Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2021 12:16:26 GMT -5
It's very hard to have it both ways, though.
Mid-card wasn't a dirty word because you didn't see the World Champion wrestle all the time. You could have the Arns and Tullys of the world as the focus on free tv because the business model supported it. When WWE started having monthly ppv's, for better or worse, they always factored in what the Champions were doing.
They took the Elimination Chamber and Hell in the Cell, which were once these feud ending or paradigm shifting stipulations and made them a yearly thing. It's just too big now and I don't know if squashes really fit anymore.
|
|
lucas_lee
Hank Scorpio
Heel turn is finished, now stripping away my personality
Posts: 6,726
|
Post by lucas_lee on Mar 14, 2021 12:19:08 GMT -5
I honestly would save this trope for monster style wrestlers. They need the jobbers to bump for their offense the most and its the best way to get them over
|
|
|
Post by Jumpin' Jesse Walsh on Mar 14, 2021 12:29:24 GMT -5
I’m pretty pro-jobber squashes. While a show exclusively comprised of squash matches obviously wouldn’t fly now, they can definitely afford to incorporate them more into their shows and would prevent them from burning through big matches that should be on PPV.
I’d rather have the roster get a few minutes of TV time in a squash match than not have them used at all.
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Mar 14, 2021 14:44:13 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? I don’t think so. Losing can have a effect if he goes on to lose everything yea. But if you look at what used to get guys over it was squash matches. It also allows for longer story lines with less of the same matches. Admittedly it is a fine line but it’sa proven way to get people over and build their worth to the audience
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 14, 2021 14:45:26 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. Like, Hacksaw Jim Duggan won pretty much zero titles in the WWF (unless you count the crown, which I don't) but he was made to be some kind of attraction because he was involved in stuff even if it was just a tag team partner or in some lower mid card angle with someone and even against Randy Savage, you rooted for him to win but you pretty much knew full well he wasn't going to win but the story was all there. It feels crazy to even say something like that in all honesty because there are people who dwarf Duggan in ability and even charisma on this roster right now but they're just...there. If you're not at the top of the card, you don't get that chance to have those angles.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 14, 2021 14:51:13 GMT -5
It's very hard to have it both ways, though. Mid-card wasn't a dirty word because you didn't see the World Champion wrestle all the time. You could have the Arns and Tullys of the world as the focus on free tv because the business model supported it. When WWE started having monthly ppv's, for better or worse, they always factored in what the Champions were doing. They took the Elimination Chamber and Hell in the Cell, which were once these feud ending or paradigm shifting stipulations and made them a yearly thing. It's just too big now and I don't know if squashes really fit anymore. I don't know if I'd say they wouldn't really fit as much as I would say a complete overhaul in philosophy and storytelling, in both company and audience, would need to be done to possibly accommodate such a thing. I can't say I blame them for finding that potentially daunting or even not do it (they're still making money either way) but that's what would need to happen.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,062
|
Post by fw91 on Mar 14, 2021 15:07:22 GMT -5
because in this day and age, jobber matches are can miss television. Oh, the big hoss killed some guy who's name I won't remember 5 seconds from now? Who cares? That's not to say they don't have a place, especially to get new talent over, but it can't be a major component of a show.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 14, 2021 15:33:17 GMT -5
because in this day and age, jobber matches are can miss television. Oh, the big hoss killed some guy who's name I won't remember 5 seconds from now? Who cares? That's not to say they don't have a place, especially to get new talent over, but it can't be a major component of a show. Yeah there’s just way too much wrestling content and way too much premium placed on ratings and TV rights’ fees (as opposed to back in the 80s and 90s when money was primarily made on live events and PPVs) to throw 2-3 squash matches per week on a show. That becomes can-miss TV. It’s the reason that AEW’s squash show is YouTube only. Where it does make sense is maybe once a week if you have a monster that has enjoyable squashes like Ryback.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Mar 14, 2021 15:50:25 GMT -5
The problem is, unlike a lot of matches, jobber matches are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
For example, Goldberg beat quite a few jobbers throughout his streak. Were these matches the best way to exhibit Goldberg as a talent? Maybe, for anyone who hadn't seen him perform. Otherwise, I don't think these matches were the best way to present him because so many of Goldberg's matches were the same anyway (and I'm not saying that as a knock against the guy, either, but it was what it was at the time). All what counted was the number, the next notch on the belt of Goldberg's streak. People do not wistfully remember the match Goldberg had with Bobby Blaze on April 3rd, 1998, on the WCW Worldwide show?
So did Goldberg get over because he looked strong in the match or because of the win that counted as another number? Or both? It could be both. There's a stronger case for it being both when looking back at Ryback's push in 2012 versus Goldberg's big run in 1997-1998. He didn't rack up the same number of wins as Goldberg, but "Feed Me More" as a catchphrase caught on quicker than "Who's Next?" did, and Ryback, by necessity at a time when Cena was dealing with injuries, was smashed harder and faster in the main event than Goldberg was, too. But many of Ryback's matches against jobber were also quite samey, like Goldberg before him. Did that make for compelling TV? Not really, but the match itself was irrelevant: what mattered was re-presenting Ryback (formerly Skip Sheffield) as someone credible.
The problem is today's (dwindling) wrestling audience has long been conditioned that only seeing stars on TV matters. Anything else is likely a waste of time. Why would I care to watch some guy who's a nobody lose? The logic of the jobber match, therefore, doesn't jive with what people want or expect from twenty-first century wrestling on TV. In comparison, nobody goes to see the Harlem Globetrotters precisely to see the Washington Generals lose.
