|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 4, 2020 14:10:14 GMT -5
It’s grossly harsh, because so much of this perception is greatly weighted towards your losses being more damaging than your wins are helpful. Like, it doesn’t matter how often you win, one bad loss seems to cancel it all out. Just ask Kofi Kingston and his world title reign where he had a 21 match winning streak, but all anyone wants to remember is how he lost it to Brock Lesnar (it’s amazing how often that name pops up in these threads). People don't talk about this because he lost. They talk about it because he lost instantly, to someone everyone's been sick of for years, and dumped off the main event level forever, and we, as viewers, were not supposed to want him to get the title back and be champion again (or ever). It came across like Vince re-establishing the natural order by putting Kofi back in his place after a few months where the fans went crazy and wanted this loser to be champ. No one talks about the winning streak because everyone (correctly) knew that Brock loss, or something like it, would happen sooner or later. Losses matter too much to fans, because we have figured out that the way losses work, they mean something about the booking. You work hard to tell us that losing is for losers, and that the hierarchy of your roster is representative of something "real," we start to pick up that certain losses really are intended to be symbolically important... they're deliberately meant to tell us who the schmucks are. It's just the fans figuring out how the booking really goes. You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me.
|
|
kidkamikaze10
Dennis Stamp
Trying to think of a new avatar
Posts: 4,305
|
Post by kidkamikaze10 on Mar 4, 2020 14:32:24 GMT -5
People don't talk about this because he lost. They talk about it because he lost instantly, to someone everyone's been sick of for years, and dumped off the main event level forever, and we, as viewers, were not supposed to want him to get the title back and be champion again (or ever). It came across like Vince re-establishing the natural order by putting Kofi back in his place after a few months where the fans went crazy and wanted this loser to be champ. No one talks about the winning streak because everyone (correctly) knew that Brock loss, or something like it, would happen sooner or later. Losses matter too much to fans, because we have figured out that the way losses work, they mean something about the booking. You work hard to tell us that losing is for losers, and that the hierarchy of your roster is representative of something "real," we start to pick up that certain losses really are intended to be symbolically important... they're deliberately meant to tell us who the schmucks are. It's just the fans figuring out how the booking really goes. You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me. I agree, but WWE made that bed themselves. Which isn’t to say this doesn’t happen in other companies: Goto wears the crown of this perception in New Japan despite being a pretty successful dude there. Naito was a loss away from it. The WWE gets this flack way more harshly because this has been an issue for them for arguably 17 years.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Mar 4, 2020 14:33:54 GMT -5
People don't talk about this because he lost. They talk about it because he lost instantly, to someone everyone's been sick of for years, and dumped off the main event level forever, and we, as viewers, were not supposed to want him to get the title back and be champion again (or ever). It came across like Vince re-establishing the natural order by putting Kofi back in his place after a few months where the fans went crazy and wanted this loser to be champ. No one talks about the winning streak because everyone (correctly) knew that Brock loss, or something like it, would happen sooner or later. Losses matter too much to fans, because we have figured out that the way losses work, they mean something about the booking. You work hard to tell us that losing is for losers, and that the hierarchy of your roster is representative of something "real," we start to pick up that certain losses really are intended to be symbolically important... they're deliberately meant to tell us who the schmucks are. It's just the fans figuring out how the booking really goes. You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me. Well, but that's the thing, losses don't always mean a lot. Because how clearly he's a main event guy, if Brock loses, no one will care, because everyone knows he'll just win again later. He "rightly" sits atop the heap. The universe is at peace when he's winning... which means it doesn't matter if he loses. When Kofi loses, that's a big deal, because it means he's getting thrown back to "where he belongs."
