Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 444: The Figure 444 Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Go watch the NXT main event from Wednesday between Ciampa and Ohno.

Marvel at how overboard Mauro goes. It's amazing.
---

But then I would have to spend a half hour watching Kassius Ohno
---

Eddv posted...

But then I would have to spend a half hour watching Kassius Ohno

Nowhere near that long of a match.
---

I still can't comprehend hating Ohno.
---

Yeah I'm gonna say I actually think Lesnar's reign is more impressive than Punk's despite that statistic.

Like as far as which one is a draw for me to watch, it's easily Lesnar.

Punk's reign was really long, but for its length was booked really weakly.
---

I hate Lesnar's reign on the general principle that even if I absolutely loved it (which I don't), it still wouldn't draw me in to watch the show because I know he's not actually part of the show. If anything the more I liked the current Lesnar the less I'd want to watch Raw, since liking him is pretty much tied into the idea that the average Raw or lesser PPV is shit and not worth his time.
---

Yeah this Lesnar reign is garbage
---

I'll clarify I'm not a huge fan of either one for the record.

Long reigns are kinda overrated to begin with. Generally if a reign is long it's become stale long before it ends.

But at least Lesnar with the title is consistently treated as the main draw of Raw. Couldn't say that for Punk.
---

I honestly think people who hate the Lesnar reign just don't remotely understand wrestling.....

I'm sorry that Vince is a fucking moron who decided that putting the Champ on TV every week was somehow the right thing, but it's not.

The Title means jack shit when you do that.

I can at least let it go during the MNW because hey, WCW is doing this dumb shit, we better too.

Do you know why over half a million people would buy a random SvS with literally nothing on the line, so they could see Hogan, cause damn it all they were not seeing the WWF Champion on tv weekly. So this is special, this means something now.

You want to see him, come to house shows or buy PPVs (yes I understand Brock isn't doing the house show circuit.).

Not seeing the Champ makes it a big deal. When Brock shows up be it for Raw or whichever PPV you know this matters now.

I wish there were a way to do this with all the Titles.

Want the tag Titles to mean something, font inundate is with Matt and Bray every week.

UInstinctGogeta posted...

Not seeing the Champ makes it a big deal. When Brock shows up be it for Raw or whichever PPV you know this matters now.

Even if this is true, the necessary conclusion is that all the other shows *don't* matter. And if they don't matter, well, one guy isn't enough to make me tune in, especially when his opponent by definition doesn't matter either.
---

Panthera posted...

UInstinctGogeta posted...

Not seeing the Champ makes it a big deal. When Brock shows up be it for Raw or whichever PPV you know this matters now.

Even if this is true, the necessary conclusion is that all the other shows *don't* matter. And if they don't matter, well, one guy isn't enough to make me tune in, especially when his opponent by definition doesn't matter either.

No... it just means it matters more.

And if they were keeping all the Champs off tv every week it would be different.

You have 8 Champions. They are all watered down because everyone is a "Champion" no one is special.

Put 2 maybe 3 on TV every week and they all mean more.

AJ and Brock as well as the women not being there means having Bray and Matt on Raw and Jeff on SDL (Rollins and BB also gone for the week) means a shit ton more.

If the champion doesn't care about Raw why should I disagree?
---

"Put the champion in less random matches" may make sense, but "Keep the champion off TV, period" is stupid because it means the show doesn't matter
---

Panthera posted...

If the champion doesn't care about Raw why should I disagree?

Yes, that's your thinking now. Because an idiot conditioned you (and the rest of the country) to think that way.

You saw Hart and Michaels and Austin etc on tv every week and now you believe when you don't see Lesnar that it now matters less. This isn't (or at least shouldn't be) true.

The best thing this company could have ever done would have been after Edge cashed in, he had his sex celebration the next night, and then got the fuck off tv till a couple weeks before Mania.

They actually had a chance there to reverse the fucking idiotic narrative that Vince had created, probanly the only real shot they had. By the time we got to Rock, Goldberg, Brock, it was too late. They missed their shot with a full timer, then had Cena attack the Rock like being a person who wasn't there every week as some type of cancer.

When the cancer is the opposite.... being there every week with the belt

This isn't UFC. This is scripted entertainment that relies pretty decently on storylines, which can't happen (in a decent manner) if you refuse to have your champion on anything but big PPVs.

