*OFFICIAL* Old School Wrestling Discussion (New Generation & Earlier Discussion ONLY)

[FunKay the Inevitable]

I would have no issue with the elimination of the US belt in favour of a lesser belt like a European or TV Championship. Guys like Ted DiBiase, Hunico, Justin Gabriel and even folks like Santino could benifit from that rather than being shoehorned in as fodder for other guys.

 

[klunderbunker]

There are a few factors in play here...

#1 - Inflation. The WWE can make more money with less PPV buys if they raise their prices.

#2 - They need a better distinction between which are the more important PPV's of the year without discrediting the lesser ones. Honestly, I think they already do a great job with this. The "Big Four" are still prominent (i.e. Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam) and the others gets good buildup. But not NEARLY as much production as the big four.

As for buildup, this is always an issue. But now they've been dragging feuds into multiple PPV's so you never know when the "blowoff" match will eventually take place in each division.

That's a big problem also. Today, things like the Cell and the Chamber happen because the calendar calls for them. You'll often see rematches later, which completely misses their point.

 

[klunderbunker]

I would have no issue with the elimination of the US belt in favour of a lesser belt like a European or TV Championship. Guys like Ted DiBiase, Hunico, Justin Gabriel and even folks like Santino could benifit from that rather than being shoehorned in as fodder for other guys.

For the 10,000th time: the name of the belt means nothing if it doesn't get defended. You can make anything look valuable if people fight for it. See the Hardcore Title being held by guys like Angle, Jericho, Undertaker and Kane for evidence.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Anybody remember "Smoky Mountain Wrestling?" (1991-95) It operated independently, yet came to serve as a minor league to WWE and WCW, with big stars passing through....and no one remaining for long. I remember them giving a major build-up to a guy named Doug Furnas, whom they foresaw as a future star. Problem was, the future came faster than they would have liked it and he was in Smoky Mountain for about two weeks. Not too many wrestlers stayed for long, except Bullet Bob Armstrong, who was too old for the majors and had nowhere else to go, anyway.

What I remember more than anything is that the company used one camera; it was trained on the whole ring and we never saw close-ups, wide angles, short angles, or anything except that one view. There were no crowd shots either, largely because there were no crowds; just 100 or so people at ringside.

And you know what?.....It was great. They ran shows from what looked like junior high school gymnasiums....and produced some of the hottest action you've ever seen because their non-ring activities consisted of a few interviews ....and that's it. No off-site videos, no backstage antics, very little focus on the announcers' table. Just wrestling, and tons of it.

We're too young to have seen pro wrestling in the 50's and 60's, but my Dad told me it was just like Smoky Mountain Wrestling. I wish we had more stuff like that.

 

[D-Man]

I am thinking of creating a series of threads titled 'Learning about a wrestler' where I will create threads about a few wrestlers (mostly old school and few from other promotions) and will mention what I know about the particular wrestler (in most cases, not much). I would appreciate if the more experienced posters gave their opinions about the wrestler, their best matches etc.

This has been done a million times before and unfortunately, they die out quickly. I recall trying this idea twice and both time were failures.

I also remember the IC Title being treated as a huge deal in the Golden Era. You had guys like Rude, Roberts, Savage, Piper, etc. fighting over it. They need to just eliminate the U.S. Title. The midcard today is not what it was and just having one title could hopefully improve that.

I disagree. If they want to keep this separation between the shows, they need to establish titles for each show. I feel the midcard titles would be in tandem with the world titles. If there should be one world title, have one midcard title. If two world titles, TWO midcard titles.

I would have no issue with the elimination of the US belt in favour of a lesser belt like a European or TV Championship. Guys like Ted DiBiase, Hunico, Justin Gabriel and even folks like Santino could benifit from that rather than being shoehorned in as fodder for other guys.

For the 10,000th time: the name of the belt means nothing if it doesn't get defended. You can make anything look valuable if people fight for it. See the Hardcore Title being held by guys like Angle, Jericho, Undertaker and Kane for evidence.

I'm so sick and tired of everyone begging for the Cruiserweight or European titles to come back. If the current midcard titles are not being utilized properly, what makes you think a LESS PRESTIGIOUS title will do better? It's common sense and it frustrated me to no end that no one sees it.

That's a big problem also. Today, things like the Cell and the Chamber happen because the calendar calls for them. You'll often see rematches later, which completely misses their point.

