TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > A Writer's Perspective
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Something That Is Lacking in Wrestling Today
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Something That Is Lacking in Wrestling Today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Message
NFaMouZ View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 30/September/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NFaMouZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/December/2011 at 23:28
Originally posted by CBW CBW wrote:

WWE is in direct, DIRECT competition with UFC, and only a fool would say otherwise. The fact that 'there are fans that watch both' isn't even relevant. If you're on TV, you're vying for your spot, regardless. WWE is competing with UFC, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, and everything in-between.

On-topic: violence is fun, but a G period was needed to re-sensitize the audience. In 2006, fans were chanting 'we want fire' in hardcore matches. NOTHING was enough for them. Chair-shots didn't even get a significant reaction. This is NOT a productive working environment. 

So you can see why they did it.
 
WWE changed their product to cater to 10 year olds because they thought they couldnt compete with the UFC. What Im saying about them not in competition is that there was no need to change the product so much just becasue of the evoloution of MMA which is the main reason they went PG. They are completely different companies WWE just got scared and changed their product an attitude era style WWE and MMA can both work well together. 
 
The only reason the "We want Fire" went on was because the WWECW come along. Edge v Mick Foley was a hype up for the reuturn of ECW. As soon as the hardcoreness of WWECW died the whole craze died.
Back to Top
CBW View Drop Down
Raw/Smackdown
Raw/Smackdown
Avatar
Loving Cena since 2006

Joined: 11/September/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CBW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/December/2011 at 23:33
Originally posted by NFaMouZ NFaMouZ wrote:

WWE changed their product to cater to 10 year olds because they thought they couldnt compete with the UFC. What Im saying about them not in competition is that there was no need to change the product so much just becasue of the evoloution of MMA which is the main reason they went PG. They are completely different companies WWE just got scared and changed their product an attitude era style WWE and MMA can both work well together. 

Another reason the WWE changed their product because the fanbase were de-sensitized to the levels of violence. Triple H has said as much in interviews since. It totally needed to happen. I'm not really debating here, I'm just saying what happened. We're both right. 


Edited by CBW - 01/December/2011 at 23:34
Back to Top
Steven Nyte View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
The Unprettier straightedge superstar!

Joined: 01/August/2008
Location: Noxus
Status: Offline
Points: 10366
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Steven Nyte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/December/2011 at 23:36
Yeah, if WWE hadn´t toned their product down, the list of dead wrestlers before their 50th b-day would be much longer as it already is.
Back to Top
NFaMouZ View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 30/September/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NFaMouZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/December/2011 at 23:43
Its the house shows that should be sacrificed in my opinion for a better live product. Its the huge work load of wrestling numerous times a week that results in shorter careers not the occasional moment of going through a table.
Back to Top
thundarr2000 View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar

Joined: 13/June/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 15318
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thundarr2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 05:35
The house shows serve a major role in improving the televised product.  It's the only opportunity for guys to practice spots before PPVs. 
 
This isn't like the 1980's or 1990's.... back then it was common for guys to work 8 or 9 shows in a week.  That's once a night plus matinees on Saturday and Sunday.  That was the schedule that launched a thousand drug habits. 
 
The guys in the WWE today work 3 or 4 shows a week.  They get to go home every week.  Sure, it can still be a grind.  But it has improved greatly.  Most of the WWE talent still work over 200 shows in a year, but that's way down from the days that the boys worked 350 shows a year.
Back to Top
NFaMouZ View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 30/September/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NFaMouZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 07:12
Originally posted by thundarr2000 thundarr2000 wrote:

The house shows serve a major role in improving the televised product.  It's the only opportunity for guys to practice spots before PPVs. 
 
This isn't like the 1980's or 1990's.... back then it was common for guys to work 8 or 9 shows in a week.  That's once a night plus matinees on Saturday and Sunday.  That was the schedule that launched a thousand drug habits. 
 
The guys in the WWE today work 3 or 4 shows a week.  They get to go home every week.  Sure, it can still be a grind.  But it has improved greatly.  Most of the WWE talent still work over 200 shows in a year, but that's way down from the days that the boys worked 350 shows a year.
 
