The format is simple - I'm going to watch something old on the WWE Network and use it to illustrate a discussion point about wrestling. Hopefully you'll learn something. If it doesn't flop, I may do other topics or get the great and the good of the forums involved. There's a request thread here, should you wish me to watch anything in particular:-
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=293627
Lesson 1 - Raw Episode 3, 1993
This show actually has so many talking points, it is hard to know where to focus the attention, the commentary could have a thread of its own, with us seeing the good, the bad and the 'what a manoeuvre' in Heenan, Bennett and McMahon. Equally, the production is something worth discussing in that they literally drown the announcers out with a siren for a while, and think doing an interview on the pavement is a good idea, but what I'm going to focus on is what belongs on a weekly episodic television programme, and what doesn't.
As the third episode of Raw, it's clear that they were trying to find their feet with what they broadcast. The show is pretty straightforward in that it has three matches, and little else. We have Randy Savage vs Repo Man, Brooklyn Brawler vs Kamala and Ric Flair vs Mr Perfect in a loser leaves the WWE match.
There's one match there that clearly stands out as being out of place. Flair vs Perfect. This match was filmed 6 days before the Royal Rumble, but Flair carried on working for the WWF for a few weeks afterwards - a match of this gravity should always be on the major show. Ric Flair's WWF swansong was a twenty minute match on Raw. That seems ridiculous.
This match makes a larger point more than any. These early days of Raw were better for it, but the WWF went crazy in the attitude era and had competitive matches week in week out. The WWF lost sight of the reality - Raw is not there to be the end, its the means. The WWE's television revenues are about a third of their income. That means still make more out of PPV and house shows than they do out of TV, this is why TV should be a vehicle to bring in an audience for the network and house shows.
What does that mean? It means that we shouldn't be seeing main event stars in matches with each other on Raw. There's two reasons for this:
1) There's a reasonable chance you'll get repeated main events at PPV that have recently been on Raw. Rollins vs Bryan happened on Raw a couple of weeks ago, why should I pay for it.
2) It means that everyone loses more often than they should do.
We've got past putting Goldberg vs Hogan on weekly TV - in the Monday Night Wars neither side could see the wood for the trees - but weekly TV has lost sight of its purpose.
While Perfect vs Flair is absolutely heinous to be on weekly TV, this show illustrates what weekly should be about. The first match worth talking about is Kamala vs Brooklyn Brawler. There is no doubt that Kamala is going to win when they both come out, but the match goes on a while and Bralwer gets some offensive manoeuvres in. Kamala still looks dominant, but the live audience and the TV audience get something to watch, and Kamala's feud with Harvey Whippleman and recent face turn is explained through the way that the commentators sell it and a brief interview Kamala's manager Slick has at the end. Kamala is a shit wrestler with a racist gimmick and a terrible manager, yet through a fight with the Brooklyn Brawler, he was able to develop his storyline and entertain in the short term. I know what was going on, despite never watching wrestling then nor knowing anything about the angle.
What this match showed is how it should be done. The Brooklyn Brawler was talented at losing decisively but without looking like a total pushover. This is a skill that should be sought out by talent scouts. Wrestlers who can lose all the time but still have an audience connection and well known moves are gold dust. Guys like Zack Ryder and Curtis Axel should be on Raw all the time. They should lose all the time, and maybe get the odd nonsense DQ win assisted by whoever they're facing's current feud partner is.
The vast majority of matches on Raw should be like this. The other match on the card shows what else could and should be on there - short feuds that nobody is ever going to pay to see that can play out over a couple of weeks and have a pay off. The match was Repo Man vs Randy Savage and the story was simple, Repo Man stole Savae's hat on a previous episode, Savage got it back after beating him.
This is perfect, Repo Man is a low level talent that can be entertaining enough to hold his own in a programme with someone that people actually want to see. Their match is given a bit more time, and there's a reason why they are fighting. It makes the whole notion of weekly television episodic. A very simple mantra that we will come back to time and time again is make sure all of your stats have a story line at any given point. Something throw away like this is a great way to ensure that without oversaturation.
