Wrestling WWE

[XPac]

KO gets it, kayfabe is dead, get on board

Attachment 33177

During his feud with Cena, he even talked about his kid on camera so I'm not even sure that qualifies as being out of character.

But yeah... breaking character is no big deal anymore. We see it on WWE programing on the network all the time anyway. If we can see Owens having a pleasant meal with Deam Ambrose and Cesaro (2 guys he's feuded with) in Table for 3, then him hanging with his kid is certainlyh no big deal.

[XPac]

there are guys who are over 205lbs that would not seem out of place in a cruiser tourney but ciampa and busick imo aren't those guys. and it's not about being flippy either, there's plenty on my list who aren't flippy.



ciampa & busick would've seemed out of place in that division too imo.

If it's not an issue of size or wrestling style, then why are they out of place? That's what I'm not getting.

[BigLbo]

If it's not an issue of size or wrestling style, then why are they out of place? That's what I'm not getting.

it IS an issue of wrestling style and size too kind of(both are kind of tall for cruisers), ciampa nor busick wrestle like cruisers. if you can understand that cruiserweight style wrestling doesn't just mean doing flips you should be able to get what i'm saying.

dean malenko and many others didn't do flips but still wrestled a jr/cruiser style. watch a BSOJ or super -J or something and try and imagine ciampa or busick in it.

[Goggindowner]

KO gets it, kayfabe is dead, get on board

Attachment 33177

This right here, IMO, is why this era of wrestling is struggling to connect. There are massive discrepancies between who these guys are on TV and who they are in their personas outside of the TV shows.

I don't fault Kevin Owens. He, more than most, is a shining example of what a guy in the modern era of wrestling should be. His character on TV is an extension of his actually personality, just dialed up. With social media being so prolific, those are the only characters that work as an entire package, and I'd rather see that than see Kane tweeting as Glenn Jacobs commenting on politics (not something I've seen, just an example). Over the top, gimmicky personas can't thrive because there are too many opportunities for the veil to part and we as the audience get to see through to the real person. Look at most of the Twitter accounts of indie wrestlers. They do a better job of matching their in ring work to their online presence that just about everyone in the WWE. They are doing it right. Estonian Thunderfrog is still Estonian Thunderfrog when he tweets. Chuck Taylor tweets as Chuck Taylor. Because those guys are playing a character in their performances that connects for them personally. It isn't a focus grouped, corporate representation of something resembling a character on a TV show.

Whatever, though. I have no reason to believe that this particular issue is going to change in any meaningful way, it just bugs me.

[TheInvisibleMan]

This right here, IMO, is why this era of wrestling is struggling to connect. There are massive discrepancies between who these guys are on TV and who they are in their personas outside of the TV shows.

I don't fault Kevin Owens. He, more than most, is a shining example of what a guy in the modern era of wrestling should be. His character on TV is an extension of his actually personality, just dialed up. With social media being so prolific, those are the only characters that work as an entire package, and I'd rather see that than see Kane tweeting as Glenn Jacobs commenting on politics (not something I've seen, just an example). Over the top, gimmicky personas can't thrive because there are too many opportunities for the veil to part and we as the audience get to see through to the real person. Look at most of the Twitter accounts of indie wrestlers. They do a better job of matching their in ring work to their online presence that just about everyone in the WWE. They are doing it right. Estonian Thunderfrog is still Estonian Thunderfrog when he tweets. Chuck Taylor tweets as Chuck Taylor. Because those guys are playing a character in their performances that connects for them personally. It isn't a focus grouped, corporate representation of something resembling a character on a TV show.

Whatever, though. I have no reason to believe that this particular issue is going to change in any meaningful way, it just bugs me.

I think, a big problem is the fans unwilling to change how they view the product

Stephs bio even says "I play a bad guy on TV"

You don't see TV fans expecting Mariska Hargitay or Nathan Fillion to be their respective characters 24/7

why are wrestling fans like that?

