The Lost Art Of Building Epic Rivalries/Matches...

[asiatic7]

Hello to everyone, I was just reading Chris Cash's "What's Bothering Me". He commented on the upcoming Punk vs. Rock title match at the Royal Rumble and stated that it "does'nt feel epic". I can agree with this statement 100%. The overall hype isn't there. I started thinking there are'nt too many feuds in WWE today that have that "epic" feel. Last year, Cena and Rock basically promo'ed the shit out of each other without putting a glove on one another. Same with Punk and Jericho last year before their WM showdown. (minus the bottle over the head incident)

Whatever happened to guys getting jumped backstage, thrown off of bridges, attacked with cars, being dragged through a parking lot via motorcycle, home invasions, abductions...you get it. I hate to reference the Attitude Era here, I accept that it's gone and things are PG now, but if it works...use it. Things like the above mentioned make for good tv, good storylines and built towards some memorable rivalries. Rock vs Punk doesn't seem personal at all. Sure the Sheild got involved and it looks like Heyman alligned himself with Brad Maddox (who will probably be the ref for the match now), and sure Rock and Punk had that little scuffle last week, but who's salivating over this match? I just feel that these big time rivalries should offer a better buildup and back story and a little more physicality than lip service...I'm done ranting. Anyone agree or disagree?

 

[D-Man]

Although I understand where you're coming from, your "solution" is just going to cause more problems and controversy.

Let's say the WWE brings back things like "guys getting jumped backstage, thrown off of bridges, attacked with cars, being dragged through a parking lot via motorcycle, home invasions, abduction", won't all of you complain that it's been done before? Then the next argument will be about the lack of originality on the WWE's programming.

The fact of the matter is that just about everything has already been done by the WWE. From weddings to car crashes to fake deaths (to REAL deaths), everything has gone on to become an angle in the WWE. Some of those angles work towards a successful build and some of them don't. But they've constantly tried to reinvent the wheel for over twenty years. After a while, although we may not enjoy how things are being built up, what else could they do that hasn't already been done in some way, shape or form?

Wrestling fans will never be happy... Chris Cash included.

 

[Spinebreaker]

As much as I love a good epic rivalry, when wrestling leaves the arena, it's always terrible.

Attacks in people's homes, running people over... They're always absolutely laugable, and do nothing for suspension of dibelief.

 

[The Butcher]

I can't say this is true of you, asiatic, or Chris Cash, but I think that most IWC'ers are simply guilty of having unreal expectations. People of our ilk tend to build things up in their heads, fantasy book, and get their hopes up way too high. Personally, I've enjoyed this feud. Of course it doesn't feel epic, though. The word should be removed from the English language, because it's been bastardized beyond recognition.

Could WWE do more stuff like you named? Sure, but D-Man makes a solid point in that if they did do it, many IWC'ers would still complain. Spinebreaker clearly falls into that category. No matter what WWE does to build a feud, there will be myriad complaints, nitpicking one aspect or another. The backstage brawl between John Cena and Dolph Ziggler a while back was great in my opinion, but as a lurker here at the time I saw people criticizing that.

And, in fairness, it's practically part of the deal you make when you cross over into the realm of the "meta-fan." We're far too plugged-in, critical, cynical, etc. to take anything for what it is. I try my best not to be, but I'm a grown man. Of course I'm going to find some of this stuff goofy and half baked. It's pro wrestling. The majority of events in the kayfabe history of the business have been goofy and half baked. The Attitude Era was no less ridiculous and no more epic than the current era and so on and so on going back to the dawn of storylines in wrestling.

The art of building epic rivalries and matches isn't lost. There weren't that many masterpieces in the gallery to begin with. Nostalgia, unreal expectations, and the availability of inside information, have clouded the eyes. There is nothing WWE can do to please the IWC at large, and I sincerely give them credit for not abandoning older demographics altogether and renaming Raw "The John Cena and Friends Show."

 

[Spinebreaker]

Sure, but D-Man makes a solid point in that if they did do it, many IWC'ers would still complain. Spinebreaker clearly falls into that category. No matter what WWE does to build a feud, there will be myriad complaints, nitpicking one aspect or another. The backstage brawl between John Cena and Dolph Ziggler a while back was great in my opinion, but as a lurker here at the time I saw people criticizing that.