Punk couldn't shoot win the Rumble, and keeping the champion off TV is dumb.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

This isn't UFC. This is scripted entertainment that relies pretty decently on storylines, which can't happen (in a decent manner) if you refuse to have your champion on anything but big PPVs.

Punk couldn't shoot win the Rumble, and keeping the champion off TV is dumb.

This LITERALLY wasn't an issue before 1992....so what changed with Flair and Bret and Yoko getting the belts that was this magic moment of "fuck, we need to see these guys 52 weeks a year". The answer, is of course, nothing. An idiot did something really fucking dumb. There is your answer.

Was it somehow less scripted entertainment before Bret won it? They seemed to tell stories just fine.

WM V being the most successful WM of all time till Houston when it took the two biggest stars in history squaring off to surpass them...

Seemed to be ok despite Randy and Hogan not even close to being on tv every week.

And Vincent Verhi shoot won a Battle Royale.

UInstinctGogeta posted...

Yes, that's your thinking now. Because an idiot conditioned you (and the rest of the country) to think that way.

No, it's my thinking because I don't give it a shit about a show that feels meaningless to the point that the characters on it don't even treat it like it matters
---

Panthera posted...

UInstinctGogeta posted...

Yes, that's your thinking now. Because an idiot conditioned you (and the rest of the country) to think that way.

No, it's my thinking because I don't give it a shit about a show that feels meaningless to the point that the characters on it don't even treat it like it matters

Ok. I'll ask again then... what actually changed? What magic button was pressed?

If you seriously think how wrestling was viewed before the 90s is the same as how wrestling is viewed today, you need your head examined.
---

I am to the point where I agree with MWC.

If storylines were only advanced at PPVs not only would they draw more but the stories would be more coherent.

I am to the point where I would rather Raw become Superstars than the monstrosity of booking weight it is now.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

If you seriously think how wrestling was viewed before the 90s is the same as how wrestling is viewed today, you need your head examined.

Look, obviously everything changes in sports. That's undeniable.

But the reason "Champ every week" became a thing is because of a fucking moron.... that's it.

There was no great outcry from the crowds that "WE NEED THE CHAMPIONS IN OUR HOME EVERY WEEK...."

This was not a necessitated change.

Even Hogan through 97 wasn't an every single week character....

This was literally building mind you to the single biggest PPV they ever did at that time.

So there was no great fan backlash against this.

Well you've got Eddv on your side so now I know it's a bad idea
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well you've got Eddv on your side so now I know it's a bad idea

Ad hominem much?

Do you actually enjoy having 5 hours of canon wwe programming every week?

Plus another hour a piece if you want to follow 205 Live and NXT.

Because I sure as hell don't.
---

As a very young teenager, I thought Punk's long reign was badass. When he beat Del Rio for the title, I was going fuckin' crazy. It was so awesome. And then every time he won, I was happy. Seeing the champion defending all the damn time and continuing to win was making it special. The guy was fighting.

Also, I think we need to differentiate between being "treated" as the main draw and actually being the main draw. Punk when he was champion was the main draw for me. I was watching to see what he was gonna do. On the other hand, right now I can name three different programs that I'd rather watch than the Universal Championship program. But Lesnar's is treated more importantly by the company.

IMO, if you really think that just because Punk's reign didn't get the top slot all the time and therefore Lesnar's is better because his does, then you're just buying too much into what they want you to look at.

I've stopped caring about what Brock Lesnar does. The first time I actually cared about a Lesnar championship feud this time around was when he fought Samoa Joe, and then he won that and I said, "Oh, right, Joe wasn't gonna win that one. But it would've been cool!" So then I waited until maybe, just maybe, Strowman was gonna do it at the Rumble by pinning Kane. And then Lesnar won, and I said, "Oh, right, they're saving it for Roman." So then Roman lost, and while I enjoyed the match somewhat and the finish was intriguing, now I'm saying this:

"God damnit I just want Lesnar to drop the damn belt already, it's been a year and I've only cared about this belt three times in that whole year. He hardly shows up to give me something to care about, and when he does it's not always interesting and his matches are all pretty similar at this point. Germans, germans, germans, some counter-offense from the opponent, germans, F-5, pin. Give me something I care about."