[blubeetle3]

I think, a big problem is the fans unwilling to change how they view the product

Stephs bio even says "I play a bad guy on TV"

You don't see TV fans expecting Mariska Hargitay or Nathan Fillion to be their respective characters 24/7

why are wrestling fans like that?

As weird as it may sound, I think wrestling fans want KAYFABE back. Pro Wrestling isn't really a "television show" or a "sporting event". It's caught somewhere in between. I think fans don't like to think of their favorite wrestlers as just "playing a role". Which I think is why the "Attitude era" was so popular. The most popular wrestlers got to be extensions of their own personality instead of "characters".

[Deadxman]

As weird as it may sound, I think wrestling fans want KAYFABE back. Pro Wrestling isn't really a "television show" or a "sporting event". It's caught somewhere in between. I think fans don't like to think of their favorite wrestlers as just "playing a role". Which I think is why the "Attitude era" was so popular. The most popular wrestlers got to be extensions of their own personality instead of "characters".

I think in general the wrestlers that uses extensions of their personas have a greater connections to the fans then those that have a gimmick. As you can see this with Rollins and Dean as extensions of persona, while Roman is being forced into a gimmick that clashes with his persona. That is why Rollins and Dean are mover over then Roman.

[XPac]

it IS an issue of wrestling style and size too kind of(both are kind of tall for cruisers), ciampa nor busick wrestle like cruisers. if you can understand that cruiserweight style wrestling doesn't just mean doing flips you should be able to get what i'm saying.

dean malenko and many others didn't do flips but still wrestled a jr/cruiser style. watch a BSOJ or super -J or something and try and imagine ciampa or busick in it.

I guess that's where we differ in opinion because I don't think having different styles necessarily is a bad thing.

From what I've seen of Ciampa (and admittedly it's only what I've seen in NXT) I don't see any reason to believe he couldn't have good matches with more traditional cruiser weights. Just like I don't believe cruiser weights can't have good matches when they compete with heavy weights. I don't think the matches HAVE to look like the ones in the Super-J... they just need to be good.

[XPac]

I think, a big problem is the fans unwilling to change how they view the product

Stephs bio even says "I play a bad guy on TV"

You don't see TV fans expecting Mariska Hargitay or Nathan Fillion to be their respective characters 24/7

why are wrestling fans like that?

To me it's not even really a problem. Yeah, there's a bunch of guys on the internet trolling over issues like that... but they're generally hardcore fans who will watch no matter what anyways, so it doesn't matter if they complain about it. If they DO stop watching it will likely be over more significant issues than this.

And your typical wrestling fan likely isn't even aware of this sort of thing or even care.

It's largely a non-issue IMO.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

In the 1990's , late 90's it started to become the cool thing to break kayfabe and do it on TV. You saw Mick Foley's past revealed , you saw them bring up HHH's punishment for MSG , you also saw Vince McMahon be revealed as the owner of the WWF. (In my Raw Reviews the 1st time it was said by Kevin Nash in a 1995 segment , Vince the next week had it deleted. Jim Ross in 1996 would basically reveal Vince was the boss and not a nice guy)

[TheInvisibleMan]

In the 1990's , late 90's it started to become the cool thing to break kayfabe and do it on TV. You saw Mick Foley's past revealed , you saw them bring up HHH's punishment for MSG , you also saw Vince McMahon be revealed as the owner of the WWF. (In my Raw Reviews the 1st time it was said by Kevin Nash in a 1995 segment , Vince the next week had it deleted. Jim Ross in 1996 would basically reveal Vince was the boss and not a nice guy)

that was the moment, for me personally, when the curtain came down

Nash and Hall were headed out, so was Waltman, Shawn was champ, so someone had to eat the s**t sandwich, and it was Trips

[MaxQuick]

i guess ciampa could technically qualify though i've seen him billed at 210 but imo he'd seem out of place in a tourney like that. i mean **** in that case you might as well throw in biff busick and timothy thatcher and a bunch of other similarly sized dudes

A cruiserweight tournament with a few built-in "bosses" would be interesting, up the stakes a little bit. Samoa Joe's glory days as X-Division Champion are a shining example of how well it could work.

