You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Axl S
 Rep: 104 

Re: The Wrestling thread

Axl S wrote:
James wrote:

Wrestling the past 15 years or longer is unwatchable. It's garbage.


The highlight moments of the past 15 years are few and far between and they are all just moments. Moments that started or came during angles that all eventually died.

Hardy Vs Punk feud in 09. Actually good start to finish.
Nexus, great start and then killed at Summerslam
Punk's pipebomb, great angle and that build from the pipebomb to him winning at MITB. Gold. After that, all downhill rushed and blown. That angle actually generated a small bit of buzz it was that good.

Honestly other than those three, there has been some good matches and good moments here and there as well but they are all part of 3 hour long shows filled with garbage. Even those two storylines I mentioned... to watch at the time you had to sit through so much shit.

They need to cut RAW back to 2 hours and get back to basics. Ditch the 20-man writing teams and get back to a small team. Could also be wise for Vince to take a less hands on roll at this point, but that will never happen.

I've tried to enjoy AEW, but it's all too ridiculous for me.

slashsfro
 Rep: 48 

Re: The Wrestling thread

slashsfro wrote:
Axl S wrote:

The highlight moments of the past 15 years are few and far between and they are all just moments. Moments that started or came during angles that all eventually died.

Hardy Vs Punk feud in 09. Actually good start to finish.
Nexus, great start and then killed at Summerslam
Punk's pipebomb, great angle and that build from the pipebomb to him winning at MITB. Gold. After that, all downhill rushed and blown. That angle actually generated a small bit of buzz it was that good.

Honestly other than those three, there has been some good matches and good moments here and there as well but they are all part of 3 hour long shows filled with garbage. Even those two storylines I mentioned... to watch at the time you had to sit through so much shit.

They need to cut RAW back to 2 hours and get back to basics. Ditch the 20-man writing teams and get back to a small team. Could also be wise for Vince to take a less hands on roll at this point, but that will never happen.

I've tried to enjoy AEW, but it's all too ridiculous for me.

USA is the one demanding that Raw be a 3 hour show.  That's about the only thing I'll maybe defend WWE on.

The Punk pipebomb thing might be the most disappointing end to something I've seen in the last ten years or so.  It somehow ends with Kevin Nash facing HHH in a ladder match.  Total clusterfuck and a waste of a classic and should have been career builder for CM Punk.

James
 Rep: 636 

Re: The Wrestling thread

James wrote:

20 man writing teams? There shouldn't be writing teams period.

Booker's don't exist anymore in wrestling? What the hell do the smaller feds do?

monkeychow
 Rep: 636 

Re: The Wrestling thread

monkeychow wrote:
Axl S wrote:

They need to cut RAW back to 2 hours and get back to basics. Ditch the 20-man writing teams and get back to a small team.

I would love it to go shorter.

To me it's like every cool idea is buried amongst hours of crap and endless filler.

I recently went back on the network and watched some of the old Saturday Night's Main Events from the 1980s...and it was really noticeable to me how they were able to tell concise self contained stories within a 1 hour program. More importantly it was just super entertaining.

Of course they used them to promote other events and stuff, but there was a satisfaction in the program itself that just isn't there for me on modern material.

misterID
 Rep: 465 

Re: The Wrestling thread

misterID wrote:

AEW's problem is that they allow the wrestlers to be their own writers and the majority of them just don't have the talent to do that. the promos are cringey. They don't have a plan for storylines. Some of the matches look like a bunch tumbler circus perfomers, where it's too choreographed and dependent on big spots. The wrestlers got mad at Jim Ross for saying they're just doing the same shit over and over, but it's true.

They need Paul Heyman running things. Punk has pretty much laid it out he wants to go to AEW, but what's the point if they don't have a good story?

Axl S
 Rep: 104 

Re: The Wrestling thread

Axl S wrote:
James wrote:

20 man writing teams? There shouldn't be writing teams period.

Booker's don't exist anymore in wrestling? What the hell do the smaller feds do?

I agree, one booker and maybe some close confidants he checks in with for advice are all that should be needed. WWE have two A shows to book, a B show and a bunch of C shows, all running every week with their own rosters. It really just should be Vince as head booker of the whole promotion, with 1 guy underneath him for each show.

Instead you have for Raw and Smackdown:

Vince
A Head Writer
A Whole team of other people

And then a similar but smaller situation with HHH for NXT.

It's too many people. Just have Vince and a small booking committee where each member is in charge of one show each, and a bit of coordination amongst them (Vince may not want guy A being champ if guy Z is champ on the other show etc.)

