|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 9:31:12 GMT -5
This was something I commented on in the “which female wrestler deserves more?” topic, but I think it applies to WWE as a whole.
Simply put- you don’t.
In fact, I actually think that approach is destructive for a promotion, often.
After 25+ years of following wrestling, I’ve noticed that companies especially seem to do well when they have an established tier/hierarchy. They’ll all vary between each promotion’s style, but I can see a historical pattern. You’ll have your badass MFers who sell the merchandise, the upper midcard chases them, the lower midcard chases the uppers, and then there’s the dirt-eaters.
Rock’n Wrestling had people trying to chase Hogan and Macho, and Jake and Bossman weren’t on their tier. But they could cream the scrubs, and we loved them just fine. Same with Attitude, Shamrock wasn’t on Austin and Rock’s tier, and that was okay. All Japan did crazy business with everyone trying to reach the Four Pillars of Heaven, and Nitro was hot with a young crop of stars trying to topple the nWo. I don’t think it’s coincidental that New Japan, after their dark years where the title hot-potatoed often (including through unrelated MMA losses), now has way bigger crowds with stronger champions like Tana and Okada, and the Young Lions struggling to match up with the midcarder veterans like Tenzan and Kojima.
Point is, when wrestling resembles how real combat sports work, it draws big money (see that’s another issue, we always discuss what *doesn’t* work too often as opposed to what does). I know some think tiering a roster is too predictable, but there’s proof in the gates- tiers work. Folks always are like “oh it’s like a movie, it’s a soap opera!” Brah, it’s still a show about people fighting in a ring. And real combat sports often don’t have nearly as much parity as modern WWE.
Too much parity in wrestling is *death*. Say what you will about Bruce Pritchard, he spoke with Rolling Stone once and said something damn true: “Everyone can’t be the star, someone has to be on top and someone has to take the loss.” I think a huge issue with WWE is that they do have a mentality of “we need to have as many superstars as possible on the same level!”, which is the reason they use a ton of 50/50 booking and champions losing non-title fights so often.
Now try to imagine an unscripted fighter like Mike Tyson or Fedor or Tyson Fury losing three or four non-title matches to their challenger, like if Michael Spinks KOed Tyson repeatedly before their unification bout. People wouldn’t assume “oh it’s good to see parity in boxing, Spinks and Tyson are on the same power level!”, but WWE seems this nonsense can actually make money.
They’re wrong, obviously. No, boxing fans in 1988 would be like “why haven’t they given Spinks the three belts yet?” And that same disillusionment also applies to the WWE audience. Because creative wants to make so many on the main roster “special”, that makes everyone less special, not more. It’s the Syndrome factor.So there’s a number of ways WWE and just about any company can build better fan interest, but IMO it all starts with tiering your roster.
Trying to ideally have everyone feel equally like a star is killing them. When new stars break through the tier, it’s exciting. But it won’t work if there’s no established hierarchy to disrupt.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,875
|
Post by Dub H on Jul 22, 2020 9:33:40 GMT -5
I think it is important to separate "successful" and "winning star".
WWE could easily make 70% of the roster successful, but for then you either are a top star or you are a nobody
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 9:43:48 GMT -5
I think it is important to separate "successful" and "winning star". WWE could easily make 70% of the roster successful, but for then you either are a top star or you are a nobody WWE does want to have 70% of their roster be successful, and that’s why they’ve dug themselves into a deep hole with 50/50 BS and weak champs. I know people are probably tired of me hopping on my “we need more tomato cans” soapbox, but someone mentioned “well, WWE won’t use enhancement talent, so who do we job people to in order to help new stars?” To me that’s like saying “this person is sick with green spots and is puking purple stuff on the floor, and they won’t take the medication, so what position do we put their bed in to make them less queasy?” And my only response is “Or....you could just make them take the damn medicine?” My main point is that if WWE had a better established tier of power levels, and accolades to be reached up and down the card, then there wouldn’t be such a “top star or nobody” mentality with the fanbase. Because other companies have more structure, and their fanbases are a lot happier.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,875
|
Post by Dub H on Jul 22, 2020 9:45:44 GMT -5
I think it is important to separate "successful" and "winning star". WWE could easily make 70% of the roster successful, but for then you either are a top star or you are a nobody WWE does want to have 70% of their roster be successful, and that’s why they’ve dug themselves into a deep hole with 50/50 BS and weak champs. I know people are probably tired of me hopping on my “we need more tomato cans” soapbox, but someone mentioned “well, WWE won’t use enhancement talent, so who do we job people to in order to help new stars?” To me that’s like saying “this person is sick with green spots and is puking purple stuff on the floor, and they won’t take the medication, so what position do we put their bed in to make them less queasy?” And my only response is “Or....you could just make them take the damn medicine?” My main point is that if WWE had a better established tier of power levels, and accolades to be reached up and down the card, then there wouldn’t be such a “top star or nobody” mentality with the fanbase. Because other companies have more structure, and their fanbases are a lot happier. This is my point,you can have successful tomato cans. By successful I mean characters that are interesting and that the fans like and contribute to build the "world" of WWE.But in WWE such concept doesnt exist anymore.You are only successful if you are a winner which causes the 50/50 issue you bring up. We are basically arguing the same point but from different perspectives
