|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 1, 2013 15:29:19 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be those guys. They could have an 8 man star making tournament of guys like Gabriel, Neville, Zayn etc.... Fewer guys with a qualifying win each, being introduced (or reintroduced) to an audience and put over strongly by commentators in fairly long matches allowing them to show what they can do A smaller tournment allows the audience to know them better than an enormous tournament largely consisting of quick throwaway matches. I disagree. The feat of winning an 8 man tournament is the real throwaway. "Congrats Wrestler XY, you just overcame the odds and beat other seven randomly chosen wrestlers. You're the greatest King of all times, not those guys who won tourneys that included a big part of the roster." This is full of strawmen. Greatest king of all times? Who's been advocating that? Randomly chosen wrestlers? That's how all tournaments in WWE have tended to be. Winning an 8-man tournament means the winner has overcome the odds, by successfully navigating three rounds. The more guys in a tournament, the harder it is for an up-and-comer to stand out. A refined tournament is a better way, rather than some fanboyish mega tournament.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2013 15:32:39 GMT -5
I disagree. The feat of winning an 8 man tournament is the real throwaway. "Congrats Wrestler XY, you just overcame the odds and beat other seven randomly chosen wrestlers. You're the greatest King of all times, not those guys who won tourneys that included a big part of the roster." This is full of strawmen. Greatest king of all times? Who's been advocating that? Randomly chosen wrestlers? That's how all tournaments in WWE have tended to be. Winning an 8-man tournament means the winner has overcome the odds, by successfully navigating three rounds. The more guys in a tournament, the harder it is for an up-and-comer to stand out. A refined tournament is a better way, rather than some fanboyish mega tournament. You're on the other side of the same straw if my thoughts are reaching that far. No need for pseudo insults. Are we going to run in circles for next 45 minutes? Eight man tournaments is pointless in my eyes. In yours isn't. I laid out my thoughts and its a fanboyish fantasy? Awesome. We disagree. The discussion isn't engaging in such a manner. You can have final word.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 1, 2013 15:42:11 GMT -5
This is full of strawmen. Greatest king of all times? Who's been advocating that? Randomly chosen wrestlers? That's how all tournaments in WWE have tended to be. Winning an 8-man tournament means the winner has overcome the odds, by successfully navigating three rounds. The more guys in a tournament, the harder it is for an up-and-comer to stand out. A refined tournament is a better way, rather than some fanboyish mega tournament. You're on the other side of the same straw if my thoughts are reaching that far. No need for pseudo insults. Are we going to run in circles for next 45 minutes? Eight man tournaments is pointless in my eyes. In yours isn't. I laid out my thoughts and its a fanboyish fantasy? Awesome. We disagree. The discussion isn't engaging in such a manner. You can have final word. Yes, a 64-man wrestling tournament is fanboyish. Eight-man tournaments have worked perfectly well in WWE history. The majority of KOTR's have used that format. Even smaller scale tournaments have proven effective. As far as I can recall, the 1996 tournament only had four men wrestling on the night. It didn't seem to harm Stone Cold, because there was a strong storyline behind it all. If the narrative is right, a small tournament is all that's required.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Dec 1, 2013 15:59:01 GMT -5
I have always liked King of the Ring. The brackets and the graphics for them, the tournament, the similarities to Mortal Kombat. I don't think their is enough tournaments in wrestling today, in WWE especially. Thank god PWG has DDT and BOLA, NJPW has G1 and BOSJ among others, and I always liked ROH's Survival of the Fittest (although I have lost interest with the product in recent years, despite still buying dvd's from years before 2012, so I am not sure if they have done it this year).
It's like what has been said in the "there is so many potential match of the year candidates" thread, the roster is insane with in ring talent this year. They have built up an incredibly talented roster with variety, from the ground up. I would love a KOTR PPV going back to quarter finals to finals format (instead of 01/02 with just semi's and finals), to really exaggerate how much of a hard up hill struggle it is to win the tournament on the night, and how physically exhausted everyone is from it.
