Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 When the hell did James Storm leave TNA? Him being the latest wonderfully random name to turn up in NXT got a legit double take from me, I had no idea he'd escaped the asylum. Pun intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotJayTabb 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 ending the streak helped, but blitzing Cena in the SSlam match tipped it over the edge for me. Going into Summerslam, I thought Brock would win, but not in that manner. It turned the tide from "Brock is one of the top guys getting a big push" to "Who on earth are they going to be able to book to beat Brock?" As for Raw, I totally get sticking with it week in-week out, but I couldn't cope with having to watch it live. The nice thing about the time difference is that I can record it live overnight, get up in the morning and pretty much blitz it whilst having breakfast. By fast-forwarding the opening promo, the ad breaks that seem to pop up every 5 minutes and the stuff that doesn't interest me (Ziggler, Stardust), I can get through the show in an hour. If I read on-line that I FF'd through a great segment, I check it out when I get home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I really find this whole "is it the wrestler or is it the gimmick that gets a guy over?" question really fascinating. Ultimately I'm inclined to agree more with cm funk on this. Loss' assertion that the push matters more than the personality seems refuted by numerous instances of guys failing despite huge pushes. The ideal situation is that you have a guy with a ton of charisma who's a great performer who also gets a solid push and booking. Austin, Rock, Goldberg, Hogan, etc. are all examples of this. They are cases where the personalities perfectly converged with a well-timed, well-executed push and it resulted in huge success. But I totally disagree with the notion that other guys put in the same exact circumstances would have been as successful (or successful at all). IMO the personality matters way more than the push. It's way easier for a guy to get over on his own without the support of management than it is for management to force a guy to be over just by pushing him. A really strong push and smart booking can definitely hide a guy's shortcomings, but it only goes so far. A guy like Brock, however will always be over and considered one of the biggest threats just because of how visceral and terrifying he is regardless of his W/L record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woof Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 When the hell did James Storm leave TNA? Him being the latest wonderfully random name to turn up in NXT got a legit double take from me, I had no idea he'd escaped the asylum. Pun intended. Cracked me up when the commentary said "he's been in the indies for the last 15 years". I mean, who ever thinks of James Storm as an "indy wrestler"? Too funny. Also, a sign of my impending old age: I *knew* Storm had debuted on that set of TV tapings and yet when his music came up last night and there was a pause because the Full Sail audience didn't knew who was coming out, I was legit like "hmmm... wonder who this is". Kayfabe apparently returns once your memory starts to go, so thumbs up for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I thought it was interesting he pretty much did his whole TNA character down to the "sorry about your damn luck" line, I guess either he owned it or they give zero shits about TNA at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 yall are missing an important part of loss's argument he's saying it's not just winning that matters, but beating the right people and (probably more importantly) not beating the wrong people at the wrong time. this is the factor that hurt the likes of diesel and 2003 HHH, and probably the freakin snowman in mid-south and any other example you could dredge up. i think a good point in loss's favor is how much even the internet fans have bought into the WWE canon view of HHH as one of the greatest of all time...he lasted long enough to have a whole generation of fans who weren't around for 2003, and stayed on top throughout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I'm getting the feeling if the ghost of Nancy Reagan said "Just say NO to WWE" a lot would say YES to WWE. And use anyway. I get it. It's a lot of folks gateway rasslin drug. Mine was following the territories in the 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Is it really a strange concept that diehard wrestling fans would watch the TV programming of the biggest wrestling company in the world? It's like there's some weird cred people are seeking by announcing how much they don't watch WWE sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 The counter would be... is it really strange that diehard wrestling fans would be turned off by a nonsensical, boring and badly filmed product and look for alternatives (even if it is the past) to get their wrestling fix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 The counter would be... is it really strange that diehard wrestling fans would be turned off by a nonsensical, boring and badly filmed product and look for alternatives (even if it is the past) to get their wrestling fix? Fantastic post. Especially at a time when wrestling from all around the world, past and present, has never been more readily available. What in the world would I want to spend 3 hours (or even an hour fast forwarding on DVR) watching something I know I'm going to be generally dislike when there are 1981 Southeastern DVDs I need to get back to, a whole youtube playlist full of old lucha, a 3 TB hard drive of stuff I've downloaded and haven't watched etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 No matter how "bad" WWE gets, or if any other promotion ever gets some legs to stand on, or what services are provided: I'm simply never missing Wrestlemania or Royal Rumble for as long as 1. I'm alive or 2. they exist. I would watch both over the Super Bowl at this point. Even when The Miz was in the main event, there's no way I'm missing Wrestlemania. People can say what they want about WWE & the deterioration of the product, but a wrestling fan should not miss Wrestlemania. Even guys that are in the business & work for other promotions watch the big WWE PPVs. I admit RAW is hard to get through some weeks, three hours feels exceptionally long when you're watching it live. If you're messing around with friends, either in-person or on-line while watching it though, it goes a lot quicker & is more entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 It must be stated that while yes, there's more historical footage available than ever, not everyone's going to spend time tracking down old Mid South on YouTube on a Monday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 The counter would be... is it really strange that diehard wrestling fans would be turned off by a nonsensical, boring and badly filmed product and look for alternatives (even if it is the past) to get their wrestling fix? Not all. It makes perfect sense to not watch something you don't enjoy and watch versions of it you do enjoy. But that doesn't address Sek's point about the people who have to constantly tell everyone they don't watch the former and the "weird cred" thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 By the way, speaking of watching older wrestling, I was watching 1998 Raws on the Network and it was jarring to hear them refer to the new member of Vince's Corporation as "Corporate Kane". 