The W
Views: 99981351
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 0542
The W - Pro Wrestling - How would you change the WWE? (Page 2)
This thread has 25 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.03
Pages: Prev 1 2
(2708 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
rv581
Goetta








Since: 2.12.02

Since last post: 1483 days
Last activity: 654 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreeze
      Originally posted by rv581
        Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
        One brand, four PPVs, 3 belts. Get back to fucking basics.

      I like multiple brands, but the brands should actually be different from each other -- and not just in name & titles, or rotating rosters.

      Give each brand a distinct identity: Different writers, different sensibilities, different regions where they tour, etc. Let them try new things that fall within their brand vision. Let them market to slightly different demographics.
    I like rv581's idea. Back when they (re)started the ECW brand, I was hoping they would make that the "workrate" show. You know, load up the roster with all of the "workrate over muscleheads" guys (Angle, Eddie, Benoit, Noble, I dont remember if Jericho was around at the time, Shelton, RVD, etc) and let them loose. The show is/was only an hour, so it'd be easy to fill it up with three or four 10-15 minute matches with fewer backstage/in-ring interview segments and let Raw & SD be the Orton/HHH/Batista/Cena shows. Unfortunately, most of the guys I listed above either left the company or died, along with my hopes for ECW.


Thanks. I'd love for the WWE to let Raw be the "classic" (well, late 90s - early 00s) "attitude" brand with more adult themes, content, etc. And for Smackdown to become more WCW-ish with a more Southern wrasslin' sensibility & more PG-ish content. And for ECW to be the edgier / alternative / crazy moves & workrate brand. Then stock each brand with talent & writers that make sense for their new identity... and just let 'em GROW. Let 'em tour regions that appreciate that sort of wrestling content, instead of having the everyone-loves-the-same-WWE-that-Vince-loves attitude. Because everyone doesn't. Lots of wrestling fans have simply abandoned the current WWE vision.

Trying to be all things to all people -- and force-feeding the exact same fucking vision in every single fucking WWE brand -- has alienated a lot of wrestling fans that might otherwise support the product. And there are mid-carders in the WWE who could become superstars in a brand with a different identity. It would expand the overall pie.

And the really BIG PPVs, where the talent from all the brands faces one another, would actually MEAN something to the fans.



"Who ate my sandwich???"
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 381 days
Last activity: 381 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.55
I actually like the idea of rotating wrestlers where they have (as mentioned) 9 months on and 3 months off; I think this would provide a lot more mental and physical relief to a lot of wrestlers.

I will also agree with this idea that it would be able to get other people in the spotlight instead of "the usuals" (Trips, Cena, etc..) and would probably create newer storylines that may not get stale as quick (I could be wrong but this may add some value to the mid-card division again with the rotation system).

I liked the WWE more before the brand split but as Geemoney pinpointed, the WWE has so many wrestlers that if everything was unified, chances are there would be less face time for other wrestlers.

I would also like the WWE to "trim the fat" if you will; and what I mean by this that the WWE has an abundance of wrestlers but some of em just are not worth TV time (such as Zack Ryder, though his theme song is really catchy, Jesse, Festus, Jamie Noble, and some others as well). I just looked at some of the WWE rosters and some of them have not appeared and are still probably collecting paychecks.

Granted, some of these wrestlers are pretty good in the ring, but if the WWE is not using them properly either build them with some credibility or take the fat off the WWE meat (perhaps a poor analogy but it will do for now). Maybe this would help the mid-card division because you would have wrestlers that could be built (like in the earlier years) and not over expose them (this would also come from the rotation system).

This all easier said than done and when it comes down to it, it was actually WCW that helped make the WWE better as they had to consistently re-invent themselves and improve and there is no healthy competition for the WWE any more.
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.27
I'm probably going to hate myself for contributing to this discussion.

Things I'd do:

- Cut back to 12 PPVs per year. Ideally, I'd like to take it back to 8, but I'd start slow and see if increased buyrates from additional build time could make up for the loss of two events.

- Actual cruiserweight and tag team divisions.

- Merge the belts to clear up confusion. One world champ, one IC champ, one women's champ, one set of tag champs, one cruiserweight champ. Restrict title matches to house shows and PPVs.