Ciampa & Girard both look half-insane anyway, so it'd be a great fit for both (though I feel like Girard/Busick plays it up a little more, while Ciampa just seems to enjoy beating people).

Mic skills have very little to do with it. Vince just doesn't see any potential in him, even though casual fans and those in attendance think otherwise. They don't need to be the next Rock, Flair, or Austin on the horn to prove anything. Lots of guys can talk fine, it's when they are forced to go out there and put on a fake 20 minute story based segment that they come off looking bad. HHH said it best(the present HHH that is, not the one from 2 years ago) "Some guys will get over big on one or two things they do well." Cesaro is one of those guys. Fans like him because he produces a product in the ring they enjoy. Heaven forbid that fans may actually like the Wrasslin too. They gave him Heyman, pushed him a few weeks, and then still **** all over him. He got over big after his matches with Cena, people were behind him again, and then he got **** on all over again. Cesaro is fine, again he produces a product people enjoy, and the company still shits on him.

Looking at him, I don't think he'll ever be the guy, or be a long term champion. But he could hold the belt once or twice, and he could definitely be a top mid-carder that actually wins or has big feuds. In a perfect world WWE could actually get behind a belt like the IC belt and make it just as big as the World Title, and it would be perfect for a guy like Cesaro.

I kinda prefer the "strong midcard champion" anyway, truth be told. When Daniel Bryan or Zack Ryder had the US Title, it felt exciting. There were fresh matchups and most were good if not great, energy from the champion, and a sense that the champion could well be dethroned here. The main event scene generally revolves around three to four players, but the midcard title has SO MUCH potential (depending on how valuable you view your champion (see: lower midcard or upper midcard)).

the mic skill criticism is another example of WWE kool-aid drinking that I don't agree with it. If you can talk and get your point across, you win. Undertaker was never a great promo, nor Bret Hart, nor Kane, nor Big Show, nor X-pac, nor Dean Malenko, nor Rey Mysterio, nor Warrior, and the list goes on and on. So many guys who were pretty basic on the mic got over and had better runs and careers then the **** Cesaro is getting now.

I think some of those guys had the benefit of "hotter crowds", particularly X-Pac. Sure, he gave a serviceable promo, but he usually delivered it while super-hyped. At least from what I remember...

During his feud with Cena, he even talked about his kid on camera so I'm not even sure that qualifies as being out of character.

Owens being a good-to-great father is kinda part of his shtick, honestly. He's a prizefighter trying to make a better life for his family, hence his obsession with gold.

His dickery is just the persona of Kevin Owens, but as far as motivations go, his family is basically it.

You don't see TV fans expecting Mariska Hargitay or Nathan Fillion to be their respective characters 24/7

why are wrestling fans like that?

To be fair, I think Hargitay has kinda taken up some "social justice"/rape issues. Some real life thing... though that may be a case of John Cena/"I'm looked at as the face of this thing, so I want to actually make a difference".

but I agree with your main point.

re: Brand Split
See, I feel like the IC Title should be enough for a second show. They tend to use either the US/IC Title as storyline fodder, so bolster the other one as your "main event". Hell, you could even perk up the tag belts as "main event" worthy.
and I don't even know that a full-on "split" is necessary as "roster depth" is definitely an issue highlighted by recent injuries. Then again, those injuries may not have happened if stars were working less. I dunno, I'm kinda torn on it. The WWE could definitely do well to make a midcard champion (probably Owens) look forward to Thursday nights as they get the focus (see: The Kevin Owens Show).