Yes, this is very true. I'm not a fan of these "themed" PPV's. Last I checked, wrestling's right hand was unpredictability. The internet took enough of it away... now they want to take the surprises of match types away, as well? Total garbage.

 

[D-Man]

I wish we had more stuff like that.

Personally, I don't. And to be honest, it would be impossible to produce in today's market.

Pro-wrestling is WAY too huge to be confined to a small venue, nowadays. If I'm correct, even FCW draws more than Smokey Mountain used to. The only way we could revert back to the days of old would be to severely hurt the product by spreading out into territories again.

We're basically at the point of no return now. Expectations for product is too high. The business draws too much money as a huge entity. Going backwards just isn't sensible at all.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Anybody remember "Smoky Mountain Wrestling?" (1991-95) It operated independently, yet came to serve as a minor league to WWE and WCW, with big stars passing through....and no one remaining for long. I remember them giving a major build-up to a guy named Doug Furnas, whom they foresaw as a future star. Problem was, the future came faster than they would have liked it and he was in Smoky Mountain for about two weeks. Not too many wrestlers stayed for long, except Bullet Bob Armstrong, who was too old for the majors and had nowhere else to go, anyway.

What I remember more than anything is that the company used one camera; it was trained on the whole ring and we never saw close-ups, wide angles, short angles, or anything except that one view. There were no crowd shots either, largely because there were no crowds; just 100 or so people at ringside.

And you know what?.....It was great. They ran shows from what looked like junior high school gymnasiums....and produced some of the hottest action you've ever seen because their non-ring activities consisted of a few interviews ....and that's it. No off-site videos, no backstage antics, very little focus on the announcers' table. Just wrestling, and tons of it.

We're too young to have seen pro wrestling in the 50's and 60's, but my Dad told me it was just like Smoky Mountain Wrestling. I wish we had more stuff like that.

Jim Cornette owned it, right?

 

[Gelgarin]

I haven't flexed my old school muscles in an age. I think it was the last wrestlezone tournament that I was last able to find a suitably old school argument.

So yeah; something controversial about old school wrestling.

Let's see...

Greg Gagne is the most underrated professional wrestler in the entire history of the business.

The success of Vince McMahon and Hulk Hogen had far more to do with geography than it did either man's ability.

Andre the Giant's impact on the business is profoundly exaggerated.

Ed Lewis and Toots Mondt are the most important men in the entire history of pro wrestling - Blowing Vince, Hogan, Austin and anyone else you'd care to name out of the water.

Go ahead; prove me wrong.

 

[D-Man]

I haven't flexed my old school muscles in an age. I think it was the last wrestlezone tournament that I was last able to find a suitably old school argument.

So yeah; something controversial about old school wrestling.

Let's see...

It's about fucking time you showed up

Greg Gagne is the most underrated professional wrestler in the entire history of the business.

The only argument I'd say here is that he's one of the most underrated. That's a really tall order to keep him as your #1; especially since being overrated is purely subjective.

The success of Vince McMahon and Hulk Hogen had far more to do with geography than it did either man's ability.

Once again, I agree. Vince had the New York market and MSG in his back pocket, after picking up his dad's table scraps. No other market was really able to compare at the time. Even regional wrestlers from the AWA and Georgia Championship Wrestling always had their eyes set on the NY region being the "mecca" for them.

Andre the Giant's impact on the business is profoundly exaggerated.

Well, yes and no.

When it comes to him being pegged as the "biggest attraction in the world" at the time, I'd agree if they were talking about his sheer size instead of his impact on the business. But he did draw a ton, as a result of him being a circus freak and all. There was no one in the business quite like him back then.

Ed Lewis and Toots Mondt are the most important men in the entire history of pro wrestling - Blowing Vince, Hogan, Austin and anyone else you'd care to name out of the water.

No comment. I honestly know little to nothing about them.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I disagree. If they want to keep this separation between the shows, they need to establish titles for each show. I feel the midcard titles would be in tandem with the world titles. If there should be one world title, have one midcard title. If two world titles, TWO midcard titles.

One world title will be a whole lot better to me. From Wrestlemania 14 to Wrestlemania 17, here were your champions: Austin, Rock, HHH, Foley, Kane, Undertaker, Big Show, Angle, and Vince McMahon.

