|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Feb 2, 2021 19:50:44 GMT -5
I keep saying this, but I would be fascinated by what a Rumble would look like if 30 people were involved who all actually understood the rules. If EVERYONE knew that you didn't have to get in the ring, which is the only place to can be eliminated. If EVERYONE understood you can just keep eliminating people (or saving people from elimination!) if you're eliminated, and even if you're not participating, you can run out and interfere however you want. If EVERYONE knew you could use whatever weapons you wanted. What would this look like? It'd be fascinating. I think it'd all have to boil down to alliances and secret deals. It’d just be 30 people standing outside the ring for hours pointing guns at each other. Look, I understand wanting some kind of consistent logic, but you can’t do hard real-world logic in wrestling. It just falls apart completely when you try and deconstruct it like that.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Feb 2, 2021 19:54:37 GMT -5
Everyone should just chill at ringside and each bring their own Omos to fight on their behalf. The Rumble turns into a battle of proxies who are only there to get paid. Better yet, hire about 20 guys to go in and chuck everyone else out for you.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Feb 2, 2021 20:11:43 GMT -5
I keep saying this, but I would be fascinated by what a Rumble would look like if 30 people were involved who all actually understood the rules. If EVERYONE knew that you didn't have to get in the ring, which is the only place to can be eliminated. If EVERYONE understood you can just keep eliminating people (or saving people from elimination!) if you're eliminated, and even if you're not participating, you can run out and interfere however you want. If EVERYONE knew you could use whatever weapons you wanted. What would this look like? It'd be fascinating. I think it'd all have to boil down to alliances and secret deals. It’d just be 30 people standing outside the ring for hours pointing guns at each other. Look, I understand wanting some kind of consistent logic, but you can’t do hard real-world logic in wrestling. It just falls apart completely when you try and deconstruct it like that. But it couldn't be. SOMEONE would have to get in the ring, because the match (presumably) has a time limit, and so if 90 minutes pass or whatever, no one wins. Like I said, it'd end up having to boil down to alliances and deals. Plus, this isn't some obscure, random thing that would only occur to wrestling nerds. This stuff is part of the explicit, on-screen booking of the rumble year after year after year. If your wrestlnig match falls apart upon "deconstruction" that would occur to anyone watching and following along with the deliberately booked storylines, your match sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Feb 2, 2021 20:26:00 GMT -5
I think balance is where the thing falls apart for Rumble booking. The Billie stuff sounds funny and like a solid comedy spot, no harm in that. But the problem is the overbooking of as many weird bits as possible, eliminated people storming back in to throw people out, and the from-the-back surprise spot at the end. Just so much that becomes overexposed because, as per most everything the hell else in WWE, they're not so much pulling from the bag of tricks as they're dumping the contents of the bag onto the match every year. There's no restraint to it, so stuff gets tired and overused, and because every year every form of f***ery that can happen does happen, this question keeps getting asked every year. These things used to be rarities, and that make them special. Now they're the norm so the match just looks weird and insane.
Gizzark had it a lot of the way; there's something to be said for fun and weird. But booking around senility overexposes that fun.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 2, 2021 21:06:22 GMT -5
It's basically what I said in the Rumble tropes thread the other day: you need established rules in wrestling not because you need to always rigidly adhere to them, but because then you can establish a distinction between how faces and heels and other character types approach the match. Faces obviously usually keep to the rules while heels break them, and the goal should be for fans to dislike it when heels bend the rules.
But what happens when the rules, or lack thereof, seem to encourage approaching a match dishonorably? Going by how WWE's been booking the Rumble there's no reason to enter the ring until you feel like it, there's no penalty for having someone there to interfere on your behalf, there's nothing stopping an ally not in the match from running in and eliminating your hated rival or biggest threat, etc.
In other words, the rules are incentivizing heelish, "dishonorable" behavior and competition...which is something you should almost never do in pro wrestling booking (outside of an angle where a heel is intentionally establishing unfair rules to stymie a babyface they hate), because instead of a heel looking like a bad person for doing whatever weird tactic they just look smart, and by extension the babyfaces just look dumb.
