The W
Views: 97688618
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.7.14 2004
The W - Pro Wrestling - Are owners neccesary
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(12970 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
Man O Steel Man
Cotto








Since: 15.4.02
From: Brandon, Fl

Since last post: 4417 days
Last activity: 4416 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Just like every thing else in wrestling, the owner angle has run its course. But since Vince is the real owner, he can say when his course has run and apparently Vince would rather promote himself than the talent.



Vince McMahon created his evil charector in his battle with Steve Austin. Now I know that the owner is an extension of the commisioner or trustee charector, but the WWF doesn't need those either.



So now it's 5 years and running since Vince began invading our t.v. screens. I say to myself, self, at least we only have Vince on one show now, it can't get any worse



Then it got worse.



Some super genious decided it would be a great idea to give Raw an owner also. Because lord KNOWS you can't have a good wrestling show without an owner. So I say, self, at least Flair is good and not the clone McMahon. It can't get any worse.



It's getting worse.



I'm not telepathic and I didn't call Ms. Cleo, but it doesn't take much to see where the WWF is going with Flair. Right now Flair is in the drivers seat to be the "higher power" who has been screwing Steve Austin the past few months. Sound familiar?



I don't see any real purpose for there to be an owner in the WWF. The idea behind wrestling is simple right? Guy A doesn't like Guy B, therefore they wrestle each other. There shouldn't be much else to it, right? Apparently not.







(edited by Man O Steel Man on 3.5.02 2028)
And that's when you know what the answer to that question is.
Promote this thread!
Excalibur05
Knackwurst








Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on
Why do you think it started with Vince? It didn't at all. Wrestling has usually been guy v. guy because they just don't like each other, but there's almost always been a 'higher power' pulling the strings. Jack Tunney, Gorilla Monsoon, Nick Bokwinkle, Vern Gagne, Bischoff, a long line of commissioners and many many more.

The fact of the matter is that wrestling needs some sort of structure to make sense, somebody has to be pulling strings or there would be no reason to have structure or rules. The problem is that fans have gradually (for whatever reasons) began hating the 'leader' characters. The only time they're sucessful as faces is when they're booked against really hated heels.

I still don't believe that the natural progression of the Flair/Austin storyline HAS to be Flair going heel, though knowing Flair's desire to be a heel, it wouldn't at all surprise me.



These mini Reeses cup things are addictive...
Man O Steel Man
Cotto








Since: 15.4.02
From: Brandon, Fl

Since last post: 4417 days
Last activity: 4416 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
I didn't say it started with Vince. I said that the owner is an extension of the trustee/commisioner postion and right now Vince holds that postion. My problem is that Vince has used his status as owner to put himself over.

I think the owner/commisioner/trustee position is played out right now and Vince(and to a lesser extent Flair) should take a break.



And that's when you know what the answer to that question is.
Weevil
Polska kielbasa








Since: 19.3.02
From: Ireland

Since last post: 3125 days
Last activity: 3125 days
#4 Posted on
As a regular character i agree it's played out, but a Linda McMahon type figurehead is probably always neccesary
Saruman
Salami








Since: 25.1.02
From: Kirksville, MO

Since last post: 4365 days
Last activity: 4336 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
It actually started with Bitch-off, putting himself over and into the main storylines with the nWo, which predated Vince's descendence from play by play man.
Anyway, those two really were the first ones to use the position to really put themselves over, instead of just having it for plot devices.
And, I think "commisioner" works better, as, if the owner is busy messing with the day-to-day stuff, how does he have time for all the matchmaking and such too? Plus, I think it would have greater weight if Vince only came down, say, three times a year to make a match. Anyway, I'm incoherent right now.



This isn't Moscow, this isn't Tokyo, We are Invincible!
CarlCX
Salami








Since: 1.5.02
From: California.

Since last post: 208 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
I think fighting Vince's being on TV won't do much good, because every time a few long months pass and everyone is at their peak of "oh god I hate Vince McMahon and want him to die" hysteria, something good happens on account of him, in the process allowing everyone to regain their patience.

