WWE booking

[GeminiGarlord]

Sorry for the vague title, but I couldn't find anything better.

I was wandering yesterday, how come (squash matches bearing) while in WWE losing against Cena or whoever (let's say Rusev, since he basically had Henry job to him) always makes the loser look terible, killing all of its momentum, and, while NXT (and a lot of indie promotion) manage to have matches where despite of the result everyone still comes out well (especially thinking about the crowd chanting "we want breeze" at last nxt, and he was the one booked to come out "worst" from the fatal 4 way)?

Is there a difference in the booking itself, or it is just the performers? Cena itself to me always seemed like a guy that can make himself look amazing and the opponent terrible or, like with lesnar, the opposite, without halfways.

 

[Slash-LN]

In the simplest terms a squash match is only meant to make one person look good. That's what jobbers were there for back in the day. The thing about being a jobber though is you have to work the right way to make sure the "star" actually does look good.

In a lot of indies they need to have both workers look strong if they want to use them again against different people.

Say wrestler A beats wrestler B this week and wrestler C beats wrestler D.
They need all four to look strong so that next week wrestler B can wrestle wrestler C and wrestler A can wrestle wrestler D and fans have an interest in those matches because they still have a level of unpredictability.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There are very few squash matches that go on anymore. The past several years, if WWE wants to feed someone to another star in a squash match, it's typically been guys like Zack Ryder, Heath Slater, Yoshi Tatsu, JTG and a few others. The first genuine squash I've seen in a while wasn't long ago as it was Ryder facing off against Rusev. The object of a squash has always been to make one guy look good, always has been and always will be. Back when I was a kid and really on up into the 90s, the majority of pro wrestling content you'd see on television were squash matches. They'd generally be stretched out to 5 minutes or longer where the star beats the snot out of the jobber, looking as though he could put him away at any given time.

As far as Henry jobbing out, of course he jobbed out. There always has to be a winner and a loser, that's the simple facts of life. Rusev won last night and I firmly believe it was the right decision. Why? Because Rusev is a young, up & coming guy, has a great look, is pretty athletic for a 300 pound guy, has a great mouthpiece, has a gimmick that, while dated, is really over and has put on some pretty solid matches all in all. Mark Henry's 43 years old, his best days are behind him as he's well past his physical prime. Henry's been great the past few years, so much so that it boggles the mind that WWE wasn't doing what they've been doing with him the past few years when he first came to the company. WWE's focus is on building new stars, which means you need credibility. Henry's a former World Heavyweight Champion, he's getting older, he's had issues with injury the past couple of years and, as a result, he's not the future of WWE.

I think the OP is generalizing FAR too much because there are numerous instances wrestlers on Raw & SD! who look like a million bucks when they lose, Cena especially. However, sometimes, it depends on the wrestler, his standing in the company, who he's jobbing to, the circumstances and his credibility. Mark Henry came out looking "weak" last night, which I think he needed to. If Rusev had cheated his ass off to get the win, just think of how many people would be complaining today how WWE made Rusev look "weak" by cheating, even though cheating is what heels are supposed to do.

 

[Terry Silver]

I disagree as far as rusev having a good look.

I dont like anything about the guy.

Hes fat, he looks stupid and acts like a moron pumping his fists...raising his hands like hes tong po...

Im sick of these umaga types.

I think he makes the other talent look bad, I dont think he shouldve went over swagger. I cant believe lana bangs him.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I believe with Rusev the intent was in fact to squash Henry's momentum and feed that momentum to Rusev. Rusev is being built up as a guy superior to America, in order to do that you have to make it seem like his opponent represents America (Swagger, Henry doing patriotic things), then ultimately they have to lose to Rusev to crush the fans hearts and get hated as heel.

I actually don't think losing to Cena, in and of itself, causes his opponents to lose momentum it's just that after you lose to Cena (who is usually one of the 2 main programs) you have no where to go but down by default. Some people go further down than others due to booking or whatever but I can't think of a time where Cena winning a match has deflated his opponent's momentum. The common example people use for this though is Damien Sandow's cash in. I get on wrestlezone daily and last year this time barely anybody was talking about Sandow at all but after he lost (the best match of his career which Cena carried him to btw) he was the most relevant he had been in his entire career. What happened after that was the titles were booked to be unified and he definitely did not or does not belong in a storyline that revolves around the 1 world championship in WWE.

I don't think realistically anyone looks bad for losing to John Cena because just about everyone he's ever wrestled has at one point. I think the Cena haters blow it out of proportion/skew what really happened to make their point that such and such was buried by Cena when the majority of the time losing to Cena does nothing worse than to a wrestler than bad booking.