- Do away with a formal roster split because there are times when you need certain people to be on the wrong show and it's a pain to try to explain it away. You can still informally keep people primarily on one show.

- More wrestlers on the roster and longer matches on TV. Fans need to get used to the idea that every star won't be on every show. That's how we wound up here, with few top stars that aren't burnt out and overexposed, and few fresh maches.

- Mandate time off for wrestlers (in large or small chunks as needed) to limit overexposure and prevent wrestler burnout and injury.

- Keep at least one main-event level wrestler off each PPV (excluding WM) to prevent overexposure (and to be used as a last-minute substitution in the event of injury).

Really, most of the above points can be boiled down to "book your product with at least some degree of self-control and don't panic every time a rating is 0.1 below predictions."

- Increase the number of developmental territories to develop more new talent. At the very least, re-establish formal ties with (or just outright purchase) OVW.

- Hire experienced wrestlers to work full-time in the developmental groups and ECW. Meltzer says they just rehired Nick Dinsmore to work with young guys, and that's a good start. Now load up the developmental roster with the Val Venises and D'Lo Browns of the world. The young guys aren't going to improve if they only ever wrestle each other.

- A final note for consideration... since Raw is so much higher rated than SD, would it make more sense to do a three-hour weekly Raw and do away with SD altogether? SD has been a better show of late, but Raw is the only wrestling I go out of my way to watch, if because of habit more than anything else.



JK: LJ, FB, T
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: The Moon

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.53
As it has been said a few times, 9 months of wrestling and 3 months off wouldn't work for several reasons. Instead maybe they should do 2 months of wrestling then one month off. If a wrestler is coming up on his month off and has a feud going or holds a title then they can just show up for interviews for the weekly TV show but not wrestle on TV or the house show. The could of course still wrestle the PPV that month, but that would be just one month. Of course they couldn't do this with the 9 month/3 month format.



Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.19
The 9/3 month rotation is a ballpark figure at best. But it seems a guy taking a month off is better than him losing eight months to an injury caused by fatigue.




"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Not that I was trying to nitpick this post, but lets take a step into the WAYBACK machine and rethink the old territory days, or even the early WCW days.




    Originally posted by KJames199
    I'm probably going to hate myself for contributing to this discussion.

    Things I'd do:

    - Cut back to 12 PPVs per year. Ideally, I'd like to take it back to 8, but I'd start slow and see if increased buyrates from additional build time could make up for the loss of two events.

I agree with this, since I personally only buy one or two PPVs a year, it would make me want to purchase something more if it seemed special.


    - Actual cruiserweight and tag team divisions.

Agreed, but don't limit it to one show. I like the 'unified' belts, but do away with one set of physical belts and just call them TAG TEAM CHAMPIONS.
Have any team be able to challenge, and have the champs show up on each show. Good part, you could expose the belts and make them important, and if you let your champs only work TV, you are giving them a bit of a break while they are champs, and they can have a smaller work load. Reward the performers who are deemed worthy of a title with some time off, which helps the burnout/injury factor.


    Merge the belts to clear up confusion. One world champ, one IC champ, one women's champ, one set of tag champs, one cruiserweight champ. Restrict title matches to house shows and PPVs.

I think each show needs a secondary champ, and needs a world title. Not sure if there is enough actual INTEREST in two women's champs, so merge those. Have women's, cruisers, and tag teams go show to show.


    Do away with a formal roster split because there are times when you need certain people to be on the wrong show and it's a pain to try to explain it away. You can still informally keep people primarily on one show.

This is where I disagree. I think the separation would benefit if it were seen as a true rivalry, and make the opponents hate each other. Why should a face be friendly with a face from another show? Why couldn't THEY duke it out on a PPV? Face vs Face matches can be great, as can heel v heel, but it has to have a purpose. And, this is what I was talking about the old territory days. If you didn't have a Ric Flair of a Jerry Lawler, what did you do? You made your own stars. Forget bringing in a Y2J to fued when you have thirty guys in the back who ARENT on tv every week. Build a persona for them, and let them shine. Except the workrate wonks, who ever really cared about Billy Kidman or Brian Kendrick? But, they gave Kendrick the THE, and pushed him as arrogant and a prick, and he was elevated. Do nothing with Kidman, and what happens? Future endeavors. Build your roster from within, sign new guys from developmental when it makes sense. The NEW SUPERSTAR INITIATIVE is great for this on ECW. But don't make ECW an on TV farm system for the other shows.


