Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 414: Punjabi Prison America On a Pole

(+) Yeah! (+)

Joe looks great right now.

I think he should've kicked out of at least one F5, but it isn't a big deal. He looks great and Brock looks beatable. That wasn't the case a year ago.
---

Yeah, agree with Eddv.

That said, Dean looks like shit. Seth looks like shit. Roman looks like shit. Finn looks like shit in proximity with Elias Samson. Wyatt doesn't look so hot either.

It's not the 50/50 booking. It's the 50/50 booking PLUS bad plotlines PLUS bad promos PLUS oversaturation with at least 4 of those guys.
---

So, who doesn't look like "shit" though?

Brock
AJ (losses here and there, but he is SD's main event guy, because lolJinder)
Cena/Orton/Jericho (basically anyone who is so over they can never lose steam ever)
Strowman (somehow better at Reign's job than Reigns actually is)

Nakamura is way too early to call, Balor is spinning his wheels while winning, and Joe is getting there, but the question is it mostly a fault of "50/50" being a thing, or the fact that WWE only lets so few guys be unbeatable? Reigns should be what Brock and Strowman are, but they've bungled that so hard. They made Joe in weeks what Reigns couldn't in years. Is it just recency bias, or because Joe has the veteran status that people buy into that they won't for any of the Shield guys?

The Shield guys have carried WWE for three years, but it doesn't feel like they've gotten anywhere outside of "main event out of necessity." Rollins was, but he fell off a cliff after the injury and shit face turn.
---

You can argue the 50-50 booking has a big affect. But I'm telling ya, it's the writing and the promos. Mick Foley was over like crazy and he lost every big match for a long time. Angle was a prime example of 50-50 booking working back in his prime.
---

Effect
---

Phone auto-corrects.
---

WWE only lets so few guys be unbeatable

How many guys should actually be unbeatable though in your view
---

Angle and Foley also happened to be charismatic enough to overcome a lot of weirdo shit.

You can treat ric flair like shit and he'll stay over.

Most wrestlers are not ric flair
---

Depends on how large your roster is.
---

voltch posted...

Angle and Foley also happened to be charismatic enough to overcome a lot of weirdo shit.

You can treat ric flair like shit and he'll stay over.

Most wrestlers are not ric flair

Really? Because in my opinion there are a lot of guys who could be Ric Flair if you give them a chance.
---

Well that just makes ric flair nothing special.
---

If you replace enough of someone's blood with grain alcohol, anyone can be Ric Flair.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

WWE only lets so few guys be unbeatable

How many guys should actually be unbeatable though in your view

Anyone who carries the company with great matches almost all the time (AJ/Rollins)
Anyone who the crowd loves or hates to an insane degree (Cena/Reigns/Brock)
Anyone worth protecting as a future star (was Balor until the injury, Strowman and Corbin now?)

It's the last one WWE can't seem to get right. They picked their guy (Reigns), but they insist on making sure about 5-10 others stay at or near his level. The problem is they have zero follow up. When they want Reigns or Cena to get beat, it should mean something. Joe, Owens, and Balor have yet to make good on those rare opportunities. Once again, Balor was a victim of circumstance. Why he got the Rollins "We won't push him JUST yet, and are letting his momentum go to waste" push after coming back...I dunno.

They insisted on Orton going over Wyatt, which destroyed his championship potential after wins over Cena and AJ. Why? Why all of sudden let Jinder beat Orton so much when Wyatt has way more fans? Fuck if I know. They insisted on giving Reigns outs in his losses to Strowman, so you just know they are waiting on making Roman go over when the feud ends
---

It just reminds me of the Incredibles thing. Once everyone is special, no one will be. It's like they want everyone to be 50 shades of Dolph Ziggler. Note: I chose Strowman and Corbin because they are in that "protected phase," where they are pushed, but always given outs when they lose, not because I think either are going to move any merchandise or ratings. You have to set aside some people to actually be built up.
---

I was trying to respond to Strife but I couldn't get it phrased a way I liked. I feel like six guys way at the top is probably still too many and that level should be reserved for like one or two of the very top stars. I then realized I was arguing to go back to the days of Hogan/Cena/Roman killing everybody and got sad about it.
---

Well, I am only suggesting that there are times WWE gets the "Cena loses" right. But the times he should have lost but didn't is like 3-4 times as big. They only now seem to be better at it with Roman...but barely.
---

I guess just when you use the word "unbeatable" I am thinking "peak Hogan" when you mean something closer to "shouldn't lose unless there's a good reason for it"
---

Well the way I see it the bigger problem with 50/50 booking is you have guys fighting each other repeatedly to "get their win back." It's not that no one can get elevated as much as the treadmill is very visible.