I didn't say that about Punk if I remember correctly because his matches were more interesting and he was more entertaining. I cared more.
---

Eddv posted...

Do you actually enjoy having 5 hours of canon wwe programming every week?

Plus another hour a piece if you want to follow 205 Live and NXT.

Because I sure as hell don't.

When it's good, yes? I mean I wouldn't mind dropping an hour or two, but dropping it completely to just PPVs is a bit drastic, don't you think?
---

You're not looking at any of this correctly.

It doesn't matter if the champion is on every week.

It doesn't matter if the champion shows up once every two months.

There is only one thing that matters: creative direction. It's the only. Thing. That. Matters.

And you all can fight over the table scraps and argue the Miz is great or AJ is great or whatever. But we all know that none of that matters when you can't convince good writers to work for your company. WWE has a reputation in the business. No one who can make it applies for a writing position there. It's simple. Writers don't want to be beholden to an individual that doesn't seek good stories. He seeks his stories. That's all there is to it. And no amount of "Brock Lesnar isn't showing up, that's the problem!" is going to fix it. You're all arguing about the baby when it's the bathwater you need to throw out.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

It doesn't matter if the champion is on every week.

It doesn't matter if the champion shows up once every two months.

Ehhhhhh it might matter to a certain extent, yeah. But you're right that creative direction matters more. Lesnar could have his current schedule if the stories were more compelling and I didn't feel like I'm watching a half-assed Universal Championship program all the time.
---

This is part of why I think we need to resume a more 80s schedule.

Vince is clearly going senile, we need to turn back the clock for him!

Plus if youre only writing what 15 shows a year tops do you really need writers?
---

While I don't disagree, it seems like it'd be tougher even for a good writer to keep compelling storylines going if they only advance once every three months and you have to kill time in between, so I think saying it doesn't matter is a bit far.

It'd be like having a TV show where the main character that the show revolves around shows up in episode 1, 8, and then not again until season 3.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

You're not looking at any of this correctly.

It doesn't matter if the champion is on every week.

It doesn't matter if the champion shows up once every two months.

There is only one thing that matters: creative direction. It's the only. Thing. That. Matters.

And you all can fight over the table scraps and argue the Miz is great or AJ is great or whatever. But we all know that none of that matters when you can't convince good writers to work for your company. WWE has a reputation in the business. No one who can make it applies for a writing position there. It's simple. Writers don't want to be beholden to an individual that doesn't seek good stories. He seeks his stories. That's all there is to it. And no amount of "Brock Lesnar isn't showing up, that's the problem!" is going to fix it. You're all arguing about the baby when it's the bathwater you need to throw out.

You DON'T NEED WRITERS!!!!

Dear Christ that's their biggest problem.

The best this company ever was was when you had Vince, Bruce and Pat booking, Kreske doing storyboards, and letting the boys go out and there and ad lib...

It's not a coincidence that since we got "writers" (fuck off Steph) it has been on a continual down hill slow roll....

This isn't some motion picture. You don't need 30 writers. I don't care if they are the best writers in the world, it's still cancer in wrestling.

That post is replying to scarlet, btw

I do disagree with "Who needs good writers when you can have no writers"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Eddv posted...

Do you actually enjoy having 5 hours of canon wwe programming every week?

Plus another hour a piece if you want to follow 205 Live and NXT.

Because I sure as hell don't.

When it's good, yes? I mean I wouldn't mind dropping an hour or two, but dropping it completely to just PPVs is a bit drastic, don't you think?

6 PPVs

1 hour Raw.

Bang.

hnnrrggghhh I have clicked on the blue dot twice now only to not have the page auto-scroll down because the most recent post is MWC

Why doesn't Steiner's magic work in this topic
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

It doesn't matter if the champion is on every week.

It doesn't matter if the champion shows up once every two months.

Ehhhhhh it might matter to a certain extent, yeah. But you're right that creative direction matters more. Lesnar could have his current schedule if the stories were more compelling and I didn't feel like I'm watching a half-assed Universal Championship program all the time.