TBH I dont think I'm the sort of person that will complain regardless, but Wrestling's very nature means that 90% of the fans are 'in on it'. To a degree at least. It's not like a movie where we know Bruce Willis is playing David Dunn, but we know Mark Calloway IS the Undertaker...

Because of that, we choose to watch wrestling on 2 levels at the same time. Because of that, anything that steps over the line into ridiulousness, is in many ways WORSE, than if it happened in a movie...

I've seen a few wrestling stories where someone gets into a hospital to attack someone they've previously injured. Doesn't happen. Can't happen. It's insulting to your audience to have it happen. Doubly so, because ordinarilly your audience lets you get away with a LOT 'cause the audience knows the 'reality' of the situation.

 

[The Butcher]

TBH I dont think I'm the sort of person that will complain regardless, but Wrestling's very nature means that 90% of the fans are 'in on it'. To a degree at least. It's not like a movie where we know Bruce Willis is playing David Dunn, but we know Mark Calloway IS the Undertaker...

Because of that, we choose to watch wrestling on 2 levels at the same time. Because of that, anything that steps over the line into ridiulousness, is in many ways WORSE, than if it happened in a movie...

I've seen a few wrestling stories where someone gets into a hospital to attack someone they've previously injured. Doesn't happen. Can't happen. It's insulting to your audience to have it happen. Doubly so, because ordinarilly your audience lets you get away with a LOT 'cause the audience knows the 'reality' of the situation.

Spot on. I wasn't trying to infer anything about you, your statement just sort of fit my point. But you're right on here. I just think that many take it too seriously. If we've all got that wink-and-nod understanding that it is what it is, then we should be more forgiving. That's just my opinion, though. People are entitled to complain. I just hope nobody's getting their blood pressure up over it, and sometimes the complaints are very nitpicky.

But yeah, man, you make a great point. And again, wasn't trying to diss you.

 

[ABMorales787]

Cash isn't God. He's not the universal voice of how wrestling works. I certainly disagree with this sentiment. James Storm and Robert Roode's feud certainly felt epic to me. So did The Rock and John Cena. Even though that one took a 10 month pause. In this day and age, it's more about the performance in the match than the actual build up. It's why guys like Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler Austin Aries and CM Punk have reached their level. Because of their performances. Not the stories circling around them. Wrestling in general has learned that the story doesn't need to overshadow the match. PPV buys are more important than TV ratings. Which is why the blow off must be a solid performance and not an incident to make people watch Raw or Impact.

The "Epic Rivalry" is not a lost art. It has evolved to stay with the times.

 

[dukes07]

I am a fan of the past. I love how wrestling used to be and so I am guilty of looking at it through rose colored glasses. But the Attitude Era had an insane amount of nonsense. 1999 WWF was awful and I just watched every show not that long ago. I would not want WWE or TNA to go back to that type of crash booking where so much happens in 10 minutes that I need to triple my dosage of Ritalin, Vicodin and whiskey just to make sense of what happened.

I like the fact that we don't see too many "arrests" in WWE anymore. I always hated when cops came to arrest someone (Just saw HHH get "arrested" in 2002 for beating up the Undertaker). It is silly because you know it is fake and so why would you be arrested for something fake. Then again I understand the casual audience probably does not mind as much. I am able to suspend my disbelief by seeing people get tossed off bridges and arrested and attacked in their home as long as it is well done and more often than not it is not. For example, the shit in TNA with Abyss a couple of years ago when he was impaling people and hiding out in the tiny Impact Zone. Just asinine.

What I would like to see at the beginning of most shows is a hook, grab the viewer. Impact starts off with a five minute recap and usually a boring ass promo that could be summed up in two minutes. I want to see a show start with a brawl, in progress, or a great match. I miss when Nitro told the story in the ring and during a brief interview or vignette and not a 20 minute promo where everything is summed up and repeated. For me at least it takes me out of the moment. One thing I despised about the Attitude Era is that the McMahons focused so much on themselves and Vince and then later his offspring would come down and state the obvious for 20 minutes and then HHH would plod out for his ten minute walk to the ring and repeat what was said....