I think you can be really conservative in who you protect in terms of booking strength as long as you keep changing who guys are fighting every week. Like Miz and Ambrose going 2-2 wouldn't be bad if their matches were spread over 8 months and not backed by a feud that gets drilled into your head every week.

Frankly I think feuds are kinda overexposed nowadays, which is the real problem moreso than 50-50, which is just a symptom. You MUST give a feud a segment every week, and a feud must be thoroughly run into the ground before moving on, as everything must be stretched out to the absolute maximum. Turns out when guys feud for 6 months before moving on and they have to have a segment every week, some degree of parity occurs.

Instead of Ambrose calling out Miz this week I would've much rather had him face I don't know say Sheamus, Goldust, Big Cass. Just a random match against someone he hasn't been hanging around with for months where the winner isn't a gimme. Ideally without any form of Miz run in. It's not difficult to make the show more interesting you basically just have to mix things up in literally any possible way.
---

Lopen posted...

Frankly I think feuds are kinda overexposed nowadays, which is the real problem moreso than 50-50, which is just a symptom. You MUST give a feud a segment every week, and a feud must be thoroughly run into the ground before moving on, as everything must be stretched out to the absolute maximum. Turns out when guys feud for 6 months before moving on and they have to have a segment every week, some degree of parity occurs.

Instead of Ambrose calling out Miz this week I would've much rather had him face I don't know say Sheamus, Goldust, Big Cass. Just a random match against someone he hasn't been hanging around with for months where the winner isn't a gimme. Ideally without any form of Miz run in. It's not difficult to make the show more interesting you basically just have to mix things up in literally any possible way.

This is why the writing is the biggest offender to me. This is much better explained than me though!
---

Yeah it does feel like there's either too much content or not enough feuds. Probably both. Stuff starts to feel pretty meaningless after a while
---

I hate to "dwell in the past", but what made so many feuds of yore so memorable was the fact that the feuds were not built in the ring every week. And even now, a lot of the higher-level feuds are built without the guys even touching before their big match. UFC is successful with this formula as well. I've watched a lot of old NWA Crockett stuff recently, and the Four Horsemen are feuding with Ole Anderson in this; they've had one in-ring match with him over two months, but it's an amazing feud. It's built on their promos. When they're not promoing, they are all in the ring, beating the jobbers. I have no problem with letting the lower card job every week. The problem is that the lower card isn't on TV now, or else they are considered "the midcard". And there's so much interference and tag matching that the singles matches just don't feel that special to me. I don't care about Corbin vs. Nakamura because they've fought for a month now. I've seen it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Fingers crossed the Flag Match main events Sunday so THE STREAK can continue

Can you believe the last time Cena won a PPV main event (barring a DQ win over Lesnar) was 3 years ago at this show?

Don't forget Cena was part of the winning team at Survivor Series 2014! Even if Dolph Ziggler eliminated 4 of the 5 guys by himself and Cena tries to celebrate with him after the win >_>

As for THE STREAK, if Cena/Rusev main events Battleground and Cena most likely wins, does it pretty much end there? At that point, the streak would be as follows...

Styles
Owens
Orton
Wyatt
Goldberg
Reigns
BRAUN
Jinder
Samoa Joe
Corbin
Lesnar
Cena

Who else would be left? Rollins? Styles again (to keep the streak alive, sort of)?
---

So there are a few possibilities:

Mahal/Orton main event. Best case scenario is that Orton takes the win. Mahal would kill the streak.

AJ/Owens main events. This would be great as you would at most lose 1 on the streak.

Cena/Rusev main events. Either option would be a great one for the streak. Rusev would likely be a better option since winning a main event isn't likely to happen for him anytime soon.