This does not mean, by the way, that heels should never be booked to do sneaky, heelish things in a Rumble; rules in wrestling are created to eventually be bent or broken to serve characters and stories, after all. But the rules need to be clear and establish boundaries for appropriate, acceptable competition, that way fans can have a reason to be angry when the heels break them, not look at them and say "Hey, they're just being smart, not like these dumbass good guys who're getting themselves beaten down for no good reason."
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Feb 2, 2021 21:26:28 GMT -5
Just to share the sentiment, I think the trouble sometimes is that the Rumble leads more to moments for the match then moments for the people involved. It’s a WWE problem for years with a lot of stuff, absolutely, but it doesn’t have to be.
Gizzark’s examples make sense. Like, let’s take the Shayna/Nia stuff. They were both eliminated so beat up everyone in the ring and Natalya as she was entering. What should happen is that they should be suspended for at least a week and docked pay, before the number one contenders match so they don’t run in and beat up the competitors to show that those actions have consequences. So when someone tries it again, they can either stop themselves or know fully well what will happen. The internal logic of the match, even though it’s No DQ.
I think this is all some of us want, for stuff to lead to things and being rewarded for watching the PPVs. Why I think Alexa/Rhea makes sense is that Rhea has shown not to be intimidated by the new Alexa whilst the rest of the women have so that makes her ready to face her at WrestleMania. And it’s not like she can’t be involved in what Orton’s doing because there’s going to be two nights anyway.
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,599
Member is Online
|
Post by XIII on Feb 2, 2021 22:03:25 GMT -5
This is some Orange Cassidy shit. lol.
Everyone just chilling ringside
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Feb 2, 2021 22:47:34 GMT -5
In other words, the rules are incentivizing heelish, "dishonorable" behavior and competition...which is something you should almost never do in pro wrestling booking (outside of an angle where a heel is intentionally establishing unfair rules to stymie a babyface they hate), because instead of a heel looking like a bad person for doing whatever weird tactic they just look smart, and by extension the babyfaces just look dumb. This does not mean, by the way, that heels should never be booked to do sneaky, heelish things in a Rumble; rules in wrestling are created to eventually be bent or broken to serve characters and stories, after all. But the rules need to be clear and establish boundaries for appropriate, acceptable competition, that way fans can have a reason to be angry when the heels break them, not look at them and say "Hey, they're just being smart, not like these dumbass good guys who're getting themselves beaten down for no good reason." This is also an aspect of shifting cultural mores, here, because this idea "You (men) should valorously fight and be straightforward and direct and aggressive and never EVER take the easy way out!!" is just not as universally endorsed as it was, say, 30 years ago. I know I'm not alone in that I don't see anything inherently heelish about taking advantage of the Rumble rules to win in an unorthodox way. I can definitely see how it COULD be heelish. But in and of itself, no way. It's not even cheating! It's the same reason it feels so weird and old-fashioned when WWE announcers act like a guy winning a match with a roll-up pin is somehow lesser than if he'd won another way... or even that it's somehow unjust (they still call it "stealing one" all the time). The audience just isn't walking around with the same values as the people who came up with a lot of this stuff as much as they used to, but they still think they can depend on this set of universal cultural values that aren't even close to universal anymore.
