Should the WWE Announce the Pre-Show Dark Matches?

[Mac Attack]

I have been wondering this as of late and decided to put it up to the IWC.

We all know that Dark matches occur before the main show/PPV. However the results of said matches ahave no importance what so ever as usually they are guyw who are either jobber to low midcard status who have been feuding on the dark match scene. On PPV's you have matches that aren't seen even if the quality of said match was good and even if there is a feud behind the match.

So with that being said I truly believe that the Dark matches should be announced by the WWE. I don't know exactly how they should word it possibly "Before we went on air (insert name) beat (insert name) in a match that had the crowd out of their seats." I think not only would this add credibility to guys who rarely get mentioned but also would be a nice segway into the show.

However I am steadfast in saying that they must do this for PPVs. They usally have a match that was not quite able to make the card however is a part of a current feud. For example not many people know that Santino and Kozlov beat the tag champs in a non title match at Capitol Punishment. I think this would be nice to know and would also give insight into the other possible feuds that go on in the WWE.

 

[FSWWE]

Santino and Kozlov defeated Justin Gabriel and Heath Slater yesterday at Capitol Punishment Dark match, and they are not the WWE Tag Team Champions.

But I get your point, I think that the WWE could do it, do you remember WrestleMania?
Sheamus vs Daniel Bryan was a match that a lot of people wanted on the card, and if they at least announced what happened, it would be fine.
But I get the WWE point too, Dark Matches usually are made to try new things and see the reactions from the crowd, to make it happen at WWE TV, so that's okay by me...
Others Dark Matches are only made to send the crowd happy, and to make the live experience better...

 

[wwerulestnaisbad]

I dont think so. The fans who go to the show pay good money for it and because wwe does a dark match for almost every show it should only be for those people.

 

[3/4 Facelock]

No. Fans who PAY $$$ to go to the event live should get a free match or 2 or 3. Buying a PPV and watching it from your home is fine for $50 or $60. Don't expect to get more for paying 3x to 4x less than the people attending.

Tickets to PPV events cost a lot more and those fans deserve to get bonus content. I bought tickets to Money in the Bank this year in Chicago and those tickets alone were $150 a piece. I have to sit on a metal chair around fat people, people in their early 20s who can't hold their booze, hillbillies, zitty teenagers, and ugly children who fart and puke and all my food and drink is going to be outrageously priced. Add that to the price gouging on souvenirs and the $20 parking. While you buy the PPV at $50 and get to sit on your couch with the AC on and bowl full of chips or whatever you eat.

And you want extra matches? Just for sitting on your couch? $50 ain't squat. That's how much it's going to cost me just to buy a Mysterio mask at the event. You are a selfish fan. Shame on you all day long.

 

[krazyd]

I think that if they do the raw pre-show lebarr told us about then they could do that if its gona be like an nfl live or mlb live or wahtever which it should then that would give them the perfect seg way into the real show..''and now bringing u into raw we have zach ryder def. JTG " n then they can have highlights of it as well

 

[Kip The Fury]

No. Fans who PAY $$$ to go to the event live should get a free match or 2 or 3. Buying a PPV and watching it from your home is fine for $50 or $60. Don't expect to get more for paying 3x to 4x less than the people attending.

Tickets to PPV events cost a lot more and those fans deserve to get bonus content. I bought tickets to Money in the Bank this year in Chicago and those tickets alone were $150 a piece. I have to sit on a metal chair around fat people, people in their early 20s who can't hold their booze, hillbillies, zitty teenagers, and ugly children who fart and puke and all my food and drink is going to be outrageously priced. Add that to the price gouging on souvenirs and the $20 parking. While you buy the PPV at $50 and get to sit on your couch with the AC on and bowl full of chips or whatever you eat.

And you want extra matches? Just for sitting on your couch? $50 ain't squat. That's how much it's going to cost me just to buy a Mysterio mask at the event. You are a selfish fan. Shame on you all day long.

Did you read the OP? Its not about "showing" the matches on Raw/Smackdown/PPV whatever, just acknowledging they happened.

Wouldnt be a terrible idea in my view, maybe even showing 30 seconds of highlights or something. Like the OP said it gives that little bit extra exposure to guys who usually wouldnt get it and it fills up a bit of time. Hell, if nothing else it wouldnt hurt the rest of the broadcast...

 

[Cats Pajamas]

To answer your exact question the way you worded it, I would have to say no...

Dark matches act well as market research for WWE as well as excellent practice for the performers. It gives the decision makers a good look at how a "sample audience" will react to certain matchups. The wrestlers also get a chance to work with other wrestlers they'll likely work alongside in the future. As stated, it also offers added incentive for actual "wrestling" fans to continue buying tickets.

However, WWE already is cranking out lackluster feuds with tri-weekly PPVs resetting any well built momentum. While it'd be great to see more guys getting a shot (for us internet types to critique) I don't think additional poorly scripted feuds between undercard wrestlers are a way to give them a true chance.