|
|
|
Post by captaincheapshot on Mar 4, 2020 14:38:53 GMT -5
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zdHUCuPkzb8/maxresdefault.jpg) I want to see the Kacy Catanzaro reaction video to the Raw match.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 4, 2020 14:44:44 GMT -5
People don't talk about this because he lost. They talk about it because he lost instantly, to someone everyone's been sick of for years, and dumped off the main event level forever, and we, as viewers, were not supposed to want him to get the title back and be champion again (or ever). It came across like Vince re-establishing the natural order by putting Kofi back in his place after a few months where the fans went crazy and wanted this loser to be champ. No one talks about the winning streak because everyone (correctly) knew that Brock loss, or something like it, would happen sooner or later. Losses matter too much to fans, because we have figured out that the way losses work, they mean something about the booking. You work hard to tell us that losing is for losers, and that the hierarchy of your roster is representative of something "real," we start to pick up that certain losses really are intended to be symbolically important... they're deliberately meant to tell us who the schmucks are. It's just the fans figuring out how the booking really goes. You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me. If Kofi or Ricochet lost in actual matches instead of a flat squash it would translate better to people. Some would complain but it would at least look like they belonged in the same building as Brock.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Mar 4, 2020 15:04:46 GMT -5
You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me. I agree, but WWE made that bed themselves. Which isn’t to say this doesn’t happen in other companies: Goto wears the crown of this perception in New Japan despite being a pretty successful dude there. Naito was a loss away from it. The WWE gets this flack way more harshly because this has been an issue for them for arguably 17 years. It's absolutely a WWE problem. I don't think AEW has anyone with a perfect overall record, even their top guys will cop some losses. New Japan will make a note of putting on a tournament where nobody clean sweeps, including their top champ who pretty much never wins said tournament. Hell I've seen shows like Bloodsport last year where Suzuki vs. Barnett goes to a no contest and the crowd is eating it up. You can point to a guy like Goto, but that's y'know, one guy who chokes when everything matters most. The problem with WWE is that this applies to everyone, the structure of stuff like Brock squashes and Goldberg squashes is that the loss is this huge dramatic thing with the express purpose of a shock loss. In the past few years, when someone loses, they lose, and they have become so fixated on this trick of big shock value losses that of course the audience is going to respond to them that way. It's not an occasional trick anymroe when it matters, it's done on the regular to show wo the 'real stars' are. Audiences don't just decide the story. WWE uses what I hesitate to call 'storytelling' devices, patterns, and tools that all convey these meanings. The audience is just understanding that storytelling language for wht it's meant to convey.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Mar 4, 2020 15:54:08 GMT -5
I agree, but WWE made that bed themselves. Which isn’t to say this doesn’t happen in other companies: Goto wears the crown of this perception in New Japan despite being a pretty successful dude there. Naito was a loss away from it. The WWE gets this flack way more harshly because this has been an issue for them for arguably 17 years. It's absolutely a WWE problem. I don't think AEW has anyone with a perfect overall record, even their top guys will cop some losses. New Japan will make a note of putting on a tournament where nobody clean sweeps, including their top champ who pretty much never wins said tournament. Hell I've seen shows like Bloodsport last year where Suzuki vs. Barnett goes to a no contest and the crowd is eating it up. You can point to a guy like Goto, but that's y'know, one guy who chokes when everything matters most. The problem with WWE is that this applies to everyone, the structure of stuff like Brock squashes and Goldberg squashes is that the loss is this huge dramatic thing with the express purpose of a shock loss. In the past few years, when someone loses, they lose, and they have become so fixated on this trick of big shock value losses that of course the audience is going to respond to them that way. It's not an occasional trick anymroe when it matters, it's done on the regular to show wo the 'real stars' are. Audiences don't just decide the story. WWE uses what I hesitate to call 'storytelling' devices, patterns, and tools that all convey these meanings. The audience is just understanding that storytelling language for wht it's meant to convey. Jon Moxley is the only guy in AEW with a perfect singles record. Only loss was in a tag match where he didn’t get pinned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 16:08:52 GMT -5
It's absolutely a WWE problem. I don't think AEW has anyone with a perfect overall record, even their top guys will cop some losses. New Japan will make a note of putting on a tournament where nobody clean sweeps, including their top champ who pretty much never wins said tournament. Hell I've seen shows like Bloodsport last year where Suzuki vs. Barnett goes to a no contest and the crowd is eating it up. You can point to a guy like Goto, but that's y'know, one guy who chokes when everything matters most. The problem with WWE is that this applies to everyone, the structure of stuff like Brock squashes and Goldberg squashes is that the loss is this huge dramatic thing with the express purpose of a shock loss. In the past few years, when someone loses, they lose, and they have become so fixated on this trick of big shock value losses that of course the audience is going to respond to them that way. It's not an occasional trick anymroe when it matters, it's done on the regular to show wo the 'real stars' are. Audiences don't just decide the story. WWE uses what I hesitate to call 'storytelling' devices, patterns, and tools that all convey these meanings. The audience is just understanding that storytelling language for wht it's meant to convey. Jon Moxley is the only guy in AEW with a perfect singles record. Only loss was in a tag match where he didn’t get pinned. How easily you forget the entirely undefeated Big Hurt.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,025