But Mahal is probably going to kill the streak.
---

Also after reading an article by Csonka from 411, I hope the best for Chad Gable's solo career. Csonka brought up a good point that SmackDown is basically America vs. Anti-America right now; your top three heels on the brand are all hating on America, whether they're Indian (Mahal), Canadian (Owens), or Bulgarian (Rusev). Gable has a brief history with the Olympics and while he was nowhere near as successful as Kurt Angle, he could still use that to his advantage to play a pro-American role. That and the fact that he was 1/2 of American Alpha also helps too >_>
---

Gable reportedly impressed Vince in his losses to AJ and Owens, so he might be getting a push that ironically is larger than Jordan's.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

But Mahal is probably going to kill the streak.

I'll be shocked if the Punjabi Prison goes on last. It's never closed a ppv, even when one of the two prisons was a World Heavyweight Championship match (to be fair, it was going up against HHH vs. Randy Orton Part II that evening). That and the # of times the WWE title has closed a ppv in the past year has been shockingly low. You're basically limited to the following: Both Backlash ppvs, TLC 2016, and Elimination Chamber 2017.
---

Nothing has been hyped as a main event this time around, so I'm just defaulting to the Title.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Yeah it does feel like there's either too much content or not enough feuds

They need more content that isn't based on a feud is the main thing I'm saying at least.

More feuds would also help I guess, but if that's done there's a necessity to mix feuds together in a way with more nuance than "tag team match playa!" Which I mean is certainly possible but not anything WWE's writing staff has shown any proficiency with.

I mean it's not even just jobber squashes to buffer like Scarlet was saying. I'd just like some more clean no bs matches between random midcarders who both have momentum coming in. Ambrose vs Literally Any Midcarder That Is Not Miz has more intrigue than Ambrose and Miz interacting in any way at this point. And that's not because they've been feuding for 6 months-- plenty of feuds went that long in the 80s and 90s.

It's because they've been feuding for 6 months and we've never had them do anything else for those 6 months. People can care about non-feud matches if you give them a reason to think that wins and losses matter.
---

I know Hot Topic sucks, but at least I found the Red Styles P1. shirt They'd probably have more good options if they weren't filled with bright ass Enzo, Cass, and Cena stuff. Almost went for a Demon Balor or Suplex City, but even having that much stock surprised me.
---

This talk about overexposed feuds is just more evidence that the Monday Night Wars set Wrestling up to die.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This talk about overexposed feuds is just more evidence that the Monday Night Wars set Wrestling up to die.

I think its the opposite, I think it shows that the best way to build feuds and stars is through having stables so everything can stay fresh while still involving the same cast of people
---

I don't think I understand how the Monday Night Wars are relevant here.
---

That's where the concept of "star vs star matches need to happen en masse every week" comes from, which very much limits the ability for most of the roster to keep any momentum.

They had to at the time. It was an arms race. But it has lead to today's starless environment
---

this is all due to the crash tv revolution of 1997
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

JetJaguar posted...

Midgets ganging up on me now. I'm gonna have to go King Kong Bundy in a sec.

damnit

I got modded for this lol
---

I don't really agree the problems with today's environment can really be blamed on The Monday Night Wars. If anything The Monday Night Wars are proof of concept that you can run a successful product without squash matches being 80% of the match based content.

The big difference with the Monday Night Wars is they were a lot more willing to shake the card around, and didn't need to have guys fight literally every week to further a feud. Let's look at three months of Nitro main events from when Nitro was good.

May 19 1997
Ric Flair d. Syxx
Harlem Heat d. Jeff Jarrett & Mongo
Ric Flair d. Scott Hall
Ric Flair & Piper d. The Outsiders
Lex Luger & The Giant d. Rodman & Hollywood Hogan
DDP d. Scott Hall
DDP, Luger, & Giant d. The Outsiders & Randy Savage
The Steiners d. Benoit and Mongo
Jeff Jarrett d. Ric Flair
The Outsiders d. Benoit and Flair
July 21 1997

3 months of main events, and you've got a lot of random ass stuff in there. Not a single direct repeat match either despite a lot of wrestlers showing up many times. Flair is clearly feuding with the nWo here, but he also has something going on with Jarrett, and his other horsemen fight the Steiners and Harlem Heat. Meanwhile the nWo is also facing Luger, Page, Giant.