I'm going to argue that it doesn't matter to any extent. Conor McGregor defended his title 3 times in one year. He drew like a motherfucker and was universally recognized as the top draw in 2016. At the same time, Mick Foley appeared every week before his title win and single handedly put enough butts in seats to turn around the Monday Night Wars. Then he dropped the title faster than you can say, "Brand-specific pay-per-view". In the Wars, WWF put a premium on making sure the title was making appearances in every show possible. There was build to the title. It mattered. Charismatic workers were telling interesting stories.

Conor McGregor and Steve Austin are the opposite of each other in this argument and yet they did the same thing: drew.

Does Brock draw? Not that much. WWE is the draw now.
---

I stand by that comparing UFC and WWE directly doesn't really work
---

StealThisSheen posted...

While I don't disagree, it seems like it'd be tougher even for a good writer to keep compelling storylines going if they only advance once every three months and you have to kill time in between, so I think saying it doesn't matter is a bit far.

It'd be like having a TV show where the main character that the show revolves around shows up in episode 1, 8, and then not again until season 3.

Let me tell you the story of the most successful franchise in entertainment right now. They advance the story once every 4 months and make hundreds of millions of dollars each time to critical acclaim. It's called the MCU.
---

Comparing WWE to movies also doesn't really work
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I stand by that comparing UFC and WWE directly doesn't really work

StealThisSheen posted...

Comparing WWE to movies also doesn't really work

---

UInstinctGogeta posted...

You DON'T NEED WRITERS!!!!

Dear Christ that's their biggest problem.

The best this company ever was was when you had Vince, Bruce and Pat booking, Kreske doing storyboards, and letting the boys go out and there and ad lib...

It's not a coincidence that since we got "writers" (fuck off Steph) it has been on a continual down hill slow roll....

This isn't some motion picture. You don't need 30 writers. I don't care if they are the best writers in the world, it's still cancer in wrestling.

You need writers. Call them whatever you want, but you need them. But you need 2 or 3. You don't need 30.

Vince's competition isn't wrestling anymore. It's sports and it's entertainment. So you need to be as engaging with action as UFC to satisfy the sports side and you need to be as well-written as the dramas and comedies on television (within reason) in order to satisfy the entertainment side. What this means is quite simple: with a massive roster, you need writing. You need coordination. You don't need word-for-words on every promo, but you do on some. You need them on a lot.
---

Like, the biggest flaw of comparing WWE to the MCU is that the MCU writers don't have to do anything in the four months in between movies. Hell, half the time they don't even reference anything happening. They just handwave it with "Eh two years passed but look the heroes are here"

WWE has to actually fill time every week
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

I stand by that comparing UFC and WWE directly doesn't really work

StealThisSheen posted...

Comparing WWE to movies also doesn't really work

Yes, it does. It's a form of fictionalized entertainment. The mistake you all are making is complaining about various aspects of one industry and failing to recognize that there is no difference. Marvel does what differently from wrestling? It builds characters, creates hype for confrontations, capitalizes on the hype and attempts to deliver memorable bouts in order to sell product and drive more interest.

UFC does the same thing only with the added risk of a shoot fight not working in their favor.

Guess what? It's all the same system. It's all the same principle. If you want to pretend that nuance matters, than you are doing something WWE has never done because WWE doesn't believe in nuance.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I stand by that comparing UFC and WWE directly doesn't really work

I mean... yeah. It doesn't now....

It certainly did in 1988.

And obviously tons can change in 30 years... so I'd like to know what actually did change.

And because no one has an answer I think we can all agree my reasoning that a fucking idiot did stupid shit is what happened.

There is nothing outside of his office that changed. Nothing

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, the biggest flaw of comparing WWE to the MCU is that the MCU writers don't have to do anything in the four months in between movies. Hell, half the time they don't even reference anything happening. They just handwave it with "Eh two years passed but look the heroes are here"

WWE has to actually fill time every week

Then compare it to the regular Marvel Universe. Or add in the MCU's televised editions. What you fail to recognize is that the intervals don't matter. WWE considers all of its television as filler designed to be infomercials for its PPVs. And now, with the changes in investor presentation, that's not even true. WWE itself is a product with no drive currently. It's designed as a source of content in order to bring in money. It's reaching too big to fail territory thanks to the ever-starving market for content.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

While I don't disagree, it seems like it'd be tougher even for a good writer to keep compelling storylines going if they only advance once every three months and you have to kill time in between, so I think saying it doesn't matter is a bit far.