Incidentally, what the hell were the WWF playing at by not using Savage on WrestleMania IX? They had a super popular star that could still have a good match, and a shit card but they didn't use him. Another thought for another day I guess.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=293627
Lesson 1 - Raw Episode 3, 1993
This show actually has so many talking points, it is hard to know where to focus the attention, the commentary could have a thread of its own, with us seeing the good, the bad and the 'what a manoeuvre' in Heenan, Bennett and McMahon. Equally, the production is something worth discussing in that they literally drown the announcers out with a siren for a while, and think doing an interview on the pavement is a good idea, but what I'm going to focus on is what belongs on a weekly episodic television programme, and what doesn't.
As the third episode of Raw, it's clear that they were trying to find their feet with what they broadcast. The show is pretty straightforward in that it has three matches, and little else. We have Randy Savage vs Repo Man, Brooklyn Brawler vs Kamala and Ric Flair vs Mr Perfect in a loser leaves the WWE match.
There's one match there that clearly stands out as being out of place. Flair vs Perfect. This match was filmed 6 days before the Royal Rumble, but Flair carried on working for the WWF for a few weeks afterwards - a match of this gravity should always be on the major show. Ric Flair's WWF swansong was a twenty minute match on Raw. That seems ridiculous.
This match makes a larger point more than any. These early days of Raw were better for it, but the WWF went crazy in the attitude era and had competitive matches week in week out. The WWF lost sight of the reality - Raw is not there to be the end, its the means. The WWE's television revenues are about a third of their income. That means still make more out of PPV and house shows than they do out of TV, this is why TV should be a vehicle to bring in an audience for the network and house shows.
What does that mean? It means that we shouldn't be seeing main event stars in matches with each other on Raw. There's two reasons for this:
1) There's a reasonable chance you'll get repeated main events at PPV that have recently been on Raw. Rollins vs Bryan happened on Raw a couple of weeks ago, why should I pay for it.
2) It means that everyone loses more often than they should do.
We've got past putting Goldberg vs Hogan on weekly TV - in the Monday Night Wars neither side could see the wood for the trees - but weekly TV has lost sight of its purpose.
While Perfect vs Flair is absolutely heinous to be on weekly TV, this show illustrates what weekly should be about. The first match worth talking about is Kamala vs Brooklyn Brawler. There is no doubt that Kamala is going to win when they both come out, but the match goes on a while and Bralwer gets some offensive manoeuvres in. Kamala still looks dominant, but the live audience and the TV audience get something to watch, and Kamala's feud with Harvey Whippleman and recent face turn is explained through the way that the commentators sell it and a brief interview Kamala's manager Slick has at the end. Kamala is a shit wrestler with a racist gimmick and a terrible manager, yet through a fight with the Brooklyn Brawler, he was able to develop his storyline and entertain in the short term. I know what was going on, despite never watching wrestling then nor knowing anything about the angle.
What this match showed is how it should be done. The Brooklyn Brawler was talented at losing decisively but without looking like a total pushover. This is a skill that should be sought out by talent scouts. Wrestlers who can lose all the time but still have an audience connection and well known moves are gold dust. Guys like Zack Ryder and Curtis Axel should be on Raw all the time. They should lose all the time, and maybe get the odd nonsense DQ win assisted by whoever they're facing's current feud partner is.
The vast majority of matches on Raw should be like this. The other match on the card shows what else could and should be on there - short feuds that nobody is ever going to pay to see that can play out over a couple of weeks and have a pay off. The match was Repo Man vs Randy Savage and the story was simple, Repo Man stole Savae's hat on a previous episode, Savage got it back after beating him.
This is perfect, Repo Man is a low level talent that can be entertaining enough to hold his own in a programme with someone that people actually want to see. Their match is given a bit more time, and there's a reason why they are fighting. It makes the whole notion of weekly television episodic. A very simple mantra that we will come back to time and time again is make sure all of your stats have a story line at any given point. Something throw away like this is a great way to ensure that without oversaturation.
Incidentally, what the hell were the WWF playing at by not using Savage on WrestleMania IX? They had a super popular star that could still have a good match, and a shit card but they didn't use him. Another thought for another day I guess.