ONE element of Old School Wrestling would benefit today's wrestling the most?

[It's...Baylariat!]

Simple question. Lots of the older guard love the older generation of wrestling with Hogan, Flair, Race, Savage, Lawler, the Horsemen, and countless other greats during the day. But there are elements the older bookers and promoters used to put their product over that we don't see on today's product. Lots of them, too.

You're mission...is to pick ONE element that would benefit the current wrestling product and why. It doesn't have to be limited to the WWE. It can be about any current promotion. And you only have to choose one element. I've put up a few general answers, but don't be afraid of thinking outside the box and coming up with a creative answer of your own.

Go for it.

 

[klunderbunker]

MORE SQUASHES.

In short, there are almost no major matches that haven't been done at one point or another on TV. When you have a world champion caliber wrestler vs. a world champion caliber wrestler on free TV every week, why would I want to pay 65 dollars to see a match I'll see for free 6 weeks later? Back in the 80s you would see the equivalent of guys like Sheamus vs. JTG as a featured match. Give that about 8 minutes and have Sheamus take a few shots here and there. Then have Sheamus END JTG in dominant fashion. He then cuts a promo about Orton on PPV and everything looks good. Sheamus looks awesome, the belt makes Orton look awesome, he gets to talk about Orton and we wonder if Sheamus can do that on TV. Do that instead of having annoying tag matches and pull apart brawls then staring as "buildup".

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

MORE SQUASHES.

In short, there are almost no major matches that haven't been done at one point or another on TV. When you have a world champion caliber wrestler vs. a world champion caliber wrestler on free TV every week, why would I want to pay 65 dollars to see a match I'll see for free 6 weeks later? Back in the 80s you would see the equivalent of guys like Sheamus vs. JTG as a featured match. Give that about 8 minutes and have Sheamus take a few shots here and there. Then have Sheamus END JTG in dominant fashion. He then cuts a promo about Orton on PPV and everything looks good. Sheamus looks awesome, the belt makes Orton look awesome, he gets to talk about Orton and we wonder if Sheamus can do that on TV. Do that instead of having annoying tag matches and pull apart brawls then staring as "buildup".

Agreed. And at one time, they were doing that. And it was successful. All of a sudden, they stop doing that. For no reason.

Squashes are what make wrestlers look dominant. Back in the day, seeing Ric Flair thump on George South was the highlight of a lot of people's week. Same goes for the Horsemen. The thing is, heels needed to look strong in order to be a believable foe for the face. Or in Flair's case, he needed to keep himself in top shape for his potential matches with Rhodes, Koloff, or others. Good answer. ♦

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I say less Pay Per Views, though I would argue less weekly wrestling shows would be better for the overall product of today's wrestling.

One of the gems of Old School Wrestling was the fact that it came around only now and then and didn't overexert itself with its fans. Storylines came unfolded not on the average like it does on Raw, Smackdown, iMpact, etc but on the Pay Per Views themseves- giving you more of a reason to want to order the programming. But today's wrestling is so over in abundance on television that it's getting harder to catch a breather in between WWE's 4 or so shows and then you have TNA's 1 show that's stretched out even longer thanks to it's ReAction show post iMpact.

Old School Wrestling was a real treat for wrestling fans, because it was only on now and then and it didn't pan out for most of the week. I believe today's fans would enjoy the product even more if it weren't broadcasted practically daily.

 

[Tequila Dave]

Longer feuds/build to matches.
Two wrestlers would feud for months, sometimes even years before finally facing. These days feuds are thrown together with crappy three week builds, and thus don't feel as special. Part of the reason behind this is the fact there are a lot more PPVS and thus 'big matches' have to be made frequently. It was so exciting to see Hogan in the ring with Savage after months and months of tension.

Clear victors
Back in the day, there weren't so many screwy DQ/countout finishes. There was a winner and there was a looser. Today, it seems as though wrestling promotions are scared to have big names loose in fear they'll loose momentum.

Fans
I know this isn't really a booking method, but i miss the days when fans weren't hyper-critical of EVERYTHING and they cheered the faces/booed the heels. Just created a better atmosphere.

