WWE Council of War

[Nate DaMac]

EDIT: That could be a moot point though, especially when you consider that Kane thrived in the attitude era. Still, I think he had to evolve his character.

When you think about it though, Kane never really had any supernatural elements to his character like Undertaker did. He was a psychopathic burn victim, it fit in nicely with the Attitude Era.

 

[klunderbunker]

Best Smackdown in MONTHS tonight. I loved Henry's reasoning for attacking Sheamus.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I feel like this was the year that the MITB ppv jumped the shark. Time to make it the WM opener again. It provided great energy to kick things off, and a good way to get guys on the show. Just make it one match, 6 - 8 guys, and make the contract cashable for both titles. They are having trouble filling it, the show sucked wang this year, and like I said, the benefits and prestige it gets from being on WM.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Also, I feel like I have gotten to the point were shows with Mat Stryker commentary are unwatchable.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Looking back, Striker was horrible.


And could we pause the MiTBs for a year and focus on the Rumble? And the build to a Rumble win? I know Cena won this year and ME'd Mania but it was really disregarded in favour of his "disappointing 2012" angle.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I feel like this was the year that the MITB ppv jumped the shark. Time to make it the WM opener again. It provided great energy to kick things off, and a good way to get guys on the show. Just make it one match, 6 - 8 guys, and make the contract cashable for both titles. They are having trouble filling it, the show sucked wang this year, and like I said, the benefits and prestige it gets from being on WM.

The PPV was nice, but I agree. Especially since they tend to make the briefcase holders look like a completely joke up to the point where they win the title.

Also, I feel like I have gotten to the point were shows with Mat Stryker commentary are unwatchable.

He can be tolerable, but mostly he just tries to sound smarter than everyone else. I get that he's a fan and loves the sport and all that shit, but he is annoying as fuck 90% of the time.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah MITB this year was nothing of note. The problem is you need some innovative spots in there and there was nothing we hadn't seen before. Also neither match worked all that well because there weren't many feuds between the guys in the matches, so the heat wasn't there.

Striker lost me when he called a reverse DDT the Slop Drop like it was some impressive name. Yeah, the Godwinns used that move, but how many people are going to remember that? It came off like the nitwits that complain that I don't know some obscure match/move from Japan or Mexico and are trying to sound WAY smarter than necessary. Call it the Scorpion Death Drop like almost everyone else would and be done with it.

 

[Coco]

Fucking Sandow. I love the guy, but his booking these last few months justify the kayfabe abolishment of MITB altogether. I'm long since over the cash-ins as they make zero sense within the context of a sport if you think about it for thirty seconds.

I'm kayfabing myself, guys. I feel like an infant.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Fucking Sandow. I love the guy, but his booking these last few months justify the kayfabe abolishment of MITB altogether. I'm long since over the cash-ins as they make zero sense within the context of a sport if you think about it for thirty seconds.

I'm kayfabing myself, guys. I feel like an infant.

It's not even kayfabing. Even though MITB is used in place of building a guy up over time, common sense still says that he shouldn't lose 90% of his matches up to winning the title.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's the same problem they've always had: they think the title brings everyone up to the same level, but fans remember the losses. RVD and Christian both got their shots at Del Rio by pinning him clean. Hence why the WHC is a glorified midcard title now.

 

[Coco]

It's the same problem they've always had: they think the title brings everyone up to the same level, but fans remember the losses. RVD and Christian both got their shots at Del Rio by pinning him clean. Hence why the WHC is a glorified midcard title now.

I don't think fans remember losses. Fans remember what's promoted and know the level a guy is at. Sandow is booked at a certain level and is perceived as being there. Del Rio is booked at a somewhat higher level and is perceived as being there. The WHC is a midcard belt now because it's being held by a strong midcarder, not a guy who's really the focus of any show.

You may think wins and losses determine what level someone is on. I disagree. The level someone is on determines who wins and loses in modern day WWE. It's why I always roll my eyes when you bitch about 50/50 booking in your reviews. Most people don't remember. You do because you're obsessed and it's your job. But you're an exception to the rule.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think fans remember losses. Fans remember what's promoted and know the level a guy is at. Sandow is booked at a certain level and is perceived as being there. Del Rio is booked at a somewhat higher level and is perceived as being there. The WHC is a midcard belt now because it's being held by a strong midcarder, not a guy who's really the focus of any show.