|
Post by Dub H on Mar 4, 2020 16:58:27 GMT -5
It's absolutely a WWE problem. I don't think AEW has anyone with a perfect overall record, even their top guys will cop some losses. New Japan will make a note of putting on a tournament where nobody clean sweeps, including their top champ who pretty much never wins said tournament. Hell I've seen shows like Bloodsport last year where Suzuki vs. Barnett goes to a no contest and the crowd is eating it up. You can point to a guy like Goto, but that's y'know, one guy who chokes when everything matters most. The problem with WWE is that this applies to everyone, the structure of stuff like Brock squashes and Goldberg squashes is that the loss is this huge dramatic thing with the express purpose of a shock loss. In the past few years, when someone loses, they lose, and they have become so fixated on this trick of big shock value losses that of course the audience is going to respond to them that way. It's not an occasional trick anymroe when it matters, it's done on the regular to show wo the 'real stars' are. Audiences don't just decide the story. WWE uses what I hesitate to call 'storytelling' devices, patterns, and tools that all convey these meanings. The audience is just understanding that storytelling language for wht it's meant to convey. Jon Moxley is the only guy in AEW with a perfect singles record. Only loss was in a tag match where he didn’t get pinned. It will be interesting to see how they book top guy Moxley.Easier to book a top heel champion to win a lot and yet look vulnerable. You gotta avoid it just be BEAT THE ODDS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 18:21:07 GMT -5
You just proved my exact point about perception being so weighted towards losses being damaging. It’s just so cutthroat and uncompromising to me. If Kofi or Ricochet lost in actual matches instead of a flat squash it would translate better to people. Some would complain but it would at least look like they belonged in the same building as Brock. Finn looking as good as he did in defeat against Brock at least made people want to see him (as The Demon) get a rematch. Ricochet not being able to hit some of his high flying moves and at least one 630 is just inexcusable in my book.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Mar 4, 2020 23:52:47 GMT -5
I think this whole discussion does speak for a bigger issue WWE has in that they really struggle figuring out how to get the fans to care about an act... and it's not all wins and losses either.
I hate to use AEW as an example as its apple and oranges but it speaks volumes for presentation with how their crowds go crazy for Darby Allin, the Jurasic Express, and Orange Cassidy while WWE struggles to get fans to care about guys who are just as talented if not more on their roster (too many to name). And it's not like all those guys have great win loss records... hell Luchasaurus was in WWE developmental for a couple years and never made a dent.
There's too much of a stigma in WWE that outside of a handful of people nothing matters. Fans are not stupid and when they realize something doesnt matter they arent going to get invested
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 5, 2020 0:10:03 GMT -5
There's too much of a stigma in WWE that outside of a handful of people nothing matters. Fans are not stupid and when they realize something doesnt matter they arent going to get invested Which begs the question of WWE can do to make a person matter in their eyes, especially when the perception is so entrenched and rusted-on that they could rocket push an over talent for months and they'd still be waiting for the penny to drop and be ready to give up on them if something goes arse-up. Therefore, it often seems like the only answer to that "What makes a person matter in WWE?" question is "Make them world champion", and even THEN, it's a lottery after that point depending on who they feud with, where they're placed on the card and because of the looming specter of your part-time types.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Mar 5, 2020 1:49:16 GMT -5
There's too much of a stigma in WWE that outside of a handful of people nothing matters. Fans are not stupid and when they realize something doesnt matter they arent going to get invested Which begs the question of WWE can do to make a person matter in their eyes, especially when the perception is so entrenched and rusted-on that they could rocket push an over talent for months and they'd still be waiting for the penny to drop and be ready to give up on them if something goes arse-up. Therefore, it often seems like the only answer to that "What makes a person matter in WWE?" question is "Make them world champion", and even THEN, it's a lottery after that point depending on who they feud with, where they're placed on the card and because of the looming specter of your part-time types. Honestly, it needs a whole restructure on what matters and what doesn’t that I don’t think will happen for a long time. And if they wanted to, it would have happened a while ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 1:58:59 GMT -5
Being fair on the Brock match apparently in light of losing clean to Seth they feel like Brock needs to make everybody look like a goddamn idiot, given Kofi, the Rumble nonsense, the way he absolutely crushed Mysterio, and the Cain squash.