 

[OlderFan]

I agree with less pay-per-views. It was a lot better when there was only WM in the spring, SS in Aug. SS around Thanksgiving, and RR in January. Fans seemed to like the idea of "good guy" as longer title holders, too.

 

[WarrenIronman]

I'm gonna say NO SPOLIERS. Wrestling was much better when we had no idea what was gonna happen. No a days, people can get what they want without having to watch or buy an event. I say with there was still no spoliers wrestling would be way more watchable then it is today.

 

[lgreene9187]

The current guys should look at old promos from Flair, Dusty and Piper, just to name a few. The aforementioned guys gave the best promos ever, and they weren't even allowed to cuss or make obscene gestures then. Just sheer skills on the mic. Hell, I think I used to watch more for the promos than I did for the actual ring action. Go to youtube and search for Georgia Championship Wrestling, Championship Wrestling from Florida or Mid-Atlantic Wrestling. The promos from that era were gold.

 

[pessimism101]

I also agree with less pay-per-views. Once upon a time, feuds were built over longer periods of time (months being the norm, but occasionally, a feud was built for over a year. IE: Ted DiBiase vs. Jake Roberts). The WWE would tease the fans week in and week out with encounters and whatnot, and, by the time the PPV rolled around a few months later, the fans were chomping at the bit to finally see the people in the feud come to a head. Having said that, since the WWE thinks that one PPV a month is good for revenue, I'm not opposed to reverting back to the Big 5 (bring back King of the Ring) being 3 hours or more and having the rest of the PPV's be 2-hours a la In Your House, featuring mainly lower-card feuds or semi-main event feuds that have little to do with the main feuds that will headline the big PPV's.

 

[Million Dollar Dream]

Bring back Managers/ Valets..

Wrestling was awesome with guys such Slick, Bobby The Brain, Mr. Fugi, Jimmy Hart, Jimmy Valiant, Cpt. Lou Albano, Ted Dibiase, Col. Parker, Teddy Hart, JJ Dillion, Kevin Sullivan

Females Such as, Sherri, Elizabeth, Fabulous Moulah, Woman, Missy Hyatt

They gave wrestlers that extra burst of charisma or charisma if the wrestler had none at all but was good in the ring yet couldn't hold an interview to save his life.. In todays world MANY wrestlers could benefit by being entertaining if they just had someone in their corner to speak for them or irritate the fans or help the fans feel sentimental for (Elizabeth for Savage)... The Hart Dynasty (if they dont break up) comes to mind as Michael Cole was spot on about their lack of charisma and being boring.

One other thing that was great from old wrestling was established tag-teams and creative input into making those teams.. As everyone can see for themselves Tag Team wrestling these days is absolutely horrible.. Beer Money in my opinion is the BEST True tag-team factoring in skills in the ring and on the mic in many years

 

[iamcountrymusic]

I voted better wrestlers but realized that's not going to be as entertaining to people as Jim Cornette hitting a face at ringside with his tennis racket. I'll go almost anywhere else for the talented wrestlers but WWE is a "weekly episodic sports entertainment show", not a wrestling show.

For every Bobby the Brain, there are 8 Rico's (from Billy and Chuck).
And obviously fewer ppv's wouldn't make the storylines so rushed. If there are any feuds that started 2 weeks before the ppv, how could 2 promos generate enough tension. Its bad booking. The definition of what I'm talking about is December to Dismember 2006. That was a disaster. They didn't promote more than like 2 matches and the rest turned out garbage. A big reason is because there was a ppv 2 weeks afterand an ECW was a slapdash afterthought.

And for squash matches, in the past year there has been sheamus', Ezekial Jackson over Jimmy Wang Yang, and Ortons match with the Uso bro. There's probably more so its not that rare. Its embarassing to watch sometimes. We made fun of Jamie Nobles loss for awhile and we haven't seen Jimmy Wang ever since that loss.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think what would benefit today's wrestling the most is to change the match style that has developed in the ring. Everything in wrestling today seems intended for crack-addicted babies, assuming the audience's attention span is in the negatives. This hurts the overall quality of a match, because "big moves" are no longer big moves, the high impact of "regular moves" means finishers have to seem extraordinarily painful, and everything goes too fast to be believable.

