Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 13:18:00 GMT -5
Pro wrestling at its core, a simulated combat sport where they compete for titles, lends itself to having that hierarchy. You're going to have a handful of fighters that are the best and rarely lose, and a tier after them, and so on and so on. Not trying to be obtuse, but I honestly don't see the connection. Why does the competition aspect require that some people almost never lose and other almost always lose? What's the connection? You can easily have fake competition AND a balanced roster. The only downside I can REALLY see is that it'd screw up Undefeated Monster storylines, to which I say: good, those suck anyway. It's just the way things shake out in competition. You have the top, you have the bottom, you have the inbetween. WWE is just extremely un-nuanced and cut-and-paste about it.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 28, 2014 14:17:43 GMT -5
Not trying to be obtuse, but I honestly don't see the connection. Why does the competition aspect require that some people almost never lose and other almost always lose? What's the connection? You can easily have fake competition AND a balanced roster. The only downside I can REALLY see is that it'd screw up Undefeated Monster storylines, to which I say: good, those suck anyway. It's just the way things shake out in competition. You have the top, you have the bottom, you have the inbetween. WWE is just extremely un-nuanced and cut-and-paste about it. That... isn't necessarily true. Like, at all. Competitions can be between a balanced group of individuals and often are. The WWE can just say in kayfabe that they won't hire anyone below a certain threshold, so everyone they DO hire is so good, any differences are negligible. They're just stuck in an outdated mindset, because it allows to keep alive their fantasy that the WWE is some kind of meritocracy, and because it pits the talent against one another so they won't, like, get mad at being treated as completely replaceable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 14:45:48 GMT -5
It's just the way things shake out in competition. You have the top, you have the bottom, you have the inbetween. WWE is just extremely un-nuanced and cut-and-paste about it. That... isn't necessarily true. Like, at all. Competitions can be between a balanced group of individuals and often are. The WWE can just say in kayfabe that they won't hire anyone below a certain threshold, so everyone they DO hire is so good, any differences are negligible. They're just stuck in an outdated mindset, because it allows to keep alive their fantasy that the WWE is some kind of meritocracy, and because it pits the talent against one another so they won't, like, get mad at being treated as completely replaceable. So they "just say" everyone's as good as everyone else? That sounds like a strange, unrealstic utopia that would quickly either go haywire or get boring. I see zero upside to that. Look at every sport. There are transcendent athletes that rise above everyone and dominate. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Tom Brady, etc., and lesser version of those guys who are always in the all-star games/close to a championship of some kind. Then, there are perrential losers, they ride the bench and never play, or do play but consistently perform on the low end of the spectrum. It's not outdated at all, it's reality. I do think that some people are made out to be such losers that, in kayfabe, they shouldn't even be on the roster. That needs to change, as a whole WWE needs to take better care of the performers from a credibility standpoint. The gap between the top and bottom shouldn't be SO huge. But just saying "everyone is equal" and no one really getting ahead is too far in the other directin.
|
|
|
Post by Bert Hart on Jul 28, 2014 16:21:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Capt. Internet Darling on Jul 28, 2014 19:32:59 GMT -5
So, uh, they really banned the swing right? Guys?
Cesaro spinning Cena tonight suggests not.
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 28, 2014 19:46:27 GMT -5
Probably because of how stupid it sounded in the first place.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 28, 2014 19:53:41 GMT -5
It's just the way things shake out in competition. You have the top, you have the bottom, you have the inbetween. WWE is just extremely un-nuanced and cut-and-paste about it. That... isn't necessarily true. Like, at all. Competitions can be between a balanced group of individuals and often are. The WWE can just say in kayfabe that they won't hire anyone below a certain threshold, so everyone they DO hire is so good, any differences are negligible. They're just stuck in an outdated mindset, because it allows to keep alive their fantasy that the WWE is some kind of meritocracy, and because it pits the talent against one another so they won't, like, get mad at being treated as completely replaceable. that leads to 50-50 booking, which people also complain about. And also people tend to look at things negatively. You have a bunch of closely ranked people and it's more likely to be taken as no one is good enough to break away from the pack, not everyone's just so absolutely great
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 20:37:28 GMT -5
So are they still selling his King of Swing gear?
