D2D = More ECW authentic then One Night Stand?

[Agent P]

Let's face it, December To Dismember more closely resembled an ECW pay per view then either of the first two One Night Stands did. Now before I get ripped to shreds, read the following points.

-Most ECW undercards weren't decided on until the day of the show. It usually ended up being any wrestler that showed up with his gear was thrown in a match.

-90,000 buys would have been the second highest buy rate for Paul Heyman "back in the day", only behind Massacre On 34th Street which most people bought thinking it was the company's last event.

-A solid tag team match. MNM vs The Hardyz brought back memories of when ECW would haphazardly throw a tag match out there that would end up stealing the show.

-Two hours and 18 minutes is approxomately the same length as Living Dangerously 2000, and that show didn't even have a match go over 10 minutes.

-Tommy Dreamer got his ass kicked and laid out. What else is there to say?

-RVD and C.M. Punk being jobbed out was like almost every time a babyface lost to the ECW Champion on ppv. It left you scratching your head and going "huh?"

[lildude8218]

krazyeman said:

-Most ECW undercards weren't decided on until the day of the show. It usually ended up being any wrestler that showed up with his gear was thrown in a match.

I said this when it happened but no one would have any of that. I went to Guilty As Charged 99 and only knew 3-4 matches that I was going to see, 2 of which got cancelled before the show started.

[Hiroshi Hase]

I'd have to agree as most ECW cards back in the day were clusterf***s and most times it worked out for the best except for the D2D show which was abysmal.

[royboy8]

agreed completley... I said this when it happened and people laughed at me and went nuts...

[Lance Uppercut]

People also fail to realize that ECW tv also had less wrestling on it than ECW on Sci fi.

Lot of vignettes, interviews, infomercial-style commercials for video tapes for 45 minutes, and probably one or two good matches.

[Chainsaw]

[lildude8218]

jmoney said:

People also fail to realize that ECW tv also had less wrestling on it than ECW on Sci fi.

Lot of vignettes, interviews, infomercial-style commercials for video tapes for 45 minutes, and probably one or two good matches.

I used that argument when people said that there was no way that Impact could be a good show with only an hour to work with. I reminded them of the ECW syndicated show.

[Hiroshi Hase]

chainsawiscaw said:

Don't get it.

[kitsunestar]

chainsawiscaw said:

Overruled.

[Dean-o]

I think people liked the whole "McMahon's want to bury ECW by producing a shitty PPV" rumor more then actually remembering how their beloved ECW used to be run the exact same way.

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

deannjn said:

I think people liked the whole "McMahon's want to bury ECW by producing a crapty PPV" rumor more then actually remembering how their beloved ECW used to be run the exact same way.

If anything, in terms of booking, production and a general sense of 'togetherness', ECW on Sci-Fi is leaps and bounds ahead of it's precursor.

[Aaron E. Dangerously]

chainsawiscaw said:

Goodness, you sure make great points. A real master debater, if you ask me.

[default]

I'll agree those are valid similarities, but there are definitely some drastic differences. For starters, Vince and crew overruled Heyman and booked the show themselves. Also, I'll admit that I do buy into Heyman being overhyped to some degree on his booking as he had some great talent in ECW helping him with the book (notably Raven, Dreamer, The Dudley Boys, etc.)

Secondly, the talent. The ECW guys were the "misfits" who were underpaid and just went out there because they loved what they were doing. They were hungry and there were also the guys who wanted to prove to the big two that they were worthy of wrestling on their PPVs and TV.

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

Your second point sticks out to me, Save_Us.

When people look back at ECW, they tend to remember great promos (Austin's anti-WWE/WCW rants, Raven's taunting of Dreamer and Sandman, Shane Douglas' venomous reaction when he won the belt), and perhaps great matches, like Taijiri/Crazy or RVD/Lynn. Generally speaking, though, this is all due to the individual performances of the wrestlers, rather than something that plainly shows the 'booking brilliance' of Paul Heyman.

I'm sure that the ECW of old had MORE than it's share of crap - bad angles, matches, mishaps - but things like that tend to get glossed over ... if anything, ECW on Sci-Fi is far smoother, though lacking maybe the ultra-violence born from short-term thinking, or performances by guys more desperate to make a mark for themselves. In other words, it's 'safer and more corporate', but is that a bad thing, necessarily? How long could have the guys in ECW continued to do the things they did?