WWE does a better job now than TNA does (or did as I have not watched much lately). The Rock v. Punk would be better without the long promos or the fact that Punk and Heyman came out and then just Heyman came out and then the Rock and of course it ended with the obligatory beatdown. It was convoluted and boring and one of the lamer final builds to a title match. The match sells itself, and it will be good, and I understand the WWE is constrained by the Rock's schedule and they want to get his ass out there as much as possible when he is there....But I feel that more could be done. I liked how it ended the week before with a brawl. So start the show with Punk and Rock brawling in the parking lot and then the cops keeping him out instead of fucking Vickie Guerrero snickering and screeching.

 

[MCMG]

Jericho and Punk definitely felt epic. It had was going to be a great match and the build/rivalry was superb. Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker was the same. Whats the differene? They were at Mania. It is completely different for 11 months of the year and Mania.

Obviously, Punk and The Rock has a Mania type feel but the key is that isn't at the biggest show of the year. I'm not buying the RR to see the winner of this match. For all I care the WWE title match at this ppv could be Santino and Jinder Mahal as long as the Royal Rumble match was on the card. That is why I think Rock/Punk doesn't feel the same.

Why is it that the possibility of the Shield and fucking Brad Maddox interfering not that stupid. Because this isn't at Mania and they have had under a month to build. If you wait till April 8th and think about the feuds and built going into those matches it will be completely different.

I can get you thoughts on the average feud not having that feel but look at ADR and Sheamus. The latter stole a car. Is that not enough? Seems different and fairly intriguing to me.

 

[Spinebreaker]

It's a difficult line for any company to tread...

For some reason, I've never had an issue with any of the more 'supernatural' elements over the years... 'Taker, Kane, Boogeyman, Papa Shango... But I HATED Samoa Joe threatening Scott Steiner with a knife in front of the police...

Everyone has their own line...

 

[dukes07]

Jericho and Punk definitely felt epic. It had was going to be a great match and the build/rivalry was superb. Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker was the same. Whats the differene? They were at Mania. It is completely different for 11 months of the year and Mania.

Obviously, Punk and The Rock has a Mania type feel but the key is that isn't at the biggest show of the year. I'm not buying the RR to see the winner of this match. For all I care the WWE title match at this ppv could be Santino and Jinder Mahal as long as the Royal Rumble match was on the card. That is why I think Rock/Punk doesn't feel the same.

Why is it that the possibility of the Shield and fucking Brad Maddox interfering not that stupid. Because this isn't at Mania and they have had under a month to build. If you wait till April 8th and think about the feuds and built going into those matches it will be completely different.

I can get you thoughts on the average feud not having that feel but look at ADR and Sheamus. The latter stole a car. Is that not enough? Seems different and fairly intriguing to me.

I think the Jericho feud was hurt by not having him win the Rumble. But the matches were certainly excellent.

I guess what annoyed my about the Sheamus/ADR feud was that Sheamus did all the heelish tacticks, stealing the car etc. while ADR looked like a tool. For me at least it turned me off on the feud as I knew that Sheamus would dominate and for the most part he did.

You are absolutely correct on the Rumble match being the selling point. I would fucking marry it if it was legal.

 

[asiatic7]

You all raise good points and thanks for posting. I'm not at all saying that WWE needs to revisit the AE, but to make these big rivalries more intriguing by stuff that goes on outside of the ring. Would I/we complain about certain angles, yes, we all do at some point. But what I am saying is it seems WWE isn't even trying to peak anyone's interest anymore. Just bringing in the Rock for a few months a year just to get a few more veiwers who don't watch or regularly watch isn't cutting it in my book.

I think the last time I enjoyed a buildup to a big match was when Batista would interfere in Cena's matches, beat the snot out of him, Batista bomb him and leave him in a rubble leading up to mania. The promo's were the best of Dave's career, Cena looked vunerable and doubtful and the match at mania was good. The storyline was great. Dave was sick of Cena being the face of a company they both started to dominate at the same time.