That's the sad but true part: for all the sorrow and depression McMahon causes, there's generally a good payoff of SOME kind, eventually.
Tragic1
Chourico








Since: 2.1.02
From: Rolling Meadows, Illinois

Since last post: 4280 days
Last activity: 4272 days
#7 Posted on
The only logical reason for the "owner" character right now is to give some rationale for the split. Other than that, I think the character has been played out.

When Vince became Mr. McMahon, it served a purpose. Austin was champ, Taker was feuding with Kane, Shawn was injured and Bret had just jumped to WCW. There were no main event level heels for Austin to face. So by feuding with the owner, anyone Vince sent after the World Title got main event credibility (Foley, Rock, HHH). But now, with about 10 (give or take) guys that could be put in the chase for the title, the "evil owner" character can probably be phased out. Though a figurehead chacater should be around just for the skae of making "special announcements" like Jack Tunney back in the day.



Heck is for people that don't believe in Gosh
Man O Steel Man
Cotto








Since: 15.4.02
From: Brandon, Fl

Since last post: 4417 days
Last activity: 4416 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
CarlCX said:

"That's the sad but true part: for all the sorrow and depression McMahon causes, there's generally a good payoff of SOME kind, eventually."

Well if your idea of a good payoff is Vince getting caught with his pants down or Vince getting kicked in the nuts then fine. But me...I'll be happy if I never have to see anything involving Vince and his genitals again.

Now onto the commisioner thing. It wasn't bad when it was Foley or Regal, at least they could still wrestle. What it comes down to is that I don't take these owner or commisioner guys seriously unless they can back up their shit talking in the ring. If they can't fight than their going to have to send someone else to fight for them anyway.

So what we get is a meaningless feud because the wrestlers have no heat. The heat is between the owner/commisioner and the wrestler. Tragic was talking about Austin/McMahon. That sir was flash in a bottle. It will never be done as well as it was the first time no matter how many times the WWF tries to duplicate it.

Bottom line: If an owner/commisioner/trustee is on my t.v. and they can't wrestle, they're pushing themselves not the talent and wasting my time.



I always thought that if I was as ugly as that guy I don't know what I'd do.
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3318 days
Last activity: 3098 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I miss the period when HBK was the commish.

He pretty much stayed out of people's business. The shows revolved around the wrestlers, for the most part, and when he showed up something big was going to happen.





This entire thing we're involved with called the world is an opportunity to exhibit how exciting alienation can be. Life is a matter of a miracle that is collected over time by moments flabbergasted to be in each others' presence. The world is an exam, to see if we can rise into the direct experiences. Our eyesight is here as a test, to see if we can see beyond it. Matter is here as a test for our curiosity. Doubt is here as an exam for our vitality.
J. Kyle
Boudin blanc








Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 21 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on
Nobody Important Says:

When it comes to figureheads, see Gorilla Monsoon to know how it SHOULD be done. Be thankful Steph is gone... for now



VISIT SMARKTOWN!


****You just got SMARKED UPSIDE THE THREAD****
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#11 Posted on
The problem started sometime in 1997 or so. That's when the lead angle of each show stopped being "Who's the Champion, who wants to be the Champion, and how is that going to play out?" and became "Who's in control of the WWF, who wants to be in control, and how does that all play out?"

By introducing something that's more important than the company's championship,i.e. the company itself, you can't really go back. So while the initial "who's in control" angle worked really well for both WCW and WWF at first, it eventually started sucking. But by that time there isn't any way to get out of it. The fact the the "owner" angle is rooted in reality makes it even harder. I mean, no matter what angles happen, you always know Vince is back there pulling the strings.

Can anyone think of a feasible way to end the "control of the company" focus, and put it back on "who's the champ?"

Moe

(edited by MoeGates on 5.5.02 0915)
Expressing myself EVERY day!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by Man O Steel Man
    Now onto the commisioner thing. It wasn't bad when it was Foley or Regal, at least they could still wrestle. What it comes down to is that I don't take these owner or commisioner guys seriously unless they can back up their shit talking in the ring. If they can't fight than their going to have to send someone else to fight for them anyway.


