I'm not sure about you all, but I think the WWE should elaborate on the careers of new stars like Goldman, Gabriel, Bourne, and Burchill, etc.. Many of the new comers over the years have a strong wrestling background, and title history. For example Punk has been all over the wrestling world in N. America, and in various promotions. There are AAA territories that the WWE owns, so why not promote them? Guys like Orton, Cena, and Batista trained in these AAA terrirtories, and won titles. I think it would add more to the show. I realize the WWE may not want to name other promotions due to the fact they care not to plug some other competition. Is there really any competition for the WWE in the wrestling world?
More info?
- Thread starter truk24
- Start date
That's the odd thing about WWE. They never, ever mention a wrestlers past, so you end up knowing nothing about them. Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to promote other companies, but they do this sort of thing all the time. The first one that comes to mind is The Great Khali. Now I know this is all kayfabe, but how come they never bring up the fact that he USED to be a crazy monster? I thought about it at Survivor Series. After the match, I think it was Rey and Shawn Micheals like, cheering with Khali and stuff. Um, weren't Khali and Rey, worst enemies like a few months ago? Whats up with that? When something doesn't fit the way WWE wants it, it doesn't exist. It's the WWE's way of erasing the past.
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
WWE doesn't mention anything about Scotty Goldman's past because outside the WWE world Scotty Goldman doesn't exist. Same with Evan Bourne. Since neither of the men had these names before WWE they can't say Scotty Goldman used to be called Colt Cabana and won a lot of titles in bingo halls.
I'd say their main reason is that to give credit to anyone else for making their career is something VKM can't do. Look at guys who were big outside WWE, they never did as well as WWE's own guys because Vince didn't push them as his.
CM Punk is one I'm curious, because unless he actually owns the rights to his own name beforehand, I don't know why WWE let him keep his when Colt Cabana and Matt Sydal had to shed theirs
I'd say their main reason is that to give credit to anyone else for making their career is something VKM can't do. Look at guys who were big outside WWE, they never did as well as WWE's own guys because Vince didn't push them as his.
CM Punk is one I'm curious, because unless he actually owns the rights to his own name beforehand, I don't know why WWE let him keep his when Colt Cabana and Matt Sydal had to shed theirs
TheOneBigWill
[This Space for Rent]
Why do you need to know about their past in general? This is why C.M. Punk is honestly at the top of my personal shit-list.
Every other Wrestling fan loves this guy, and most of them love him all because of what he did in a basic indy company. This isn't an indy company that he's working for now, and things aren't going to go the exact same way.
While some Wrestlers have gotten over based on what they did for other "equally big" companies, (ie. E.C.W., W.C.W., T.N.A.) I think that's about all we should ever care to know. I personally don't need to know what someone did in front of 500 (at most) people who blow their load over flashy lights, and new ring attire.
The most important thing is how they act and get over in the W.W.E., because nothing else before that.. once you get to that point, matters.
I don't care that Colt Cabana is now Scotty Goldman. I don't care what Evan Bourne did before becoming note-worthy as a high-flier in E.C.W., and I certainly don't give a shit about all the pop and flash that Punk achieved in the indies. I care about what they do, once they get to the big time.
Every other Wrestling fan loves this guy, and most of them love him all because of what he did in a basic indy company. This isn't an indy company that he's working for now, and things aren't going to go the exact same way.
While some Wrestlers have gotten over based on what they did for other "equally big" companies, (ie. E.C.W., W.C.W., T.N.A.) I think that's about all we should ever care to know. I personally don't need to know what someone did in front of 500 (at most) people who blow their load over flashy lights, and new ring attire.
The most important thing is how they act and get over in the W.W.E., because nothing else before that.. once you get to that point, matters.
I don't care that Colt Cabana is now Scotty Goldman. I don't care what Evan Bourne did before becoming note-worthy as a high-flier in E.C.W., and I certainly don't give a shit about all the pop and flash that Punk achieved in the indies. I care about what they do, once they get to the big time.