|
|
|
Post by 3cheers4ramirez on Feb 3, 2021 5:45:18 GMT -5
It's basic lack of caring that five seconds of thought could fix. Billy Kay could roll in and out of the ring, and loophole covered. Surely if they did that, this thread would be asking why everyone doesn't just roll in and roll out? I fundamentally disagree with the idea that more rules = more fun.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 3, 2021 8:28:46 GMT -5
Just to share the sentiment, I think the trouble sometimes is that the Rumble leads more to moments for the match then moments for the people involved. It’s a WWE problem for years with a lot of stuff, absolutely, but it doesn’t have to be. Gizzark’s examples make sense. Like, let’s take the Shayna/Nia stuff. They were both eliminated so beat up everyone in the ring and Natalya as she was entering. What should happen is that they should be suspended for at least a week and docked pay, before the number one contenders match so they don’t run in and beat up the competitors to show that those actions have consequences. So when someone tries it again, they can either stop themselves or know fully well what will happen. The internal logic of the match, even though it’s No DQ. I think this is all some of us want, for stuff to lead to things and being rewarded for watching the PPVs. Why I think Alexa/Rhea makes sense is that Rhea has shown not to be intimidated by the new Alexa whilst the rest of the women have so that makes her ready to face her at WrestleMania. And it’s not like she can’t be involved in what Orton’s doing because there’s going to be two nights anyway. On that first point, I kind of felt that way with the women's rumble match when I saw it: it wasn't a bad match by any means, but when Bianca won I have to admit that I kind of felt like the match didn't do her any favors in establishing her as a star. She put in a strong effort, and lasting from as early as she did to the end is obviously not easy to do when you're not given a "leave the ring and sleep for awhile" spot, but I didn't get through the match feeling a connection with her or her story, so when she won and they said "you made it from the #3 spot!" my initial reaction was "Wait... what number did she draw?" It had totally escaped me, because there wasn't enough of a story being told around/about her. And yeah, on the second point it gets to that whole reason for having rules: yes, rules should be bent, broken, or manipulated to further characters and stories, and they should also be used to create cause and effect moments and consequences for actions. When the wrestlers can just do whatever they want...well, that's not automatically bad, but you need to make it clear to your audience that "no rules" is the type of show you're running. WWE just doesn't commit to a vision of what it is, so one minute it's pure anarchy, the next there's an "executive committee" or some other authority nonsense talking about obscure phony by-laws and other stuff nobody cares about. If you want to be "no rules, all chaos" then commit to that; if you're going to have rules, then establish them so that you can create character arcs and storytelling beats around them being followed or broken. In other words, the rules are incentivizing heelish, "dishonorable" behavior and competition...which is something you should almost never do in pro wrestling booking (outside of an angle where a heel is intentionally establishing unfair rules to stymie a babyface they hate), because instead of a heel looking like a bad person for doing whatever weird tactic they just look smart, and by extension the babyfaces just look dumb. This does not mean, by the way, that heels should never be booked to do sneaky, heelish things in a Rumble; rules in wrestling are created to eventually be bent or broken to serve characters and stories, after all. But the rules need to be clear and establish boundaries for appropriate, acceptable competition, that way fans can have a reason to be angry when the heels break them, not look at them and say "Hey, they're just being smart, not like these dumbass good guys who're getting themselves beaten down for no good reason." This is also an aspect of shifting cultural mores, here, because this idea "You (men) should valorously fight and be straightforward and direct and aggressive and never EVER take the easy way out!!" is just not as universally endorsed as it was, say, 30 years ago. I know I'm not alone in that I don't see anything inherently heelish about taking advantage of the Rumble rules to win in an unorthodox way. I can definitely see how it COULD be heelish. But in and of itself, no way. It's not even cheating! It's the same reason it feels so weird and old-fashioned when WWE announcers act like a guy winning a match with a roll-up pin is somehow lesser than if he'd won another way... or even that it's somehow unjust (they still call it "stealing one" all the time). The audience just isn't walking around with the same values as the people who came up with a lot of this stuff as much as they used to, but they still think they can depend on this set of universal cultural values that aren't even close to universal anymore. Honestly, I think it's less about social mores and more about WWE writing just being lazy and non-committal. When you watch a lot of old wrestling, like before the late 80s, you see plenty of matches end on flash pins and roll ups and spots that WWE treats as "stealing" today, because they involve using real wrestling skills and leverage to defeat an opponent. But instead, WWE uses stuff like a flash pin to say "He couldn't beat him FOR REAL, so he had to resort to a schoolboy pin!"...which, if a guy's not grabbing the opponent's tights, is perfectly fine, legal, and requires skill to pull off, so what's the problem? This goes back to WWE not wanting anyone to win cleanly too often, falling back on 50/50 booking, and seemingly being afraid of letting anyone get too over or having to commit to a vision of what type of wrestling show they want to be, like I was saying above. They create these ways that people can be eliminated from the Rumble that should probably be illegal thinking it'll keep the people who were thrown out by those means "looking strong", but instead it makes the people who get legitimately eliminated look weak while, again I emphasize, making the guys fighting honorably just look incredibly stupid for not just taking advantage of the whole "just cheat, there are no consequences" feeling the Rumble now has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 11:50:50 GMT -5
It also doesn't help that you book the company owners as evil heels for decades and then expect anyone to care about rules.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Feb 4, 2021 11:56:22 GMT -5
I was thinking about this and if I had my way the company would emphasis paychecks and fines more in order to give the catch all reason for why someone does or doesn't do something. Like for a Battle Royal its about eliminations and time spent in the game but if you willfully spend time outside the ring you risk a fine. It can all be nebulous without concrete numbers but its a motivator.