Foley never once wrestled while he was commissioner, as it was after his retirement.

The Rock first broke into the main events doing Vince's dirty work against first Foley, then Austin. That guy sure was a bust.



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
Man O Steel Man
Cotto








Since: 15.4.02
From: Brandon, Fl

Since last post: 4417 days
Last activity: 4416 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on
The Bucs Fan said:

"Foley never once wrestled while he was commissioner, as it was after his retirement.

The Rock first broke into the main events doing Vince's dirty work against first Foley, then Austin. That guy sure was a bust."

Even though Foley was retired do you think that would've stopped him from coming back for another glorious final match. Since when has being retired meant anything in the wrestling world anyway?

Onto the Rock. He was Vince's cronie in that Survivor Series Swerve which did bring him to the top of the card. But that role didn't work for every superstar. For all the Austin's, Rock's, and Foley's out there we also got a Bigshow or a Bossman shoved down our throat. So the trend doesn't always work. I think Rock would've gotten over by himself anyway.

Now for what Moe asked in how could we finally rid ourselves of the control of the company focus and back to the who's world champ. I think if Vince limited his appearences to a small role like Traic was talking about then they'd be much more meaningful, but also they could eventually be phased out.

While Vince is being slowed to five-ten shows a year also make sure you make Vince's appearences STRICTLY about the world title. No divorce bullshit or who's running the company garbage. So with these special appearences only dealing with the title situation you've killed two birds with one stone.

<------ Knows none of this will ever happen, but can still dream.



I always thought that if I was as ugly as that guy I don't know what I'd do.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Even though Foley was retired do you think that would've stopped him from coming back for another glorious final match. Since when has being retired meant anything in the wrestling world anyway?


But he DIDN'T wrestle while commissioner. You used him as an example of a commissioner who fought his own fights instead of having a right-hand man do it for him, but he DIDN'T come back for that "last match" while he was commissioner.



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4444 days
Last activity: 4433 days
#15 Posted on

MoeGates wrote:

Can anyone think of a feasible way to end the "control of the company" focus, and put it back on "who's the champ?"


Oh I don't think its that hard. Its all a matter of getting over. If there are good promos, interesting characters (that aren't stale), good wrestling, and a -payoff- at the end, it'll work.


TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
But the question is, how would it make sense? Today, whenever a couple of wrestlers agree on their own to fight each other, I always must say to myself, "Hey! Don't they need the (position of authority)'s clearance first?"

No matter how "interesting" the characters are, the WWF has established this element as a key fixture on their programs, and I don't know how they can ever erase it.



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 21 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on
Just use the fact that it is a public company.

Introduce a board of directors voted in by the stockholders. Turns out that Vince and Rick aren't the only two that own shares... then have them declare that they want Vince out.



I love it when a plan comes together
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
But then how are matches made? How is authority transferred from owners/presidents/whatever to the wrestlers themselves?



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 21 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on
I hate fantasy booking, let me say that again upfront.

But - WOW may have been on to something.

I think they need to have seasons. Schedule matches in advance. Make it more like a sport.

They could at least try it for a few months.

Hell, they already set it up by having a draft.



I love it when a plan comes together
Tragic1
Chourico








Since: 2.1.02
From: Rolling Meadows, Illinois

Since last post: 4280 days
Last activity: 4272 days
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    But then how are matches made? How is authority transferred from owners/presidents/whatever to the wrestlers themselves?


How about this:

Wrestler #1: I challenge you.

Wrestler #2 I accept your challenge.

It worked in the past.



Heck is for people that don't believe in Gosh.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: WWFShopzone still not updated...
Next thread: Our So Called Sport closed...
Previous thread: The Angle/Edge feud (SD Spoiler inside)
(12970 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well, it's much too late now but I'd say yes. For the SD Tag Title match, the CW Title match, Hell In A Cell, and the one-second clip of Dawn's ass in the shower. Did I mention I have a thing for brunettes?
The W - Pro Wrestling - Are owners neccesaryRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.445 seconds.