|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 30, 2012 13:20:34 GMT -5
What I would love to see is a ranking system. This heightens the drama, gets the audience invested in certain wrestlers, and most importantly, can be either a work-around reason not to, or a darn good excuse for having the same matches week after week. Cena loses to Big Show? He gets bumped down to #2 contender for the title, or even has to work his way up from the bottom, fighting guys like Heath Slater. This gives monthly PPVs a good reason to exist - always save the title matches for these. Because of this system, add pre-determined line-ups for the following week's show. This takes away the idea that everyone shows up unaware of what's going to happen until the GM says, "you're having a match with so-and-so!" On a related note, no more recurring, on-screen authority figures. Replace this with a board of directors. Guys in suits standing around yapping about corporate structure have no place being in a ring in front of a live audience. When the big-wigs actually appear on the show, it means what's going down is a huge deal.Agreed on the last part: Jack Tunney only really used to show up on screen when things happened like WM main event contract signings, the WWF title being held up (lead-up to Wrestlemania IV), there being a tie at the Rumble (1994), announcing a #1 contender for the biggest show of the year (WM VIII), or dealing with a major shocking moment (Savage being bitten by the cobra in 1991). He didn't come down to cut promos, he usually was shown either in his office, in a press conference setting, or if he was in the arena he was discussing things with officials, not on the microphone. That way he wasn't siphoning heat off the wrestlers, AND it upped the realism of the product. Doctor, again, nobody is saying make things "deadly serious". It's more about the overall presentation of the show, not about gimmicks or over the top moments happening.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 30, 2012 13:23:05 GMT -5
What I would love to see is a ranking system. This heightens the drama, gets the audience invested in certain wrestlers, and most importantly, can be either a work-around reason not to, or a darn good excuse for having the same matches week after week. Cena loses to Big Show? He gets bumped down to #2 contender for the title, or even has to work his way up from the bottom, fighting guys like Heath Slater. This gives monthly PPVs a good reason to exist - always save the title matches for these. Because of this system, add pre-determined line-ups for the following week's show. This takes away the idea that everyone shows up unaware of what's going to happen until the GM says, "you're having a match with so-and-so!" On a related note, no more recurring, on-screen authority figures. Replace this with a board of directors. Guys in suits standing around yapping about corporate structure have no place being in a ring in front of a live audience. When the big-wigs actually appear on the show, it means what's going down is a huge deal.I think we did see Cena being knocked down the ranks. Hence why he never got a shot at the WWE Championship all this time. He didn't get a title shot against Punk because he's John Cena. It took an invitational that he was only allowed into because he previously held the championship, for him to even get another opportunity. Him getting the shot with A BRIEFCASE!!!! (even if it was a legitimate match) is really no different from any of the midcarders who lucked their way into the championship through a cheap cash in.
|
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 30, 2012 13:24:42 GMT -5
Doctor, again, nobody is saying make things "deadly serious". It's more about the overall presentation of the show, not about gimmicks or over the top moments happening. I get that. I just think there is a fine line, I guess. I'd personally be happier to go the other way and have less things that add to logic and realism. But that's just my view, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 13:26:31 GMT -5
When someone turns face or heel don't give their personality a complete 180 the very next week.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,578
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 30, 2012 14:17:29 GMT -5
- Bring back the concept of a "winner's share of the money."Very often things like managerial interference or desperation to win a seemingly meaningless match was often explained away, usually by Gorilla Monsoon, as somebody wanting to get the larger portion of the fight prize money. Although that would be a good idea in smaller companies I think that would be a bad idea in WWE as they're meant to be larger than life superstars who are the best of the best, having the money be the driving factor would ruin the mystique. Seeing the likes of John Cena worry about a few dollars when we know how much he must be making would make WWE less realistic in my view. Plus one of the original ideas of it was to gain sympathy for the face and get heat for the heel but I can't see anybody caring these days now kayfabe is dead (they certainly wouldn't give the face money which was sometimes a reason for doing it years ago). I didn't like HBK suddenly being poor for similar reasons but at least that was based on a semi-realistic scenario (see Flair, Ric). That said there's no reason they can't mention it a few times a year to keep the idea alive, it could also work on Superstars or NXT. A common complaint is the convoluted set ups for moves like the 619 so a (very minor) thing I'd like to see is some of them being used in other matches but not followed up on, ie somebody winds up draped across the middle rope in a random Raw match.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 30, 2012 14:28:42 GMT -5
A common complaint is the convoluted set ups for moves like the 619 so a (very minor) thing I'd like to see is some of them being used in other matches but not followed up on, ie somebody winds up draped across the middle rope in a random Raw match. I agree with that. On that note, have someone hit a back body drop every once in a while, guys.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jul 30, 2012 15:06:56 GMT -5
This shouldn't go to that point, but one thing that WOULD help on this form:
More upsets- especially among the "hired" people.