Axl S
 Rep: 104 

Re: The Wrestling thread

Axl S wrote:
misterID wrote:

AEW's problem is that they allow the wrestlers to be their own writers and the majority of them just don't have the talent to do that. the promos are cringey. They don't have a plan for storylines. Some of the matches look like a bunch tumbler circus perfomers, where it's too choreographed and dependent on big spots. The wrestlers got mad at Jim Ross for saying they're just doing the same shit over and over, but it's true.

They need Paul Heyman running things. Punk has pretty much laid it out he wants to go to AEW, but what's the point if they don't have a good story?


100% agreed on AEW. A lot of technical talent amongst them in terms of the things they can do in the ring but nothing stringing it together and too many matches are spotfests. Too many matches where they just set up a lot of highspots, it looks stupid. At least in WWE there are matches that can be good and make sense in the context of the "sporting contest", they just lack any interesting storyline around them to make you care.

It's good that AEW let them go out there for promos unscripted but they need to have more structure to what they do, the talent can't call all the shots.

slashsfro
 Rep: 48 

Re: The Wrestling thread

slashsfro wrote:
Axl S wrote:
James wrote:

20 man writing teams? There shouldn't be writing teams period.

Booker's don't exist anymore in wrestling? What the hell do the smaller feds do?

I agree, one booker and maybe some close confidants he checks in with for advice are all that should be needed. WWE have two A shows to book, a B show and a bunch of C shows, all running every week with their own rosters. It really just should be Vince as head booker of the whole promotion, with 1 guy underneath him for each show.

Instead you have for Raw and Smackdown:

Vince
A Head Writer
A Whole team of other people

And then a similar but smaller situation with HHH for NXT.

It's too many people. Just have Vince and a small booking committee where each member is in charge of one show each, and a bit of coordination amongst them (Vince may not want guy A being champ if guy Z is champ on the other show etc.)

Those guys are pretty much useless because Vince still has final say over pretty much everything.  They could write the best angle and it'd never hit tv because Vince still runs everything.  They are useless to me in that regard.

Also, a HUGE deterrent for me in current WWE product is just the awful commentary work.  The older guys (Monsoon, Ventura, Ross etc..) treated it like a sporting event and a big deal.  The current stuff just sounds very lame and cringe worthy.

mitchejw
 Rep: 120 

Re: The Wrestling thread

mitchejw wrote:

I disagree with some of the takes in this thread recently. Writers are a part of the problem they are not the solution. I strongly believe that a key element of the 80s boom was that the wrestlers work this out for themselves. They did not need to be told what to say or what to do.

Writers that come from the entertainment industry have no idea what wrestling is about and it’s obvious that they don’t take it that seriously by what they write and what they ask people to do. They don’t play the individual strengths and they don’t create characters that are genuine to the person playing those characters. At the end of the day you have a bunch of wrestlers trying to play characters but they’re not very good at playing.

mitchejw
 Rep: 120 

Re: The Wrestling thread

mitchejw wrote:
slashsfro wrote:
Axl S wrote:
James wrote:

20 man writing teams? There shouldn't be writing teams period.

Booker's don't exist anymore in wrestling? What the hell do the smaller feds do?

I agree, one booker and maybe some close confidants he checks in with for advice are all that should be needed. WWE have two A shows to book, a B show and a bunch of C shows, all running every week with their own rosters. It really just should be Vince as head booker of the whole promotion, with 1 guy underneath him for each show.

Instead you have for Raw and Smackdown:

Vince
A Head Writer
A Whole team of other people

And then a similar but smaller situation with HHH for NXT.

It's too many people. Just have Vince and a small booking committee where each member is in charge of one show each, and a bit of coordination amongst them (Vince may not want guy A being champ if guy Z is champ on the other show etc.)

Those guys are pretty much useless because Vince still has final say over pretty much everything.  They could write the best angle and it'd never hit tv because Vince still runs everything.  They are useless to me in that regard.

Also, a HUGE deterrent for me in current WWE product is just the awful commentary work.  The older guys (Monsoon, Ventura, Ross etc..) treated it like a sporting event and a big deal.  The current stuff just sounds very lame and cringe worthy.

These are two very good takes. Number one good announcers frame what you’re seeing so that you perceive things the way they want you to. What they do now is just noise. It’s noise and anytime anything important happens it comes off extremely disingenuous the way that they talk about it and describe it.

Guys like you mentioned and I add Jim Ross to the mix had a craft and a purpose to what they said. There is no purpose to the white noise that Michael Cole and the rest of the talentless jag offs say.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB