the business as cyclical

[cart]

you know the way that hardcore matches and big bumps have been missing in action for a while compared to the attitude era. Do you think it is because the E are genuinely concerned about their performers or do you think that they believe that the business is cyclical and are purposly holding back so that they can bring that style back in the future and make it seem fresh again?
Just a thought because when or if they return to this style they will have a good show again.

[Hiroshi Hase]

Maybe, but merely bringing back Hardcore matches isn't the solution to everything.

[Deleted]

WWE are not holding back, they're just getting away from the absolute stupidity of constant 'Hardcore' matches.

Those types of matches are much more effective when they are not used nearly every week. Like, take Orton/Foley, for example. It had a great storyline behind it and it actually meant something. This is why ECW isn't having those types of matches anymore - it's too much of one thing, and it loses it's appeal after a while.

[cart]

yjc1019 said:

Maybe, but merely bringing back Hardcore matches isn't the solution to everything.

true,but I would love to see a kick ass TLC match again a la wrestlemania 17 ( I think it was 17 maybe it was 18 canny remember at the minute).
You gotta love a good hardcore match

[cart]

am90 said:

WWE are not holding back, they're just getting away from the absolute stupidity of constant 'Hardcore' matches.

Those types of matches are much more effective when they are not used nearly every week. Like, take Orton/Foley, for example. It had a great storyline behind it and it actually meant something. This is why ECW isn't having those types of matches anymore - it's too much of one thing, and it loses it's appeal after a while.

this is also why ecw is so poop at the minute too

[wwerules60]

I am all for the hardcore title coming back because I think WWE could use some of those goofy hardcore matches back. They seem to be focusing on a lot of comedy anyway so they should just let these midcard guys go and do comedy hardcore matches like Al Snow, Hardcore Holly, Big Bossman, Crash Holly, etc. used to do.

[Deleted]

cart said:

am90 said:

WWE are not holding back, they're just getting away from the absolute stupidity of constant 'Hardcore' matches.

Those types of matches are much more effective when they are not used nearly every week. Like, take Orton/Foley, for example. It had a great storyline behind it and it actually meant something. This is why ECW isn't having those types of matches anymore - it's too much of one thing, and it loses it's appeal after a while.

this is also why ecw is so poop at the minute too

No, it isn't. There's other reasons.

If ECW had gripping storylines and three-dimensional characters, nobody would care if they didn't bash each other's heads in for no reason every week. Weapons should only be used when they can actually make an impact on a character or storyline.

[cart]

am90 said:

cart said:

this is also why ecw is so poop at the minute too

No, it isn't. There's other reasons.

If ECW had gripping storylines and three-dimensional characters, nobody would care if they didn't bash each other's heads in for no reason every week. Weapons should only be used when they can actually make an impact on a character or storyline.

come on, a flaming table would be welcome in any match!!
I know what you mean but there is no denying that the original ecw was amazing, and the point of it was that you don't need a reason to bash each others heads in, you do it cos its good wholesome fun

[Deleted]

cart said:

am90 said:

No, it isn't. There's other reasons.

If ECW had gripping storylines and three-dimensional characters, nobody would care if they didn't bash each other's heads in for no reason every week. Weapons should only be used when they can actually make an impact on a character or storyline.

come on, a flaming table would be welcome in any match!!
I know what you mean but there is no denying that the original ecw was amazing, and the point of it was that you don't need a reason to bash each others heads in, you do it cos its good wholesome fun

Yeah A flaming table would be welcome, but 100? Not so much. You have to keep these kinds of things special so that they don't get stale. This eventually means that you don't have to push the boundries to far to get a reaction from the fans (ala czw.)

[Celgress]

As others has stated the return of frequent hardcore matches will not slove the WWE problems. It will take a new character or angle catching fire to do that (a la Stone Cold VS Vinny Mack, back in the late 1990s').

[alphaman]

cart said:

am90 said:

No, it isn't. There's other reasons.

