Am I the only one that hates "brutal beatdowns"?

[flea]

ok............ this has been brewing for a while.


I really can't stand Raw or Smackdown or TNA or anything, where they have to close the show with a "brutal beatdown". To me, they just never work and I always go "ugggggggggggh" when they do them.

An example of this is Rated RKO against DX. Shawn and HHH were bleeding, and Orton/Edge beat them. They gave Shawn a double RKO on a chair, and then gave HHH a ca-chairto. Then they closed RAW with showing both of them laying down like they were dying, and JR/King are silent.

Are we supposed to think "OH NOZ THEY SERIOUSLY HURT THEM" when they'll be back on the next week?

I don't mind a bloody, brutal match. I'm talking about when they have to sell a beatdown like it was a real tragedy. It sickens me.

I don't mind an injury angle, because those make SENSE when someone is away for a while. But the whole "lets be silent and talk in our calm quiet voices like something outrageous just happened" really pisses me off.

Anyone else hate them?

[Main Event Mark]

I know exactly what you're talking about. I never really gave it much thought though.

Good point.

[BorneAgain]

I hate the fact that Raw or Smackdown never gets to end episodically.

Back in 97/98 shows ended with leaving the viewer not knowing something, or left in some kind of suspense.

These days it ends constantly with a beatdown, or a win, or somebody posing, and somebody screaming "What's this going to mean for next week?"

Well JR/Cole, I don't really care, because you've given me all I need to know. Give me something that really gets me going "Damn I have to tune in to see how this plays out."

[Deleted]

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

[flea]

markmacleod83 said:

I know exactly what you're talking about. I never really gave it much thought though.

Good point.

Your sig is a good example too.

When Orton got kicked out of Evolution and they gave him a "brutal beatdown", did you for once think he was seriously hurt or were going "OH BOY, I HOPE CAN RECOVER."

I don't mind a beating after a match. Like an extra finisher or a title belt shot to make a point. But the whole "announcers are gonna be silent and the cameras have to focus on his bloody face after they PULVERIZED HIM", that's the type of stuff that makes me roll my eyes. We get it, you are trying to be sympathetic.

[BorneAgain]

am90 said:

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

Even better make it so just once just before a paticular chair shot or beat down occurs, we go to black, then on the WWE.com website, include a statement saying USA won't allow them to show what happened, but if they tune in it'll be shocking.

[Deleted]

borneagain said:

am90 said:

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

Even better make it so just once just before a paticular chair shot or beat down occurs, we go to black, then on the WWE.com website, include a statement saying USA won't allow them to show what happened, but if they tune in it'll be shocking.

That is actually a GREAT idea.

They'll only be able to do it once or twice before it loses it's luster, but having a beatdown that is too graphic for viewers is a fantastic way of building something up, and keeping the viewers interested.

[Deleted]

They are straight up boring, yeah.

It's very rare that they have a beatdown that actually interests me. It's alright if the beating leads to someone being out of action for a bit though.

[Dick Foley]

Best cliffhanger in WWE history.......

Val Venis "I choppie your pee pee!"

[flea]

am90 said:

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

But don't have it EVERY week.


Like Shawn superkicking Orton and then having it drive the point. That's fine.

But if Shawn went and got a chair and beat him down over and over and over and then elbowed him through a table then gave him a sledgehammer shot, and then JR and King have to be all quiet and be like "oh my folks. this is serious"............ just stop.

[HRH The KING]

It's overdone and predicatable.

[Dick Foley]

And the worst thing about the beatdowns at the end is that they really just seem like time fillers. At a certain point it looks like the wrestlers are just going "Ummm, are we off the air yet? No? Ok, another chair shot I suppose"

[flea]

bootytime said:

They are straight up boring, yeah.

It's very rare that they have a beatdown that actually interests me. It's alright if the beating leads to someone being out of action for a bit though.

Exactly. I'm fine with an injury angle if they are going to be out for a while, then come back and they play it up. Like THAT makes sense.



Well not always. Remember when Cena was stabbed at a nightclub by Jesus? Yeah................

[Deleted]

flea said:

am90 said:

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

But don't have it EVERY week.


Like Shawn superkicking Orton and then having it drive the point. That's fine.

But if Shawn went and got a chair and beat him down over and over and over and then elbowed him through a table then gave him a sledgehammer shot, and then JR and King have to be all quiet and be like "oh my folks. this is serious"............ just stop.

Personally, I only think it should happen if a feud has so much heat, it'll make a huge impact.

Using this logic, maybe they should do it once or twice every three years or so.

[HRH The KING]

The best beatdown was Quake on Hogan.

It was sold very well and Hogan was away for a long time so it seemed convincing.

They only blew it at the end by not giving Hogan a conclusive victory at SummerSlam 90

[Gillberg: 0-175]

am90 said:

Yeah, I'm the same with this. It's happening too often for my liking.

If they are going to do something like this, make it a huge deal and have the 'victim' take a few weeks off to sell the beating. It would make their eventual match so much more important.

I'm sorry, I love your sig, but it makes me sad that those things are so fake.

[twiggy101]

I hate them. It's always the face who receives the brutal beatdowns but heels manages to get away.

[Dick Foley]

twiggy101 said:

I hate them. It's always the face who receives the brutal beatdowns but heels manages to get away.

Umm, thats the point of them. For the heel to beat up on the face. He is the bad guy ya know.

[Deleted]

The main thing i hate is the underselling of them.

A guy gets hit in the head with a sledgehammer and he's back the next week with a bandage on his head.

Because we all know a bandage cures brain damage.

[big nasty]

jcmark611 said:

And the worst thing about the beatdowns at the end is that they really just seem like time fillers. At a certain point it looks like the wrestlers are just going "Ummm, are we off the air yet? No? Ok, another chair shot I suppose"

that also happens when 2 guys who hate each other just stare at back and forth for the last 2 minutes of the show, a la morrison and miz after ecw this past tuesday.

and yea, too many raws have ended with orton punting someone, then staring back at them from the ramp for 5 minutes as the show ends.