[BeastieRunner]

If they're under 205 I don't necessarily think you'll be out of place. Cruiser weight shouldn't necessarily just mean flipping guy. You can mingle different styles as long as they're good enough to do it.

Technical guys work great with the flippy guys. Just check out Malenko, Benoit, or even Jericho or Eddie to a degree.

WCW's cruiserweight division was a shining of example of how good that division can be. Yeah, they had the high flyers like Mysterio and Psychosis, but they also had Eddie Guerrero, Dean Malenko, Chris Jericho, and at one point Disco Inferno. It was diverse and highly entertaining.

We need a new Man of of 1000 Holds.

re: Brand Split
See, I feel like the IC Title should be enough for a second show. They tend to use either the US/IC Title as storyline fodder, so bolster the other one as your "main event". Hell, you could even perk up the tag belts as "main event" worthy.
and I don't even know that a full-on "split" is necessary as "roster depth" is definitely an issue highlighted by recent injuries. Then again, those injuries may not have happened if stars were working less. I dunno, I'm kinda torn on it. The WWE could definitely do well to make a midcard champion (probably Owens) look forward to Thursday nights as they get the focus (see: The Kevin Owens Show).

The IC Title used to Main Event back in the day. I don't see why not now.

[The Nuke]

I think the US Title is more suited as a Main Title for a secondary show. The IC will work fine as the classic secondary title for Raw.

I think have the US Title and then have a TV Title for Smackdown as the secondary title. Tag Team champions, World, and a possible Cruiserweight can float between shows. Make Smackdown like a Classic Territory.

It's easy to get a title over. You find the right guy. He doesn't have to be super over, but he needs to be over enough. Have him defend it on a regular basis against undercard and low mid-card talent, then slowly build it up to where this person is defending it against more popular guys and higher mid-card talent. Get it to where top guys are challenging for it, and Ta Dah, Title over. Have big feuds for it. Also helps to keep the title on this person for as long as possible, with only a proper guy beating him for it, only for this person to get it back eventually in a feud. RVD, Bret Hart, AJ Stles, and Nakamura are all examples of the right holding the right belt and making it big.

WWE doesn't know how to do this. However I will say they had something when Cena was US champion, however you knew Cena had very little chance of ever losing, so that hurt it a bit. Not to mention nobody he beat got a rub from it.

This is why I was annoyed that Ambrose lost it a few weeks ago. Ambrose was the right choice as an IC champ, and he was the right guy to build it up. Took it off of him after little over a month. It was shameful to see fans actually say that disaster of a match that started Raw was good, and cheer the title change. Those same fans ask why title's aren't over? Too forgiving of bad booking. Call ****, ****.

Owens was and is a great choice for that IC title, but he may just be holding it for Styles. Styles will definitely be a great choice, and will be the perfect guy to really do what I said above. Will WWE do this? Probably not. Styles will probably lose it a month later.

Nakamura would be the perfect choice if he transitions well. He could make that title as big as the World Title. Nakamura vs Cena for the IC title in the co-Main Event for Wrestlemania 33 can take all my money.

WWE needs to bring back the idea of the "Champion." RVD was TV champ. He was a "Champion. He was super over. Had the belt a year. Defended it in small matches, and in big feuds with big matches. All of it built around the idea of "who's going to beat this guy?" It was heart breaking when someone like Jerry Lynn came so close only to lose. Doesn't work for Cena since it's been conditioned for to long that, LOLCENAWINS.

Image if the much storied feud between RVD and Awesome would have happened. RVD was a dominant champ. Awesome was a dominant champ. Who would have won that match? Heyman was a great booker.

Max Landis is right, when Wrestling is good it can be fucking great. RVD's time as a TV "Champion was fucking great, and showed how to take a title can make it just as big as your main title. Nakamuras work with the IC Title in New Japan is another perfect example.

[Gryphon]

The next inductees to the HOF? The boys from badstreet USA, The Fabulous freebirds