Maybe it shouldn't be something like, every week a top guy loses to a lower-level person, but every so often there should be a match that'd be a clear upset [less "Shit, Cena lost to JTG!", but more like, say, "Yoshi Tatsu beat Tensai? Whoa..." It'd keep the same format, but also make each person look worthy. It also leads to instant angles for lower-tier guys ["you beat me? YOU? I'll destroy you!"], or even quick ways to get someone up the card by a string of them.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 30, 2012 15:15:15 GMT -5
This shouldn't go to that point, but one thing that WOULD help on this form: More upsets- especially among the "hired" people. Maybe it shouldn't be something like, every week a top guy loses to a lower-level person, but every so often there should be a match that'd be a clear upset [less "s***, Cena lost to JTG!", but more like, say, "Yoshi Tatsu beat Tensai? Whoa..." It'd keep the same format, but also make each person look worthy. It also leads to instant angles for lower-tier guys ["you beat me? YOU? I'll destroy you!"], or even quick ways to get someone up the card by a string of them. I actually posted a similar idea in the Cody Rhodes thread. Since Cody isn't doing anything at the moment, yet is a big enough name that a win over him would mean something, it's perfect for him, although the face doesn't have to win, just frustrate him and be a thorn in his side.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jul 30, 2012 15:20:14 GMT -5
I find it really difficult to believe a guy like The Miz, a man who was once WWE Champion and main evented five pay-per-views in the year 2011 (one against The Rock, no less), would of his own accord stoop to wrestling for the Intercontinental Championship. Same thing with Christian. Why would both these guys go for a title that everyone knows is of a lower tier? WWE has a real problem with establishing where a lot of their guys are on the pecking order. The Miz can be in the main event one night (Money in the Bank) and in the midcard the next (Raw 1000), and that makes absolutely no sense. What WWE should really consider doing is establishing a clear hierarchy within their own roster and can only go for certain titles within that hierarchy. My idea would be to establish certain divisions and separate wrestlers within that division. For example, something like this: {Spoiler}WWE Championship - Cena, Punk, Rock, HHH, Lesnar, Undertaker World Heavyweight Championship - Sheamus, Orton, Rey, del Rio, Kane, Jericho, etc. Intercontinental/US Championship - Kofi, Truth, Ryder, Santino, Cody, Swagger, etc. After all, what's more realistic? Someone inexplicably losing the IC Champ one week, getting a World title shot the next? Or a clear division and ranking that explains why and how certain guys move up the ladder? No one can stay in the main event all the time. And being in the IC title hunt should be seen as the next best things. Winning the IC title is a hell of a lot better than what Miz was doing before, which was losing to just about everyone. Not to mention that hierarchy idea is seriously flawed. What would you do with the superstars that get a world title run, but it completely sucked? Do you keep him in the main event just because he's now "established" even though he sucks. And what would you do if a midcarder suddenly improves and shows he's main event material? Do you still keep him in the midcards because of some division separation? And superstars switching from midcard to main eventer and back has been a big part of the WWE for a long time, and it's worked well for the most part. It keeps main eventers from getting stale. It adds a bit of unpredictability knowing that any midcarder can move up to challenge for a world title. And main eventer going after a midcard title can help get the crowd interested in the division.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 30, 2012 18:26:55 GMT -5
The problem with the ranking system is it requires consistency and keeping track, which is a problem for any number of reasons. 1. WWE yo-yo pushes. I know that part of the idea of this is to prevent these, but lest we forget, they can be a good thing. Steve Austin in 1996 and even 1997 wouldn't have the highest stock in the world having lost to Bret Hart quite a few times, so his ranking would suck, and that requires building him up with loads of victories to capitalise on his getting hot. Austin might be a bad example because he had a pretty slow build, but there are other wrestlers who caught fire much faster. How about CM Punk, 2011? Or Rey Mysterio, 2006, who was world champ but jobbing constantly, so he'd have probably slipped well out of Smackdown's Top 5 despite holding its top belt? Makes everyone look like an asshole. 2. WWE's writing staff change over all the time so then you have to have new writers keeping track of the stats that old writers set out previously.
It just requires WWE to have continuity, which deep down we don't want it to because so much of what it's done that would be kept track of is ass-to-mouth stupid.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jul 30, 2012 19:01:40 GMT -5
No one can stay in the main event all the time. And being in the IC title hunt should be seen as the next best things. Winning the IC title is a hell of a lot better than what Miz was doing before, which was losing to just about everyone. Being the Intercontinental Champion used to mean that you were a contender, someone with the potential to be big. It's usually not meant for guys to reach the top (winning the WWE title) and then fall back into the midcard. Not to mention that it's hardly realistic (which is what the thread is about) for someone like The Miz to settle for dropping back down the card and going for a belt that he should be above. I don't like Miz, but it reflects poorly on WWE's ability to book people when stuff like that happens. It also reflects poorly on the fact not even a year before, he was at the top of the card, feuding with Cena, HHH, Punk, and The Rock. As for the, "no one can stay in the main event all the time", that's not true. Where has John Cena been since 2005? Where has Triple H been since 1999? Excepting HHH's IC title win in 2001 - which lasted about all of a month - neither of them have been any less than the main event. Generally when you're pushed into the main event, you're meant to stay there. Ideally, you don't give world title reigns to people who suck or are unproven. But if you do, no one says he has to fall back into obscurity. Logically speaking, if you were world champion, would you want anything less than the World Championship? Of course not. What you could do with a guy whose world title reign doesn't pan out the way it's supposed to is feud him with other people on that level. Or he can be the guy that up-and-coming midcarders beat when they move up the ladder. But the point is that he stays strong enough to contend with other people in the world title picture. I never see guys like Cena, Rock, HHH, or 'Taker switching from the midcard to the main event. I see guys like Jericho, Kane, and Mysterio do that, but they're not really in the "main event" so much as they are on the cusp of it. Also - this isn't meant to keep midcarders from being able to challenge for the world title at all, it's to make sure they're not constantly floating between fighting for the IC title or the World title.
|
|