I'd argue two options though:
1.) If they're going to have dark matches, why don't they get posted on WrestleZone? People seem to get cameras into these events somehow, why not capitalize on wrestling fanatics who may simply want more wrestling per week?
2.) Do you think they could better use the time? Monday night seems to be when the WWE has most casual fans attentions, why not build up a couple in-progress feuds by adding an extra 25 minutes to Raw? Make it an even 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Interesting topic though, I agree the concept of the "dark match" could use refining. Possibly a project for the WWE Network?

 

[barclayteo]

i agree with the op on some points and i agree with 3/4 face lock.

i think think they should mention the dark match to give a little credit to the wrestlers i dont want to see it but they could mention it. as for what face lock said yes when people pay to go see a monday night raw they deserve to see a few matches for themselves that people watching on tv cant. i went a wwe raw event in okc oklahoma one time and the dark match i seen was dlo brown vs charlie haas. it may not have been a ppv quality match but i was glad i got to see a free match.

but the only thing i disagree with facelock on is if i paid 60 dollars to watch wrestlemania i paid for it so i deserve to see that dark match i missed out big on daniel byran sheamus match. i dont care if some paid a thousand dollars for everything to see wrestlemania live. your paying to see it up close you get to see all that up close thats what your paying for. but if i pay to see wrestlemain i am a paying customer i deserve to see their dark match. as for regular shows yeah if im watching it on tv i think the people who went there deserves something good. so it all depends we all know on regular shows like raw nothing really important happens except testing stuff on crowds but if someone pays to see the show wether on tv or in person they deserve to see all what happens.

good thread op.

 

[RJB1976]

This is where we can tell who was buyinbg PPVs 15 years ago, and who wasn't. What the WWE used to do was have a "Free for All" in which after a few dark matches, the WWE would actually show a live match before the PPV (And yes, title changes have happened on Free For Alls before, think Bodydonnas defeating the Godwins for the tag Titles). Free For All is also how the original ECW invasion angle got started when The Sandman, Paul Heyman, and Tommy Dreamer interutped a Justin "Hawk" Bradshaw (Better known as JBL) vs. Savio Vega match.

But for the most part, these matches would be lower high card and mid card talent, to see how they would peform on a PPV, how a gimmick is getting over, etc. It might sell a ppv better if they have a teaser match for free live before the PPV on TV.

 

[LegendKiller716]

It wouldn't work in most cases. A lot of time pre-show dark matches are with non-WWE wrestlers. For example, Shelton works a few, Dos Caras Jr. worked a few. So most times the audience would be saying who?

And as for post match, most times they are either the same, or very similar, or done just for the crowd. For example I went to Raw when Jericho returned and was feuding with JBL. He was only there via satellite, but after the show they announced he was there. Made no sense story line wise.

I just don't think it's a very good idea

 

[Kaeden]

RJB, Sunday Night Heat served the same purpose. And the model is replicated by UFC, who airs free fights on Spike up until the live telecast starts.

Dark matches, on the hole, shouldn't be mentioned. As someone noted above, they're not televised, because they don't exactly..."count". Some are 'market research' as someone said, like the matches Sin Cara was put in to work out his style. Others are to give people something to do on an over-packed event. There are also often "Dark Main Events" at live shows, especially when the heels win on TV, so the crowd gets a happy ending.

I will agree, however, that sometimes, things like TNA's Explosion can be useful for developing undercard feuds, and promoting that material when it becomes relevant. "Lets have Guy A and Guy B run a dark program, and if it catches, we'll put it on TV." TNA recently did this with the Pope/D-Von "feud". Now that its gotten some heat, they use that old footage to show the story now that the feud is on TV.

 

[RJB1976]

It wouldn't work in most cases. A lot of time pre-show dark matches are with non-WWE wrestlers. For example, Shelton works a few, Dos Caras Jr. worked a few. So most times the audience would be saying who?

And as for post match, most times they are either the same, or very similar, or done just for the crowd. For example I went to Raw when Jericho returned and was feuding with JBL. He was only there via satellite, but after the show they announced he was there. Made no sense story line wise.

I just don't think it's a very good idea

I think the focus was on dark matches at PPV's but you make a good point. As for post show dark matches, Look at the Raw shows. I was at where John cena was "Injured". Yet after the taping, he fought Edge in a dark match, and was no selling his previous injuries. I remember walking oyut, hearing some 8 year old yelling a storm saying how he wasn't going to wrestling shows anymore because He'd caught on to Wrestling being staged. Simply because a worker didn't sell an injury he "received" eariler in the show.

 

[Aguilac]

really??? really??? really??? (I'm impersonating Miz, btw)

Wrestlemania27 is the best example. A feud, a midcard title, was taken out of the card and went pre-telecast.