    More wrestlers on the roster and longer matches on TV. Fans need to get used to the idea that every star won't be on every show. That's how we wound up here, with few top stars that aren't burnt out and overexposed, and few fresh maches.

You can't have MORE wrestlers on the roster and LONGER matches, because you'd have more guys NOT wrestling. But, learn from the late 90s WCW and don't talk about OTHER situations when you are showing a match against two "non stars". Keep the eye on the action and make every match seem important.


    Mandate time off for wrestlers (in large or small chunks as needed) to limit overexposure and prevent wrestler burnout and injury.

THis is a great idea, however when people say nine months on, three off, I think it might work better if say every six to eight weeks, they give the wrestlers ten days off or so, and make the provision that it isn't to go work indy shows, or overseas tours, etc. let them take ten days off to heal, recharge their batteries, sell and angle, whatever the case be. 52 weeks in a year, if every six weeks they got ten days off, that's about 80 or 90 days off a year. It wouldnt impact the titles, it wouldn't impact angles, it wouldn't make it obvious that somebody's missing. It's a win/win situation.


    Keep at least one main-event level wrestler off each PPV (excluding WM) to prevent overexposure (and to be used as a last-minute substitution in the event of injury).
While I like this idea, I also like the thought of not EVERY PPV having to have a World Title match. How about a tag team match (that was built properly) headlining a minor PPV? Or a cruiserwieght tourny once a year or so to see who would challenge the champ at a selected PPV (sorta like the royal rumble winner gets his WM slot) Make it for Survivor Series, and give the match second billing and give them 20-25 minutes to put on a show.



    - Hire experienced wrestlers to work full-time in the developmental groups and ECW. Meltzer says they just rehired Nick Dinsmore to work with young guys, and that's a good start. Now load up the developmental roster with the Val Venises and D'Lo Browns of the world. The young guys aren't going to improve if they only ever wrestle each other.
I agree with this 100%. When the females were hurting each other every week, and none could put on a match, they gave the assignment of making them better to Finley, and after six months or so, Trish Stratus was legitimately better than 90% of the men on the roster. Take the big lunks they WANT to push and keep them off TV, but have them work their asses off with experienced talent and do dark shows every TV and work as many house shows as possible.


    A final note for consideration... since Raw is so much higher rated than SD, would it make more sense to do a three-hour weekly Raw and do away with SD altogether? SD has been a better show of late, but Raw is the only wrestling I go out of my way to watch, if because of habit more than anything else.

No, you leave all shows intact, and make them use their time effectively. Stop showing 15 minutes of RAW REWIND on Smackdown and ECW. The average fan already knows what happened. Why replay the same shit over and over, week in and week out?
Accept a limit on ratings and if something doesn't work ratings wise, its the WRITERS fault. You don't see an actor leaving a show because the ratings slip, you see new writers being brought in.


And finally, vince should hire a group of five or seven veterans who have booking experience, and run all the angles through them before they get on the air. Not to say that Steph's ideas are shit, but it would make better sense to have a group of people with a better understanding of the business help push things in the right direction.
Oliver
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: #YEG

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.29
The only things I can think of right now...please, make the PPVs brand specific, outside of the Big Four. While you're at it...lower their prices, too.



Go Bluebombers!
Papadoc
Bauerwurst








Since: 14.1.04
From: NY

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 18 days
#28 Posted on
Use Rankings.

And have an outside source do the rankings, not the same people writing the stories.

Keep the rankings list on the website. IE;

Champion: CM Punk
1. Jeff Hardy
2. Triple H
3. Randy Orton
4. Edge
5. Undertaker


Do this for all championships, and also televise the rankings as you cut to commercial, once per title per show.

This keeps things organized and it gives people a reason for fighting other than some of the more lame story plots we've been seeing over the years.

Just some nice stories that tell themselves, and then let the feuds get heated; this establishes a nice WHY to feuds.

