Replace Backlash with "Good Friends Better Enemies"

[johnbragg]

"Good Friends Better Enemies"
Alliances are tested in high-stakes triple threat matches.

A lot of people complained about the Survivor Series world title matches, where the world champions faced tag teams in triple threat matches, for no strong storyline reason. I would actually go in the other direction from the critics, and use that as a pay per view theme.

Ideally, this would replace Backlash, which is usually a rehash of Wrestlemania anyway. The weakness of this concept is that the matches are not the ones that storylines would indicate. So I'd put it right after Wrestlemania, when storylines have been wrapped up anyway and new ones are only starting to germinate. The matches are made because Vince McMahon damn well says so--he wants to see triple threat matches, he wants to see how partners react with something on the line.

Most of the themed PPVs only carry the theme through the top three or four matches, but "Good Friends Better Enemies" could fill the entire card with triple-threat matches with something substantial on the line in each one. If the PPV were right now, this would be a sample card

World: Undertaker vs Jericho vs Big Show
WWE: Cena vs HHH vs HBK
IC: Morrison vs Rey vs Batista (if Rey is healthy)
US: Miz vs MVP vs Mark Henry
ECW: Christian vs Rhodes vs Dibiase
Raw No. 1 contender: Orton vs Kofi vs Swagger
SD No. 1 contender: Punk vs Kane vs Matt Hardy

Rey and Batista are obviously not a current tag team, but they fit the theme of friendships tested and broken by ambition. The No. 1 contender matches also don't really test friendships, but those were the next three names on the depth chart for each brand, basically.

 

[Sasori]

First of, that looks almost the same as the recent Survivor Series card, so it's already a fail. Umm second of, Backlash is doing well, and I can understand the theme. It's where people get revenge from Wrestlemania. Third, if the PPV is built upon solely grudge matches not only will it be boring, but it will kill the grudge match, match lol.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

This would be a pointless idea. Backlash is necessary to wrap up feuds from Wrestlemania/get new feuds off the ground post-Mania. Having a themed PPV would be very awkward immediately after Wrestlemania, and it seems like it would be an overly forced endeavor.

 

[akathelaw]

I commend you for getting creative but it sounds like that PPV would've worked in place of this year's Survivor Series. Additionally, the name sounds more like a tagline than a yearly event. I'd imagine it would be difficult to sustain compelling storylines each year for this event based around the wrestler's relationships with one another, and what if an involved talent gets injured?

Also, Backlash is one of the better themed PPV's considering it's the unfinished business of the greatest show of the year. I'd rather replace Breaking Point, the weakest of the new themed PPV's

 

[RicSpade]

Well history lesson that name was used to end the feud between HBK and Nash at IYH prior to the birth of NWO.

Secondly people are putting too much stock into themed pay per views. Next thing you know all matches will be done in a steel cage with a pole at the top and will all be capture the flag matches...See the problem with the WWE themed ppvs with possibly the exception of TLC (yet to be tested) is all the matches were watered down versions of good matches. Three Hell in a Cells with no blood and no real high spots, three submission matches that was only slightly tweaked, hell even the bragging rights matches they were all the same.

Ever notice that TNA always does something unique with the six sides of steel? A womens match (which never has been done in my memory in WWE), lockdown with weapons, Tag matches, I mean honestly why would anyone want to watch a carbon copy of the same match? thats what your seeing in the WWE right now.

if your going to build a feud like they did Austin/McMahon, Nash/HBK, Taker/HBK, Austin/Hitman then a name like that would fit again, but it couldn't happen as a themed pay per view and be believed, or would you be able to do it in this era because each month is a different name it was so much different when In Your House was around. In Your House Ground Zero, In Your House Good Friends Better Enemies, In Your House 2.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I pretty much agree with what has already been said in here. Although I usually do not care for the "less important PPV's".... they need Backlash because it is used to take care of any unfinished business in the Wrestlemania storylines. Also, I am against most ideas for a "themed" PPV anyway. So far, Bragging Rights is the only one of the new "themed" PPV's that I haven't hated. TLC might be alright, but that's off topic.

This would be a pretty bad idea for a theme because first it would not feel right coming right after Wrestlemania if it were replacing Backlash with another "themed" PPV, and secondly like I said in the paragraph above this one.... just about every idea for a "themed" PPV is bad. I disagree with replacing Backlash with "Good Friends Better Enemies" for those reasons.

 

[johnbragg]

First of all, clearly there is a lot of love out there for Backlash. But is that the only reason that this is a bad idea? (Not counting me, the vote is 10-2 that this idea is even worse than the other themed PPVs, so I guess it's a bad idea.)

