50/50 Booking

[StormanReigns]

Honestly, why does everyone need to get their wins back?



Mankind feuded with The Rock for like 2 years, and almost never won. The one time he did beat The Rock it was a REALLY big deal. Bigger than any of The Rock's wins over him.



The Rock almost always lost to Austin as well, and when the times he did beat him, they were also a very big deal.

If two guys face each other in the UFC and they have not lost in a year or so, it is a very big deal. If two guys in the UFC who have a fight record of 4-4, fight each other it is never a big deal.

No one is ever going to get momentum if they lose half the time. How often does a .500 team in sports make the playoffs? Rarely, because they are not that good. So if a wrestler has a .500 record you are saying in a way that they are not that good, yet good enough to wrestle for your version of the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, Champions League, etc. 

Seth Rollins lost more times than he won while champ. World champions in sports do not do that! When New England loses, it is a big deal. When Barcelona loses it makes headlines around the world. When the WWE champion loses, it is likely just a Monday. 

[SAJ Forth]

Sadly, because WWE doesn't want to make the guys they want to push look weak, it makes them look weaker.

[Nic Nemeth]

Because they use the same ten guys each week and when five of them lose, they realize they gotta rebuild their credibility by having the other five lose.

[Hit Girl]

Combination of two things.

1- No jobbers. In the absence of jobbers, stars beat each other.

2- Glass ceiling. Progress can only go so far. Eventually, a new star meets an established one, loses, then goes back to treading water in the mid-card.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Jan 8, 2016 1:42:17 GMT -5 Nic Nemeth said:

Because they use the same ten guys each week and when five of them lose, they realize they gotta rebuild their credibility by having the other five lose.

Yeah. If they used their entire roster, and established an actual tier system where guys regularly put over wrestlers in the tiers above them, but can still beat guys below them, this wouldn't be an issue. But that would require WWE to care about and book people that they don't see as future potential big name stars.

[Nic Nemeth]

Jan 8, 2016 2:19:19 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Jan 8, 2016 1:42:17 GMT -5 Nic Nemeth said:

Because they use the same ten guys each week and when five of them lose, they realize they gotta rebuild their credibility by having the other five lose.

Yeah. If they used their entire roster, and established an actual tier system where guys regularly put over wrestlers in the tiers above them, but can still beat guys below them, this wouldn't be an issue. But that would require WWE to care about and book people that they don't see as future potential big name stars.

The solution to this is something they're already doing, more tag teams and stables.

Crowds may not tune in to see Curtis Axel, but they will tune in to see crazy shenanigans with Slater and Dallas.

Now Social Outcast are 4 guys who can lose to any midcarder (or thru numbers game beat any) and keep the crowd interested.

[wisdomwizard]

Del Rio and Kevin Owens were booked better as the U.S. and Intercontinental Champs respectively, and its been continuing with the latter with how Ambrose has been doing. Make all your champs credible, and that helps a lot with straightening the hierarchy out.

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Jan 8, 2016 1:42:17 GMT -5 Nic Nemeth said:

Because they use the same ten guys each week and when five of them lose, they realize they gotta rebuild their credibility by having the other five lose.

Pretty much. The reality is that this booking strategy gets no one over and results in everybody being on the same midcard level but that's the logic behind it.

It's dumb, I know, but they got to make some changes to the foundation of Raw/SD to be able to fix it.