|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 5, 2010 19:39:20 GMT -5
And which one put asses in the seats, Hardcore wrestling or a headlock to armbar to irish whip to headlock to armbar to irish whip to drop toe hold finish? Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, plain and simple. That's ....so very wrong. People wouldn't care about the wrestling if there wasn't the drama to make them care about the wrestlers to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jul 5, 2010 19:46:42 GMT -5
Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, plain and simple. That's ....so very wrong. People wouldn't care about the wrestling if there wasn't the drama to make them care about the wrestlers to begin with. Ill agree on that point. Wrestling and drama need to mix to work, however hardcore doesnt need to be anywhere in the picture. Hardcore/death match fans are a very very very very small portion of the wrestling fans. There's not 1 of the top 10 Mania matches that someone can say "it would have been better with Hardcore rules" |
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 5, 2010 19:52:11 GMT -5
That's ....so very wrong. People wouldn't care about the wrestling if there wasn't the drama to make them care about the wrestlers to begin with. Ill agree on that point. Wrestling and drama need to mix to work, however hardcore doesnt need to be anywhere in the picture. Hardcore/death match fans are a very very very very small portion of the wrestling fans. There's not 1 of the top 10 Mania matches that someone can say "it would have been better with Hardcore rules" Well, that's because saying 'Hardcure rules' is intellectually- disabled. But there have been a lot of great matches that had a moment that made me light up because a weapon was used. Taking you back to summerslam 1989 when Miss Elizabeth smashed Macho Man with a purse. It knocked him flat out and they revealed after the match that there was a brick inside the purse. That, was, awesome. I would much rather see some excitement rather than pure technical wrestlers. I was actually just watching ROH, as it's on TV right now, and it reminds me of WCW before anyone really gave a damn about it. I don't understand what people see in that show. But I watch it anyway whenever I have the chance. It just feels to early 90's for me. |
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jul 5, 2010 19:52:55 GMT -5
So ECW 1997 + WWF 1999 + WCW 2000 = TNA 2010?
|
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 5, 2010 19:55:12 GMT -5
So ECW 1997 + WWF 1999 + WCW 2000 = TNA 2010? There's nothing at all that reminds me of WWE's attitude era at all, nor WCW 2000, which was just plain crap. And all the ECW wrestlers have done is sit in the crowd. So, no no and no.  That mixture would have gave you a much earlier TNA, when all they did is hate WWE and had dumb tag teams like VKM in the mix.  |
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jul 5, 2010 20:33:47 GMT -5
Ill agree on that point. Wrestling and drama need to mix to work, however hardcore doesnt need to be anywhere in the picture. Hardcore/death match fans are a very very very very small portion of the wrestling fans. There's not 1 of the top 10 Mania matches that someone can say "it would have been better with Hardcore rules" Well, that's because saying 'Hardcure rules' is intellectually- disabled. But there have been a lot of great matches that had a moment that made me light up because a weapon was used. Taking you back to summerslam 1989 when Miss Elizabeth smashed Macho Man with a purse. It knocked him flat out and they revealed after the match that there was a brick inside the purse. That, was, awesome. I would much rather see some excitement rather than pure technical wrestlers. I was actually just watching ROH, as it's on TV right now, and it reminds me of WCW before anyone really gave a damn about it. I don't understand what people see in that show. But I watch it anyway whenever I have the chance. It just feels to early 90's for me. Maybe we should clear the air as to what we define as "hardcore" I typically dont find a loaded purse, Paul E. Cellphone or Jimmy Harts Megaphone a weapon of hardcore. I was thinking more barbwire bats, Snickers bowls and lead pipes |
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jul 5, 2010 21:25:09 GMT -5
Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, plain and simple. That's ....so very wrong. People wouldn't care about the wrestling if there wasn't the drama to make them care about the wrestlers to begin with. ..I don't see where I said that it didn't.. but okay? The question that was asked was, "And which one put asses in the seats, Hardcore wrestling or a headlock to armbar to irish whip to headlock to armbar to irish whip to drop toe hold finish?" Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, not hardcore. That's what I was referring to. Nobody is going to pay $39.95 for a card full of "EXTREME" matches filled with barbed wire and crap. |
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 6, 2010 0:01:54 GMT -5
That's ....so very wrong. People wouldn't care about the wrestling if there wasn't the drama to make them care about the wrestlers to begin with. ..I don't see where I said that it didn't.. but okay? The question that was asked was, "And which one put asses in the seats, Hardcore wrestling or a headlock to armbar to irish whip to headlock to armbar to irish whip to drop toe hold finish?" Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, not hardcore. That's what I was referring to. Nobody is going to pay $39.95 for a card full of "EXTREME" matches filled with barbed wire and crap. ONS 1 and 2 were very very successful WWE PPV's, and among the most popular there have been this decade. |
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jul 6, 2010 0:26:26 GMT -5
..I don't see where I said that it didn't.. but okay? The question that was asked was, "And which one put asses in the seats, Hardcore wrestling or a headlock to armbar to irish whip to headlock to armbar to irish whip to drop toe hold finish?" Pure wrestling puts asses in seats, not hardcore. That's what I was referring to. Nobody is going to pay $39.95 for a card full of "EXTREME" matches filled with barbed wire and crap. ONS 1 and 2 were very very successful WWE PPV's, and among the most popular there have been this decade. What exactly is your point, though? When you look at the original "ECW One Night Stand" in 2005 (the highest bought non-wrestlemania ppv that year for WWE, IIRC) had maybe one advertised "hardcore" match. ECW wasn't just about hardcore, blood and guts which is why ECW had that cult following. They gave you a mix of extreme and technical wrestling. There is a major difference between "hardcore" (using one chair, going through a table, using one ladder) and being stupid with "hardcore" (lighttubes). 90% of the current wrestling fans, don't care for lighttubes and crap like that. There is zero need for that in wrestling much less on a mainstream basis like TNA is. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 6, 2010 0:26:27 GMT -5
hardcore wrestling does sell. pure wrestling does sell.