17 years later, we still have HHH and Undertaker in top positions while masked Kane runs in to chokeslam people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 The counter would be... is it really strange that diehard wrestling fans would be turned off by a nonsensical, boring and badly filmed product and look for alternatives (even if it is the past) to get their wrestling fix? Not all. It makes perfect sense to not watch something you don't enjoy and watch versions of it you do enjoy. But that doesn't address Sek's point about the people who have to constantly tell everyone they don't watch the former and the "weird cred" thing. It is easier to tell people you don't enjoy a bad product than it is to do mental gymnastics trying to convince yourself that the garbage you are watching is good. Also, most people use it as a qualifier before a statement so you know where they are coming from. Most people know that the minute you are a wrestling fan on a message board, you're a fucking nerd. There's no cred to be found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 i know it's a wacky concept, but maybe some people like WWE? i mean, yeah Raw is way too long at 3 hours and because of that there's going to be some filler and/or awful shit, but that's why god made DVRs. NXT is usually a solid show, the Takeover specials are usually great. Smackdown is an easy to watch show even if it doesn't really have a lot of importance to the main angles. Hell even WWE PPVs are usually pretty decent. It seems like people who don't like WWE (and it's fine if you don't) see someone who likes it as either trolling or somehow lying to themselves to justify supporting the evil McMahon empire. I get someone like Johnny where it's his deal to be Mr. Positive (and let's face it, he probably has a lot of chemical assistance with that), but if anyone doesn't agree that WWE is the shittiest shit that ever shat some people start dog piling and it's a little ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 It's live. I think people underrate that as a reason. I love watching my eighties stuff but I approach it in a completely different way since I know what's happening. I think people just like being part of a live experience. Plus every couple of years when something amazing does happen, there's really is no feeling like watching that as it unfolds as opposed to watching it after the fact. Another reason is that even during really bad times I can find one or two acts that I really enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 I missed the C.M. Punk "pipebomb" promo live when it happened. After RAW was over, I had friends going crazy trying to talk to me about it. I had no idea what the heck they were talking about. So I had to seek it out afterward. Not getting to see it in the moment still grates on me. I really hate that I missed that live & didn't get to experience everything with friends & internet people online afterward. Being live definitely has something to do with it for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Enjoying live wrestling is a valid reason but it isn't being dismissive of people who choose not to invest their time in the current product because they want some imaginary cred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvd356 Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 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. When are you suggesting RVD should have beat him for the title? At Unforgiven 2002 in LA? Because I was there and Trips got 3x the baby face pop for the entrances and 2x the face heat for the match. This kinda baffled me when I was there live, because RVD was still one of my favorite guys(I created this handle in 2001 after watching his Invasion match w Hardy, never saw ECW so I was amazed). Anyway Trips/RVD totally sucked and I didn't expect that, because H had just had the Shawn hardcore match at Summerslam and actually looked like "The GAME" of 2000 again and had a great little match with Flair on Raw. I think they really fucked Rob by retiring the Hardcore title. That was so perfect for him. He actually made that belt awesome and it fit him perfectly because we could get a real RVD PPV match every month, and he just as easily was having hot opening hardcore title fights, as he was walking into main events with Austin and Angle. The Guerrero, Lesnar and Benoit IC feuds produced some great stuff but still Rob had really cooled off from 2001. And anyway, Rob DID get his chance in 2006 and he smoked it away. As for Booker, yeah he kind of got screwed. i loved Booker so much in 1998. Either that or the 2nd half of 2000 WCW was his peak. But he did still have it in him and really brought it in 2002 and got me pumped again. But in my mind, going with Goldberg as the top face of RAW 2003 was the right idea it was just not done up to its potential. That's the one bullshit political move that pissed me off. WCW molded and created a perfect superstar that you could plug in for the next 5 years, as a face, then bigtime heel and then face again. And unlike Hogan, Hall, Nash and Steiner who all left there peaks behind in WWF, Goldberg was in his physical (wrestling) peak when he came in. I dunno, with the WWE machine behind Berg, I think so much more could have been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsem43 Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Has everyone stopped watching Main Event/Superstars or even Smackdown looking for good matches? Nobody is interested in seeing if anyone is a good weekly TV worker anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Has everyone stopped watching Main Event/Superstars or even Smackdown looking for good matches? Nobody is interested in seeing if anyone is a good weekly TV worker anymore? If they wanted me to watch Superstars they should have kept it as the Chris Masters show like it was in 2011. Have barely caught an episode since they released him. I flirted with watching Main Event when Titus O'Neil was getting some time on there but that didn't last long either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsem43 Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 It will be the Sasha Banks show soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 My life is fueled by obsessions. I get obsessed with something from about a few weeks to a few months at a time. It's football season so that's what I focus on most. I even watched Utah State-San Diego State last night. With wrestling I usually watch it consistently, but WWE's the only constant. It's certainly the live aspect. My ceiling for liking stuff on RAW is low and I'm someone who always has the TV in the background. Sometimes I just have RAW on while doing other stuff. I like wrestling so it works in that I have something on I like too. Maybe Cesaro or New Day will come on and peak my interest for a bit. When it comes to old footage I have to have an obsession for it. No way I'm watching 80s Southeastern without something triggering that. I've spent weeks obsessing about old lucha, classic 80s and 90s Japan wrestling, WCW, and miscellaneous 80s territory stuff. Something triggered those obsessions. That's pretty much how I view all my entertainment anyways. Through weekly to monthly obsessions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 I haven't watched Main Event since WWE removed it from The Network and its a shame as it had some really good matches. I know there is still Superstars, but its hard for me to sit through that knowing WWE is using the same format for that show they used for over 20 years (surprise! ). 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.