In the older days, it would be nothing for a 15 minute match to breakdown as the following:

3 minutes of heel stalling
2 minutes of face kicking ass
7 minutes of heel breaking the face down with various locks and holds
1 minute for face comeback
2 minutes to finish the match.

It wouldn't follow that exact pattern, but the match would definitely be broken down similarly, and everything would set up to pop the crowd for the finish of the match, with a little pop here and there just to keep the crowd into it. Now, it seems like there's no concept of workrate, and worrying about taking the crowd along for an emotional roller coaster is gone.

This is why I struggle to watch wrestling past 1996 or so.

MORE SQUASHES.

In short, there are almost no major matches that haven't been done at one point or another on TV.

These are two entirely separate concepts, one of which I completely disagree with, and the other I would not argue.

We don't need more squashes. In the end, squashes are okay when used properly, but arbitrarily saying "more squashes" is never the answer, because squashes aren't entertaining. They build credibility, not interest. However, the lack of major matchups is most certainly a valid point, and if I say the letters "UFC" then I've basically given proof of the second point. I'd go more in-depth but I'm tired as can be, so that'll have to do.

 

[klunderbunker]

These are two entirely separate concepts, one of which I completely disagree with, and the other I would not argue.

We don't need more squashes. In the end, squashes are okay when used properly, but arbitrarily saying "more squashes" is never the answer, because squashes aren't entertaining. They build credibility, not interest. However, the lack of major matchups is most certainly a valid point, and if I say the letters "UFC" then I've basically given proof of the second point. I'd go more in-depth but I'm tired as can be, so that'll have to do.

I don't mean make a full show out of them. One or two a week would break the formula a bit though. There are matches we've seen so many times either on PPV or TV that they mean absolutely nothing anymore. They can also help to get guys on TV more often. I'd much rather see Edge beat some jobber in a 90 second squash than see him do a stupid comedy bit with Ryder in the back. I don't mean something like the old WCW shows back in the 80s as Raw or Smackdown.

 

[bxbigshow]

I would say bring back managers. Someone who can work the mic for their performer. Sell them as the 'next big thing', 'wwe's biggest monster', etc. I think Armando Estrada was the last of his breed.

What Vicki G. does now is par for the course. But I want a manager with the intent on building a STABLE of wrestlers to COLLECT CHAMPIONSHIPS. I capped those words because that was the intent of the Heenan Family, Fuji's camp, Hart's Foundation.

I say play on the whole 'Wilpon' thing and have a rich character appear with the purpose of finding WWE's best talent, buying them, and send them out to bring all of the titles to him. Then try force WWE (Vince) to play by his rules since he controls the belts. Accomplishes a few things:

Gives younger talent time to develop mic skills as the manager will do the talking initially.
Has an actual story for every level of competition. (Main Title, Mid-Card, Tag).
Plays into a larger story arc involving the direction (fate?) of WWE.
You can throw in a young heel that you will eventually turn and be the guy that breaks from this group.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

In short, there are almost no major matches that haven't been done at one point or another on TV. When you have a world champion caliber wrestler vs. a world champion caliber wrestler on free TV every week, why would I want to pay 65 dollars to see a match I'll see for free 6 weeks later? Back in the 80s you would see the equivalent of guys like Sheamus vs. JTG as a featured match. Give that about 8 minutes and have Sheamus take a few shots here and there. Then have Sheamus END JTG in dominant fashion. He then cuts a promo about Orton on PPV and everything looks good. Sheamus looks awesome, the belt makes Orton look awesome, he gets to talk about Orton and we wonder if Sheamus can do that on TV. Do that instead of having annoying tag matches and pull apart brawls then staring as "buildup"..

something like this would work extremely well on superstars.the champ or the midcard champ having an eight minute match with a guy of lower stature.but youll need someone better than JTG.i mean no one will believe JTG can go for eight minutes with sheamus.a few top stars popping up now and then on superstars would increase ratings for that show as well.however i wouldnt like this to happen on raw

I don't mean make a full show out of them. One or two a week would break the formula a bit though. There are matches we've seen so many times either on PPV or TV that they mean absolutely nothing anymore. They can also help to get guys on TV more often. I'd much rather see Edge beat some jobber in a 90 second squash than see him do a stupid comedy bit with Ryder in the back. I don't mean something like the old WCW shows back in the 80s as Raw or Smackdown.