Great point. Exposing ROH, and TNA on their website is enough tbh. Mentioning that Sydal is a former ROH World Tag team champion, is only getting peoples attention, and looking for the other product.
I can't imagine that talking about their past is giong to make them over the course of a few years less of a product. That is almost laughable, but rather just pathetic. Have you ever heard of cable television? Perhaps I should inform you that the advertising alone on cable for TNA, and the WWE does exist. There is nothing the WWE can do about TNA leaking out in to the public.
You act as if TNA is a big secret that not to many people know about. The fans that we all like to call "marks", or whatever other name there is know what TNA is. Please, stop hiding under the WWE rock. People have watched TNA, and decided that it sucks. Thus continuing to watch the WWE whether or not it gives them quality entertainment or not. It will always, or for the time being be a muc stronger product, and that is obvious in just the money involved. The WWE's worth is far beyond what TNA has even dreamed of.
Once again the WWE has territories that they "OWN" which means that if they give out past accompishments of current stars from their own AAA wrestling promotions what harm would that provide to the WWE? I'm having a hard time understanding this concept.
Note: There has been not one mention in this reply, or the original thread I started, up until now!
ROH! Are you kidding me. You actually think that ROH would go over the top of the WWE. Put it this way for you. The top wrestling show on television is Monday Night Raw, next is Smackdown, and then finally ECW. Until ROH gains some real stock holders, or investors to launch their wrestling promotion in to the limelight they aren't going anywhere except on the front of the covers of some wrestling magazines. One of ROH's biggest stars is, or was a student of HBK's wrestling school. Just a reminder HBK is synonymous with the WWE. They go hand in hand.
What a man has "done" is always relevant in any form of competition, and especially invovling physical confrontation with two or more individuals. An example could be when Terrel Owens was signed by the Cowboys in many of his games his stats were widely shown, or talked about live during Cowboy's games. He hasn't always been with Dallas so obviously they are talking about another franchise(s) Eagles, & S.F. It gives the man credibility, and worth. The less you have done, the less that should be said. These accomplishments of titles reigned are basically stats. Hell, maybe even recording how many wins these stars have racked up would be interesting. It makes it more competitive imo.
You act as if TNA is a big secret that not to many people know about. The fans that we all like to call "marks", or whatever other name there is know what TNA is. Please, stop hiding under the WWE rock. People have watched TNA, and decided that it sucks. Thus continuing to watch the WWE whether or not it gives them quality entertainment or not. It will always, or for the time being be a muc stronger product, and that is obvious in just the money involved. The WWE's worth is far beyond what TNA has even dreamed of.
Once again the WWE has territories that they "OWN" which means that if they give out past accompishments of current stars from their own AAA wrestling promotions what harm would that provide to the WWE? I'm having a hard time understanding this concept.
Note: There has been not one mention in this reply, or the original thread I started, up until now!
ROH! Are you kidding me. You actually think that ROH would go over the top of the WWE. Put it this way for you. The top wrestling show on television is Monday Night Raw, next is Smackdown, and then finally ECW. Until ROH gains some real stock holders, or investors to launch their wrestling promotion in to the limelight they aren't going anywhere except on the front of the covers of some wrestling magazines. One of ROH's biggest stars is, or was a student of HBK's wrestling school. Just a reminder HBK is synonymous with the WWE. They go hand in hand.
What a man has "done" is always relevant in any form of competition, and especially invovling physical confrontation with two or more individuals. An example could be when Terrel Owens was signed by the Cowboys in many of his games his stats were widely shown, or talked about live during Cowboy's games. He hasn't always been with Dallas so obviously they are talking about another franchise(s) Eagles, & S.F. It gives the man credibility, and worth. The less you have done, the less that should be said. These accomplishments of titles reigned are basically stats. Hell, maybe even recording how many wins these stars have racked up would be interesting. It makes it more competitive imo.