solely, neither of them do overly well.
|
|
|
|
Post by deskjet on Jul 6, 2010 7:10:38 GMT -5
lmao. The nWo was pretty popular too and that didn't need to be resurrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 6, 2010 7:16:32 GMT -5
lmao. The nWo was pretty popular too and that didn't need to be resurrected. of course, when it happened in 2004? it lead to one of the biggest PPV buys in the history of WWE.  You can't say it 'can' work for one company, and not in the other. However, they tried it, they failed, it's done. I haven't even seen many hardcore matches in TNA (since Jan 4th). There have been a few involving abyss and maybe a gimmick match here or there to get ratings. But there haven't been many at all, enough for people to go "Wow, TNA is really just going downhill with the use of weapons" " We should totally watch Raw and see the main event handshake" |
|
|
|
Post by deskjet on Jul 6, 2010 7:21:58 GMT -5
I know it can't be relived, but what would you rather have these guys doing? Tommy Dreamer has been made a fool for years in WWE. Rhyno and Raven don't have much going on. It's a perfect way for Tazz and the Dudleys to get involved in something different after the Jesse storyline. All I can say is give it a chance. Although, I shouldn't be saying that since I already think the NxT thing is annoying, but I'm still tuning into Raw to see if I can get into it and behind the idea of it I actually loved the Dr Stevie character, much more so than his gimmick in ECW so I think theses guys that arent getting over need to reinvent themselves like he has. I loved Raven and Dreamer in ECW and loved their run as tag champs when they were still feuding at the same time but I really don't see TNA recapturing the feel of ECW so I'd rather someone else get the air time. maybe thats just me though. I agree. What's wrong with making new characters out of these guys. I'm interested in where this ECW angle goes to be honest, but I'm sick of TNA forever drawing on the past to formulate an identity becasue creative is too damn intellectually- disabled to come up with their own stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 6, 2010 9:06:21 GMT -5
I actually loved the Dr Stevie character, much more so than his gimmick in ECW so I think theses guys that arent getting over need to reinvent themselves like he has. I loved Raven and Dreamer in ECW and loved their run as tag champs when they were still feuding at the same time but I really don't see TNA recapturing the feel of ECW so I'd rather someone else get the air time. maybe thats just me though. I agree. What's wrong with making new characters out of these guys. I'm interested in where this ECW angle goes to be honest, but I'm sick of TNA forever drawing on the past to formulate an identity becasue creative is too damn intellectually- disabled to come up with their own stuff. Why would these old stars need a new and fresh gimmick? Wouldn't that just lead to more people complaining that new stars aren't getting pushed enough? So, now, creatively you're holding younger stars back, again, trying to get these old stars popular again. But when it does come to new stars, like I said in another post I haven't seen anyone like The Pope Jay Lethals 'mocking' gimmick is amazing. Much better than what others wrestlers have done in the past. -aka- Big Show, Mickie James, Gilberg...whatever. Matt Morgan is great with his ego driven gimmick. Ink Inc for some reason are very likable and I don't even know why. |
|
TTF4eva
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 4, 2009 6:13:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,016
|
Post by TTF4eva on Jul 6, 2010 9:09:12 GMT -5
Well thats TNA, relive the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfinnomore on Jul 6, 2010 16:54:59 GMT -5
ONS 1 and 2 were very very successful WWE PPV's, and among the most popular there have been this decade. What exactly is your point, though? When you look at the original "ECW One Night Stand" in 2005 (the highest bought non-wrestlemania ppv that year for WWE, IIRC) had maybe one advertised "hardcore" match. ECW wasn't just about hardcore, blood and guts which is why ECW had that cult following. They gave you a mix of extreme and technical wrestling. There is a major difference between "hardcore" (using one chair, going through a table, using one ladder) and being stupid with "hardcore" (lighttubes). 90% of the current wrestling fans, don't care for lighttubes and crap like that. There is zero need for that in wrestling much less on a mainstream basis like TNA is. I couldn't agree with you more. I loved the original ECW but stuff like CZW just turns my stomach. I don't want to see guys mutilating each other, a few chair shots or flaming tables I can live with but when guys are just covered in blood, not my thing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jul 6, 2010 17:28:33 GMT -5