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 22, 2020 9:50:23 GMT -5
Yeah with the Naomi thing, I don’t think she should be the world beating champion. You could stick her with a partner and make them a team that gets decent tv time. It’s not all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 9:51:09 GMT -5
WWE does want to have 70% of their roster be successful, and that’s why they’ve dug themselves into a deep hole with 50/50 BS and weak champs. I know people are probably tired of me hopping on my “we need more tomato cans” soapbox, but someone mentioned “well, WWE won’t use enhancement talent, so who do we job people to in order to help new stars?” To me that’s like saying “this person is sick with green spots and is puking purple stuff on the floor, and they won’t take the medication, so what position do we put their bed in to make them less queasy?” And my only response is “Or....you could just make them take the damn medicine?” My main point is that if WWE had a better established tier of power levels, and accolades to be reached up and down the card, then there wouldn’t be such a “top star or nobody” mentality with the fanbase. Because other companies have more structure, and their fanbases are a lot happier. This is my point,you can have successful tomato cans. By successful I mean characters that are interesting and that the fans like.But in WWE such concept doesnt exist anymore.You are only successful if you are a winner which causes the 50/50 issue you bring up. We are basically arguing the same point but from different perspectives No, a tomato can shouldn’t be successful. When I say tomato can, I mean Barry Horowitz, PJ Walker. I mean true jobbers. Most jobbers don’t need characters. A scrub should be a little bland and lamer than the midcard superstar. You can have an occasional gimmicky jobber like No Way Jose or Brooklyn Brawler, but they’re not meant to have compelling, key storylines. They’re there to get beat up. I’d save the interesting storylines for people getting pushed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 9:55:36 GMT -5
How do we make every wrestler successful , easy do not limit success to just whether someone wins or loses in the ring.
Develop stories and characters with depth and emotional investment for the audience....every single one of them can be a success but not ever single one of them can be a success in the exact same way.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 9:55:40 GMT -5
Yeah with the Naomi thing, I don’t think she should be the world beating champion. You could stick her with a partner and make them a team that gets decent tv time. It’s not all or nothing. I also do feel there should be a women’s midcard title. But all of that would still be a part of tiering the roster, to establish a level above the lower women but below the main eventers. Personally I’d take it a step further, and just unify the roster again and merge a lot of these titles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 10:00:02 GMT -5
It was a lot easier when pretty much all your audience thought it was real. If it was real, you can sort of accept someone not winning even if you like them. Now it's like acting: you see your favorites and you want them to do more, to get their due, to become stars instead of supporting cast members because they're talented.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 10:01:05 GMT -5
How do we make every wrestler successful , easy do not limit success to just whether someone wins or loses in the ring. Develop stories and characters with depth and emotional investment for the audience....every single one of them can be a success but not ever single one of them can be a success in the exact same way. If you mean “every one has a certain role to be filled on the roster” then I’d agree with you, but you still need a handful of people who lose and never break through. Again, more rarity makes the rises up the card more impactful. A lower card wrestler who’s meant to stay in the lower card shouldn’t get too much depth, though. Unless the company is committed to pushing them up the ranks.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jul 22, 2020 10:01:28 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,875
|
Post by Dub H on Jul 22, 2020 10:09:53 GMT -5
This is my point,you can have successful tomato cans. By successful I mean characters that are interesting and that the fans like.But in WWE such concept doesnt exist anymore.You are only successful if you are a winner which causes the 50/50 issue you bring up. We are basically arguing the same point but from different perspectives No, a tomato can shouldn’t be successful. When I say tomato can, I mean Barry Horowitz, PJ Walker. I mean true jobbers. Most jobbers don’t need characters. A scrub should be a little bland and lamer than the midcard superstar. You can have an occasional gimmicky jobber like No Way Jose or Brooklyn Brawler, but they’re not meant to have compelling, key storylines. They’re there to get beat up. I’d save the interesting storylines for people getting pushed. Guys like Peter Avalon,Curt Hawkins,Heath(at a point in time),Nakazawa,Beaver Boys,maybe even Robert Stone if you are being generous with the definition, are guys that are/were pretty much cans in their companies and I would consider then successes in being part of the world. They are not focus of their companies,but they serve a purpose as jobbers and to build up storylines/generate entertainment with their antics,which is the best use of a can IMO. If you need faceless cans,might as well use local talents or trainees instead of hiring someone
