fans, and Ryback had been pushed like he was the next Goldberg or Ultimate Warrior with nothing but squash matches on tv, and even then he was pretty slow to catch on and was heckled with "GOLDBERG!" chants at every other arena It was a bad hotshotted booking choice and very shortsighted, and ended up doing more damage than good for Ryback, and it took him a long time to get back on track. They weren't taking the belt off Punk, but they weren't going to beat Ryback either. They booked themselves into a corner. The reason I asked that is because I think the reason it was successful was because Ryback was undefeated going in. The buys for that show proved that he did have some legs as a top guy -- even if he wasn't the next Goldberg -- but he still hasn't recovered from this loss three years later. They could have rebuilt him, but quickly lost interest. There was buzz at the time that maybe Brock would show up and cost Ryback the match to set up a feud, but Dave talked about how WWE would see that as a "wasted" appearance, which explains their problems in a nutshell. When Brock does walk away, I will be shocked if they have anything to show for his time there in the form of a new star who really got the rub from beating him. As for the Luger question, not beating Flair is what kept him from reaching the level predicted for him. I don't know if he would have been Hogan or not, but he would have been a successful top draw. I don't doubt that for a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 The reason Brock has the aura he has is because he's Brock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Having a nice resume is all well and good,however, its about what you do on the job that counts. It's true. Daniel Bryan took down a burglar and led a huge "Yes!" chant at a Giants game. Neither did anything to enhance his image in WWE because they were never mentioned or played up. Booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Are folks here still following/watching RAW/WWE out of habit/addict or because you truly enjoy what your watching? Is it the matches themselves that keep your interest? Is it the characters/storylines? Combo of the two? Other? I really want to know because it's a waste of time at this point imo. It's horseshit. Twitter. Twitter is a big reason why I still watch RAW. I get enjoyment from RAW the same way I get enjoyment from awful movies like Sharknado 2. I watch it, I make fun of it. I interact with other people doing the same and I have a good time doing it. I watch a lot of wrestling. Watching modern WWE keeps me current. If I get some good stuff, it's a pleasant surprise. If I get bad stuff, I riff track it anyway. I genuinely enjoy watching RAW & clowning on it. It's like watching a comedy movie to me. 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.