First of, that looks almost the same as the recent Survivor Series card,

Well, yeah. The two world title matches are where the idea started, all the flak they were drawing as Survivor Series main events. I thought, wait, what if champion vs tag partner vs tag partner WAS the theme?

If you're saying it would be a repeat of matches we just had, well, I think that if this PPV were on the calendar, they wouldn't have run Cena vs DX and Taker vs JErishow at Survivor Series.

Third, if the PPV is built upon solely grudge matches not only will it be boring, but it will kill the grudge match, match lol.

Huh? This would be the only PPV without grudge matches. It's just Vince saying let's you and you and him fight for the belt. This criticism confuses me.

Having a themed PPV would be very awkward immediately after Wrestlemania

I think, though, that they're going do themes for all but the Big Four. (And actually Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble are already themed) Maybe they'll change that plan and keep Backlash, or maybe they'll keep six or seven straight PPVs, but I think their plan is themes for everything except SummerSlam and Wrestlemania.

I'd imagine it would be difficult to sustain compelling storylines each year for this event based around the wrestler's relationships with one another, and what if an involved talent gets injured?

I dunno, I think "let's you and your buddy and him fight for his title" is pretty easy. The lineups would change, but the theme would stay the same.

If an involved talent gets injured, well, um, you change the card. Rey's hurt? Fine, put Hart Dynasty (or Cryme Time, but I'd want a heel team) in against Morrison and Batista bumps, er, I guess Kane out of the No. 1 contender's match.

See the problem with the WWE themed ppvs with possibly the exception of TLC (yet to be tested) is all the matches were watered down versions of good matches

These aren't watered down, though. They're plain old triple threat matches. Or is a TTM not a good match? Or are you bitching about themed PPVs in general? Because that's above my pay grade.

Well history lesson that name was used to end the feud between HBK and Nash at IYH prior to the birth of NWO.

That's where I found the name--I was actually looking for possible new names for the Tuesday Night Show That Isn't ECW Anymore, so I was looking at old PPV names for something that worked for "See Tommorrow's Stars" I like the sound of Good Friends Better Enemies, and it clicked with all the criticism of the Survivor Series world title matches.

Next post, since five people have ripped me a new one, I'll book the card for five years ago, and fine, not Backlash, make it the summer of 2004, replacing the Great American Bash. (GAB lovers, don't flame me--they've already diluted it to "The Bash"--it's gone as soon as they find a theme to replace it with)


Some critics said that this wouldn't be something you could do every year, so I'm booking the card for July 2004, replacing the Great American Bash/Bad Blood. Why 2004? Because when I started this post, five of you had ripped me up, so I'm going back five years.

Smackdown (Man, the GAB 2004 card stunk!!)
WWE Title: Eddie Guerrero (c) vs Undertaker vs Kane (Raw talent)
US Title: John Cena(c) vs. Bubba Ray Dudley vs D-Von Dudley
Cruiserweight : Mysterio vs London vs Kidman. (London & Kidman were SD tag champs.)
No. 1 Contender: JBL vs RVD vs Booker
(RVD and Booker had been tag champs in February 2004. That's not why I booked them, they and JBL were the next biggest names. Lucky accident)

Raw
World Title: Benoit(c) vs HBK vs HHH
IC Title: Orton(c) vs Benjamin vs Charlie Haas (SD talent)
No. 1 Contender: Jericho vs Tomko vs Edge
Tag Titles: La Resistance (Raw Champions) vs Batista & Ric Flair vs Basham Brothers (SD talent)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_American_Bash_%282004%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Blood_%282004%29

 

[M-Rey845]

yeah this its a bad idea replacing backlash, i wouldn't mind having that as the tagline for backlash tho, "Backlash:Good Friends, Better Enemies" but 4 only one year

 

[Blade]

Well first you have to realise that some people actually like that Backlash has rematches. If there's a great match at Wrestlemania, people will wanna see the rematch. Plus feuds still have big heat after Wrestlemania. So it would be stupid for WWE not to capitalise on easy booking like that. And it's not like all the matches a re-done at Backlash. Some wrestlers take time off after their Mania match (much like HBK/Taker), Backlash leads to new rivalries (Batista/HBK after HBK retired Flair) and it starts the build up of the Money in the Bank winner, which is always cool to watch.

