|
Post by marino13 on Nov 10, 2014 10:32:18 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the traditional Survivor Series matches. I used to love how feuds could potentially spawn from the match itself. And you could see match ups we normally never saw as a singles program. But I do understand that they need to have title matches involved to sell tickets.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Nov 10, 2014 10:58:57 GMT -5
Yes, so randomly plucking "it should be like it was in my childhood" ideas out of thin air probably isn't the smartest thing. In terms of protecting PPV, it'd absolutely help -- twenty-five years ago, pretty much everyone on the roster was a star and had that mystique. And it'd cut down on the same old rematches on TV again and again. But going back to the squash system on a large scale would just be too risky in terms of Raw viewership/tickets and overall interest per match, even with no competition. Although they could still just make sure they had big angles and interviews for all the important quarters. I think it would be fine, considering the new model WWE is trying to build with the Network. I think they would be okay with losing 20% of their viewing audience (and I can't imagine, even if they went back to squash matches, they would lose much more than that considering how poorly they promote matches on RAW) if it meant something like a 10-15% spike in PPV/Network buys they'd eventually be seeing by being able to build to big PPV matchups more slowly and organically. I personally loved when RAW was one hour long, and the main event was usually a match between midcarders or upper-midcarders, with occasional big matches and title matches (like how they were doing in 1994-1996 before Nitro became so huge). It would feel like a special event to actually see a meaningful TV match, whereas the current formula is just rematches, more rematches, Cena beating people, and main events that aren't promoted more than a couple of hours ahead of time. My assumption with all of this is that WWE currently sees the Network as their big moneymaker, and not their next TV contract. I don't know how the numbers work but I'd assume that they eventually expect to be making a large majority of their money from Network buys. The fact that the Network is what it is (and it's been both great and underwhelming at the same time) shows that they are making a mistake by hiring TV/marketing people to be in charge of the content of the Network and not wrestling people. But I might be getting a little off-topic here. Completely agree with this. Everything about the WWE feels brutally overexposed right now. Take Sheamus vs Cesaro at Night of Champions this year for example. That match was amazing. It should have been a really big deal but it just wasn't, because we've seen Cesaro vs Sheamus what feels like a million times now, just to fill up space on Raw or something. More than that, we've seen Sheamus beat Cesaro what feels like a million times this year alone, which means going into this match, we pretty much know that kayfabe or otherwise, Sheamus beats Cesaro every time. It all just feels so watered down. As for the "the roster was way better years ago" argument, to me that's just not true. WWE has an utterly ridiculous pool of talent at their disposal, they obviously just don't see fit to really protect many of them, or even allow most of them to perform anywhere near their potential on a big stage. I honestly think WWE could have an incredible product right now if they just used what they have effectively. There's no need for Smackdown or Main Event at this point, all they seem to achieve is giving away potential money makers for free. They consistently prove that they can't put together 3 hours of quality on Raw week in week out, and even if they were the problem remains that nothing feels special when you get it for free every single week. It's at the point where they seem to have to do something completely new and different if they want anything to seem like a big deal (Summer of Punk, Nexus tearing up the ring, Brock beating the crap out of Cena). Now I'm not saying that I'm not in favour of creativity, but I think a wrestling company's bread and butter should be putting on PPV matches that people actively want to see. If you have Reigns beat Rollins clean on Raw the week before the PPV, why do I want to see them do it again?
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Nov 10, 2014 13:53:09 GMT -5
It's all about the booking. If they used Survivor Series matches to end feuds, start feuds, heel/face turns, etc, it would kick ass like it did back in the day.
Instead they lazily book the main event and use the random elimination match as filler, watering down the concept and killing what made it kick ass in the first place.