Here are some examples:

- Wrestler who was out injured has to earn his way through the rankings
In my above example, this could give you Shawn Michaels fighting the Undertaker one PPV, Edge the next, maybe Triple H a few times, and then going for the champ.

-Heel champion avoids #1 contender like the plague, eventually fighting him

-#1 contenders matches that actually mean something.


I really like this idea because it lays out a roadmap for the writers and the viewers of where everything is going. Of course, there will always be feuds based on things other than ratings= but this would be a great organizational tool i would think.
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 381 days
Last activity: 381 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.55
I was actually discussing this topic with a friend of mine and he brought up a good point; what about actually bringing back managers?

Here is why; a good or at least a credible manager can add credibility to a wrestler is who mediocre or has minimal mic skills. Let's turn the clock back shall we; look at Bobby "The Brain" Heenan who managed The Ilanders who probably wouldn't be as legitimate without the mouthpiece that is "The Weasel". James Cornette and Mr.Fuji managed Yokozuna who wouldn't probably have the heel heat he had without a mouthpiece that makes you want to go against them.

Koslov could definitley use a good manager/ mouthpiece to help build him up. I think even Michael Hayes (Doc Hendrix back then) helped the Hardy Boyz seem more credible when he managed them.

Managers are used as mouthpieces that can help gain more attention on the wrestler(s) they are managing whether it helps gain heat or helps get cheers. Not everyone needs a manager but for young talent, it may help them move up and work with someone who knows the business a little bit that way management can use them more effectively; Bobby "The Brain", James Cornette, and others you could possibly name were experts in gaining attention for their wrestlers and helping them move along.
cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 44 min.
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
I've had this discussion a thousand times with a friend of mine on MSN ... I'll post two ideas, one of which is his, and one of which is mine.

1) (Mine) ... Have someone solely dedicated as Mr. Pay-Per-View. When I originally came up with this, it was about 8 years ago, and designed for Rob Van Dam. Van Dam gets stale and unmotivated with overexposure on TV. If you tell him though that TV time is just for bragging rights and to build yourself up, and PPV is GO time, I guarantee you would have seen him killing himself to bring the house down. This would work well with Jeff Hardy today. Have the announcers sell that every PPV with Jeff Hardy is something special that you'll NEVER see on TV, and just let him go nuts, armed with the knowledge he has a month until he has to do it again, and thus plenty of recovery time.

2) (Idea courtesy of the-w.com member domino) ... Since MMA is beginning to get taken seriously as a sport, the psychology of the submission hold must change. Shawn Michaels spending 4 minutes in an Anklelock at Wrestlemania 21 was ridiculous, and easily the best example to point to. Instead of "can he survive the Crossface", the announcers SHOULD be selling "can he avoid having his opponent lock in this extremely dangerous hold that will immediately end the match?" From the minute he told me this I've liked this a great deal, I think it definitely freshens up a style that could use some freshening up.
Hokienautic
Liverwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Blacksburg VA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.24
(deleted by Hokienautic on 15.7.09 1458)
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.81
Well the age-old argument still to me is give the business back to the boys. Overly scripted matches and especially overly scripted promos are really dragging the product down. These are not trained actors, you've got to let them develop something close to their own personalities so they can get it over. For every Santino who thrives under this system, there are ten talents who fizzle.

I also wonder how many of the people who are arguing about it being impossible to give guys months off remember wrestling as it used to be. Vince would never go for not having anyone he deems a star on television, but that doesn't mean you couldn't give that particular talent time off. They used to do those massive tapings, something like a month's worth of television. I don't see why, if you had say five guys going on a month break, you couldn't do several matches/segments with them at one set of tapings. Then just take them off the house shows, and go with your other talent which is working through this period. They'd be on TV throughout their off-time, which doesn't do anything for the argument of preventing them from being stale, but I don't really believe in the whole stale notion personally. Triple H was off for a few months after, I believe, Backlash, when he got na-na-na-na'd, and the second he came back I stopped watching RAW. Two years off wouldn't reset the clock on this guy for me, and I feel the same about Orton, whose self-loathing robot character displays no desire or passion that I can sense. This isn't an issue of staleness, and there isn't a way to repackage guys who you've essentially run the gamut with as far as what different things you can do. However, I accept the fact that not everyone feels this way about them. I just don't think you can turn people like me, who have terminal fatigue toward certain talents.