Your suggestion would mess up future draws for WWE. If a tag team becomes big, then seeing them one on one for the first time in the future would be a huge draw. Matt vs Jeff at Mania 25 was arguably a draw. And when Edge vs Christian have a match, it'll be a massive draw. I know these matches have been done before but never with both men as main eventers, in their prime. Having the tag teams break up at April every year would just ruin everything. Even if the PPV didn't mean the teams break up, it would certainaly plant the seeds for the break up of the team.

 

[johnbragg]

Having the tag teams break up at April every year would just ruin everything.

Did DX or Jerishow break up at or after Survivor Series? No. So there'd be every chance that a team stays together through Good Friends Better Enemies, either losing the title and patching up any disagreements in the following weeks, or one of them winning the title and the other being supportive.

GFBE would be the occasion for tag teams to break up (together with the draft), but that's because the WWE likes breaking up tag teams. That's a different thread. (Or would this PPV just reinforce that bad tendency?)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that this concept PPV would hype the first match between hot tag team partners, rather than detract from it, just because the buildup would be focused on whether the team would be united or whether one would screw the other, or if one wins the title does jealousy destroy the team.

That first match wouldn't have to happen soon--I believe in slow-burning feuds that mature over a long time. (The feud has to be tended like a fire--give it enough fuel to keep it alive, not so much that it spreads before you want it to.)

Also, I think this PPV being on the schedule would give a little more motivation to develop tag teams over the year. You wouldn't always want to cycle through HHH-HBK, Undertaker-Kane, the Hardys, Rey-Batista, Benjamin and Haas, and whatever new tag team is just up from developmental/on their way to being released. You would have more motivation to develop teams like MVP-Henry, do something besides throw them together so that it's believable that there's emotion to them competing with each other.

 

[Rated619]

"Good Friends Better Enemies"
Alliances are tested in high-stakes triple threat matches.

A lot of people complained about the Survivor Series world title matches, where the world champions faced tag teams in triple threat matches, for no strong storyline reason. I would actually go in the other direction from the critics, and use that as a pay per view theme.

Ideally, this would replace Backlash, which is usually a rehash of Wrestlemania anyway. The weakness of this concept is that the matches are not the ones that storylines would indicate. So I'd put it right after Wrestlemania, when storylines have been wrapped up anyway and new ones are only starting to germinate. The matches are made because Vince McMahon damn well says so--he wants to see triple threat matches, he wants to see how partners react with something on the line.

Most of the themed PPVs only carry the theme through the top three or four matches, but "Good Friends Better Enemies" could fill the entire card with triple-threat matches with something substantial on the line in each one. If the PPV were right now, this would be a sample card

World: Undertaker vs Jericho vs Big Show
WWE: Cena vs HHH vs HBK
IC: Morrison vs Rey vs Batista (if Rey is healthy)
US: Miz vs MVP vs Mark Henry
ECW: Christian vs Rhodes vs Dibiase
Raw No. 1 contender: Orton vs Kofi vs Swagger
SD No. 1 contender: Punk vs Kane vs Matt Hardy

Rey and Batista are obviously not a current tag team, but they fit the theme of friendships tested and broken by ambition. The No. 1 contender matches also don't really test friendships, but those were the next three names on the depth chart for each brand, basically.

You're assuming that all the current champions are going to hold the title for the next couple months? First of all, that will never happen because it's the WWE. Secondly, the tag teams probably won't be around either. The main titles are like rematches of Survivor Series, and since Backlash is the rematch of WM, it's like having the same main event three times. Also, why would Legacy be on ECW? It would make more sense if they faced Orton for the No.1 Contender. Also, why would they have Batista hold or try to get the IC champion? This whole list just doesn't make sense.

 

[johnbragg]

You're assuming that all the current champions are going to hold the title for the next couple months?

I said if the PPV were held now. I didn't feel like fantasy booking the entire Rumble, Road to Wrestlemania, Wrestlemania and the Draft. Things will change between now and then, so the combinations would change.

A half-dozen posts upthread I booked a card for Summer 2004. Part of the theme is that it isn't really connected to current stories. I thought the post-Wrestlemania lull would be a good time for that.

The main titles are like rematches of Survivor Series

Well yeah, I got the idea from Survivor Series. Having champions face tag team partners in triple threat matches. But if GFBE were on the calendar, WWE wouldn't have booked those matches at Survivor Series, just like they probably won't book a HIAC or TLC match anymore except at HIAC, TLC or maybe Wrestlemania.

why would Legacy be on ECW

1. Faces and heels. I tried to avoid all-face or all-heel matchups. A three face matchup for a World title is one thing, a Miz-Rhodes-Dibiase three-heel matchup for a midcard title is another. That's also why MVP & Henry get the US title shot.
2. ECW has no tag teams except for Ezekiel and Jackson, and no one would care if they split up or not. (They split up last week--did you care?)
3. I pretty much booked the matches in the order I typed them. JeriShow, DX, MVP and Henry were all on the card. On SD, Rey-Batista was a bit of a reach, but they have enough history to call it a Good Friends Better Enemies match. ECW gets the leftovers. The ECW title could be a nice stepping stone for Rhodes or Dibiase, so I thought that was a good matchup.