|
|
hbchris
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 7, 2005 11:12:16 GMT -5
Posts: 850
|
Post by hbchris on Nov 10, 2014 16:02:09 GMT -5
For people to care, they'd be forced to actually rely on decent, creative, interesting stories between the various opponents. Imagine that. Survivor Series used to be only one of two PPVs each year (the other being the Rumble) that didn't rely on traditional matches. It's crazy that WWE's tossed that out to primarily go with the same format of most other PPVs if they're trying to expanded interest in their product. The thing is that honestly, nostalgia aside, a card full of 5v5 matches with next to nothing on the line probably just wouldn't draw anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 10, 2014 16:50:53 GMT -5
IDK, I mean my childhood was the Hogan era AKA WWF's peak. So obviously wwf was doing something right back in those days. Exactly, so Nintendo should just rerelease the NES and it would win this generation's console wars. Everything that worked in 1987 still works now. Time never moves on or anything. The one MAJOR flaw in your argument is this, there is no competition in wrestling. NES isnt top dog anymore because Xbox, PS4, and computer games exist. NES lost it's grip because of tough competition. WWE on the other hand has crushed all competitors and they still cant top their peak.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 10, 2014 17:35:15 GMT -5
WWE on the other hand has crushed all competitors and they still cant top their peak. Correct, and their peak -- when they completely changed the game to crush their opposition -- was what made things like the pointless Survivor Series matches as obsolete and only-for-retro as the NES.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 11, 2014 6:02:32 GMT -5
WWE on the other hand has crushed all competitors and they still cant top their peak. Correct, and their peak -- when they completely changed the game to crush their opposition -- was what made things like the pointless Survivor Series matches as obsolete and only-for-retro as the NES. Im not sure I agree with you. Wrestling matches are obsolete to you? That makes no sense. If matches are obsolete to you why bother watching wrestling at all then?
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 11, 2014 7:48:42 GMT -5
Correct, and their peak -- when they completely changed the game to crush their opposition -- was what made things like the pointless Survivor Series matches as obsolete and only-for-retro as the NES. Im not sure I agree with you. Wrestling matches are obsolete to you? That makes no sense. If matches are obsolete to you why bother watching wrestling at all then? I can only advise you to take a reading comprehension class. Pointless Survivor Series matches as a PPV-selling concept are obsolete, and have been for well over a decade. Now, if the Survivor match has no stakes, it's a lower-card filler match.
|
|
|
Post by Himmy! on Nov 11, 2014 10:21:33 GMT -5
I liked the old concept. Was great.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 11, 2014 17:22:54 GMT -5
Im not sure I agree with you. Wrestling matches are obsolete to you? That makes no sense. If matches are obsolete to you why bother watching wrestling at all then? I can only advise you to take a reading comprehension class. Pointless Survivor Series matches as a PPV-selling concept are obsolete, and have been for well over a decade. Now, if the Survivor match has no stakes, it's a lower-card filler match. My reading comprehension is fine, what is in question is your comprehension of what sports are. Meaning in pro wrestling is all perception. Does Cena vs Orton have any kind of stakes? I don't watch wrestling, I dont care about wwe, so to me there is nothing at stake and there is no meaning. You might love wwe so it's high stakes and meaning full to you. My perception and your perception might be two different things but it doesnt mean either of us are right. What I dont understand is how you can tell me that a match has no meaning cause nothing is at stake. Who are you to say nothing is at stake? Just because you don't care for the under card that doesnt mean nothing is at stake. I know wwe of today is all entertainment. BUT back in the day, and today to a certain extent, under card matches were contests to determine who would move up/down in the ranks. I know most look at wwe as a show, but look at wwe's website. They have the power 25, a ranking system, so obviously the under card matters to them. This is why I tell you I cant understand where you are coming from. All sporting events have competitions. They have these "no stake" competitions in where no titles are contested to determine which teams will proceed to the play offs. MMA and boxing have events where fights on the under card determine who will move up to challenge the champions. By now all of us know wrestling is predetermined. Still that doesnt mean the under card is unimportant. The under card is where wrestlers show the company and the bosses who can work. The under card is a place for wrestlers to practice and perfect their wrestling abilities. Just cause you don't like the idea of having Khali, Ryder, Hawkins, Titus vs Sin Cara, Hunico, Brodus, Tensai in a match. That in no way means the match has no stakes and is unimportant. All of those men are trying to improve their abilities and trying to get paid. You saying under card matches have no stakes/meaning shows that you have little to no respect for pro wrestling or pro wrestlers. For you to tell me wrestling matches on a wrestling ppv are of no stakes and therefore are meaningless tells me a number of things. First that you have no grasp on the concept that is sports competition. Second that you don't really like wrestling to begin with. We'll leave it at that for now.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Nov 11, 2014 17:35:25 GMT -5