If ECW had gripping storylines and three-dimensional characters, nobody would care if they didn't bash each other's heads in for no reason every week. Weapons should only be used when they can actually make an impact on a character or storyline.

come on, a flaming table would be welcome in any match!!
I know what you mean but there is no denying that the original ecw was amazing, and the point of it was that you don't need a reason to bash each others heads in, you do it cos its good wholesome fun

It gets old very quickly though. People get desentized to the violence pretty quickly, and then you are left in a worse situation than when you started the hardcore stuff.

ECW had some extremely good competitive wrestling matches as well don't forget. The new ECW is just WWE light, which means that it is also light on decent wrestling action.

[HMARK Center]

And on the notion of the business being "cyclical":

No, it isn't. It's simply reliant on there being talented and creative enough forces at work to create a compelling product. If you don't have that, then, surprise, your ratings/buyrates won't be that great.

[Tapout]

Yes, retardedly violent hardcore matches with stuff on fire and stiff chairshots will not solve anything. If anything, they will make matters worse. Injuries have really hurt the company. Cena, and arguably Lashley, could presumably be helping the company draw if they weren't out.

But I would say that the situation we're may or may not be an ebb in the tide that will work itself out. (Source: Rajah.com) Specifically, the company has been nailed on roid-related charges before (and Hogan and Jim "The Hellwig" Warrior mysteriously stopped being champions, and smaller men like Hart and Michaels mysteriously became the champions). The company weathered that storm and the Monday Night War made wrestling huge again.

However, as far as the company's ratings and buyrates being in a slump, that's not a result of a natural cycle being low, it's due to the company insisting on its "Rocky Johnson superstar push" policy, where instead of trying to explore and fill out the roster, they take one guy and push him to the moon to hope he becomes the next Rocky or Austin. In this case, it was superman Cena, and now that the guy is injured, it's painfully obvious that this strategy just doesn't work. Just like when Brock left. And Rocky left. And Austin retired.

[deadmanlfc]

I wouldn't say Rocky Johnson had a "Superstar push", seeing as his pinnacle in the WWF was a one-time Tag Team Champion.

[acressl]

Hardcore stuff is probably being reserved for the occasional ECW match. To have them all the time would cause it to lose it's identity and be seen for what it is. The C show.

[The Cool Pup]

They definitely care about the safety of the performers and athletes, it'd be wrong to think otherwise.

"Hardcore wrestling" as a genre died the day the real ECW did. Since WWE is trying to market itself with and against MMA (or so it seems,) doing things like making wrestling really much like "garbage-style" is against the grain.

Don't get me wrong, I love (sensible) hardcore wrestling.

[skillz]

hitmanmark said:

And on the notion of the business being "cyclical":

No, it isn't. It's simply reliant on there being talented and creative enough forces at work to create a compelling product. If you don't have that, then, surprise, your ratings/buyrates won't be that great.

In many threads about wrestling being "cyclical", I've asked someone (anyone) to give me evidence of that being true. I don't recall getting one response. I think it's just a buzzword that people have run with over the years.

I think boom periods are just a case of finding lightning in a bottle more than anything else. You can't predict a Steve Austin or Rock type emergence, nor can you predict societal fads (which is essentially what the Attitude Era was).

[Ridley]

I still think the ECW title should always be defended under hardcore rules, especially with the merge between ECW and Smackdown.

That doesn't mean they have to break out unprotected headshots or anything just something that stands that belt out as worth having.

[Loki]

Hardcore isn't the solution. At all.

By pushing the envelope and raising the bar in every possible way, WWE have made themselves the uncomfortable bed they're currently lying in.

As said by others, too much is bad. A flaming table once in a while is awesome (see, WM XXII), but a flaming table every other PPV quickly loses its appeal and becomes "normal", and the crowd will push for two tables etc... leading to an escalation of overly dangerous and unnecessary stunts.

Business ISN'T cyclical at all.

The two booms came when WWF managed to push a Superstar who blended decently in the then-current mainstream flow.
It was Amerian Hero Hulk Hogan during the 80s, when it was all USA and bombastic rock
It was Stone Cold Steve Austin in the late 90s when it was all about dime-a-dozen juvenile rebellion.

When/if WWE will manage to take a ride on the next Fade of the Decade trend, we'll maybe have another boom.
Otherwise, be prepared to more typical pro-wrestling stuff and half-assed attempts to join the mainstream.

[joeman]

Agreed.