Surely they can practice spots behind closed doors Im sure that would be better for their bodies then continual house show. Batista 2005 and Edge a couple of years are two that sprong to mind for getting injured in house shows


Edited by NFaMouZ - 02/December/2011 at 07:14
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 6291
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 07:36
Originally posted by Steven Nyte Steven Nyte wrote:

Yeah, if WWE hadn´t toned their product down, the list of dead wrestlers before their 50th b-day would be much longer as it already is.

I think the WWE having a stricter drug testing policy would have more of an effect than mere toning down of action. Sure you have your cases like Chris Benoit where he went crazy. But most of the wrestling deaths in the past 30 years have been from drug abuse, medical/heart conditions the wrestler already had, or random car crashes. Thus the actual impact of the matches have only a secondary effect at most; if you want to make the argument wrestlers used drugs to ease the pain. 

I agree with CBW that the WWE audience had become desensitized to violence; for a time in the early 2000's it seemed nothing could satisfy them. Not even table crashes did it. But the key is what me and JTB said on the other page, moderation. They should have the "ultra violent" moments be highlights of matches; and not the basis of them; and have those times be few and far between at that like it used to be. 

Originally posted by NFaMouZ NFaMouZ wrote:

Originally posted by thundarr2000 thundarr2000 wrote:

The house shows serve a major role in improving the televised product.  It's the only opportunity for guys to practice spots before PPVs. 
 
This isn't like the 1980's or 1990's.... back then it was common for guys to work 8 or 9 shows in a week.  That's once a night plus matinees on Saturday and Sunday.  That was the schedule that launched a thousand drug habits. 
 
The guys in the WWE today work 3 or 4 shows a week.  They get to go home every week.  Sure, it can still be a grind.  But it has improved greatly.  Most of the WWE talent still work over 200 shows in a year, but that's way down from the days that the boys worked 350 shows a year.
 
Surely they can practice spots behind closed doors Im sure that would be better for their bodies then continual house show. Batista 2005 and Edge a couple of years are two that sprong to mind for getting injured in house shows

I like having the traditional house show for the simple reason that it gives the fans an opportunity to see a wrestling show; I want wrestling to be more than just television tapings. But as thundarr said; the touring schedule can be eased so that it's more workable for the talent. 

And the risk of injury is present in any match; as well as in a "practice behind closed doors". 


Edited by Kondor - 02/December/2011 at 07:39

Back to Top
NFaMouZ View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 30/September/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NFaMouZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 08:00
Originally posted by Kondor Kondor wrote:


And the risk of injury is present in any match; as well as in a "practice behind closed doors". 
 
Surely practising "spots" without the pressure of a match is a much less of a risk then competing in a match in front of a live audience.
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 6291
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 08:33
Originally posted by NFaMouZ NFaMouZ wrote:

Originally posted by Kondor Kondor wrote:


And the risk of injury is present in any match; as well as in a "practice behind closed doors". 
 
Surely practising "spots" without the pressure of a match is a much less of a risk then competing in a match in front of a live audience.

Of course, that's not being disputed. But I am saying that the risk is still present. 

House shows, with a reasonable touring schedule, give more fans an opportunity to see wrestling live; which is a great experience. I don't want that great tradition to die. 

Back to Top
CBW View Drop Down
Raw/Smackdown
Raw/Smackdown
Avatar
Loving Cena since 2006

Joined: 11/September/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CBW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/December/2011 at 11:06
Originally posted by Kondor Kondor wrote:

I agree with CBW that the WWE audience had become desensitized to violence; for a time in the early 2000's it seemed nothing could satisfy them. Not even table crashes did it. But the key is what me and JTB said on the other page, moderation. They should have the "ultra violent" moments be highlights of matches; and not the basis of them; and have those times be few and far between at that like it used to be. 

This is correct. I think basically, the crux of the debate is: blood should be used to promote gravitas and urgency, and not much else. Blood-letting for the sake of it is something the WWE do not need. ECW in 2006 was cool. It was cute. But we don't need that anymore. 

In a nutshell -- we need blood back because with its inclusion, moments like these are made:





Edited by CBW - 02/December/2011 at 11:08
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.