Realistically, the pretense of an exhibition and a competition is sort of pointless in the case of the Globetrotters and with jobbers. Both call into question the kayfabe of it all: why would a jobber wrestle somebody when 99.9% ever bother with trying to actually compete against an opponent? This logic actually hurts the kayfabe of it all: why would anyone want to watch something that is meaningless or valueless within the context of the TV show and the overall story being told? But people only think like this because matches are seen as ends, rather than means, and it would take 20 years, probably, to re-train audiences, and I don't think there's enough interest or demand for WWE to try anyway, so of course the company won't commit the money or the TV time in a failed effort.
|
|
Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
Eternally Confused
Posts: 13,482
|
Post by Malcolm on Mar 14, 2021 16:04:38 GMT -5
Because they assume that EVERY match will be a jobber squash match instead of the more reasonable 1 or 2.
And what the hell is with this obsession that every TV match has to be a 20+ minute classic? I'd rather have more 10-13 minute matches tbh.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Mar 14, 2021 16:23:36 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is the same guys wrestling each other week after week after week. Mix it up.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 14, 2021 17:45:02 GMT -5
The problem is, unlike a lot of matches, jobber matches are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. For example, Goldberg beat quite a few jobbers throughout his streak. Were these matches the best way to exhibit Goldberg as a talent? Maybe, for anyone who hadn't seen him perform. Otherwise, I don't think these matches were the best way to present him because so many of Goldberg's matches were the same anyway (and I'm not saying that as a knock against the guy, either, but it was what it was at the time). All what counted was the number, the next notch on the belt of Goldberg's streak. People do not wistfully remember the match Goldberg had with Bobby Blaze on April 3rd, 1998, on the WCW Worldwide show? So did Goldberg get over because he looked strong in the match or because of the win that counted as another number? Or both? It could be both. There's a stronger case for it being both when looking back at Ryback's push in 2012 versus Goldberg's big run in 1997-1998. He didn't rack up the same number of wins as Goldberg, but "Feed Me More" as a catchphrase caught on quicker than "Who's Next?" did, and Ryback, by necessity at a time when Cena was dealing with injuries, was smashed harder and faster in the main event than Goldberg was, too. But many of Ryback's matches against jobber were also quite samey, like Goldberg before him. Did that make for compelling TV? Not really, but the match itself was irrelevant: what mattered was re-presenting Ryback (formerly Skip Sheffield) as someone credible. The problem is today's (dwindling) wrestling audience has long been conditioned that only seeing stars on TV matters. Anything else is likely a waste of time. Why would I care to watch some guy who's a nobody lose? The logic of the jobber match, therefore, doesn't jive with what people want or expect from twenty-first century wrestling on TV. In comparison, nobody goes to see the Harlem Globetrotters precisely to see the Washington Generals lose. Realistically, the pretense of an exhibition and a competition is sort of pointless in the case of the Globetrotters and with jobbers. Both call into question the kayfabe of it all: why would a jobber wrestle somebody when 99.9% ever bother with trying to actually compete against an opponent? This logic actually hurts the kayfabe of it all: why would anyone want to watch something that is meaningless or valueless within the context of the TV show and the overall story being told? But people only think like this because matches are seen as ends, rather than means, and it would take 20 years, probably, to re-train audiences, and I don't think there's enough interest or demand for WWE to try anyway, so of course the company won't commit the money or the TV time in a failed effort. I think a good common sense booker could retrain the WWE audience to a more consequential-feeling product in *one* year. It’d require them looking back at those older eras a bit and what worked (and sometimes what didn’t), but there’s points to how the old stars were presented that I feel could be transferred into the modern age (for one thing, it’d definitely call for protecting the champions and certain stars with momentum. They can’t look dumb, and they can’t be swerved into losses just for dramatic effect). There are certain unique aspects to good WWE hype packages that I’d hope they keep, but if a couple of belts were unified and the champions could be definitively allowed to travel across brands, the format could easily shift to where a brand’s upper mid-roster could properly feed off enhancements, and their wins would feel more meaningful already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2021 17:59:33 GMT -5
Remember when both Black and Rowen had squash matches for months and it lead to a short one sided feud between the two and then Rowen had a fake plastic spider?
That’s why people did want squash matches in WWE.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on Mar 14, 2021 18:53:10 GMT -5
A show of all squash matches (like the old Superstars of Wrestling Saturday mornings) wouldn't really work well today. Those were meant to sell the live events, mainly. There were some shows that featured matches between marquee talents, but those tended to be lower-midcard at most, and you still saw the main attractions talking to Gene or Billy Red Lyons or Ken Resnick (at least briefly) or Craig DeGeorge or Sean Mooney.
Do I think squash matches with local talent or "enhancement talent" would work nowadays? If you have someone you're particularly sweet on pushing, a series of these kinds of matches would work, especially if they're just being called up from NXT or they're a big guy whose position as a threat you want to establish. But they would need to be in the first or second hours of Raw (or the first hour of SD) and you're still giving a marquee match for free(ish).
|
|
67 more
King Koopa
He's just a Sexy Kurt
Posts: 11,511
|
Post by 67 more on Mar 16, 2021 2:56:42 GMT -5
There's a reason I stopped watching Dark.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,804
|
Post by schma on Mar 16, 2021 4:48:19 GMT -5
I think one of the strongest arguements for enhancement talent and/or jobber squashes is that it would be a way to give people who are feuding someone to wrestle other than the person they're feuding with. One of the biggest issues we see is a feud giving the match away for free 3 or 4 times before a ppv, removing any specialness and possibly making it ho hum.
|
|