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 28, 2014 20:44:31 GMT -5
So they "just say" everyone's as good as everyone else? That sounds like a strange, unrealstic utopia that would quickly either go haywire or get boring. I see zero upside to that. Look at every sport. There are transcendent athletes that rise above everyone and dominate. [/quote] Well, yeah, they just say everyone's equal, and then they book everyone on the roster to be pretty much equal. I'm a fan of ACC basketball. It's never a surprise if pretty much any ACC team beats another. It results in really exciting seasons. What's the problem? If real sports can have balanced leagues, then why can't a fake one? Unless there's some reason to WANT there to be winner wrestlers and loser wrestlers, I don't see any reason it's necessary. If what you're saying is, they wouldn't be able to create stars this way, then than's different. No, they wouldn't necessarily have stars. But the star model is a big part of what's been wrecking their booking for years; always trying to find the next Hogan instead of just writing and putting on a good show. And 50/50 booking is fine. My understanding wasn't that people hated 50/50 booking per se; they hated meaningless matches that didn't lead to anything. A guy rising in station after winning a match is one way to have things be meaningful, but it's not the only one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 20:53:53 GMT -5
So, uh, they really banned the swing right? Guys? Cesaro spinning Cena tonight suggests not. I can see Cena pulling in his political power to make sure Cesaro uses it so he can have the best match possible with Cesaro. Him and Cesaro have amazing chemistry and is Cena's workout buddy and assumed friend. So he's probably like I want the best match possible tonight, Cesaro will do the swing if I said so. I hope this means the swing is back and the NEWZ was nothing but NEWZ
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!" Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on Jul 29, 2014 0:26:33 GMT -5
I bet WWE heard rumors of people being upset about them for supposedly banning the swing, so they had him use it to look good.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jul 29, 2014 4:44:34 GMT -5
You did not see the Giant Swing on Raw last night.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,516
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 29, 2014 6:50:16 GMT -5
*sigh* Another reason Cesaro stopping the swing was stupid, Cena countering it would have been a bigger moment if we'd seen others attempt it in the weeks leading up to it.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy BooJangles on Jul 29, 2014 8:33:47 GMT -5
Just when something gets over in WWE (like Three Man Band) WWE puts a stop to it
|
|
FAR5222
El Dandy
Counted 237 Bros. SWERVE Got no cookie for it.
Posts: 7,889
|
Post by FAR5222 on Jul 29, 2014 8:52:42 GMT -5
Ahhh the FAN effect has once again thwarted WWE plans.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 29, 2014 8:56:12 GMT -5
So they "just say" everyone's as good as everyone else? That sounds like a strange, unrealstic utopia that would quickly either go haywire or get boring. I see zero upside to that. Look at every sport. There are transcendent athletes that rise above everyone and dominate. Well, yeah, they just say everyone's equal, and then they book everyone on the roster to be pretty much equal. I'm a fan of ACC basketball. It's never a surprise if pretty much any ACC team beats another. It results in really exciting seasons. What's the problem? If real sports can have balanced leagues, then why can't a fake one? Unless there's some reason to WANT there to be winner wrestlers and loser wrestlers, I don't see any reason it's necessary. If what you're saying is, they wouldn't be able to create stars this way, then than's different. No, they wouldn't necessarily have stars. But the star model is a big part of what's been wrecking their booking for years; always trying to find the next Hogan instead of just writing and putting on a good show. And 50/50 booking is fine. My understanding wasn't that people hated 50/50 booking per se; they hated meaningless matches that didn't lead to anything. A guy rising in station after winning a match is one way to have things be meaningful, but it's not the only one. [/quote] I would argue that 50/50 booking is bad most of the time; as with anything in wrestling, I don't really believe in definitive statements, as there can always be an exception to any rule. But so much of it is in the implementation. 50/50 booking in WWE is having two guys face each other on every Raw for two months and having them split the outcomes, while not adding to the "feud" with much in the way of promos or angles to actually generate any crowd heat. In a situation like that, nobody winds up looking exceptional, and fans aren't given a reason to feel invested. Now, take two top guys, put them in a feud, have them cut promos and whatnot on one another, and then have them split a couple of main event matches? That's 50/50 booking that might actually make sense, if the performers can pull it off. I see what you're saying about the rise of parity in real sports (e.g. the NHL having a high level of it and thus always having tons of teams competing for a final playoff spot; the NFL enforcing parity via the salary cap and making up schedules based on the previous year's results; etc.), but having something like that in pro wrestling is a dicey proposition. It's not something that couldn't ever be experimented with, but while parity helps sports leagues make more money by having more close games and having more teams on the brink of contention in the last month of the season, wrestling doesn't operate the same way, and it would take a fundamental reshaping of fan expectations and the very nature of the industry to get it to work properly. Even with parity in real sports, though, the guys who are clearly the best still wind up rising to the top. It's why Michael Jordan remains one of the most popular athletes even years after his retirement, it's why Mike Trout is becoming a baseball megastar, it's why NHL fans are hyped for Connor McDavid getting drafted, etc. Wrestling operates much in the same way; people can get behind any number of guys, but there's typically the big act who draws the most interest, whether it's one big guy (Hogan) or multiple ones. I agree with the point made earlier, though: I don't think hierarchies are bad in wrestling, just that WWE's paint-by-numbers booking and their overuse and overexposure of their top stars has made hierarchies very, very dull and obnoxious.
|
|