It would make more sense if Legacy faced Orton for the No.1 Contender.

IT would, but that almost forces someone in Legacy to turn, and WWE might not want to pull that trigger.

Also, why would they have Batista hold or try to get the IC champion?

Even if the IC title is "beneath" Batista, he still wants revenge on Mysterio. Plus the first Batista-Morrison interaction would create some interest. Mixing combinations that have years of storyline with brand new combinations? I think that would be a good idea.

I sort of booked this as a tweener Mr. McMahon, stirring shit up just to see what would happen, but at the same time making matches that the fans would want to see so that I made money.

 

[steveht10]

give the dude credit here he is thinking out side the box so screw what every other mark.

And keep with the logic here we have an idea or concept that can make new rivialries and if played right could make a great storyline etc.

You got abbreviate this like say for example Great Khali vs Vance Archer and the winner takes the other ones slot on the roster.

Or say you had a loser leaves match Orton Vs Rhodes Vs Dibiase and the winner choses who to keep and who to punt.

What i'm saying feud like these open up all sorts of possible angles so yeah if done right they can be done really well and be beneficial for the company.

However only down side is the name not really won that sounds sexy tbh.

But a better name same concept happy days theres a winner

So to the dude that made that came up with that concept hats off fair play, you defo have more ideas then the whole of other people, which would make me hae an idea to throw out there.....Going on from what Jesse the Body said and what is the major popular belief amongost most REAL wwe fans is in regards to the midcarderd (a.k.a morrison, kofi, Truth, Matt hardy) being pushed how about a sort of oppurtunity ppv.

Like say a 6 man hell in a cell Cena champ vs 5 other up starts who never held the big titles MVP,Evan bourne, Swagger, Kofi, Santino?

Again there are hundreds of alternatie ideas to the same old garbage they currently use.

Like ECW i personally feel that could be something if Vince actually believed in it, i reckon me personally could make that show an asset.

 

[RicSpade]

When it comes to it being "watered down" as I stated look at how they had to do the three hell in a cell matches this year due to our pg rating. The first match was a squash with no blood, the second one was a little more entertaining but reminded me of Nash/HHH hell in a cell a few years back, and then you had Legacy main eventing with DX as to which since then Legacy has done nothing significant which shows they had no reason to main event, don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with seeing high profile matches but atleast don't make it a carbon copy of the same match.

The only themed ppv I have seen where they at least spice it up was extreme rules, and to me the triple threat match theme could work if they did something similar to this basis, cause you had falls count anywhere matches, hardcore matches, extreme rules, ambulance matches, first blood I mean yeah the theme was no disqualification but it wasn't the same match each time and thats why its possible that the TTM idea would be pretty stale.

Since I posted the first time I was sitting here watching some old school stuff and I came up with WWE presents: Throwback

Every match has a classic theme to it, the WWE logo would look like the one from legends of wrestlemania. The ropes would be the Red, White, Blue ropes, the ring Apron would look like Apron from the 90's and the entrance area would look like before we had big stages. You would see atleast a cage match in the blue cage, a leather strap match, a battle royal, the referees would wear the blue shirts and bow ties, the announce team would sit where it did in the late 80's and you may even put together an old broadcast team for a night and let mean gene do all the interviews.

 

[The Gribbler]

This would be a pointless idea. Backlash is necessary to wrap up feuds from Wrestlemania/get new feuds off the ground post-Mania. Having a themed PPV would be very awkward immediately after Wrestlemania, and it seems like it would be an overly forced endeavor.

I hate backlash being the wrap up myself - I dont know how you feel about it but I think that Wrestlemania should be the end of the WWE's calendar. I want everything after it to be fresh and new. I like the idea of WM ending it all...

Just My Opinion

 

[johnbragg]

With Backlash and Judgement Day being scrapped for "Wild Card" and "Fatal Four Way," thought it was a good time to bring back my PPV concept thread.

Since December, we've lost Jerishow and MVP-Henry has faded badly. That's going to make it harder to book a card, but I'll work on it tomorrow.