|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 14, 2021 8:29:23 GMT -5
I hear this a lot when some suggest adding more enhancement matches to help WWE’s midcarders look better. Like folks assume that the audience isn’t patient enough to sit through a wrestler slowly being built up like the 80s and early 90s anymore. Bischoff emphasizes this a lot, that you have to have twists every week and the babyface has to struggle against odds all the time, like it’s a CW action drama.
And honestly, I don’t agree. I feel the wrestling audience is more willing to be patient than they have in a long time. This is where the changes in TV viewing habits really begin to affect wrestling, because today the “tune into the cable TV network or you’ll miss something crazy!” approach doesn’t hold up anymore against streaming, YouTube clips, etc. Granted, you’ll always have fans who love to be shocked and surprised, but by and large we don’t have that Crash TV audience anymore.
One big reason why I think WWE would profit from more squashes and slow builds is because other companies are doing it well and gaining fans. I’ll use Jungle Boy in AEW for example, he’s a young star who will sometimes come up short against an upper midcarder like Fenix or Wardlow, but that’s balanced out by him and Jurassic Express picking up wins on Dark. So there’s no sense that him or people like Sonny Kiss are just “spinning their wheels”.
Or in NJPW, there’s a clear power tier between the top talent, midcarders and Young Lions. But you don’t get WWE’s occasional “if you ain’t first, you’re last!” vibe in New Japan stories, because it’s understood the Lions are still learning and aren’t strong enough to beat the megastars. It’s not their time yet, but as we saw with how guys like EVIL, Okada and Naito rise through the NJPW system, there’s a reason to have faith they’ll have decent careers in the end.
So if WWE’s gonna have seven to eight live hours every week, surely they can re-format their shows a little to make the midcarders look more effective by killing some no-names, right? It’s worked before, and I don’t believe wrestling has shifted that much to where this can’t still be useful. Like Dominick Mysterio, they expected him to get over by sheer virtue of him showing heart and looking impressive. But that’s not a real push- a push means that the wrestler has to *win the match*. Had Dominick been allowed to beat some low level people for a while, as opposed to Seth pummeling him all the time and making Rey feel bad, can you imagine how much bigger he would feel?
Same with folks like Keith Lee, Riddle, etc. Vince and Bruce are so eager to throw the new talent into seesaw battles of attrition, it makes them harder for them to stand out. Bossman, Duggan and Perfect back in the day, OTOH, they were properly fed a lineup of geeks every week on Wrestling Challenge and Superstars. You can see the difference, and that’s part of why I think those older generations feel so big and memorable.
This is also where the “sport” aspect of wrestling comes into play, because the newer fans I find are always impressed by superstars who come out on top and get the job done. Sometimes I think a booker has to put the soap-opera mentality aside for a bit and let a midcarder “flex on ‘em” a bit before it’s time for them to start struggling. Maybe some writers are gunshy because they don’t want that “you win too much” backlash, but that’ll only happen if the other elements of a show or performance are lacking.
|
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 14, 2021 8:36:07 GMT -5
I think, and this is just me spitballing, the worry is that showing non-competitive or not-important matches might make people lose interest and not watch.
The counterpoint to that is that ratings have been sliding for over a decade now with competitive and important matches so, well...maybe the strategy needs a re-think?
I'm not even saying I want a whole show of them but a good way to establish someone's character and showcase moves is through squash matches from my experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 14, 2021 8:47:53 GMT -5
My thought on this often comes back to predictability. I mean, you get enough of that now with these matches that are ostensibly star vs star based on a combination of "The Observer says THIS talent is getting the big push" inside knowledge and sheer genre-savviness. But you outright eliminate any remaining shred of unpredictability when you have star vs enhancement talent.