i like the edge-ryder comedy bit.squashes that you mentioned mainly benefit the main eventers or upper mid carders.so that means a lower midcarder like ryder is let off the show.i like this bit they are doing.ryder is actually interacting with a big star even as a tool and wwe is showing us the most important aspect about ryder which is his mic skills.(not to say he is bad in ring coz he isnt.he's just better on the mic).at least they are giving a guy like ryder tv time and making me care about him.otherwise he would have just been lost in the shuffle.

also i feel that giving a person mic time and vignettes before actually debuting a guy is a better idea than just putting a guy in 10 minute matches straight away.wait isnt that actually an old school thing?????

of the list the OP gave i voted for less ppv but ill explain why in a later post coz i gotta go meet someone.some things are a bit more important than wrestling

 

[8thwotwATG]

One facet of the old school game that I would like to see happen is a champion holding on to the title for more than just a month or two. The short staccato title reigns that all the chosen guys seem to have these days just absolutely drives me nuts. In my opinion, these short reigns devalue the prestige of having the honor of wearing the championship belt, and only serve to make the champion himself look less than formidable. Hogans' first run with the belt lasted for over three years, and served to make him look like a dominating champion who just dared you to try and strip him of the title. Nowadays, it seems you only have to be around for a couple of years, get a decent pop now and then, then you get to have a belt? I may be wrong, but I just don't care for that approach to booking championships.

 

[Slyfox696]

One facet of the old school game that I would like to see happen is a champion holding on to the title for more than just a month or two. The short staccato title reigns that all the chosen guys seem to have these days just absolutely drives me nuts. In my opinion, these short reigns devalue the prestige of having the honor of wearing the championship belt, and only serve to make the champion himself look less than formidable. Hogans' first run with the belt lasted for over three years, and served to make him look like a dominating champion who just dared you to try and strip him of the title. Nowadays, it seems you only have to be around for a couple of years, get a decent pop now and then, then you get to have a belt? I may be wrong, but I just don't care for that approach to booking championships.

I understand what you mean, and you do have a point, but you have to consider the difference in times. When Hogan was holding his title for three years, he was seen on TV approximately 10 times. Now, a wrestler gets 10 TV appearances in two months.

So while the time is much shorter today, the number of television appearances is roughly the same. Which is one of the reasons titles do change more often.

 

[8thwotwATG]

I understand what you mean, and you do have a point, but you have to consider the difference in times. When Hogan was holding his title for three years, he was seen on TV approximately 10 times. Now, a wrestler gets 10 TV appearances in two months.

So while the time is much shorter today, the number of television appearances is roughly the same. Which is one of the reasons titles do change more often.

Point taken. I'm sometimes prone to forget that technology has multiplied the exposure that today's performers receive a thousand fold. Near monthly PPV's, three shows per week, and, of course, the internet has resulted in quicker program development, so called "smarter" viewers, and shorter title reigns. Maybe the powers that be in both WWE and TNA are trying to give the talent that have paid their dues and shown that they can draw their shot at the top. Alas, the day of the house show being king have long since gone the way of the dinosaur, as it is obvious that a house show is no longer nescessary in the development of a feud or program. I completely understand why the reigns have been shortened, I just think that it devalues the worth of a championship. Times have changed for the benefit of an ADD society that has difficulty focusing on anything that takes more than a minute to develop.

 

[mulkeymania]

ill agree with klunderbunker-more jobbers and squashes back in the 80s we knew hulk hogan could kill jose luis rivera or that piper could kill salvatore bellomo but what would happen if piper vs hogan happened? we seen the result with wrestlemania. even with sting vs hogan in 97 we seen again what happens when the opponents are not thrown against each other on tv how much the hype grows for a ppv.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

I voted to bring back valets and managers. When you think about it, if the manager is good on the mic, than they should be given to a superstar. Especially one that isnt so good at cutting promos, and could really use a lesson. A perfect example of this is Paul Heyman and Brock Lesnar. Lesnar was shit at cutting promos, but Heyman was the one who got him past that by cutting promos for Lesnar. I'll go even more old school. What about The Undertaker and Paul Bearer? Not only can managers be used for superstars that cant cut promos very well, they can also be used for superstars who cant talk due to their gimmick. The Undertaker is a prime example of that. His gimmick doesnt allow him to talk very often, so to get him over Paul Bearer cut the promos for him, and it obviously worked because look at where Taker is today. He's been one of the company's biggest stars, and honestly, I think Paul Bearer helped him get to that level of success.

