KB Answers Wrestling Questions

[klunderbunker]

The early 90s was pro wrestling. Stuff you see today is barely wrestling most of the time.

 

[Blue Chipper]

The early 90s was pro wrestling. Stuff you see today is barely wrestling most of the time.

Well, evolution is necessary, not only in humanity, but in businesses, and in the WWE. You know why? Because without change, WWE would perish. Why? Because revenue comes from viewership/fans. Money is obviously a critical component in the success of a business. If fans want change, the product has to change to survive. So, we (the audience) cause change, and if the product doesn't change, there would probably be no product.

In other words, the wrestling you see today differs from the wrestling in the 90s because of us. This tells us that wrestling in its current state is the product that most of the wrestling fans want to see. Has it changed? Yes. Is it bad? Subjective - the fans today obviously enjoy it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well, evolution is necessary, not only in humanity, but in businesses, and in the WWE. You know why? Because without change, WWE would perish. Why? Because revenue comes from viewership/fans. Money is obviously a critical component in the success of a business. If fans want change, the product has to change to survive. So, we (the audience) cause change, and if the product doesn't change, there would probably be no product.

In other words, the wrestling you see today differs from the wrestling in the 90s because of us. This tells us that wrestling in its current state is the product that most of the wrestling fans want to see. Has it changed? Yes. Is it bad? Subjective - the fans today obviously enjoy it.

Quick question: if this change is so necessary, why are ratings lower, buyrates lower, and general interest lower than they were in the early 90s?

 

[Blue Chipper]

Quick question: if this change is so necessary, why are ratings lower, buyrates lower, and general interest lower than they were in the early 90s?

I'm not sure how the comparison is relevant. The times, conditions, and circumstances are different. If 90's wrestling was in this state, it could be doing worse, or it could be doing better, we'll never know.

Let me ask you something: did the powers at be change the product because they were doing really well financially and they just wanted an adventure by deviating from what obviously works, or did they change because it just didn't work anymore? I go with the latter.

 

[klunderbunker]

It worked at the time. Long term though, it was awful. It took the focus off the in ring product and made it all abotu stories which made the product suck. Look at the late Attitude Era with HHH vs. Rock when things were more in ring based. The show goes way up in value.

 

[Blue Chipper]

I don't think we'll reach a consensus, KB. This might be one of those agree to disagree things.

 

[Blue Chipper]

I've got a question that's not regarding our conversation: do you have any predictions as to the quality of the HIAC pay-per-view?

 

[klunderbunker]

The quality/ Not great but it should be an acceptable B show.

 

[J-Dogg]

With the commotion backstage with how to finish the Ryback/Punk match, do you reckon Vince will not listen to the officials and put the title on him as a shock win then for Punk to win back next year to set things up for next year.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't have to say this often, but I honestly do not know what to expect on Sunday and I LOVE THAT.

If I had to pick, I'd think Punk keeps the title but if Ryback won the belt I'd be very happy.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

What overall grade would you give the WWE right now, considering storylines, talents and show quality?

 

[klunderbunker]

D+ or D.

 

[Remix]

Justin Gabriel or Tyson Kidd, who's better/should get a singles push?

 

[klunderbunker]

Gabriel but I'd have zero problem with it being Kidd.

 

[Danger Burger]

Why are so many people against Ryback winning the title on the basis of the match with the Rock at Royal Rumble?

Surely three months is enough time for winning it back??

Ryback wins tonight, faces Cena next month and wins there too, followed by a triple threat at TLC where CM Punk beats Cena, only to be rock bottomed after the match to firstly even the score and to set up the build for the Royal Rumble?

Ryback gets some big rubs, and not a pissed on reign, we get three (two?) good matches (Cena/Punk can carry the build for ryback) and we get the Rock/Punk that alot are vying for.

Am I the only person viewing this as a logical option?

 

[klunderbunker]

Because wrestling fans jump to conclusions way too fast.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Would it really be worth Ryback winning tonight just so he can lose it a month or two later?

 

[Danger Burger]

Would it really be worth Ryback winning tonight just so he can lose it a month or two later?

Would it be worth killing his momentum for the sake of Punk holding two more months?

All ryback needs is a strong T-shirt design and I smell money.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Would it be worth killing his momentum for the sake of Punk holding two more months?

All ryback needs is a strong T-shirt design and I smell money.

Ryback isn't going into the Rumble as champion because he's not going to face The Rock and there is no way he's going to Main event Mania. They've book themselves in a corner because if Ryback loses his momentum is gone but when he loses that belt about a month or two later what exactly was the point of him winning it? He never should have been booked in this match all.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah it's worth it. We have to find out if the guy is worth something and if you job him out in his first main event, you've wasted the last few months on him. They have to throw someone out there at some point. Why not now vs. Punk?

 

[Danger Burger]

Ryback isn't going into the Rumble as champion because he's not going to face The Rock and there is no way he's going to Main event Mania. They've book themselves in a corner because if Ryback loses his momentum is gone but when he loses that belt about a month or two later what exactly was the point of him winning it? He never should have been booked in this match all.

Relax dude! There is no corner!

Two months is a fine reign, especially if he defeats some top talent. It also creates some excitement, some story, maybe some character development. Its already got a good lot of people talking... Theres no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[klunderbunker]

Theres no such thing as bad publicity.

Incorrect.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Relax dude! There is no corner!

Two months is a fine reign, especially if he defeats some top talent. It also creates some excitement, some story, maybe some character development. Its already got a good lot of people talking... Theres no such thing as bad publicity.

So let's say that Ryback wins the title and loses it in a couple of months, where's he going to go from there? Especially when you have a combination of Punk, Rock, Cena, Lesnar, and Taker possibly set up for Mania. Get ready, Smackdown.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Relax dude! There is no corner!

Two months is a fine reign, especially if he defeats some top talent. It also creates some excitement, some story, maybe some character development. Its already got a good lot of people talking... Theres no such thing as bad publicity.

I'm completely relaxed, Ryback just hasn't given me any reason to believe he should win the belt. If Ryback wins the belt it has to be in squash form because we can't buy Punk giving him a run for his money, and if Ryback loses like we've said before his momentum is gone, therefore backed in a corner writing wise. I will say this is more interesting then I originally intended, though I still feel this match shouldn't happen.

 

[The_Reptile_]

Is it odd that I'm seeing this as one of the must see shows of the year just because I have to see how WWE handles Punk/Ryback and nothing else?