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 10:11:52 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. Russo was god awful. I don’t feel *everyone* needs a big storyline or purpose. He never realized there are hundreds of performers who can get over without an elaborate gimmick unconnected to pro wrestling (or an angle unconnected to wrestling tropes, good tropes proven to usually work). It motivated him to write so much stupid and embarrassing crap for the undercard, much of the Attitude stuff that didn’t age well IMO. It was a lot easier when pretty much all your audience thought it was real. If it was real, you can sort of accept someone not winning even if you like them. Now it's like acting: you see your favorites and you want them to do more, to get their due, to become stars instead of supporting cast members because they're talented. Eh....were there really as many fans who truly thought it was legit as it’s assumed? I started watching in 1991 at seven and it was like an open secret- I knew in the back of my mind that there was some kind of trickery at play, but as a kid I and my friends didn’t care how Undertaker was pulling some of his stunts. We just felt he was badass and cool. I think many people are happy to lose themselves in the narrative of pro wrestling if they can but into the show’s eternal logic, and it’s been that way for a while. The problem is that WWE’s fixation on trying to make superstars all feel equal hurts said logic.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,996
|
Post by salz4life on Jul 22, 2020 10:13:28 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. Exactly..... looking back, there is a lot of "ehhh" about the Attitude Era, but I think one of the best, and underrated, things about the Attitude Era is everyone on the card had something to do.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 10:14:17 GMT -5
No, a tomato can shouldn’t be successful. When I say tomato can, I mean Barry Horowitz, PJ Walker. I mean true jobbers. Most jobbers don’t need characters. A scrub should be a little bland and lamer than the midcard superstar. You can have an occasional gimmicky jobber like No Way Jose or Brooklyn Brawler, but they’re not meant to have compelling, key storylines. They’re there to get beat up. I’d save the interesting storylines for people getting pushed. Guys like Peter Avalon,Curt Hawkins,Heath(at a point in time),Nakazawa,Beaver Boys,maybe even Robert Stone if you are being generous with the definition, are guys that are/were pretty much cans in their companies and I would consider then successes in being part of the world. They are not focus of their companies,but they serve a purpose as jobbers and to build up storylines/generate entertainment with their antics,which is the best use of a can IMO. If you need faceless cans,might as well use local talents or trainees instead of hiring someone*Yes*. That’s exactly what I want WWE to try again, no cap. Same with AEW, I want them to feed Nakazawa more local men. The way people like Jim Powers and Koko B Ware also got to feast on occasion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 10:17:55 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. Exactly..... looking back, there is a lot of "ehhh" about the Attitude Era, but I think one of the best, and underrated, things about the Attitude Era is everyone on the card had something to do. And that is exactly the anwser to the question. Give everyone a purpose...it does not have be in the ring Robert Stone is a great example right now....complete goober but also a complete success because his role is to be constantly humiliated and everyone loves it.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 22, 2020 10:26:22 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. his biggest problem is a lot of the stuff he gave people was crap that either pigeon holed them into one specific thing or was so bad it basically tanked their careers afterwards.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,580
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 22, 2020 10:28:51 GMT -5
One of the issues is two world titles and how long people stay on the roster. A quick count suggests 20 plus guys on the roster have been world champ (depending on which part timers you count).
And of course the Jindar problem, if 20 guys including him can win it then why can't literally anyone?
Hell for some even their first title win is basically a practice run for the real thing later.
Being IC/US champ just doesn't cut it now. It's all or nothing. So you rarely get the HHH Vs Rock, Jericho Vs Benoit style fueds at that level anymore that elevate both guys.
Hell it's arguable you now have to be in the Wm main event to be a top guy.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 10:35:50 GMT -5
One of the issues is two world titles and how long people stay on the roster. A quick count suggests 20 plus guys on the roster have been world champ (depending on which part timers you count). And of course the Jindar problem, if 20 guys including him can win it then why can't literally anyone? Hell for some even their first title win is basically a practice run for the real thing later. Being IC/US champ just doesn't cut it now. It's all or nothing. So you rarely get the HHH Vs Rock, Jericho Vs Benoit style fueds at that level anymore that elevate both guys. Hell it's rguable you now have to be in the Wm main event to be a top guy. There absolutely should not be two world titles at this point. I think the 2000s Heavyweight Championship only got away (now and then) with it because the roster was so fat and the star power was that massive. Now? They really only need one men’s world, one women’s world, one men’s and women’s tag, and one midcard belt each for the girls and dudes.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 22, 2020 10:41:39 GMT -5
2 world titles isn't a problem if they kept the damned shows separate like intended.
there should be 2 separate rosters that don't cross over or at the very least they cross over super rarely... instead of their weird WILDCARD style rule... that also cuts the large roster in half (or thirds if you count NXT... and fourths if you count the NXT Road crew)
as I said elsewhere part of their problem stems from they feel they need to have ALL of the big name people on ALL of the shows...when they don't... I'm not saying have them Brock off... and not be mentioned for months at a time...
but like the Champ doesn't have to be in action every week... sometimes a promo is enough... sometimes their opponent cutting a promo and having a quick match is enough...
|
|