One title would be beneficial as you can also have feuds that don't revolve around the title. Complaints run rampant about how certain wrestlers always appear to hold the title or be in title matches every single PPV. This could be a way to eliminate that. You would have Cena, Orton, Bryan, Jericho, Punk, Christian, and a couple of others fighting over one title and you can have feuds like Christian/Punk or Orton/Jericho.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

It's because pro-wrestling has made a turn for the better by going in a more "realistic" direction. With the influx of sports like MMA, the WWE cannot continue to portray a comic book-like product. They want to create characters with REAL personalities that the audience can not only relate to but also look up to.

What do YOU think sells better in today's modern market; John Cena or a man who goes by the name of "Diesel"? From a fan's perspective, it's a comparison of a "real" man versus a "fictionary" person. I would get behind a guy that's more tangible.

I understand the John Cena/ Diesel example but who in the world looks up to some bland lower midcarders. Wouldn't it be more eyecatching if a lower midcarder had a gimmick like Doink or like Heath Slater? And it is pretty apparent that no one looks upto Heath Slater.

As for MMA, I don't know but shouldn't wrestling try to differentiate as much as they can from stuff like MMA by promoting such characters thereby stating that you cannot get this form of entertainment from MMA?

 

[D-Man]

One world title will be a whole lot better to me. From Wrestlemania 14 to Wrestlemania 17, here were your champions: Austin, Rock, HHH, Foley, Kane, Undertaker, Big Show, Angle, and Vince McMahon.

This was also during a time period where WWE was in direct competition with WCW and each promotion shared the load of top stars. WWE has been oversaturated ever since the monopoly, hence the need for two titles.

One title would be beneficial as you can also have feuds that don't revolve around the title. Complaints run rampant about how certain wrestlers always appear to hold the title or be in title matches every single PPV. This could be a way to eliminate that. You would have Cena, Orton, Bryan, Jericho, Punk, Christian, and a couple of others fighting over one title and you can have feuds like Christian/Punk or Orton/Jericho.

Take a close look at this statement. Do you honestly think that if the WWE had one title, they'd be able to build up newer stars without completely shitting on the current ones? Highly doubtful.

If they were to consolidate the titles, they'd have to do a major cleanup of their roster. There are WAY too many stars between the shows now.

I understand the John Cena/ Diesel example but who in the world looks up to some bland lower midcarders. Wouldn't it be more eyecatching if a lower midcarder had a gimmick like Doink or like Heath Slater? And it is pretty apparent that no one looks upto Heath Slater.

No one looks up to them, hence the reason why they are in the midcard. But what good would it do to create a complete joke of a character? Do you remember the Spirit Squad? How about Eugene? Zack Gowen? These guys were created more to push the bill than to provide quality entertainment. Vince was still trying to see how many heads he could turn by putting a risky product out there.

Presently, reality rules. Reality TV shows, reality sports, reality everything. No one wants to see a fucking clown defeat a 6'6" beast named "Crush" anymore.

As for MMA, I don't know but shouldn't wrestling try to differentiate as much as they can from stuff like MMA by promoting such characters thereby stating that you cannot get this form of entertainment from MMA?

They're not trying to follow MMA's format. They're realizing what people REALLY want. Like I said above, the audience wants to see sporting contests; not clowns chasing around hockey players.

 

[klunderbunker]

They're not trying to follow MMA's format. They're realizing what people REALLY want. Like I said above, the audience wants to see sporting contests; not clowns chasing around hockey players.

I'm not entirely sure on this.

Now yes, there's not much of an audience for The Goon or Doink, Dink, Wink and Pink. However, there is an audience for a clown that dresses that way because he's either insane or brilliant and who uses that to get a psychological advantage over his opponents. Heenan made a comment that evil Doink was there because he had a plan and he dressed like a clown to get inside people's heads. Now THAT is an interesting character. If you don't believe me, dig up Heath Ledger and ask him.

The idea of everything being realistic is something that gets on my nerves at times. I don't watch wrestling to see realistic action. I watch to see stuff that's over the top. Look at Hogan, Austin and Rock. None of those people would function in the real world. They're so over the top and ridiculous but they make it work by being charismatic and likeable. There needs to be a balance between the two extremes, not all the way one way or another.

 

[D-Man]

I'm not entirely sure on this.

Now yes, there's not much of an audience for The Goon or Doink, Dink, Wink and Pink. However, there is an audience for a clown that dresses that way because he's either insane or brilliant and who uses that to get a psychological advantage over his opponents. Heenan made a comment that evil Doink was there because he had a plan and he dressed like a clown to get inside people's heads. Now THAT is an interesting character. If you don't believe me, dig up Heath Ledger and ask him.