For Rusev it's because he's a heel that's being built up and in a standard wrestling match the worse the babyface looks, the better the heel does and that's what they're trying to accomplish.

 

[Headman]

Sorry for the vague title, but I couldn't find anything better.

I was wandering yesterday, how come (squash matches bearing) while in WWE losing against Cena or whoever (let's say Rusev, since he basically had Henry job to him) always makes the loser look terible, killing all of its momentum, and, while NXT (and a lot of indie promotion) manage to have matches where despite of the result everyone still comes out well (especially thinking about the crowd chanting "we want breeze" at last nxt, and he was the one booked to come out "worst" from the fatal 4 way)?

Is there a difference in the booking itself, or it is just the performers? Cena itself to me always seemed like a guy that can make himself look amazing and the opponent terrible or, like with lesnar, the opposite, without halfways.

It's all perception. From this jaded fans point of view the internet would argue that everyone should be protected except for Cena and then give no reasonable explanation why. If Cena beats anyone he "buries" them. If anyone beats Cena they'll find a reason why he wasn't beaten convincingly enough. So the idea of protection when Cena is involved is pointless when the fans manage to convince themselves that every booking decision they don't agree with is a burial. The mark Henry thing is different. A win was not going to make him a top star again. He's a good hand but at this point in his career that's all he is.

There was a time back in the day when the WWF would always protect the loser of the match. Andre the Giant was protected at Wrestlemania III with the phantom three count Joey Morella (according to Andre and Heenan) waved off. This argument allowed Andre to walk around for an entire year claiming he never lost to Hogan.

That example made sense because they protected a top tier superstar and legitimate draw. The fans now days are pissed because the WWE isn't protecting every joe schmoe on the roster. Acting as if somehow a loss now prevents them from being viable main eventers in the future. Now more than ever people don't remember wins and loses and are ready to overlook the ones that they do. If HBK can go from a tag team wrestler in a team that more often than not lost when pitted against top tag teams to a multi-time WWF champion and Hall of Famer I don't see the point in such long term protection. The people who need to be protected are the people who are making you money now. John Cena should be protected. Brock Lesnar should be protected. Not Bray Wyatt who won't even sniff the main event scene for another year. Bray and others will get their chance, but right now it would be pointless to build their momentum when there's no way to cash in on it until after Mania.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Wins and losses are overrated. Burials don't happen as much as everyone thinks. The main thing is TV time and being allowed to show off our character. That's why Bray Wyatt's win/loss record doesn't really matter. The IWC tends to live in the past though where TV ratings and win/loss records and "long title reigns to build credibility" matter. It's ridiculous. It's all about connecting with the audience. Yea, you have to have it make sense, so a guy can't lose all the time, but the most important thing is character motivation.

For example, Stardust/Goldust losing all the time. What did that do? It didn't bury them, it caused their characters to evolve.

 

[Vintage Punk]

I just wish they could have actual story lines that fans could get into. It was fun back in the day to watch and have all the crazy unpredictable stuff going on! Here's a question, if you were the GM, what would you do? How about having a faction or two so wrestlers that don't get much screen time can get exposure. Personally I'd like to see Henry turn heel again and recruit a new Nation of Domination with maybe Big E, Kofi, etc. They could battle the Authority or Wyatt's or a other new faction. What do you guys think?

 

[MERPER]

I just wish they could have actual story lines that fans could get into. It was fun back in the day to watch and have all the crazy unpredictable stuff going on! Here's a question, if you were the GM, what would you do? How about having a faction or two so wrestlers that don't get much screen time can get exposure. Personally I'd like to see Henry turn heel again and recruit a new Nation of Domination with maybe Big E, Kofi, etc. They could battle the Authority or Wyatt's or a other new faction. What do you guys think?

I wouldn't mind some stuff like this. I think one thing would be to make a freaking decision on the Wyatt family already... are they a dominant force or meaningless? Is Bray an "A-List" guy or a middle roster scrub?

Either get them to be dominant, maybe have them "Recruit" a new member for some drama or something...

or have the 2 giant followers turn on the leader...

but as it stands it's all just boring each week to see them put in a 3-on-3 or bray wrestle with the other 2 ready to interfere...

 

[THTRobtaylor]

There are very few squash matches that go on anymore. The past several years, if WWE wants to feed someone to another star in a squash match, it's typically been guys like Zack Ryder, Heath Slater, Yoshi Tatsu, JTG and a few others. The first genuine squash I've seen in a while wasn't long ago as it was Ryder facing off against Rusev. The object of a squash has always been to make one guy look good, always has been and always will be. Back when I was a kid and really on up into the 90s, the majority of pro wrestling content you'd see on television were squash matches. They'd generally be stretched out to 5 minutes or longer where the star beats the snot out of the jobber, looking as though he could put him away at any given time.