Father:_Polley
Fun's my Chinese neighbour's name
I'll address these two posts together because they have points I want to draw out. If WWE wants to point out what someone has done in another mjaor federation, such as Japan, they usually do. However, WWE isn't stupid enough to go, what would effectively be 'If you like this guy, there are plenty more just like him in ROH/TNA', because that would be advertising something to take away viewers from them.
Truk mentioned one argument about big name NFL players. The difference between NFL and wrestling is where support lies. In NFL, you support one team, for example Dallas Cowboys. If Terrell Owens' stats for the Eagles are mentioned, you're not going to think 'Wow, he was good for them, maybe I'll check them out'. If WWE however mentions another company to the casual fan that has never heard of them, the risk is that they'll like what they see and WWE loses a viewer.
Again, the HBK trained wrestler, they'll mention that, but not his ties to another company.
Fact is, WWE suffers from the common curse of the successful... they're paranoid that something will overtake them and they will refuse to acknowledge anything else in case they drive people away. And that's not me hiding under a WWE rock, that's pointing out the paranoia VKM has with losing out to someone else.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I don't have a problem with it nor do I care. I don't care what someone did in another company. I care about what they're doing in this company. Nick Dinsmore, AKA Eugene is the undisputed king of OVW. He's A 10 time heavyweight champion and a 9 time tag champion there. So what? He did very little of real note in WWE, which is the company most people know him for. Guys do a lot in other companies, but what difference should that make when it comes to WWE? They're in WWE now, not some other company.
Of course there is, and that's sort of the point.
For the WWE to mention a new worker's history and accomplishments from any other company instantly legitimizes said company. If you bring up someone's title reigns from say AAA or ROH or FMW or whomever, it's an acknowledgment from WWE that those championships and therefore those companies actually mean something.
Since their purchases of WCW and ECW, the McMahons act like there's not even the slightest possibility of competition out there. It's kind of like a toddler that puts his hands in front of his face when you tell him to go hide. If he can't see you, he doesn;t think you can see him.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
What competition are you talking about? If you mean TNA you've got to be kidding. WWE went into their backyard at WM 24 and showed them how a wrestling company is supposed to be run. WWE has the reputation, the stars, the writers, the fan base and just about every other advantage. The other feds run shows maybe 3-4 times a month. WWE does 4-6 a week. TNA always touts the fact taht their workers have won titles in the WWE to try to convince people that their workers are legitimate. WWE has the legitimacy already. Why would they need to say that someone is a former ROH champion? Punk is making his own legacy in WWE. He wouldn't have been the name that he was without ROH, but if he hadn't been champion there it wouldn't have matterd. What do you think means more? Winning the ROH title, or winning any title in WWE?
I'm not discounting the fact that WWE is the top of the heap. There's never been any question of that. I think what you're missing here is the point that competition breeds quality. Of course winning the WWE strap means more, but Punk may not have even gotten the opportunity if not or his work in ROH, MLW or TNA.
Watch "The Rise and Fall of ECW" and listen to Vince talk about working with ECW. Listen to him expound upon how a healthy working relationship with Heyman's company was 'good for the business'. Where's that attitude now?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Of course he wouldn't have gotten there without that work, but he's in WWE now. Why should what he did to get here mean anything? You rarely hear about what a player did in AAA baseball.
Where did it go? It went away once the dvd was made. You simply can't believe most of what you hear on a WWE produced documentary. The spin on it is so ridiculous that it's unbelievable. I've seen it many times. I don't believe it now and I didn't believe it then. Vince was trying to paint the most positive perspective on ECW that he could and he did a good job. WWE helped, but that was because he needed some help. WCW was dominating him. It helped Vince as much as it helped ECW.
Where did it go? It went away once the dvd was made. You simply can't believe most of what you hear on a WWE produced documentary. The spin on it is so ridiculous that it's unbelievable. I've seen it many times. I don't believe it now and I didn't believe it then. Vince was trying to paint the most positive perspective on ECW that he could and he did a good job. WWE helped, but that was because he needed some help. WCW was dominating him. It helped Vince as much as it helped ECW.