And my main concern as it comes to whether it actually works is... as soon as someone notices "Oh, this person only beats enhancement talents, they're still just a geek", I worry that the entire concept loses all effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 14, 2021 8:52:08 GMT -5
I think, and this is just me spitballing, the worry is that showing non-competitive or not-important matches might make people lose interest and not watch. The counterpoint to that is that ratings have been sliding for over a decade now with competitive and important matches so, well...maybe the strategy needs a re-think? I'm not even saying I want a whole show of them but a good way to establish someone's character and showcase moves is through squash matches from my experience. Yeah, I’m not asking for a complete hour of non-competitive matches, because not even Dark or the old Sunday Night Heat had all squashes. But right now, I think WWE’s reached a stage where they’re almost badly needed. Especially since they do have such a large roster now, that means they have more stars they want to push. So if they weren’t so adamant on having every single match competitive, more workers would get to make positive impressions. The big issue with an “always competitive” format is that it’s more susceptible to making supposedly established superstars look like choke artists. I believe there’s a portion of wrestling fans who don’t get mentioned very often that’s very results-focused. In fact, I think fans for years and years have paid more attention to the match results than hardcore fans (and wrestlers and people in the business, who are also part of the hardcore fans themselves) often assume. Gradually building up talent is the way to go with this crowd, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Mar 14, 2021 9:06:35 GMT -5
My thought on this often comes back to predictability. I mean, you get enough of that now with these matches that are ostensibly star vs star based on a combination of "The Observer says THIS talent is getting the big push" inside knowledge and sheer genre-savviness. But you outright eliminate any remaining shred of unpredictability when you have star vs enhancement talent. And my main concern as it comes to whether it actually works is... as soon as someone notices "Oh, this person only beats enhancement talents, they're still just a geek", I worry that the entire concept loses all effectiveness. Ryback and Braun got over because of squash matches. If you balance it it works. Always has always will IMO |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 14, 2021 9:10:19 GMT -5
My thought on this often comes back to predictability. I mean, you get enough of that now with these matches that are ostensibly star vs star based on a combination of "The Observer says THIS talent is getting the big push" inside knowledge and sheer genre-savviness. But you outright eliminate any remaining shred of unpredictability when you have star vs enhancement talent. And my main concern as it comes to whether it actually works is... as soon as someone notices "Oh, this person only beats enhancement talents, they're still just a geek", I worry that the entire concept loses all effectiveness. Ryback and Braun got over because of squash matches. If you balance it it works. Always has always will IMO It can get you up there if they carry on with it, sure. But, I'm talking about like... It'd be all well and good if Drew Gulak went on a streak of beating jobbers, but what good does it really do when he loses when he fights a roster guy for the first time after that? The jobber streak would be less effective next time, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 14, 2021 9:11:29 GMT -5
My thought on this often comes back to predictability. I mean, you get enough of that now with these matches that are ostensibly star vs star based on a combination of "The Observer says THIS talent is getting the big push" inside knowledge and sheer genre-savviness. But you outright eliminate any remaining shred of unpredictability when you have star vs enhancement talent. And my main concern as it comes to whether it actually works is... as soon as someone notices "Oh, this person only beats enhancement talents, they're still just a geek", I worry that the entire concept loses all effectiveness. I know this is gonna sound strange, but here goes: unpredictability in wrestling might be a tad overrated. There seems to be this tug of war now and then between the audience who wants a product where anything can happen, and the crowd who wants to live vicariously through an awesome superstar. When they see a midcard face go 50/50 with a midcard heel and the face isn’t establishing themselves as a threat, the crowd who wants to live vicariously is gonna feel let down. Having the audience confident a wrestler might win the match isn’t inherently bad, and that built-up faith I feel can be a powerful ticket seller when it *is* time to book them in a competitive feud. I don’t see why it’d be so hard to have a show that’s exciting and not stagnant, while also showcasing a handful of talent who are especially tough to beat. That’s where the local men and local women are a benefit, because every major company, even the successful ones, *will* have superstars stuck in a midcard. It’s just a fact of the business. But a good old fashioned squash for these midcarders still allows them to be that badass for a kid in the crowd, at least for just one night. Even if they’re not on top or a world champion, just that alone can help a wrestler feel just a tad bigger. I think folks like Koko B. Ware particularly were helped by this. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 14, 2021 9:17:44 GMT -5
I'd never watch a show of mostly squashes like in the 80s and early 90s. As a kid I would, but never now.