I don't know, just my opinion. I'm not going to pretend to be an armchair booker like I have all the answers, just thought I'd get you guys opinion...We're all entitled to one...right?

 

[dukes07]

You all raise good points and thanks for posting. I'm not at all saying that WWE needs to revisit the AE, but to make these big rivalries more intriguing by stuff that goes on outside of the ring. Would I/we complain about certain angles, yes, we all do at some point. But what I am saying is it seems WWE isn't even trying to peak anyone's interest anymore. Just bringing in the Rock for a few months a year just to get a few more veiwers who don't watch or regularly watch isn't cutting it in my book.

I think the last time I enjoyed a buildup to a big match was when Batista would interfere in Cena's matches, beat the snot out of him, Batista bomb him and leave him in a rubble leading up to mania. The promo's were the best of Dave's career, Cena looked vunerable and doubtful and the match at mania was good. The storyline was great. Dave was sick of Cena being the face of a company they both started to dominate at the same time.

I don't know, just my opinion. I'm not going to pretend to be an armchair booker like I have all the answers, just thought I'd get you guys opinion...We're all entitled to one...right?

No need to apologize. Some people take wrestling really seriously and get really riled up if your opinion differs. I tire of this smark or IWC talk. Fans are going to bitch no matter what. That is what we do. I complain about the Steelers all the time.

Anyway, I agree that Batista and Cena had a decent feud. Here is where many would disagree with me: We knew that Batista was leaving but I just did not think having Cena go over three straight PPV's was the smartest booking. You have Batista win, cheating etc. Then in the final PPV, a Last Man Standing or what have you, you have Cena win. I think it would have added to the PPV. Cena comes back and wins, validating that he is indeed the top guy.

As for the Rock, WWE would be smart to use him to put Punk over. Smarter long-term. People are going to buy this PPV and WM no matter what. The Rock also does not need the belt. I would rather see Rock v. Punk II at WM (Then you put the Rock over and have Punk win on the biggest stage) and if you had done Cena v. Lesnar I correctly you have the rematch at WM with Cena going over. I have no desire to see Trips wrestle.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Look, we all respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion, but when you start a thread based around an opinion like this...

Whatever happened to guys getting jumped backstage, thrown off of bridges, attacked with cars, being dragged through a parking lot via motorcycle, home invasions, abductions...you get it. I hate to reference the Attitude Era here, I accept that it's gone and things are PG now, but if it works...use it

... people are going to express a negative reaction to it.

We are allowed to react right?

Those types of things that you mentioned are gimmicks that bookers like Vince Russo fall back on because they don't know how to build proper fueds the traditional way that build and play out in and around the ring in front of the crowd the way wrestling feuds have been built for decades.

Over the course of the last 2-3 years all three of the major wrestling companies in the US have built real "epic" feuds that were done the right way.

The WWE had a couple of them with last year's Mania, Rock/Cena and Jericho/Punk both had the huge match feel that they were designed to have because both were built correctly through well written, well conceived, and passionately delivered promo work. Not on gimmicks that blurred the line between wrestling reality and "real reality" in a too difficult to suspend belief manner. In fact what was done with Punk/Jericho created a much more personal connection with them and the audience than an over-produced shock segment that happened in a parking lot ever could have.

As Killjoy pointed out- TNA also delivered an epic feud between Roode and Storm, which took the classic scenario of a tag team split over jealousy due to single's success and used it to elevate both men to full-fledged main event status and they were able to build a Lockdown headliner as well as a major BFG match around the feud, and it has been so well done that it still feels relevant and will still have legs whenever TNA deicides to go back to it. And there was no shock booking needed to pull it off. We could throw the Jarrett/Angle feud from a couple years back in here as well. Yes it was aided by playing off a very real situation, but they used that to create a believable dynamic that yeilded a longterm program that provided feature matches to multiple PPVs, and no one got thrown off a bridge.