Looking at the 'ECW Originals' today, I think the answer - that they were past their primes by the time ECW folded - is pretty clear.

[drjayphd (feat. Pitbull)]

vanvader said:

When people look back at ECW, they tend to remember great promos (Austin's anti-WWE/WCW rants, Raven's taunting of Dreamer and Sandman, Shane Douglas' venomous reaction when he won the belt), and perhaps great matches, like Taijiri/Crazy or RVD/Lynn. Generally speaking, though, this is all due to the individual performances of the wrestlers, rather than something that plainly shows the 'booking brilliance' of Paul Heyman.

But wasn't the booking brilliance of Heyman that he'd put people in position to succeed? Not overexposing them or their weak points?

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

drjayphd said:

vanvader said:

When people look back at ECW, they tend to remember great promos (Austin's anti-WWE/WCW rants, Raven's taunting of Dreamer and Sandman, Shane Douglas' venomous reaction when he won the belt), and perhaps great matches, like Taijiri/Crazy or RVD/Lynn. Generally speaking, though, this is all due to the individual performances of the wrestlers, rather than something that plainly shows the 'booking brilliance' of Paul Heyman.

But wasn't the booking brilliance of Heyman that he'd put people in position to succeed? Not overexposing them or their weak points?

How much credit can you give him? Did he write the promos? ECW didn't have a team of script writers, nor did they have guys planning out whole matches in advance. All of the classic memories can be attributed to the efforts of the very same guys that you saw speaking and wrestling on ECW television.

And for every guy that succeeded in his role, how many didn't? Wasn't 'GQ' Tommy Dreamer a huge flop when he first came in, before he tweaked his character with the caning angle? How many guys came and went without making a splash? Pretty much everyone I can think of that made an impact, was capable of doing so on their own - they didn't need someone to cover for them.

My point is ... I think Paul Heyman gets a lot of credit, and yet, I don't see any decisive evidence for this supposed brilliance of his.

[Citizen Snips]

vanvader said:

deannjn said:

I think people liked the whole "McMahon's want to bury ECW by producing a crapty PPV" rumor more then actually remembering how their beloved ECW used to be run the exact same way.

If anything, in terms of booking, production and a general sense of 'togetherness', ECW on Sci-Fi is leaps and bounds ahead of it's precursor.

Production, yes. Convince me how the Morrison/Punk feud is being booked better than Raven/Sandman or Taz/Sabu.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

jmoney said:

People also fail to realize that ECW tv also had less wrestling on it than ECW on Sci fi.

Lot of vignettes, interviews, infomercial-style commercials for video tapes for 45 minutes, and probably one or two good matches.

Yeah anyone who thinks ECW was great because of their TV show, either A) Wasn't really a fan at the time, B) Was just THAT sick of WWF and WCW at the time as to watch anything, or C) Is just out of their mind. However, I think most fans of ECW, who were fans at the time (such as myself) remember ECW being great for their compilation/event tapes and their PPVs, which typically tended to be great no matter how thrown together they were (with some exceptions).

[Deleted]

GREAT MOMENTS IN D2D HISTORY:

Best part of D2D was Ariel waving her ass around, doing that high choke with her foot, and then pinning Kelly by sitting on her face.

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

dothebird said:

vanvader said:

If anything, in terms of booking, production and a general sense of 'togetherness', ECW on Sci-Fi is leaps and bounds ahead of it's precursor.

Production, yes. Convince me how the Morrison/Punk feud is being booked better than Raven/Sandman or Taz/Sabu.

I won't try to convince you. The Morrison/Punk feud is lousy, outside of the tremendous matches that have resulted from it.

Still, Big Show was never booked better at any point in his career than he was as ECW Champion, in my opinion.

By 'booking', I also mean the booking of good matches - the fact that you generally get a handful of matches every time you watch ECW on Sci-Fi, and on any given night, at least one of them is head and shoulders above anything else on television right now. Some of the Punk/Morrison encounters have been stellar. There's lots of other gems to be found, if you want to look.

Importantly, nobody is performing dangerous spots like flaming table bumps or other unnecessary junk.