I can only advise you to take a reading comprehension class. Pointless Survivor Series matches as a PPV-selling concept are obsolete, and have been for well over a decade. Now, if the Survivor match has no stakes, it's a lower-card filler match. My reading comprehension is fine, what is in question is your comprehension of what sports are. Meaning in pro wrestling is all perception. Does Cena vs Orton have any kind of stakes? I don't watch wrestling, I dont care about wwe, so to me there is nothing at stake and there is no meaning. You might love wwe so it's high stakes and meaning full to you. My perception and your perception might be two different things but it doesnt mean either of us are right. What I dont understand is how you can tell me that a match has no meaning cause nothing is at stake. Who are you to say nothing is at stake? Just because you don't care for the under card that doesnt mean nothing is at stake. I know wwe of today is all entertainment. BUT back in the day, and today to a certain extent, under card matches were contests to determine who would move up/down in the ranks. I know most look at wwe as a show, but look at wwe's website. They have the power 25, a ranking system, so obviously the under card matters to them.This is why I tell you I cant understand where you are coming from. All sporting events have competitions. They have these "no stake" competitions in where no titles are contested to determine which teams will proceed to the play offs. MMA and boxing have events where fights on the under card determine who will move up to challenge the champions. By now all of us know wrestling is predetermined. Still that doesnt mean the under card is unimportant. The under card is where wrestlers show the company and the bosses who can work. The under card is a place for wrestlers to practice and perfect their wrestling abilities. Just cause you don't like the idea of having Khali, Ryder, Hawkins, Titus vs Sin Cara, Hunico, Brodus, Tensai in a match. That in no way means the match has no stakes and is unimportant. All of those men are trying to improve their abilities and trying to get paid. You saying under card matches have no stakes/meaning shows that you have little to no respect for pro wrestling or pro wrestlers. For you to tell me wrestling matches on a wrestling ppv are of no stakes and therefore are meaningless tells me a number of things. First that you have no grasp on the concept that is sports competition. Second that you don't really like wrestling to begin with. We'll leave it at that for now. My god how I wish this was true.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 11, 2014 17:55:02 GMT -5
My reading comprehension is fine, what is in question is your comprehension of what sports are. Meaning in pro wrestling is all perception. Does Cena vs Orton have any kind of stakes? I don't watch wrestling, I dont care about wwe, so to me there is nothing at stake and there is no meaning. You might love wwe so it's high stakes and meaning full to you. My perception and your perception might be two different things but it doesnt mean either of us are right. What I dont understand is how you can tell me that a match has no meaning cause nothing is at stake. Who are you to say nothing is at stake? Just because you don't care for the under card that doesnt mean nothing is at stake. I know wwe of today is all entertainment. BUT back in the day, and today to a certain extent, under card matches were contests to determine who would move up/down in the ranks. I know most look at wwe as a show, but look at wwe's website. They have the power 25, a ranking system, so obviously the under card matters to them.This is why I tell you I cant understand where you are coming from. All sporting events have competitions. They have these "no stake" competitions in where no titles are contested to determine which teams will proceed to the play offs. MMA and boxing have events where fights on the under card determine who will move up to challenge the champions. By now all of us know wrestling is predetermined. Still that doesnt mean the under card is unimportant. The under card is where wrestlers show the company and the bosses who can work. The under card is a place for wrestlers to practice and perfect their wrestling abilities. Just cause you don't like the idea of having Khali, Ryder, Hawkins, Titus vs Sin Cara, Hunico, Brodus, Tensai in a match. That in no way means the match has no stakes and is unimportant. All of those men are trying to improve their abilities and trying to get paid. You saying under card matches have no stakes/meaning shows that you have little to no respect for pro wrestling or pro wrestlers. For you to tell me wrestling matches on a wrestling ppv are of no stakes and therefore are meaningless tells me a number of things. First that you have no grasp on the concept that is sports competition. Second that you don't really like wrestling to begin with. We'll leave it at that for now. My god how I wish this was true. It does. The under card is where Vince and company determine who they like, who they dislike, and who they don't care about. It's mostly up to the wrestler. Look at HBK, as a member of the Rockers he was on the under card, jobbing, at every ppv. But he worked and did his job. Eventually Vince took HBK and put him as a singles guy on the under card. Again HBK worked and did his job and proved himself to Vince. Then from there Vince made HBK a top guy. So yeah, I would say the under card is very important.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Nov 11, 2014 18:43:28 GMT -5