So for Billie Kay an announcer brings it up and she sees it as paying for advertisement for her brand and services by being on commentary.
Also a spot where everyone gets sick of the heels shit leaves the ring and drags him back in to throw them out would do wonders too.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Feb 4, 2021 13:12:07 GMT -5
If we're judging people by the standard of not being as smart as Billie Kay then I'm afraid the list of idiots is going to be the entire roster minus Billie Kay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 13:16:40 GMT -5
Yeah, you could fine and suspend people but you've had people beat the shit out of Vince for years, backstage assaults laying out people, dudes getting set on fire and thrown off of the Titantron, and jack shit ever happened to them. They tried to kill a dude with concrete and had a match where someone had to lose an eye and then people acted like none of that happened by the next ppv.
Seems dumb to say, "Eh, you didn't follow the rules of a match, so you owe us $100,000 now." You'd get fined less for hitting Cole with a sledgehammer.
|
|
|
Post by Rudy Gobert Fadeaway on Feb 4, 2021 13:20:53 GMT -5
And they both lost? Like, I get that we're being analytical, but...they literally didn't win anything.
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Feb 4, 2021 13:22:06 GMT -5
Well, it's the Royal Rumble...again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 13:36:43 GMT -5
I keep saying this, but I would be fascinated by what a Rumble would look like if 30 people were involved who all actually understood the rules. If EVERYONE knew that you didn't have to get in the ring, which is the only place to can be eliminated. If EVERYONE understood you can just keep eliminating people (or saving people from elimination!) if you're eliminated, and even if you're not participating, you can run out and interfere however you want. If EVERYONE knew you could use whatever weapons you wanted. What would this look like? It'd be fascinating. I think it'd all have to boil down to alliances and secret deals. It’d just be 30 people standing outside the ring for hours pointing guns at each other. Look, I understand wanting some kind of consistent logic, but you can’t do hard real-world logic in wrestling. It just falls apart completely when you try and deconstruct it like that. You can absolutely have real world logic in wrestling. Look at how cartoony the late 80s and 90s got at times, and how they still went out and explained rules and storylines. It doesn’t have to be perfect but if you don’t have logic then any story you want to tell falls apart. The WWE doesn’t need to have logic because their core fans don’t care whether there’s logic or not. That doesn’t mean logic can’t be used. For example, Raw vs SD at Survivor Series every year. Spend 30 seconds to say “winning participants get $100k bonuses”, which would instantly explain why characters would suddenly care about brand affiliation. Instead, nothing. Explain the rules of the Rumble and be consistent with it, and at the very least they’ll show that they at least have some respect for their fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 4, 2021 13:38:18 GMT -5
And they both lost? Like, I get that we're being analytical, but...they literally didn't win anything. Yeah... Honestly, Since like at least 2015, even the "wait until everyone else is eliminated and the guy thinks he's won to slide back in" has lost in the Royal Rumble.
|
|
|
Post by romanstylesiii on Feb 4, 2021 14:43:36 GMT -5
My controversial HOT TAKE: The Rumble has more often than not been a badly, inconsistently booked event with too high of stakes attached to it, save for a few truly great moments, storytelling, and memories from my childhood. I don't hate it, but it's really kinda "meh" for me these days. Two in one night does not help. I would just have two Rumbles a year. One in Jan (men) and one be in July (women) and focus Summerslam on a women's main event.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Feb 4, 2021 14:47:54 GMT -5
My controversial HOT TAKE: The Rumble has more often than not been a badly, inconsistently booked event with too high of stakes attached to it, save for a few truly great moments, storytelling, and memories from my childhood. I don't hate it, but it's really kinda "meh" for me these days. Two in one night does not help. I would just have two Rumbles a year. One in Jan (men) and one be in July (women) and focus Summerslam on a women's main event. The one kinda problem is the MITB match in June but then let's do the same thing where you have one before or at Survivor Series and then the other in June. buit idk if that would work
|
|