As far as pay-per-views go, what can you do? I'm shocked as many people buy UFC shows as apparently happens, especially as there's no guarantee in any fight even being good. Most of the UFC I've seen has been at bars, or someone downloaded it illegally. Same with WWE, I would imagine. I'm sure their buyrates don't actually reflect how many people watch the shows.



Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
    Originally posted by KJames199
    I'm probably going to hate myself for contributing to this discussion.


Ditto, but it's that or work so....

    Originally posted by KJames199
    That's how we wound up here, with few top stars that aren't burnt out and overexposed, and few fresh maches.


Just to play devil's advocate, another way of looking at "here" is a company churning out massive profits comparable to previous years (save for the timing of Wrestlemania), getting a couple hundred thousand people to lay down $40 or so every few weeks for PPVs and selling out arenas in just about any country they care to visit. And doing it during a pretty hefty recession too.

For all people round here complain about the 'staleness' at the top of the card, guys like Cena and HHH still get huge cheers every week (save for a whopping ten or so people na-na-na'ing the latter) and from what I remember Cena shifts more merchandise than just about any wrestler in the history of ever.

I'm not saying I think the 'quality' of the show is the best but I'm not too keen on the quality of McDonald's burgers either and they still make plenty of money selling those.

Not picking on you or your ideas (many of which seem perfectly good to me), you just happened to offer a nice segue into the counter-argument I wanted to make

For the record though, I'm not overly enamoured with what I see of WWE these days so seeing as the question was asked, they could start pleasing me by having:

1. Less entrances that outlast the ensuing promo/fight.
2. Less re-runs of what happened last week.
3. Less re-runs of what happened last month.
4. Less re-runs of what happened earlier this week on their other show.
5. Less re-runs of what happened five minutes ago before the commercial break on the show I'm watching.

It blows my fricking mind that people will complain about the smallest minutiae and overlook the fact we're lucky to get 30 minutes of meaningful new TV each week in shows that last two plus hours. I know recaps help you retain casual viewers, but by having so damn many you *encourage* people to become casual viewers because they know they can skip a week or three without missing anything meaningful.

And it's not just the endless re-runs. Every week we get reaction shots of wrestlers' faces lasting 30 seconds to a minute just so the utterly retarded pick up on the fact that wrestler X is SHOCKED! At times it's like watching a tremendously drawn out episode of Sunset Beach. (Yeah, I should be embarrassed that I can knowledgably use that simile, but I only had four channels when I was a student. Gimme a break.)

To answer the cold hard cash side of the question, I appreciate more new material means higher costs. They could offset that by doing a heck of a lot more in terms of sponsorship and product placement - areas where they're shamefully poor right now in my opinion. I'm not saying it needs to be as in your face as an obnoxious bucket of grilled chicken front and centre on the announcers desk, but they could easily sell ad space on the ring apron, or on the fronts of the barriers round the ring. Heck sell the space on the BACK of the barriers round the ring as well to businesses looking to target the audience in attendance. Have the announcers enjoy a refreshing Pepsi every week, or have Triple H carry a bottle of Poland Spring during his entrance.

Not saying all of those are tremendous ideas (I haven't given it *that* much thought) just that if the reason they can't come up with more new material is because of costs, there are ways those costs could be offset. Heck, they should be looking at these things anyway because with Sky Plus and Tivo and the like traditional TV ad revenues ten years from now ain't gonna be what they are today.

Of course, I tend to just record their shows anyway and what they DO show allows me to neatly watch RAW inside half an hour over breakfast on a Tuesday morning, so it works out not so bad for me.



(edited by dMr on 17.7.09 1552)
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 381 days
Last activity: 381 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.55
Here is not so much a change that the WWE should make but something to perhaps consider of what is holding the company back from progress;

Vince McMahon, and this may be a surprise but here is why I think he slows it down sometimes.......

Vinny Mac constantly changes things even with his writers. He has a team to help him brainstorm ideas but on occassion, Vince will throw everything out the window and make the writers' jobs seem useless. I understand he is the boss but not the type that is open-minded.