And, as I have pointed out several times over the last few months, ROH also used a tag split storyline to create the best, most personal, most consistent, and most logically booked longterm wrestling feud to happen in any organization this millenium between Kevin Steen and El Generico. And it was all built off the simple starting point of Steen blaming Generico for their failures, and just built from there by means of very bloody, and increasingly personal matches. The feud produced two undeniably epic Final Battle main events within three years, the last of which happened with one of the men having been gone form the company for over eight months. And how did they build to a main event at their biggest PPV with one guy not even showing up on a single show to hype the build? The other guy pulled his mask out of a box. Read that again. That is all it took. That is how well the fued was established and how over the encounters were. And not a single person got abducted from their home.

Don't be mad at creative departments for not using ridiculous pre-produced out of arena action movie sequences to build wrestling feuds. Be mad because they don't know how to consistently build more epic feuds through the traditional means. And remember to appreciate the instances when they do get it right.

 

[HBsam31]

I tend to consider my age over the years when thinking about the "epicness" in a feud. When i was a kid in the 80's it all seemed epic to me. Hogan/Savage, Hogan/Andre, Hogan/Warrior. Even feuds over the IC title during that time. Rude/Warrior, Savage/Steamboat, Hart/Henning. I was between 7 and 10 years old then and all of those matches and the like seemed off the charts to me at that age. I always wish I could go back and relive those matches and moments as an adult. I wonder if they would have that same epic feel to them. Now as a teenager Austin/HBK, Austin/Hart, Hart/HBK all felt epic to me. I know I am picking some of the best matches ever here, but I think you all get my point. Funny thing is in the WWE it's still the stars of the past that create the most epic feuds for me. Taker/HBK, Taker/HHH. To me I think it is all in what your grew up on. Killjoy mentioned Roode and Storm and I think that was an absolutely epic feud, same with Rock/Cena. I think the feuds need to add that personal element to it to really put it over the edge. Jericho/Punk was an awesome feud in my book. I just don't salivate for these feuds anymore, and I think it is mostly because I have seen it all as a wrestling fan. Basically I think feuds are built basically the same as in the past, but we are all just looking at them through different eyes now.

 

[Mr. HD]

Hello to everyone, I was just reading Chris Cash's "What's Bothering Me". He commented on the upcoming Punk vs. Rock title match at the Royal Rumble and stated that it "does'nt feel epic". I can agree with this statement 100%. The overall hype isn't there. I started thinking there are'nt too many feuds in WWE today that have that "epic" feel. Last year, Cena and Rock basically promo'ed the shit out of each other without putting a glove on one another. Same with Punk and Jericho last year before their WM showdown. (minus the bottle over the head incident)

Whatever happened to guys getting jumped backstage, thrown off of bridges, attacked with cars, being dragged through a parking lot via motorcycle, home invasions, abductions...you get it. I hate to reference the Attitude Era here, I accept that it's gone and things are PG now, but if it works...use it. Things like the above mentioned make for good tv, good storylines and built towards some memorable rivalries. Rock vs Punk doesn't seem personal at all. Sure the Sheild got involved and it looks like Heyman alligned himself with Brad Maddox (who will probably be the ref for the match now), and sure Rock and Punk had that little scuffle last week, but who's salivating over this match? I just feel that these big time rivalries should offer a better buildup and back story and a little more physicality than lip service...I'm done ranting. Anyone agree or disagree?

I see where you're coming from. But I think what you really want are feuds that have life and substance, and I totally hear you on that subject.

Gone are the days where even mid-card feuds got the build of a main event. Rivalries used to mean something back in the day. I mean, I remember a RAW from 2004 where the MAIN EVENT was Trish vs Lita.

We need feuds that let people in on the character of the superstars and how they play off their adversary. The heel would cut a promo on his opponent and run him down, the face would come down and own him, and then get jumped either during his match later in the night, or backstage.

They were never afraid to go the extra mile to make people interested. But all we get now are Champions sitting at the announce table and commenting on his opponent during the match. There's no promo exchange, no assault afterwards, and no next level to captivate the audience and make us care. I mean the last solid mid-card feud that involved a Championship, IMO, was Cody Rhodes and the Big Show from last year. Substance, promos, and attacks. I actually cared about that match and was eager to see what the payoff would be.

Not even talking about the Attitude Era, I'll go to even 2005, when this was the case. I remember when every rivalry would get some airtime so when the pay-per-view came around, you were excited to see the payoff to EVERY match. Not just one.