You may think wins and losses determine what level someone is on. I disagree. The level someone is on determines who wins and loses in modern day WWE. It's why I always roll my eyes when you bitch about 50/50 booking in your reviews. Most people don't remember. You do because you're obsessed and it's your job. But you're an exception to the rule.

Even though WWE pounds it into your head that RVD pinned Del Rio clean a few weeks earlier? Look at guys like Goldberg or Hogan. One of the reasons (among many) that they got over is they hardly ever lost. Why would a casual fan buy a champion as a big deal if he loses so often?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I love the idea of MITB but it's rarely ever used properly. I feel any world champ should be champ because he's already a top guy and already proven he can be champ. Triple H (in Punks DVD) said something along the lines of "you don't win the title to get there you win the title because you're there" and that's the big problem I have with MITB, you can't expect people to buy into someone because they're champ, if they don't buy into them not being champ then they will never buy into them being champ, the person makes the title, not the other way around.

In WWE however they seem to think making someone champ will automatically make them a big deal and it never does. When it came to guys like RVD and Edge it was different because they were already proven, then someone like Swagger comes along, who may as well been invisible wins out of nowhere and becomes champ 2 days later. How am I supposed to buy Swagger as champ? I can't because he isn't really champion, he's just a guy holding a gold belt. I didn't give a shit about him before so why would I now?

 

[Coco]

Even though WWE pounds it into your head that RVD pinned Del Rio clean a few weeks earlier?

As I said, whatever's being promoted sticks for a while. So yeah, to promote a PPV match they use this tactic to make it seem like Van Dam and Christian have a shot. But after holding the belt so long and being in the title scene so long, after constantly being booked on the level he's on, those losses don't hurt Del Rio at all. Because he's still the guy with the belt. He's still a somewhat heavily promoted cunt. And that's what really counts.

Look at guys like Goldberg or Hogan. One of the reasons (among many) that they got over is they hardly ever lost.

Incorrect. Hogan got over because of his presence and charisma and the fact that he was exposed and promoted like a star. Wins were a result of his popularity and him being at that level. His popularity was never dependent on his constant wins.

Same with Goldberg. He got over on an undefeated angle. But it was being promoted and marketed as a star that really mattered. Wins and losses don't matter.

Why would a casual fan buy a champion as a big deal if he loses so often?

Wrestling fans are morons. They're normally paying to see a valiant good guy finally give a fluke/cheat/undeserving coward his comeuppance. Not everyone in every main event needs to look like a king in the win-loss department.

You've got your causation backwards, good sir.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Wins and losses don't matter as much as how the fans perceive said person. The Million Dollar Man seemingly lost every time I saw him wrestle but it never mattered. He could lose every match in '88 and would still be a top heel who could win the title at any time because he was that over as a heel.

Punk in '09-'10 was probably the hottest heel they had in the company (by far) and he never won a match but he could still win the title the next year and the crowd was all over it. Even with Punks pipebomb that would have never worked if he wasn't already accepted as a top guy in the company for almost 2 years prior, regardless of who he was working with. People bought into Punk as a heel, they bought into his gimmick and he could stay hot even when he lost to Big Show and Mysterio every week.

Wins and Losses only matter if the WWE chooses to make them matter. If the people buy into the character and perceive him as one of the best in the company he can become champ and people will buy into it hook, line and sinker, even if that person has lost every match for 2 years straight.

 

[klunderbunker]

As I said, whatever's being promoted sticks for a while. So yeah, to promote a PPV match they use this tactic to make it seem like Van Dam and Christian have a shot. But after holding the belt so long and being in the title scene so long, after constantly being booked on the level he's on, those losses don't hurt Del Rio at all. Because he's still the guy with the belt. He's still a somewhat heavily promoted cunt. And that's what really counts.

I disagree. I haven't seen much interest at all in Del Rio losing the title because he feels like a long term placeholder instead of the guy. It's like they keep going back and forth with wanting to push him strong and wanting to have him look like the modern day Honky Tonk Man, hence why no one cares about him.

Incorrect. Hogan got over because of his presence and charisma and the fact that he was exposed and promoted like a star. Wins were a result of his popularity and him being at that level. His popularity was never dependent on his constant wins.