My god how I wish this was true. It does. The under card is where Vince and company determine who they like, who they dislike, and who they don't care about. It's mostly up to the wrestler. Look at HBK, as a member of the Rockers he was on the under card, jobbing, at every ppv. But he worked and did his job. Eventually Vince took HBK and put him as a singles guy on the under card. Again HBK worked and did his job and proved himself to Vince. Then from there Vince made HBK a top guy. So yeah, I would say the under card is very important. I'm not saying the undercard inherently doesn't matter, I'm saying that WWE rarely books it to be worth crap. Why would I be against the concept of PPV cards full of exciting matches top to bottom? I know you haven't watched in a while but these days the WWE seem to largely decide who they're interested in very early on in that wrestler's career, the undercard when you look at it is basically just the place that guys get relegated to after for one reason or another Vince or whoever decides they didn't work out. Trust me, if the WWE suddenly decided they want to make wins and losses seem genuinely important and not base title shots seemingly off of who manages to piss the champion off the most, and they actually stuck to some sort of even implicit ranking system where a series of wins would actually rise people up the card and into a title opportunity, I would be a very happy fan. They don't even really try to simulate sport in their booking, which is a shame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 21:40:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 19:34:28 GMT -5
I like when there's only 1 or 2 because it makes the match feel bigger like at SS 2005 when it was Raw vs Smackdown. If there's more than one in today's age it's just a cluster f*ck. Look at SS 2006. That PPV was garbage. It couldve been great, especially DX vs Rated RKO but instead we just had 12 minutes of Team DX eliminating every single member of Team Rated RKO .. Not even a single close fall for for Orton and Edges team. There's just not enough time on the card anymore because of all the superstars entrances, matches promos, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Danger10 on Nov 11, 2014 19:48:52 GMT -5
I completely forgot about the Wildcard Match from 1995, I loved that concept as well.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 11, 2014 20:17:44 GMT -5
It does. The under card is where Vince and company determine who they like, who they dislike, and who they don't care about. It's mostly up to the wrestler. Look at HBK, as a member of the Rockers he was on the under card, jobbing, at every ppv. But he worked and did his job. Eventually Vince took HBK and put him as a singles guy on the under card. Again HBK worked and did his job and proved himself to Vince. Then from there Vince made HBK a top guy. So yeah, I would say the under card is very important. I'm not saying the undercard inherently doesn't matter, I'm saying that WWE rarely books it to be worth crap. Why would I be against the concept of PPV cards full of exciting matches top to bottom? I know you haven't watched in a while but these days the WWE seem to largely decide who they're interested in very early on in that wrestler's career, the undercard when you look at it is basically just the place that guys get relegated to after for one reason or another Vince or whoever decides they didn't work out. Trust me, if the WWE suddenly decided they want to make wins and losses seem genuinely important and not base title shots seemingly off of who manages to piss the champion off the most, and they actually stuck to some sort of even implicit ranking system where a series of wins would actually rise people up the card and into a title opportunity, I would be a very happy fan. They don't even really try to simulate sport in their booking, which is a shame. Well WWF had lots of smaller territories they could get wrestlers from. On top of that they had NWA, and AWA, creating top tier wrestlers. This large pool of well trained and dedicated wrestlers is non existent today, so WWE of today has less to work with as far as wrestlers. So I can see how it is hard for wwe to bring in Zack Ryder who was in pro Wrestling for all of 1 year before wwe hired him. It's hard for them to trust a man with little to no pro wrestling background, they might get burned on the deal. Look at CM Punk, he had a good amount of experience as a Pro Wrestler and he burned wwe, so I can see how it's hard for them to trust just anyone. As far as booking, it was my understanding that wwe no longer has a booker, I thought it was all a writing team. I thought wwe of today was produced more as a television show? Isnt that the line they use when they let people go? Creative has nothing for you. I would love to see wwe try and legitimize the matches by using a rating/ranking system.
|
|