There are so many people/quaterfinalists you could have (never mind the lower/midcard you could put over in strong showings despite losing in the undercard, and the others stories you could create on the way to the PPV). Giving an example of the 8 competitors for the PPV
Bryan Cesaro Luke Harper Cody Rhodes Big E Ziggler Sami Zayn Mark Henry
etc etc
The possabilities are endless as far as potentially awesome matches, in ring storytelling/psychology and storylines that can come from tournaments
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Dec 1, 2013 18:44:55 GMT -5
King of the Ring is an awesome PPV idea, and a fantastic way to begin the build to Summerslam. WWE has just botched it more times than not.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 1, 2013 19:15:31 GMT -5
This is full of strawmen. Greatest king of all times? Who's been advocating that? Randomly chosen wrestlers? That's how all tournaments in WWE have tended to be. Winning an 8-man tournament means the winner has overcome the odds, by successfully navigating three rounds. The more guys in a tournament, the harder it is for an up-and-comer to stand out. A refined tournament is a better way, rather than some fanboyish mega tournament. You're on the other side of the same straw if my thoughts are reaching that far. No need for pseudo insults. Are we going to run in circles for next 45 minutes? Eight man tournaments is pointless in my eyes. In yours isn't. I laid out my thoughts and its a fanboyish fantasy? Awesome. We disagree. The discussion isn't engaging in such a manner. You can have final word. She likes referring to straw men. You can't address her consistent criticism as dismissive and therefore unable to argue against, you're only referring to a strawman. A tournament would be bracketed as follows: ROUND ONEJohn Cena vs. Antonio Cesaro Jack Swagger vs. Kofi Kingston Mark Henry vs. Ryback Fandango vs. Santino Dolph Ziggler vs. Damien Sandow Randy Orton vs. Big E. Langston Daniel Bryan vs. Dean Ambrose CM Punk vs. Roman Reigns ROUND TWOJohn Cena vs. Jack Swagger Ryback vs. Santino Randy Orton vs. Dolph Ziggler Daniel Bryan vs. Roman Reigns ROUND THREEJohn Cena vs. Ryback Randy Orton vs. Daniel Bryan FINALSJohn Cena def. Randy Orton During the tourney, announcers would allude to the crazy improbable chance Orton and Cena will meet in the finals. They will. One other thing. What's the obsession with posters wanting to see their favorites lose, but look great in the process? I've seen countless Daniel Bryan v.s. Brock Lesnar threads calling for this, and this thread seems like it too. Isn't the point of rooting for our favorites to want them to win? This seems like meta-fantasy booking where they hope their favorite will be more over in losing, which kills the point of being a fan of the wrestler, and really amounts to being a fan of the worker himself. It's weird to me.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 1, 2013 20:19:04 GMT -5
You're on the other side of the same straw if my thoughts are reaching that far. No need for pseudo insults. Are we going to run in circles for next 45 minutes? Eight man tournaments is pointless in my eyes. In yours isn't. I laid out my thoughts and its a fanboyish fantasy? Awesome. We disagree. The discussion isn't engaging in such a manner. You can have final word. She likes referring to straw men. You can't address her consistent criticism as dismissive and therefore unable to argue against, you're only referring to a strawman. A tournament would be bracketed as follows: ROUND ONEJohn Cena vs. Antonio Cesaro Jack Swagger vs. Kofi Kingston Mark Henry vs. Ryback Fandango vs. Santino Dolph Ziggler vs. Damien Sandow Randy Orton vs. Big E. Langston Daniel Bryan vs. Dean Ambrose CM Punk vs. Roman Reigns ROUND TWOJohn Cena vs. Jack Swagger Ryback vs. Santino Randy Orton vs. Dolph Ziggler Daniel Bryan vs. Roman Reigns ROUND THREEJohn Cena vs. Ryback Randy Orton vs. Daniel Bryan FINALSJohn Cena def. Randy Orton During the tourney, announcers would allude to the crazy improbable chance Orton and Cena will meet in the finals. They will. One other thing. What's the obsession with posters wanting to see their favorites lose, but look great in the process? I've seen countless Daniel Bryan v.s. Brock Lesnar threads calling for this, and this thread seems like it too. Isn't the point of rooting for our favorites to want them to win? This seems like meta-fantasy booking where they hope their favorite will be more over in losing, which kills the point of being a fan of the wrestler, and really amounts to being a fan of the worker himself. It's weird to me. I want my faves to win, but some of my faves have been booked to hell to the point where they don't have the credibility to realistically beat anyone worth beating. So I'd love it if my guy looked strong in a loss or really got a chance to show his ability and passion for the business in spite of getting his ass kicked and getting stiffed and rag dolled by a bigger guy like Lesnar. A lot of my guys are stuck as jobbers, and if I can't see them succeed, I'll settle for them getting to be the best jobber they can be and hopefully other people could see how good they are and start appreciating them more.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 1, 2013 20:28:46 GMT -5
I don't like referring to them. But when the situation calls for it, I will.
|
|