It'd be like having a TV show where the main character that the show revolves around shows up in episode 1, 8, and then not again until season 3.

Also, you don't get to post this and say, "Oh but while I can compare WWE to regular TV shows, you can't compare it to film."
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Yes, it does. It's a form of fictionalized entertainment. The mistake you all are making is complaining about various aspects of one industry and failing to recognize that there is no difference. Marvel does what differently from wrestling? It builds characters, creates hype for confrontations, capitalizes on the hype and attempts to deliver memorable bouts in order to sell product and drive more interest.

I mean, again, WWE can't just do literally nothing for four months without changing their business model pretty heavily like MCU can, so...

There's a pretty glaring difference that you seem to be hand waving for some reason
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

While I don't disagree, it seems like it'd be tougher even for a good writer to keep compelling storylines going if they only advance once every three months and you have to kill time in between, so I think saying it doesn't matter is a bit far.

It'd be like having a TV show where the main character that the show revolves around shows up in episode 1, 8, and then not again until season 3.

Also, you don't get to post this and say, "Oh but while I can compare WWE to regular TV shows, you can't compare it to film."

...What? I can definitely say that because my main point is the whole "have to kill time in between" thing. Movies don't have to do that.
---

Like, movies get away with going "Movie 1 happened. Then three years passed and now Movie 2's story is happening. Then X time passed and now Movie 3's story is happening" and can either completely ignore the in between or vaguely reference it.

WWE's current model has no "in between." It's literally event -> event -> event -> event -> event. Not event -> gap -> event -> gap -> event. So there's definitely more of a difference than just the interval, and saying writing for weekly WWE is the same as writing for MCU movies seems like a pretty weird comparison.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

If you want to pretend that nuance matters, than you are doing something WWE has never done because WWE doesn't believe in nuance.

Maybe they should start doing that then because I think it's pretty important.

scarletspeed7 posted...

WWE considers all of its television as filler designed to be infomercials for its PPVs. And now, with the changes in investor presentation, that's not even true. WWE itself is a product with no drive currently

Having the TV shows as infomercials for the PPVs is fine as long as the PPVs pay off creatively. Now imagine if you had no infomercials for the PPVs. What exactly are you doing on the PPVs? Who is gonna care about them?

UFC didn't just have McGregor show up for the fights. They had promotional events all in-between. They can't do just 3 times a year either. There's always promotion happening between the fights. So if you want to compare those two, I'll say you're actually wrong about UFC proving your point that intervals don't matter.

I have to finish up an application for a college program now so I won't be able to continue discussing this point but I definitely think you're missing a lot of things and you're making some connections that aren't as simple as you think they are. WWE is hard to compare to a lot of the other things you're comparing them to, just because they have some similarities doesn't mean they are essentially the same in function. And sometimes if you can compare them, the similarities actually show that something like WWE does rely on timing a lot more than you think.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean, again, WWE can't just do literally nothing for four months without changing their business model pretty heavily like MCU can, so...

There's a pretty glaring difference that you seem to be hand waving for some reason

WWE does literally nothing for four months. It's called September to December in WWE. Just because there is content does not mean there is valued content. WWE currently chooses to drive itself on January through April and again in July through August. These are the months that it pushes as its most active in terms of advertisement and in terms of potential for live show revenue.

When Vince McMahon says, "our competition isn't other wrestling shows. Our competition are the other shows on television," what he's saying is that he compares the success of his product to the success of any other product on television. When WWF was at its height in the Attitude Era, after it was becoming clear that they had beaten WCW, do you know what Vince did in meetings? He pulled out merch sales and compared individual wrestling characters to the merch sales reported for South Park characters. Vince considers his competition to be any franchise built on a successful entertainment IP. So why should I NOT hand wave minor differences? Storytelling is universally simple - you take archetypes, you take Freytag's pyramid, and you build a feud. As long as the feud remains engaging, it can last as long as I want or have as many chapters that consistent of it as I want. Marvel took 50 years of Avengers to make 10 years of films (so far). It's clear that it's the same system - it's build, it's push, it's hype, it's event, and it's payoff. Those are what WWE use as well. The number of films doesn't matter. The results matter. Being caught up in the nuance of how a story is told is why these arguments always fail.
---