I can't disagree here at all. My fault, since I always think of Doink in the babyface sense. However, his heel gimmick was fucking AWESOME, back in the day. And it's because of the reasons KB stated; you never knew where he was coming from since he was so mysterious and sinister.

But there's the difference. On one hand, you have a guy who wore makeup and squirted flowers at people for kicks and laughs (pointless). On the other, you had a guy who utilized the well-known fear of clowns to get inside people's heads (purposeful).

The idea of everything being realistic is something that gets on my nerves at times. I don't watch wrestling to see realistic action. I watch to see stuff that's over the top. Look at Hogan, Austin and Rock. None of those people would function in the real world. They're so over the top and ridiculous but they make it work by being charismatic and likeable. There needs to be a balance between the two extremes, not all the way one way or another.

Agreed, as well.

If you balance the circus act with the proper acting, storylines, and keep the audience relating to the personality you've created, that's a recipe for ticket sales.

 

[Coco]

Our posters need to know that pro-wrestling existed prior to the Attitude Era... like, really good pro-wrestling.

Why? I'm comfortable with my rudimentary knowledge that carries me deep into the 80s and no longer get a great deal of joy out of non-recent wrestling.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Why? I'm comfortable with my rudimentary knowledge that carries me deep into the 80s and no longer get a great deal of joy out of non-recent wrestling.

Yep.

 

[The Crock]

I also remember the IC Title being treated as a huge deal in the Golden Era. You had guys like Rude, Roberts, Savage, Piper, etc. fighting over it. They need to just eliminate the U.S. Title. The midcard today is not what it was and just having one title could hopefully improve that.

I don't think they need to eliminate one of the midcard titles, they just need to have them both regularly defended and maybe inject some bigger-name superstars into the mix. Just a few years ago, you had Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, JBL, and John Morrison all hanging on to the Intercontinental Championship. I don't think there was much of an outcry then. Hell, the United States Championship had a good run with The Miz and Daniel Bryan too. The thing is, it doesn't matter who fights for those championships, if they're not made a focal point. There needs to a balance between star power and whatnot.

The midcard titles need to coincide with the world titles (just like D-Man said), but even if you were to only have one, it wouldn't change a thing. Jack Swagger and Cody Rhodes are talented performers, but they don't defend those midcard championships anywhere near as much as they should. I mean, Swagger didn't even appear on Raw last week, did he? Make them seem important, after all, they're champions -- once you establish them, you can work on making the division more competitive and bringing prestige back to the midcard titles.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I think Rhodes is doing a little more than you're giving him credit for. He defends the title pretty regularly.

 

[The Crock]

I think Rhodes is doing a little more than you're giving him credit for. He defends the title pretty regularly.

I do like Rhodes. I've defended him on numerous occasions. More of a general point, really. Ziggler was a great champion too.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Totally disagree there. Ryder did more for that title chasing it than Ziggler ever did holding it.

 

[Gelgarin]

Anyone else noticed that four fifths of this thread has been people talking about the contemporary product?

 

[Remix]

I think Rhodes is doing a little more than you're giving him credit for. He defends the title pretty regularly.

I actually can't remember the last time he defended his title on TV, Booker T back on Jan 6th? He feuded with Orton, not over the IC title, beat Justin Gabriel a few times in non-title matches, and at The Rumble and EC there wasn't a title defense. He's done a lot while holding the title, but he hasn't done much with it if you know what I mean.

 

[Harthan]

I actually can't remember the last time he defended his title on TV, Booker T back on Jan 6th? He feuded with Orton, not over the IC title, beat Justin Gabriel a few times in non-title matches, and at The Rumble and EC there wasn't a title defense. He's done a lot while holding the title, but he hasn't done much with it if you know what I mean.

'Tis better than not being seen at all. Unfortunately the WWE doesn't seem to have much interest in the simple "Hey, asshole, I want your belt" storyline anymore.

 

[Coco]

Not that such things matter. Rhodes is credible, so the belt by extension is a somewhat big deal. He doesn't actually have to defend it.

 

[Remix]

Oh I've been loving Rhodes. He's been doing a great job with whatever he's given. I'm just saying that he hasn't been "defending his title on a fairly regular basis". Being anal is just my thing. See also: "Heroin spelled with a capital H because it's a brand name"