Though still, if you write a story where the hero goes on about how people are wrong to underestimate them and they're going to prove something while the villain laughs about how useless trying to oppose them is, with the end result being that the face is instantly devoured and then plummets down the card, you're a terrible writer, and that's been every Brock storyline since October. And whenever someone's going, "I'm gonna show you why you're wrong to doubt me," and then doesn't land a single move then fans are right to say the guy looks like a piece of shit.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 239,245
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Mar 5, 2020 2:04:25 GMT -5
Being fair on the Brock match apparently in light of losing clean to Seth they feel like Brock needs to make everybody look like a goddamn idiot, given Kofi, the Rumble nonsense, the way he absolutely crushed Mysterio, and the Cain squash. Though still, if you write a story where the hero goes on about how people are wrong to underestimate them and they're going to prove something while the villain laughs about how useless trying to oppose them is, with the end result being that the face is instantly devoured and then plummets down the card, you're a terrible writer, and that's been every Brock storyline since October. And whenever someone's going, "I'm gonna show you why you're wrong to doubt me," and then doesn't land a single move then fans are right to say the guy looks like a piece of shit. Honestly I don't think that's "Being Fair" as much as Vince McMahon being a lunatic thinking we still want to see Brock Lesnar kill everyone in 2020.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 7:22:12 GMT -5
I'm glad people are finally breaking out of the "[x] just couldn't cut it in the big leagues I guess" mindset. There's a common denominator to so, so, so many incredibly talented wrestlers looking like geeks once they get to the main roster. It's not due to all of them lacking star quality, it's due to WWE being utterly unable to make anyone feel like they matter, save people who peaked 15-20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 5, 2020 10:28:03 GMT -5
Which begs the question of WWE can do to make a person matter in their eyes, especially when the perception is so entrenched and rusted-on that they could rocket push an over talent for months and they'd still be waiting for the penny to drop and be ready to give up on them if something goes arse-up. Therefore, it often seems like the only answer to that "What makes a person matter in WWE?" question is "Make them world champion", and even THEN, it's a lottery after that point depending on who they feud with, where they're placed on the card and because of the looming specter of your part-time types. Honestly, it needs a whole restructure on what matters and what doesn’t that I don’t think will happen for a long time. And if they wanted to, it would have happened a while ago. And ultimately the answer doesn't have to be "they have to book them to be World Champion in order for them to matter"; people think that way because WWE gives them no reason to think otherwise. All WWE would have to do is start coming up with compelling stories to tell using characters that play off one another in interesting ways. As it is, they spend way, way too much time booking matches and skits that have no bearing on anybody's character, motivations, or overall progression ("wrestling for wrestling's sake"). It's part of why those filler title feuds they book babyfaces into after big WM title wins suck so much, they just sort of happen but have no underlying motivations or consequences for anyone involved. Start giving wrestlers character arcs and goals and rivalries based on clashing personalities, give it a little time to break old habits and tropes in people's minds, and you can have people caring about the mid card again without having to make everyone world champ in order to feel important, especially since strapping someone up has become so common and pointless that most of the belts don't matter anymore, either.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 5, 2020 10:34:18 GMT -5
Honestly, it needs a whole restructure on what matters and what doesn’t that I don’t think will happen for a long time. And if they wanted to, it would have happened a while ago. And ultimately the answer doesn't have to be "they have to book them to be World Champion in order for them to matter"; people think that way because WWE gives them no reason to think otherwise. All WWE would have to do is start coming up with compelling stories to tell using characters that play off one another in interesting ways. As it is, they spend way, way too much time booking matches and skits that have no bearing on anybody's character, motivations, or overall progression ("wrestling for wrestling's sake"). It's part of why those filler title feuds they book babyfaces into after big WM title wins suck so much, they just sort of happen but have no underlying motivations or consequences for anyone involved. Start giving wrestlers character arcs and goals and rivalries based on clashing personalities, give it a little time to break old habits and tropes in people's minds, and you can have people caring about the mid card again without having to make everyone world champ in order to feel important, especially since strapping someone up has become to common and pointless that most of the belts don't matter anymore, either. I agree 100%. I hate to bring up AEW in a WWE thread, but this made me think of the way that Cody Rhodes is booked. He had one feud over the title and the rest have been personal rivalries. I have purchased most of the AEW ppvs. Each one that I purchased was for the Cody Rhodes match. What I'm trying to say is that a well written feud or storyline can sell a ppv.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 10:34:58 GMT -5
Well someone get him out of the water! Pretty much dead doesn't mean dead dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 11:38:40 GMT -5
So, do we help him out back into ocean or leave him dying to shore? I know you don't help dolphins, but Ricochet is one different specimen.
|
|