WZ University Faculty - Beginnings of Curriculum

[Slyfox696]

Here are a few different "subject areas" or "majors" I've come up with for WZ University. Feel free to tell me if they are a good or bad idea and feel free to offer more.

(in no particular order)

1. Wrestling vocabulary - Discuss various wrestling terms. For example, what does burying mean, what is a Broadway, how do wrestlers get color, etc.

2. History of wrestling promotions - This can be further broken down into time periods. For example, we could have a lesson on the WWF pre-1983, 1983-1996, 1997-2004, 2005-present, etc.

3. What makes a good professional wrestler? - I envision this being the area where things like character development, selling, psychology, etc. is discussed.

4. Character biographies - Basically, this major examines many of the most famous professional wrestlers in-depth and discusses their career.

5. Famous PPV/Big Shows - An examination of various big shows which changed the course of professional wrestling.

6. Greatest Rivalries - A look into some of the biggest rivalries in history


These are just a few different categories I came up with in a pretty quick amount of time (well, they've been in my head for a long time, but when actually writing them down, I didn't think long). Are there any other majors people think might be interesting? For it to be a good subject area, there has to be plenty of content available.

 

[NSL]

Would a section on major rivalries work? I'm talking only the big ones. Hogan v Andre, Stone Cold v The Rock, Undertaker v Kane, etc. They really were landmarks in the history of the business. Also, if someone like Gelgarin were around more, it'd be interesting to see something written up about the roots of professional wrestling. Shadowmancer may be able to do something like this as well.

I think, in the biographies section, there's room to categorize the great factions in wrestling history. Four Horsemen, DX, The Alliance To End Hulkamania (half joking), etc.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

3. What makes a good professional wrestler? - I envision this being the area where things like character development, selling, psychology, etc. is discussed.

Is this perhaps too broad as a single subject? These elements are all vital and require incredibly detailed explanation/understanding.

For example, when this idea first came up, I was thinking about people going on about how shit Strowman was without understanding his purpose for being in the Wyatt's. One has to subsequently explain that a good promotion utilises a number of different performers with a number of different skill sets and talents to achieve a level of diversity suitable for enjoyment from all audience areas.

This of course would need to be fleshed out fully to explain what the current WWE roster brings/doesn't bring in comparison to other historical rosters and why everyone doing the 'flippeez' is dim because it lessens the impact of those moves (ala ECW/Attitude Era and violence/sex).

That's going to be extremely detailed, so it could in fact be a separate unit in and of itself (though I feel I've moved to discussion away with this post from good wrestler, to good promotion).

 

[Slyfox696]

Would a section on major rivalries work? I'm talking only the big ones. Hogan v Andre, Stone Cold v The Rock, Undertaker v Kane, etc. They really were landmarks in the history of the business. Also, if someone like Gelgarin were around more, it'd be interesting to see something written up about the roots of professional wrestling. Shadowmancer may be able to do something like this as well.

I think, in the biographies section, there's room to categorize the great factions in wrestling history. Four Horsemen, DX, The Alliance To End Hulkamania (half joking), etc.

Sound like two good ideas. I've already added Greatest Rivalries to the list.

Is this perhaps too broad as a single subject?

It's not a single subject, it's a category under which other subjects exist. For example, under this category, we can talk about psychology, storytelling, mic skills/charisma, selling, workrate, etc. There's five or six lessons just right there.

For example, when this idea first came up, I was thinking about people going on about how shit Strowman was without understanding his purpose for being in the Wyatt's. One has to subsequently explain that a good promotion utilises a number of different performers with a number of different skill sets and talents to achieve a level of diversity suitable for enjoyment from all audience areas.

This of course would need to be fleshed out fully to explain what the current WWE roster brings/doesn't bring in comparison to other historical rosters and why everyone doing the 'flippeez' is dim because it lessens the impact of those moves (ala ECW/Attitude Era and violence/sex).

That's going to be extremely detailed, so it could in fact be a separate unit in and of itself (though I feel I've moved to discussion away with this post from good wrestler, to good promotion).

I see what you're saying and, honestly, I'm not sure where we'd put something like that. We'd want to break it down into different parts, but still keep the overall message. That would be something to think about, but I don't think it would fall under the category you listed. While I think most of us understand there needs to be various workers to fill various roles, I envisioned this category as a way to explain how one becomes great, not that a promotion needs different levels of workers.

What you're talking about would fit better under wrestling vocabulary I would think. What you're describing is what is traditionally referred to as "a good hand", a guy who does very well fulfilling specific purposes, though will never become a legend in wrestling.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As far as WZ University goes, does anyone want to contribute any more topic ideas in the other thread?

Been thinkin' and it all seems to come down to the same thing; the five categories listed above cover pretty much every subject.

For instance, I was considering a topic in which one of our esteemed professors discusses the ramifications of a central character in a wrestling organization; how the company has been changed by him/her, and how his/her career is changed by association with the company.

Problem is, that subject could be incorporated in either 'History of Wrestling Promotions' or 'Character Biographies.' See what I mean? It applies to pretty much everything we could talk about.

Perhaps it's more useful to consider sub-categories that spice up existing topics. One that came to mind was 'Wrestling Quotes' spliced into the ends of articles, in the manner of Reader's Digest slipping in clever remarks at the close of a story.

There's a world of material we could use, such as:

______________________________________________________________

'The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Vince Russo has been there, in which case the grass is most likely dead.' ..... Jim Cornette


'Shawn Michaels is literally exploding on Bret Hart!' .....Gorilla Monsoon


'Christian? His parents had nine months to think of a name and the best they came up with was Christian? My parents had nine months and they didn't call me Jew' .....Paul Heyman


'I eat bigger pieces of crap than that for breakfast.' .....Big Show
'You eat pieces of crap for breakfast?' .....Kurt Angle

_____________________________________________________________

I believe we could liven up some rather dry subjects with this stuff.....long as it's not overdone.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, then I'll start doing some work on it soon and we'll start claiming lessons right after.

 

[NSL]

Been thinkin' and it all seems to come down to the same thing; the five categories listed above cover pretty much every subject.

For instance, I was considering a topic in which one of our esteemed professors discusses the ramifications of a central character in a wrestling organization; how the company has been changed by him/her, and how his/her career is changed by association with the company.

Problem is, that subject could be incorporated in either 'History of Wrestling Promotions' or 'Character Biographies.' See what I mean? It applies to pretty much everything we could talk about.

Perhaps it's more useful to consider sub-categories that spice up existing topics. One that came to mind was 'Wrestling Quotes' spliced into the ends of articles, in the manner of Reader's Digest slipping in clever remarks at the close of a story.

There's a world of material we could use, such as:

______________________________________________________________

'The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Vince Russo has been there, in which case the grass is most likely dead.' ..... Jim Cornette


'Shawn Michaels is literally exploding on Bret Hart!' .....Gorilla Monsoon


'Christian? His parents had nine months to think of a name and the best they came up with was Christian? My parents had nine months and they didn't call me Jew' .....Paul Heyman


'I eat bigger pieces of crap than that for breakfast.' .....Big Show
'You eat pieces of crap for breakfast?' .....Kurt Angle

_____________________________________________________________

I believe we could liven up some rather dry subjects with this stuff.....long as it's not overdone.

You left out Sid's famous line of "and I have half the brain that you have!"