I viewed some other threads on a different website and one person suggested having Heyman back but there is one problem between Vince, Heyman and even Bishoff; all of them are considered "alpha males" in the business and have little chemistry that would allow each of them to incorporate their ideas into one another's. All of them have egos but none bigger than Vince's.

I think in order for some changes and progress to be made, that giant-sized ego of Vince's needs to be deflated a little bit so that other useful ideas can come into the picture and help the WWE a little bit.

I would love to see Hayman and Bishoff back because both are good marketing figures and both are good at building up wrestlers and programs. However, it may not work unless someone or some people put their pride aside and work on better programming.
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.91
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    You can't have MORE wrestlers on the roster and LONGER matches, because you'd have more guys NOT wrestling.
No wrestler should be on TV every week. Fans get tired of them, you have to burn through all your possible matches, TV shows become skippable...

In my scenario, if you like John Cena, well, he's got a match on Raw tonight, so you'd better watch it, because it could be a month before he wrestles on TV again. As opposed to the way things currently are, where you could skip any given week, because nothing ever changes.

Maybe it's just me. I don't know if there's anything that Cena, Hunter, Show, Orton, Kane, or Batista could do right now that would interest me. But I'd really like to see a wider range of people getting TV time. Give more people the opportunity to break through, and reserve matches between the established stars and deal them out slowly.

    Originally posted by dMr
    Just to play devil's advocate, another way of looking at "here" is a company churning out massive profits comparable to previous years (save for the timing of Wrestlemania), getting a couple hundred thousand people to lay down $40 or so every few weeks for PPVs and selling out arenas in just about any country they care to visit. And doing it during a pretty hefty recession too.
A valid point, of course. Really, that negates this whole thread. How would you change WWE? Well, why would you change WWE? Why fix what's not broken?

They've done a remarkable job of staying financially viable during an economic recession and during a period where professional wrestling is not exactly the hot thing. And by buying up most of the available history of pro wrestling, they've pretty much guaranteed that they can keep coming out with products that will appeal to a range of fans. I don't like a lot of what they're doing now, but I bought the Randy Savage DVD on the first day it was out.

It's just been a long time since I've cared so little about wrestling. The last time was right before I first went online and discovered a whole community of fans and a wealth of (at the time) obscure sources of wrestling; Japanese tapes, ECW tapes - even WCW was hard to come by for me back then. Then WWE changed and renewed my interest further. But now, I'm not seeing any great alternative to WWE, and I don't see WWE changing any time soon, because - like you said - they don't have to.



JK: LJ, FB, T
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.24
Really? Because it seems like there's a thriving indy scene these days in comparison to, say, five years ago where the only other company that had any sort of national exposure was NWA TNA, and, well.
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 381 days
Last activity: 381 days
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.45
Based on last night's Raw, I will probably state the obvious; a different main event and or other people in the main event.

Last night on Raw, we witnessed another match between Trips and Orton facing Orton and Legacy. I don't know about you guys, but I am getting bored with the same picture of Orton and Legacy facing Trips and Cena. I also getting tired of of Trips, Orton and Cena being seemingly the only main-eventers on Raw.

I think the WWE should take a break from the title scene and play up on the up and coming Jack Swagger. Have him feud with Cena and or Triple H and I think it would add a little relief to the same people fighting week in and week out.

The WWE needs to start elevating their mid-card talent instead of just keeping them at their current level. Don't push them or force-feed them to the fans (that is why Cena is often booed) but guys like MVP, Swagger and now Carlito would add some good mixture to other feuds. All these guys can wrestle and put on a good show for the most part; why not use the talent that is avaliable and create some new rivalries?
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.03
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: The Greatest Tag Teams Ever
Next thread: Kurt Angle love triangle storyline finally given resolution
Previous thread: RAW #842 7/13/09
(2708 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Living in canada, I never got any ecw as i was growing up, until they got onto TNN, so maybe someone can clue me in to why people keep calling Maven the Mikey Whipwreck of 2001-2002?? Mikey went MONTHS without ever getting in a single offensive move.
- cfgb, Maven/Mikey Whipwreck (2002)
Related threads: The WWE Then and Now - Edge Hurt - Candice Michelle Released! - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - How would you change the WWE? (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.501 seconds.