 

[Attitude]

You should have had one that said ALL OF THE ABOVE. I chose more realism. I guess less the pg or g rated stuff and John Cena writing poopy on JBL's Limo(even though that was a couple of years ago). Plus like Carlito said in a recent report when Triple H broke into Randy Orton's house Carlito asked Triple H "are you going to wrestle Sunday?" He said "Why," and Carlito said you broke into Randy's house and they caught it on camera.

Anyway something that I would like is less pay per views during the year to. There's way to many. We have one like every two weeks now or at least it seems like it. And I want longer fueds and title reigns. Really John Cena winning the Title at EC and Batista beating him one minute later for the same title is unneccasary. So is holding the title for only one or two months and then dropping it to somebody else. Becomes two predictable. Less pay per views would allow guys to hold titles longer, and allow longer fueds.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I would say bring back managers. Someone who can work the mic for their performer. Sell them as the 'next big thing', 'wwe's biggest monster', etc. I think Armando Estrada was the last of his breed.

What Vicki G. does now is par for the course. But I want a manager with the intent on building a STABLE of wrestlers to COLLECT CHAMPIONSHIPS. I capped those words because that was the intent of the Heenan Family, Fuji's camp, Hart's Foundation.

I say play on the whole 'Wilpon' thing and have a rich character appear with the purpose of finding WWE's best talent, buying them, and send them out to bring all of the titles to him. Then try force WWE (Vince) to play by his rules since he controls the belts. Accomplishes a few things:

Gives younger talent time to develop mic skills as the manager will do the talking initially.
Has an actual story for every level of competition. (Main Title, Mid-Card, Tag).
Plays into a larger story arc involving the direction (fate?) of WWE.
You can throw in a young heel that you will eventually turn and be the guy that breaks from this group.

I agree with this 100%! I also want to see a heel manager put together a dominant stable, to gather up all the gold. Paul Heyman would be a perfect choice to do this, as he did with the Dangerous Alliance in WCW.

Estrada was a really good manager, using a mouthpiece such as him is still needed when the wrestler he is managing is not wonderful on the mic. Many of the up and coming young talent in the business could benefit from someone like Estrada, or someone similar as they work to develop their own mic skills.

Having a manager who can work the mic can be a perfect way of building credibility of a new superstar, and can get them the heat they need. It is an artform which is sadly lacking in wrestling today.

 

[Immaculate]

I voted less ppvs too give stories time to develop before they're aborted.

I would of picked valets and managers, though I don't think we'll ever see a Miss Elizabeth or Bobby The Brain Heenan again. The best manager is currently Ric Flair, he is this generations Heenan in my opinion, in that what he lacks in wit he makes up for in accomplishment and raw craziness.

But other then Ric, I don't see today's wrestlers going on to become legendary managers.

 

[bxbigshow]

I voted less ppvs too give stories time to develop before they're aborted.

I would of picked valets and managers, though I don't think we'll ever see a Miss Elizabeth or Bobby The Brain Heenan again. The best manager is currently Ric Flair, he is this generations Heenan in my opinion, in that what he lacks in wit he makes up for in accomplishment and raw craziness.

But other then Ric, I don't see today's wrestlers going on to become legendary managers.

While I see your point this is why we should move from wrestlers as managers and hire a very talented actor for the role(non-famous). You could train him to take basic bumps (punch, clothesline, fall off apron etc.)

This allows the manager to focus on remembering script/storylines, improv if needed, and SELL everything; from their "guy", to the opponents attacks).

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

My answer is less PPV's although I think there were a lot of right answers here. Less PPV's leave more time to build storylines and fueds. There are more run ins and promos between the two parties and it allows an arc to build. Also, I think it adds value to the titles, as there would be less changing of the guard and even less talent with ridiculous amounts of title reigns. Also, it adds excitment to the actual PPV's when you only have one to look forward to every 3 months or so, rather than 1 every month.