Did it help to these guys??? no. actually they had the exact same match the day later on Raw

Did those guys get any credibility? No, they didnt. The pure fact that they take them out of the PPV, hurt them, and if they had mention them on WM, they would have look weaker (As just a filler)..

so... ehem.. no

 

[GameOver]

go to WWE global live events and there's no real commentry at all for the most part lol
think yourself lucky.

I don't believe the dark matches b4 or after Raw's or Smackdown need commentry, if it's a PPV however it should be part of the show for the audience not an extra afterthought.

personally i'd much rather see a Sunday Night Heat b4 ppv's again or non commentated dark matches then watching the stupid pre-show that is just a 30minute time filler and is only usefull for someone who hasn't watched Raw or Smackdown in the month leading upto the PPV.

 

[therockiswwf]

No

They usually use pre-ppv dark matches to fire up the crowd, while pre-Raw/Smackdown are used for talent that is on the main roster but hasn't debuted yet or a tryout match. A lot of the post-Raw/Smackdown matches are between main eventers that either have a match against each other coming up or a tag match. Before WM 26, Mysterio beat Punk (in a very similiar match to their WM 26 match, even had the same ending), it would make no sense to announce this as it would hurt their WM 26 match.

 

[Jeff]

I like the idea of the WWE talking about the dark matches for multiple reasons.

1) It makes sure the lower card guys aren't completely forgotten. It might be nice for the WWE Universe to hear names like Yoshi Tatsu and Tyson Kidd so the fans know that these guys are still around and they are working hard. The more names in the WWE, the better it makes the top guys look because it shows that not only did they beat out the same handful of guys you see everyday, but all these guys who are just struggling to be seen. Also attached to this someone mentioned that they can't do this because a lot of the time they have try out matches but honestly who cares. Tell the WWE that Tyson Kidd beat Local Wrestler X in a match. The Jeff and Matt Hardy Story WWE put out a few years ago mentioned that Jeff and Matt had a tryout match ON WWE RAW back in the mid 90s. Who cares, it just adds to the image that WWE is the best wrestling promotion in the world.

2) WWE has house shows to test out crowd reactions and rumor has it that Triple H is planning on making some giant improvements to FCW and the WWE development system. Hopefully with a larger development system they can make it so once you are in the WWE, you are not making drastic changes to your character so using these dark matches as testing grounds won't be as needed.

3) It allows the WWE fans to know that there is more to WWE then just Raw and Smackdown.

 

[vthokie8]

This is where we can tell who was buyinbg PPVs 15 years ago, and who wasn't. What the WWE used to do was have a "Free for All" in which after a few dark matches, the WWE would actually show a live match before the PPV (And yes, title changes have happened on Free For Alls before, think Bodydonnas defeating the Godwins for the tag Titles). Free For All is also how the original ECW invasion angle got started when The Sandman, Paul Heyman, and Tommy Dreamer interutped a Justin "Hawk" Bradshaw (Better known as JBL) vs. Savio Vega match.

But for the most part, these matches would be lower high card and mid card talent, to see how they would peform on a PPV, how a gimmick is getting over, etc. It might sell a ppv better if they have a teaser match for free live before the PPV on TV.

The "Free For All" has been long overdue a return. Once Heat went off the air there has been no lead in to the PPV, which probably generated at least a few more buys, and even if it doesn't what is it going to hurt. UFC gets great ratings on their "Prelims on Spike" shows. They could even put Free For All on PPV they have the pre recorded lead in show with Scott Stanford or Todd Grisham anyway which is free, and it's not like PPV dark matches are PErcy Watson vs. Eli Cottonwood, they are usually that match that just quite didn't make the cut. I still remember that Free For All with the ECW invasion, I made a deal with my parents to order it, just because I thought something was going to happen. I remember Rumble 96 as well they had a match where the winner was #30 and the loser was #1 and Rumble 01 they had a match where the winner got in the Rumble, so it's not like these were just two people told to go out and put on a match they actually had a story leading into the PPV.

As far as dark matches before Raw and Smack Down, they don't need to reveal the result of those. Most of those are used to either tryout a guy, test a gimmick or a wrestler to see how the crowd responds or to knock ring rust off a guy coming back from injury. For example Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar jobbed to lower level guys during dark matches prior to their debuts. Their is actually footage of Angle jobbing to Matt Hardy and Meat on youtube, and I remember going to a Raw where Lesnar jobbed to Mr. Perfect in a dark match. If they would have announced these to the viewer, it would have killed any sort of intrigue anyone may have had upon their debuts in fact, it would have killed Lesnar's whole gimmick, not taking away from Mr. Perfect or anything. I know they also tested Brock in tag teams with Shelton Benjamin and Ron Waterman as well during dark matches, I seen Brock and Shelton wrestle Rico and some other guy at a house show before any of them debuted on TV. As early as last year Alberto Del Rio was jobbing to Christian and Goldust across the country during dark matches. As for the post event dark matches I agree those are an added bonus for the folks who paid money to come out to the arena and should be left as that "added bonus."