|
Post by lavelleuk22 on Jul 22, 2022 11:23:55 GMT -5
Not sure if it's exactly wgat you meant, but it annoyed me that Yuta kicked out of 2 piledrivers against Best Friends, who went on to lose
I get they're pushing Yuta, but I actually think he has more to gain from losing in situations like that. What's the point in joining guys like Mox and DB if he's already unbeatable lol
|
|
|
Post by Gremlin on Jul 23, 2022 11:53:19 GMT -5
I remember in the mid 80s on of my cousin's favorite wrestlers in Mid-South/UWF (Bill Watts') was a guy by the name of Mike Boyette. With only a bit of snark, he would proclaim that this match would be the one that Mike would win. Problem was, Mike Boyette was the opposite of undefeated. Like, the dude NEVER won. Seriously. Searching online, his UWF record stands at 0-197. But man, my cousin cheered like mad for that guy. I kept the tradition going with Bobby Blaze in WCW, who would only occasionally catch a W on Saturday Night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 12:43:29 GMT -5
I largely agree with this. Even in boom periods like the Attitude Era, there were very over talents who were very much slotted into lower card roles and that was fine. It’s more an issue over the last decade or so when people who lose are seen as unimportant instead of their own established characters that people can root for. Like, come on, one of the most over talents of the last 20 years was a group that had John Tenta in a gold mask carrying a Cartman doll. It's also more that the audience has become conditioned to not care about individuals if they are going to lose, like why cheer for a guy if they are going to be beaten or boo somebody that always gets his ass kicked anyway.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 25, 2022 12:51:51 GMT -5
It’s more an issue over the last decade or so when people who lose are seen as unimportant instead of their own established characters that people can root for. Like, come on, one of the most over talents of the last 20 years was a group that had John Tenta in a gold mask carrying a Cartman doll. It's also more that the audience has become conditioned to not care about individuals if they are going to lose, like why cheer for a guy if they are going to be beaten or boo somebody that always gets his ass kicked anyway. But none of that is entirely new to pro wrestling and, as mentioned in my example, there were enough over people who lost all the time that people liked. The difference was that 20 years of a lack of real competition made WWE go “Well, we don’t need everyone to be over, let’s not do follow ups or let them grow”. Like, again, I get people’s points but some are acting like this hasn’t been going on since the birth of “Americanized” Pro wrestling but the difference being that the mindset is entirely different and reactionary. This is all just me, though.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 25, 2022 13:17:45 GMT -5
No different that other companies. You can pick correctly who's gonna win the matches on Smackdown every friday That's the case with most wrestling, really. WWE, AEW, NJPW, and Impact are all pretty predictable in terms of who wins and loses. It makes the less predictable results stand out more, and swerves for the sake of swerves is why Russo is a laughingstock in most wrestling circles. I personally tend to care more about the journey than the destination for most matches. Good in-ring storytelling will, even if the back of your head tells you that Wrestler A is definitely going to win, convince you in the moment that Person B really has a chance. Yeah, having established tiers that make outcomes somewhat predictable is kind of booking 101 stuff, but in order for that to work you need some people who are at the lower levels, or else as said here you get stuck in 50/50 booking hell very often. You do want there to be ways to move up the card, and that certainly does seem to exist in AEW. That doesn't mean it isn't possible for it to be too obvious who's clearly there to eat pins, but it can still work if some wrestlers or teams have the right gimmicks or presentation that you can still enjoy them. Like, there's always been wrestlers who are over thanks to a gimmick they have, who can lose plenty and be alright; for example, Silver definitely fits that right now, since he's so likable and talented that people won't stop caring about him (unless you go overboard, of course). But you still want to see a door open to people in that spot where they can make the climb up without it feeling like an out of left field rise to a title or big spot (e.g. if they decide to give Silver/Reynolds a build to a tag title shot). There's sadly no real way to please everyone on something like this, especially when you've got weekly television, if you don't want to get the 50/50 effect.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 25, 2022 13:31:57 GMT -5
AEW can stand to move up a few more people from Dark but I’ve always believed the jobber to be a necessary evil. What they’ve got now isn’t perfect but it’s a better problem to have than how WWE has superstars ping ponging wins off one another.
Plus it reflects real combat sports. Having the occasional tomato can out there to get wrecked adds a layer of believability to a wrestling show IMO. Too many will make a show dull, none at all is dangerous and can hurt pushes.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 25, 2022 13:37:23 GMT -5
No different that other companies. You can pick correctly who's gonna win the matches on Smackdown every friday That's the case with most wrestling, really. WWE, AEW, NJPW, and Impact are all pretty predictable in terms of who wins and loses. It makes the less predictable results stand out more, and swerves for the sake of swerves is why Russo is a laughingstock in most wrestling circles. I personally tend to care more about the journey than the destination for most matches. Good in-ring storytelling will, even if the back of your head tells you that Wrestler A is definitely going to win, convince you in the moment that Person B really has a chance. Right. The best wrestling shows have a base level of predictability, then they break from the structure at the right time to enhance the story. Attitude had more of a hierarchy than I think some fans remember. We knew Austin, Foley, Rock and HHH could trade wins but would body the lower card. Heat was very much the Dark of its time. When it launched you’d have bigger stars working with newer or enhancement wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jul 25, 2022 15:06:34 GMT -5
That's the case with most wrestling, really. WWE, AEW, NJPW, and Impact are all pretty predictable in terms of who wins and loses. It makes the less predictable results stand out more, and swerves for the sake of swerves is why Russo is a laughingstock in most wrestling circles. I personally tend to care more about the journey than the destination for most matches. Good in-ring storytelling will, even if the back of your head tells you that Wrestler A is definitely going to win, convince you in the moment that Person B really has a chance. Right. The best wrestling shows have a base level of predictability, then they break from the structure at the right time to enhance the story. Attitude had more of a hierarchy than I think some fans remember. We knew Austin, Foley, Rock and HHH could trade wins but would body the lower card. Heat was very much the Dark of its time. When it launched you’d have bigger stars working with newer or enhancement wrestlers. Yeah like Essa Rios or Kurrgan were never going to get a win over an Austin or Rock without some serious shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by EP 54 is banned from Collision on Jul 25, 2022 16:27:25 GMT -5
I always think that squash matches between signed talent should basically never happen. I don't care if it's the World Champion Vs the guy with the worst record in the company, the low card guy should give him a match. If you're signed to AEW you're (kayfabe) one of the best in the world.
Squashing the low card guy does nothing for the top guy, and just makes it that much harder for the low card guy to move up in the future.
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Jul 25, 2022 16:59:47 GMT -5
Right. The best wrestling shows have a base level of predictability, then they break from the structure at the right time to enhance the story. Attitude had more of a hierarchy than I think some fans remember. We knew Austin, Foley, Rock and HHH could trade wins but would body the lower card. Heat was very much the Dark of its time. When it launched you’d have bigger stars working with newer or enhancement wrestlers. Yeah like Essa Rios or Kurrgan were never going to get a win over an Austin or Rock without some serious shenanigans. And then when it did happen, like Taka or the Brooklyn Brawler beating HHH, it was a big deal
|
|
mystermystery
Dennis Stamp
Still in the White Hummer
Posts: 4,423
|
Post by mystermystery on Jul 25, 2022 19:17:32 GMT -5
I always think that squash matches between signed talent should basically never happen. I don't care if it's the World Champion Vs the guy with the worst record in the company, the low card guy should give him a match. If you're signed to AEW you're (kayfabe) one of the best in the world. Squashing the low card guy does nothing for the top guy, and just makes it that much harder for the low card guy to move up in the future. Which is why I was irritated eons ago when they had Sonny Kiss step in for Joey Janela to face Kenny Omega on Dynamite and Omega absolutely bodied Kiss in like less than a minute. I understand Omega is/was/will always be The Omega of the division and at the time was the super duper dude, but it felt completely unnecessary in regards to Sonny. I understand that the hatred of WWE's use of the "Hard Fought Loss" but I've never had an issue with it as a concept. Then again, I'm the guy who has watched the majority of Elevation/Dark (including the 3hr eps during the pandemic) because it occasionally builds to moments like tonight when Baron Black won his first match after being a two year long enhancement dude to everyone. Honestly, I understand the majority of people in the thread because at the end of the day, we all enjoy the same sport but we enjoy different aspects of it which allows these types of discussions. I love it. The hierarchy can lead to complacency of booking and I understand it but sometimes I just want to turn on a show and watch two different types of wrestlers conflict against each other and see if the result is any fun to watch. Get me Muscle Dude vs. Flippy Dude. Get me Technical Marvel vs. Outclassed Comedy Wrestler. Tall Dude vs. Short Dude. And even get me Learning Rookie vs. Very Patient Veteran (AKA The Shida Special [[Look up that Shida/Julia Hart match for a few months back. You can literally see the education happening in the ring]]) Just because I know who the winner is going to be doesn't mean I won't enjoy the journey there. It's almost like a Trigonometry problem. I'll stop rambling now. (Oh and I understand things like the Yuta Piledriver stuff because you don't always want people to be move sponges, you want them to be smart and talented enough to get away from the big moves). Okay, now I'll stop. See. I stopped.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 26, 2022 7:44:10 GMT -5
I always think that squash matches between signed talent should basically never happen. I don't care if it's the World Champion Vs the guy with the worst record in the company, the low card guy should give him a match. If you're signed to AEW you're (kayfabe) one of the best in the world. Squashing the low card guy does nothing for the top guy, and just makes it that much harder for the low card guy to move up in the future. It'd mostly agree, but like all booking it depends on the context; the fact a match can end up one-sided can be a way to keep a crowd on its toes that something like that can happen, and it can motivate the loser to make some kind of change, e.g. back during Bryan Danielson's ROH title run he had a match where he beat Colt Cabana in just a few minutes via small package, and the build to Cabana's eventual rematch (after he fought his way back to the front of the line) was that Colt trained hard to be prepared for flash pins and eventually the two went the distance, even though Colt still fell short. But yeah, overdoing it just to get someone over needs to be done very sparingly.
|
|
Dang!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,279
|
Post by Dang! on Jul 27, 2022 13:54:07 GMT -5
There are jobbers like Serpentico (Randy Hogan, Barry Horowitz) and there are jobber like Butcher & Blade (Beverly Brothers, High Voltage). Always been like that.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 27, 2022 15:01:32 GMT -5
I always think that squash matches between signed talent should basically never happen. I don't care if it's the World Champion Vs the guy with the worst record in the company, the low card guy should give him a match. If you're signed to AEW you're (kayfabe) one of the best in the world. Squashing the low card guy does nothing for the top guy, and just makes it that much harder for the low card guy to move up in the future. It'd mostly agree, but like all booking it depends on the context; the fact a match can end up one-sided can be a way to keep a crowd on its toes that something like that can happen, and it can motivate the loser to make some kind of change, e.g. back during Bryan Danielson's ROH title run he had a match where he beat Colt Cabana in just a few minutes via small package, and the build to Cabana's eventual rematch (after he fought his way back to the front of the line) was that Colt trained hard to be prepared for flash pins and eventually the two went the distance, even though Colt still fell short. But yeah, overdoing it just to get someone over needs to be done very sparingly. This is a good rule of thumb: On A-shows, matches should very, very rarely be booked just to push forward the storyline of half of its participants. (I'm contrasting A-shows to something like Dark, where the purpose is getting people to know wrestlers' personas and offensive moves, stuff like that.) Or, to put it another way, if you could replace one of the members in a match with many other people on the roster and it would change nothing about the storylines and booking, you screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by drjayphd (feat. Pitbull) on Jul 27, 2022 16:49:56 GMT -5
Abadon and Diamante haven't wrestled or done anything on AEW TV in a while. Just the web shows. At least in Abadon's case, they were super green when they signed to AEW (pretty sure they only hit 25 matches in the run-up to their title shot against Shida) and they've been training pretty extensively. Between that and the influx of talent it makes sense that they'd be pushed down to Dark duty. Then you can heat them up when they're needed and more seasoned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2022 13:46:54 GMT -5
It's also more that the audience has become conditioned to not care about individuals if they are going to lose, like why cheer for a guy if they are going to be beaten or boo somebody that always gets his ass kicked anyway. But none of that is entirely new to pro wrestling and, as mentioned in my example, there were enough over people who lost all the time that people liked. The difference was that 20 years of a lack of real competition made WWE go “Well, we don’t need everyone to be over, let’s not do follow ups or let them grow”. Like, again, I get people’s points but some are acting like this hasn’t been going on since the birth of “Americanized” Pro wrestling but the difference being that the mindset is entirely different and reactionary. This is all just me, though. Maybe I just prefer 50/50 booking when its done right, otherwise I don't see the value of jobbers.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 31, 2022 14:40:38 GMT -5
But none of that is entirely new to pro wrestling and, as mentioned in my example, there were enough over people who lost all the time that people liked. The difference was that 20 years of a lack of real competition made WWE go “Well, we don’t need everyone to be over, let’s not do follow ups or let them grow”. Like, again, I get people’s points but some are acting like this hasn’t been going on since the birth of “Americanized” Pro wrestling but the difference being that the mindset is entirely different and reactionary. This is all just me, though. Maybe I just prefer 50/50 booking when its done right, otherwise I don't see the value of jobbers. Is there a 50/50 that has ever been done right, though? And without limiting the stories you can tell with people and stables and such? Because I really, genuinely don’t think there is. You’d just be giving people wins to do it at that point:
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 31, 2022 15:08:44 GMT -5
Maybe I just prefer 50/50 booking when its done right, otherwise I don't see the value of jobbers. Is there a 50/50 that has ever been done right, though? And without limiting the stories you can tell with people and stables and such? Because I really, genuinely don’t think there is. You’d just be giving people wins to do it at that point: I think the whole point of 50/50 booking done right is that you just don't notice it. The term came about when the WWE would give each person wins, like, literally on back-to-back weeks. But it makes more sense if you pull back and look over the course of years and have the orientation that each person or faction wins about as many feuds as they lose.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jul 31, 2022 15:11:57 GMT -5
I feel like there's a difference between 50/50 booking as made infamous by WWE and booking where momentum shifts back and forth. The latter serves the storyline while the former is just meaningless win-trading. Or they give one person (usually a face) a win on the go-home show only to ultimately lose the big PPV match.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 31, 2022 15:37:12 GMT -5
Is there a 50/50 that has ever been done right, though? And without limiting the stories you can tell with people and stables and such? Because I really, genuinely don’t think there is. You’d just be giving people wins to do it at that point: I think the whole point of 50/50 booking done right is that you just don't notice it. The term came about when the WWE would give each person wins, like, literally on back-to-back weeks. But it makes more sense if you pull back and look over the course of years and have the orientation that each person or faction wins about as many feuds as they lose. I’ll be frank here, with how a lot of us can be, I’ll say that first part is absolutely impossible to pull off.
|
|