May 15, 2017
Seth Rollins d. Bray Wyatt
Samoa Joe & Bray Wyatt d. Seth Rollins & Roman Reigns
Roman Reigns d. Seth Rollins
Samoa Joe d. Seth Rollins
Sheamus & Cesaro draws The Hardyz
Nia d. Sasha
Sasha d. Nia, Bayley, Mickie, Dana, Emma
Braun Strowman d. Apollo Crews
Bray Wyatt d. Seth Rollins
Roman draws Samoa Joe
July 17, 2017

Here, while there is some illusion of variety (one direct repeat), note that the Rollins/Joe/Reigns/Bray cube is taking the entirety of 6/10 of the main events (and it'd be worse without the random DIVA'S REVOLUTION LOL pandering). Braun v Crews is random as hell, but the other ones are all showing repetition as well, it's just (somewhat) masked by the fact that we're not showing whole cards. (in the Joe/Rollins ME, you have Bray/Reigns in the undercard, for example)
---

I'm not disputing that the MNW era did it better

It just set the precedent that inferior booking can't match and they won't adjust the playbook.
---

Would adjusting the playbook really help though? I don't really wanna see Miz squash No Way Jose much more than I wanna see him fight Dean Ambrose for the 12th time. I mean I guess the argument you're making is that if Miz had been squashing No Way Jose for years he'd be a bigger star but I'm not sure that's accurate either.
---

The Monday Night Wars only prove the Bryan Alvarez statement I always come back to: "When you're hot, you can do no wrong. And when you're not, nothing you can do will get back the heat."

To me, that's WCW in a nutshell, and that's WWE in a nutshell. WWE has a much better infrastructure and it knows how to be financially responsible (for the most part), so it can weather low points. The Miz is only as interesting as the writing. And believe me, 90% of the Miz is scripted. Perception is 9/10ths of reality, and we all perceive RAW as a stale product, even when Smackdown is really just as stale. The perception is still that Smackdown is hot and RAW is not. So having the Miz continue his schtick is going to be perceived as letting it become stale. It's not stale. The feuds aren't stale. The writing is the only thing that's truly stale.

Remember, when you're hot, you can do no wrong. The Attitude Era had the worst booking ever. Period. From a pure standpoint of starmaking, it should have flopped. But the product was hot.
---

Lopen posted...

Would adjusting the playbook really help though? I don't really wanna see Miz squash No Way Jose much more than I wanna see him fight Dean Ambrose for the 12th time. I mean I guess the argument you're making is that if Miz had been squashing No Way Jose for years he'd be a bigger star but I'm not sure that's accurate either.

Well if it wasn't for the MNW, seeing the IC champ wrestle at all on TV would be special

Remember, before the MNW, TV was a tool to sell tickets and PPVs, it wasn't a core pillar. If you wanted to see Hogan wrestle, you had to pay for it or wait for maybe a tag match on SNME, the sorts of main-event-mashup tag matches that are almost weekly occurrences today
---

I think the core point I'm trying to make is that "every match should have a purpose for existing beyond filling time"

And given the overexposure of the product today, I don't think that's even possible
---

I think that's the ideal world, but I also think that if the choice is "the matches that don't serve a purpose can be random bouts that could theoretically be up in the air we haven't seen recently" and "the matches that don't serve a purpose should involve people feuding in some way to 'further the feud'" my choice is the former every time, and I think the major problem with WWE vs The Monday Night Wars is they're doing the latter when they used to do the former.
---

LOL I got modded for the "little people" post again

Biscuit is definitely not mad you guys
---

I haven't made it all the way through the topic

My thoughts:
I personally don't like unbeatable wrestlers. I dont need the Big Show or Vladimir Kozlov or something (edit or Roman Reigns when he's winning a lot).
There are no stakes or consequences. Lose at the PPV, and you can have a rematch the next night on RAW (edit or roman reigns gets a #1 contenders match(. 3 separate matches with 3 winners and 3 losers could end up having all 6 in the same MitB match or #1 contender's match.
I don't mind have 5-6 people at the top, if the wins puts some of them ahead and losses pushes some of them down, and it's not 50/50 and stagnant. Continuity.
---

Daryl is dead
---

http://deadspin.com/ronda-rousey-appears-to-be-ready-to-fuck-people-up-in-w-1797140544

just do it already
---

voltch posted...

Daryl is dead

WHAT? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

voltch posted...

Daryl is dead

WHAT? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

https://twitter.com/TOKSFALE/status/888781022858432512

Biggest heel in the business
---

RIP Daryl

Also, here's a sentence I never thought I'd type: CJ Parker has become a legitimately great pro wrestler.
---

Casual 4* quality match with EVIL.

I liked it more than Suzuki/SANADA which had two smark darlings
---