Granted, I no longer watch at all anyway, so I'm maybe not the best anecdotal evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 14, 2021 9:23:17 GMT -5
Ryback and Braun got over because of squash matches. If you balance it it works. Always has always will IMO It can get you up there if they carry on with it, sure. But, I'm talking about like... It'd be all well and good if Drew Gulak went on a streak of beating jobbers, but what good does it really do when he loses when he fights a roster guy for the first time after that? The jobber streak would be less effective next time, right? No, it’s still effective, because in canon, a jobber wrestler is way more powerful than your average fan in the audience. So if Drew Gulak has just come off a good meal of jobbers, and another roster guy who’s also been properly fed beats Gulak, both come out fine- because the fans already know Gulak can kick some ass, so it’s a genuinely meaningful win for the other roster guy because they didn’t beat someone who’s been looking weak, and Gulak doesn’t fall as far in the rankings. This is also why I think fans can feel more patient with how SANADA has been coming alone, because even though he’s only beaten Okada like once, he can still easily thrash Young Lions and other midcarders. That’s unlike Dolph Ziggler, who is always in a competitive match, including some matches he’s won that probably didn’t need to go as long. I truly believe that had Dolph been previously established as someone who can win matches quicker, he could have felt like a MUCH bigger deal. |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 14, 2021 9:32:56 GMT -5
Heyman tried this when he was in charge of Raw. And I’m pretty sure ratings slid more than usual when they did that.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Mar 14, 2021 9:37:16 GMT -5
squahes could work wonders in getting people over - people (rightly so) just have zero faith that wwe would be able to do it correctly, so yeah could it work? 100% would it work under the current system - probobly not.
|
|
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 Mar 14, 2021 9:43:30 GMT -5
They have roughly 10000 wrestlers under contract many of which can't get on tv. They don't need more jobbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 14, 2021 9:50:08 GMT -5
Heyman tried this when he was in charge of Raw. And I’m pretty sure ratings slid more than usual when they did that. I mean, they would because it’s not a format people are used to. But then most of the time ratings are going to go down for anything newer than the usual. |
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 14, 2021 9:54:52 GMT -5
Heyman tried this when he was in charge of Raw. And I’m pretty sure ratings slid more than usual when they did that. I mean, they would because it’s not a format people are used to. But then most of the time ratings are going to go down for anything newer than the usual. I think it’s more the idea that there is so much content already that people aren’t going to waste their time on “filler.” |
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 14, 2021 9:56:14 GMT -5
I mean, they would because it’s not a format people are used to. But then most of the time ratings are going to go down for anything newer than the usual. I think it’s more the idea that there is so much content already that people aren’t going to waste their time on “filler.” Which is fair, in a way. But it also doesn’t take away from some of the wider consequences of the AE style of booking. |
|
|
|
Post by Hypnosis on Mar 14, 2021 10:12:03 GMT -5
They have roughly 10000 wrestlers under contract many of which can't get on tv. They don't need more jobbers. They could use Ziggler, Natalya, Rawley, etc. as the jobbers, since it wouldn't be a waste if they don't get pushed. |
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,293
|
Post by Push R Truth on Mar 14, 2021 10:33:05 GMT -5
I'd rather see a couple 2-5 minute squashes sprinkled in a show than a 30 minute 2 commercial break Corbin vs Roman Dogfood Orgy
|
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Mar 14, 2021 10:33:45 GMT -5
Ryback and Braun got over because of squash matches. If you balance it it works. Always has always will IMO It can get you up there if they carry on with it, sure. But, I'm talking about like... It'd be all well and good if Drew Gulak went on a streak of beating jobbers, but what good does it really do when he loses when he fights a roster guy for the first time after that? The jobber streak would be less effective next time, right? It establishes his character and move set. So in the long run it helps better define the in ring character |
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Mar 14, 2021 11:55:16 GMT -5
Because when a match is meaningless and nobody cares about it then you might as well just have some dude get killed than waste a potential match you could have down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Mar 14, 2021 12:07:18 GMT -5
They have roughly 10000 wrestlers under contract many of which can't get on tv. They don't need more jobbers. That's because WWE made "Midcard" a dirty word. See, there was a point in time that guys, despite never holding the big one(ie. Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, Honky Tonk, Tito Santana, Earthquake, Boss Man, Dean Malenko) you can be remembered as a legend, a great. Ziggler should be at this point a fondly remembered anchor of the men's division, not good wrestling goof. But when you present your featured stars as assholes who can't get it done or losers to higher names, what do you get? A bunch of jackasses who are losers who can't get it done! It's all about presentation. |
|