What exactly is your point, though? When you look at the original "ECW One Night Stand" in 2005 (the highest bought non-wrestlemania ppv that year for WWE, IIRC) had maybe one advertised "hardcore" match. ECW wasn't just about hardcore, blood and guts which is why ECW had that cult following. They gave you a mix of extreme and technical wrestling. There is a major difference between "hardcore" (using one chair, going through a table, using one ladder) and being stupid with "hardcore" (lighttubes). 90% of the current wrestling fans, don't care for lighttubes and crap like that. There is zero need for that in wrestling much less on a mainstream basis like TNA is. I couldn't agree with you more. I loved the original ECW but stuff like CZW just turns my stomach. I don't want to see guys mutilating each other, a few chair shots or flaming tables I can live with but when guys are just covered in blood, not my thing at all. Exactly, I'm not "anti-hardcore".. I'm anti-stupid.. |
|
|
|
Post by deskjet on Jul 6, 2010 18:00:12 GMT -5
I agree. What's wrong with making new characters out of these guys. I'm interested in where this ECW angle goes to be honest, but I'm sick of TNA forever drawing on the past to formulate an identity becasue creative is too damn intellectually- disabled to come up with their own stuff. Why would these old stars need a new and fresh gimmick? Wouldn't that just lead to more people complaining that new stars aren't getting pushed enough? So, now, creatively you're holding younger stars back, again, trying to get these old stars popular again. But when it does come to new stars, like I said in another post I haven't seen anyone like The Pope Jay Lethals 'mocking' gimmick is amazing. Much better than what others wrestlers have done in the past. -aka- Big Show, Mickie James, Gilberg...whatever. Matt Morgan is great with his ego driven gimmick. Ink Inc for some reason are very likable and I don't even know why. My point is, why even have these guys brought in at all? It's the retro tour every year with TNA. And I'm not so much complaining about it other then, sometimes it just seems like a waste. |
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jul 6, 2010 18:14:20 GMT -5
What exactly is your point, though? When you look at the original "ECW One Night Stand" in 2005 (the highest bought non-wrestlemania ppv that year for WWE, IIRC) had maybe one advertised "hardcore" match. ECW wasn't just about hardcore, blood and guts which is why ECW had that cult following. They gave you a mix of extreme and technical wrestling. There is a major difference between "hardcore" (using one chair, going through a table, using one ladder) and being stupid with "hardcore" (lighttubes). 90% of the current wrestling fans, don't care for lighttubes and crap like that. There is zero need for that in wrestling much less on a mainstream basis like TNA is. I couldn't agree with you more. I loved the original ECW but stuff like CZW just turns my stomach. I don't want to see guys mutilating each other, a few chair shots or flaming tables I can live with but when guys are just covered in blood, not my thing at all. I agree with that, I'm for flaming tables, chairs and whatever here or there. But ive seen pictures of the other company, and it's quite gross and uncalled for. It can't hurt the company. TNA's ratings have been (as it was just posted) a 0.9. That's pretty low, something this can't hurt the company. I'd imagine they're trying to get both new and old fans back into watching wrestling. But, with TNA's past, everyone takes them as the 'joke' business and wrestling really isn't that popular anymore....so it's going to be hard to really gain many new fans at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Jul 7, 2010 11:25:38 GMT -5
You know, some of the greatest matches in wrestling history had hardcore elements...
TLC 1&2
Rock versus Austin 2
Flair and Funk's I quit match,
Mankind versus Undertaker's Hell In A Cell
Plus, the entire run of ECW was awesome, from the moment that Shane DOuglas threw down the belt, to the moment they closed their doors. ECW not having a fan base wasn't the problem, Spike cancelling them in favor of WWE was. Without a show, revenue dropped off insanely, and Heyman quickly fell into bankruptcy hell. They were the highest rated program on TNN at the time, who only used them to test the waters for WWE... so the death of ECW comes down to Paul's shitty book keeping, and corporate idiocy. Not a lack of fans.
|
|