I'd agree at first, but I think it was sustained by him hardly ever losing.

Same with Goldberg. He got over on an undefeated angle. But it was being promoted and marketed as a star that really mattered. Wins and losses don't matter.

As someone who has recently watched every Nitro and Thunder with Goldberg on it, this is incorrect. Goldberg was by far the most over guy on the roster (including Sting) when he was squashing jobbers and given about five minutes of attention every week. The cheers lead to him being pushed as a star.

Wrestling fans are morons. They're normally paying to see a valiant good guy finally give a fluke/cheat/undeserving coward his comeuppance. Not everyone in every main event needs to look like a king in the win-loss department.

I would disagree, but that's opening a huge argument that is more in depth than I have time to go into at the moment.

 

[Coco]

I disagree. I haven't seen much interest at all in Del Rio losing the title because he feels like a long term placeholder instead of the guy.

Which has nothing to do with his win-loss record and everything to do with him not even being booked as the centrepiece of SmackDown any more. He's booked at the midcard level and fans are reacting accordingly and nothing more. I don't think more wins will change that.

I'd agree at first, but I think it was sustained by him hardly ever losing.

Fundamental disagreement between us. I guess we'll just move on.

As someone who has recently watched every Nitro and Thunder with Goldberg on it, this is incorrect. Goldberg was by far the most over guy on the roster (including Sting) when he was squashing jobbers and given about five minutes of attention every week. The cheers lead to him being pushed as a star.

Cheers are generally a precursor to more exposure. Either that or being someone's pet project. Being cheered at a low level isn't necessarily a result of wins (which is why I roll my eyes when you write about Cody Rhodes). It's a matter of star power. That's what got Goldberg over. Not wins/losses.

I would disagree, but that's opening a huge argument that is more in depth than I have time to go into at the moment.

Same. Frankly, I have no idea why I started. But I've been doing a lot of tongue-biting skimming your reviews lately. So I figured, "What the fuck?"

 

[klunderbunker]

Which has nothing to do with his win-loss record and everything to do with him not even being booked as the centrepiece of SmackDown any more. He's booked at the midcard level and fans are reacting accordingly and nothing more. I don't think more wins will change that.

Well Del Rio has been a lost cause for over a year now, mainly due to him having almost no character development other than firing Ricardo.

Cheers are generally a precursor to more exposure. Either that or being someone's pet project. Being cheered at a low level isn't necessarily a result of wins (which is why I roll my eyes when you write about Cody Rhodes). It's a matter of star power. That's what got Goldberg over. Not wins/losses.

It was more than a low level. Goldberg got the biggest reactions on the show for beating up guys like Riggs and Mike Enos. Then he got the rocket push.

Same. Frankly, I have no idea why I started. But I've been doing a lot of tongue-biting skimming your reviews lately. So I figured, "What the fuck?"

That's what they're there for.

 

[Coco]

It was more than a low level. Goldberg got the biggest reactions on the show for beating up guys like Riggs and Mike Enos. Then he got the rocket push.

Yep. And he got those cheers because he had that "it" factor thing.

I don't believe in wins and losses. Sorry. Actually, not sorry.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I really like the idea of a third brand with some b-tier veterans and some up-and-coming talent on it, but I never supported ECW when I had the chance. What a cunt I am.

NXT! NXT! NXT!

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Are we sincerely debating the Goldberg win streak and the fashion it was done in had nothing to do with the ascension and level of overness acheived by Goldberg?

 

[klunderbunker]

Somehow yes.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

What a fuckin' phenomenal show. Crowd was white-hot all night, the traditional SS match was out of this world, and a perfect tilt-a-whirl backbreaker and a split-legged moonsault were executed amost consecutively, in a FUCKIN' DIVAS MATCH.

Great work by everyone. Even Curt Axel got a reaction.





Curtis Axle.
_________

 

[Coco]

And yet the IWC is pulling its usual long face. Dirt sheets are reporting that fans were in a pissy mood leaving the arena last night.

The internet really is the worst.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont understand how anyone could have disappointed with that show. Sure the finish to the Orton-Show match was pretty weak, but if you bought the show in the first place, surely you could not have expected otherwise.