As far as Henry jobbing out, of course he jobbed out. There always has to be a winner and a loser, that's the simple facts of life. Rusev won last night and I firmly believe it was the right decision. Why? Because Rusev is a young, up & coming guy, has a great look, is pretty athletic for a 300 pound guy, has a great mouthpiece, has a gimmick that, while dated, is really over and has put on some pretty solid matches all in all. Mark Henry's 43 years old, his best days are behind him as he's well past his physical prime. Henry's been great the past few years, so much so that it boggles the mind that WWE wasn't doing what they've been doing with him the past few years when he first came to the company. WWE's focus is on building new stars, which means you need credibility. Henry's a former World Heavyweight Champion, he's getting older, he's had issues with injury the past couple of years and, as a result, he's not the future of WWE.

I think the OP is generalizing FAR too much because there are numerous instances wrestlers on Raw & SD! who look like a million bucks when they lose, Cena especially. However, sometimes, it depends on the wrestler, his standing in the company, who he's jobbing to, the circumstances and his credibility. Mark Henry came out looking "weak" last night, which I think he needed to. If Rusev had cheated his ass off to get the win, just think of how many people would be complaining today how WWE made Rusev look "weak" by cheating, even though cheating is what heels are supposed to do.

It's hard to call what WWE is doing as "squash matches", Henry didn't job out in a lame way, he did so in a way that fit the "letting himself/fans" down way, which will feed into his story. You saw Show motivating him, that will translate into their tag team and I am pretty sure they will go after Goldust and Stardust... he lost relatively easily but he had a "reason" due to the back injury he got... if it was a squash he'd have got nothing at all out of it.

Rusev had to win, had to win impressively and more importantly take what offense was thrown at him. He did spend a good portion of the match on the defensive, again not a pure squash.

Jericho/Orton was the same, on paper Jericho was jobbed out badly but he took such moves outside and the finish was pretty unique that it won't look that way.

Squash matches would not be the way forward right now, and they're not going that way. But NXT is different in it's approach because their goals are different... You have your winners and losers but the goal is for all the guys to be elevated by the matches because once Neville, Zayn et al move up, the guys they are losing to have to be able to step into their place.

Once on the main roster, the pecking order is different. There are those who "Must get over", those WWE want over and those who they would like to get over... anyone not in those 3 categories at a particular time is losing matches and could be called jobbers... it's not as important to have them looking credible as they're not a priority for push.

Rusev is a "want over" rather than a must, so they feed him someone like Henry... but it probably leads to an Angle return who would be a must get over so Rusev would lose.

If you look at a match and an decide if the winner is a must, want or like to get over... then their booking makes sense.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Wrestling 101 - Wining & losing matches DO NOT hurt your momentum. HOW YOU ARE PORTRAYED AFTERWARDS story wise is what hurts (or doesn't) your momentum.

I don't seem to remember Cena losing momentum and being flushed down the WWE ladder even though he lost almost every match vs CM Punk, likewise didn't CM Punk get a huge push after finally losing to Cena ?

Certainly losing to Cena didn't hurt Edge's career - In fact although he put over Cena in most of their matches LOSING TO CENA ELEVATED HIM.

Look historically, did losing to Hilk Hogan for much of 1986 destroy Randy Savage's cred, or did it build him up in fans eyes because of how he was portrayed as a credible threat to the WWE Title, pushing Hogan harder than anyone before him ?

Sting & Lex Luger spent most of 1988-89 losing every match of consequence vs Ric Flair, yet by 1990 both were seen as the biggest young stars in the business in the US.

Likewise, look at the great career Shelton Benjamin had after beating Flair, HHH, & RVD in short order, even winning the IC Title in the process. A big title win, several wins over established high profile opponents, and his career sucked. Winning alone didn't make him a star. In fact these days while fans reminisce about how over RVD was back in the day and look at the HOF careers of Flair & HHH no one even remembers Shelton Benjamin or the push that gave him wins over all three of them.


It is how you are portrayed storyline wise, before, during, and after the loss that dictates your career direction more than anything else. Some guys that lost to Cena just didn't fit into WWE's plans as A listers going forward and were fed to him to keep him going. Others (like Edge) literally became super stars losing to Cena.

Does anyone think The Rock is less of a superstar or has lost his value because he dropped the World Title to Cena ?