Scott,
The Brodus Clay burial post got me to wondering…
Why would you ever bury your own talent now that there isn't a viable competitor for them to jump to?
"Yeah! We'll show this guy we've invested time and money in just who's boss! We'll make him a total loser who will never draw heat or money and then we'll release him!".
That seems like a very short-sighted, spiteful, WCW kind of thing to do.
You've pretty much answered your own question there.
The weird thing is that it totally goes against the POINT of wrestling. There should never be a time, except in extreme circumstances with a final blowoff match, where you want one guy to look like a nothing loser. Your goal should always be to have both guys looking strong as possible. Look at, say, Kurt Angle v. Chris Benoit from Rumble 2003, where Benoit lost but came out of it a much bigger star. Now the mentality seems to be some sort of weird "robbing Peter to get Paul's heat back" thing. Like, for example, say they want to put Tensai over. So they'll have him go out and beat Ziggler (just like everyone else does). But then they realize "Wait, Ziggler's supposed to be our star, so let's put him over to give him his heat back." So he goes out on the next show and beats Kofi Kingston. And then they're like "Oh, we want to put the IC title on him eventually, so I guess we should give him a win" so Kofi goes out and beats Tensai in a quick match. And then the cycle begins again. That's the problem with all the 50/50 booking -- they can't protect ANYONE outside of John Cena because instead of one person getting more over, you end up with 10 people looking like goofs, until you hit the bottom of the barrel with the Santinos, Ryders and 3MBs of the world being the only ones left who can do jobs without looking even more ridiculous. Even CM Punk, the friggin' WWE CHAMPION, gets caught up in this nonsense. They had him do a TV job for TENSAI. What did THAT lead to? Nothing, because it's just stuff that happens on TV and then gets forgotten about.
So to answer your question, no, there is no point in burying your own talent. In fact they should be going out of their way to act like every piece of talent is the most awesome guy ever, even if it gets a bit obnoxious at times. I'd rather have the problem of figuring out a finish for a match like Punk v. Ryback than watching 18 different guys with losing streak angles on RAW every week.
I really hope they have SOME kind of long-term plan for Ziggler. He's one of the brightest stars to come out of their own developmental system but if he keeps on jobbing, wins the world title in a lackluster manner, has a terrible reign and then goes back to being a midcard act, it's one of the biggest wastes of talents ever. And even though he's only in his early 30s, the way the guy is bumping around, he may not have too much of a shelf-life.
ReplyDeleteIt bothers me more because when the guy is interviewed, he sounds like he really, desperately wants to be a star. He talks about wanting to be remembered as one of the best ever, which few guys do. The old-timers always say that today's stars aren't hungry enough and play too many video games but other than Punk and Daniel Bryan, who else works as hard in the ring (as has done so for the past couple of years) than Dolph?
The guy has come such a long way from, "Hi, I'm Dolph Ziggler!"
ReplyDeleteThis pretty muched nailed it. Its like tanking your own stock. If you don't want to do anything with a guy, or you want to punish him, just take him off tv.
ReplyDeleteI have determined WWE creative does all of their booking playing Universe Mode on WWE '12. It all makes sense.
ReplyDeleteIts sort of a case of being too nice. They want everyone to have their month in the sun, then once that month is up they move on to someone else and last months guy gets sent right down the card again.
ReplyDeleteSo, let it play out, you're saying?
ReplyDelete"robbing Peter to get Paul's heat back"
ReplyDeleteBut what about Mary?
WHAT ABOUT MARY?!?
Of course.
ReplyDeleteThey're telling stories.
Hate to be a bubble-burster but there is clearly no plan. And his cash-in will probably go down exactly how you mapped it.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem goes way beyond just booking decisions or the ineptitude of a writing staff, especially because whenever you hear or read anything from former WWE writers they always sound like guys who agree with all our gripes. I think the problem of talent burial stems from the self loathing that the McMahons have for their own business. Think about how wrestling was produced in the past: announcers (i.e.Vince) would put over everyone in the WWE as the greatest, toughest guys ever. Nowadays the booking and production focus almost exclusively on wrestlers' shortcomings, and their losing streaks, and how goofy they are. For Godsakes, the most over used storylines today are wrestlers calling other wrestlers boring and irrelevant. What TV show calls their own stars BORING?
ReplyDeleteAnd sure, the 50/50 booking probably stems from several factors: too much TV to fill (forcing guys to lose more often than they used to back when it was 1-2 syndicated hours per week), star vs star matches becoming the norm rather than squashes with jobbers, and sure the writing ineptitude from the top.
But I think the largest problem is that Vince and Stephanie resent their own business. They hate that they aren't running a "respectable" TV show like SNL or the NFL. And that self hatred comes through 100% in the way they use their show to mock their own talents and degrade their own business. They look at Brodus Clay and think "Fuck this fat wrestler, let's make him look like a jerk" whereas 80s and 90s Vince, who probably wasn't full of wrestling hate yet, would have been more mindful to present his wrestlers as stars.
If you look at WWE as a long running TV show, it is INSANE that they've basically had the same showrunner for 30 years. SNL is the closest example, except A) They produce significantly less content, and B) I would venture to guess that the cast and head writers of SNL shape the show, with Lorne exerting way less influence than Vince does.
As a wrestling fan I'd give anything to see at least one year of WWE that is produced wholly without the influence of Vince or Steph, and see what the difference is.
You're most likely right. But I'm an optimist, no matter how difficult it is in today's wrestling world. 8 )
ReplyDeleteSomeone's gotta job. They don't employ jobbers anymore.
ReplyDeleteYour whole point sort of confuses me. You hate 50/50 booking but don't like people being jobbed constantly either? So you would want Brodus to get his wins back versus Cesaro and ADR, or those guys should get their decisive wins and move on?
I admit to not understanding their booking of heels sometimes and why they go through these phases with guys where they lose constantly. But with a roster their size it is impossible to make every guy look good. Most of you want clean finishes right? Not cheap, cop out finishes? Antonio Cesaro and ADR got decisive wins over Brodus. I'm not sure why that is a bad thing.
"For Godsakes, the most over used storylines today are wrestlers calling
ReplyDeleteother wrestlers boring and irrelevant. What TV show calls their own
stars BORING?"
THIS x 1000!
And who is it that usually does this? Cena (Vince's avatar), Cole (Vince's parrot), and HHH (a McMahon himself). Or Vince will just go & splatter shit all over the midcarders & others who he deems lousy himself.
Mary's in the Divas division, she has no heat.
ReplyDeleteI think Scott's point still stands in terms of even having the guys who lose still come out strong.
ReplyDeleteCesaro and ADR deserve strong wins but against much lower opposition. Then, they need prolonged feuds with bigger faces. With those longer feuds, then you sort out the pecking order and can have Clay or Ziggler tap out. And even then, with a longer feud (I'm talking a couple of one on one matches on PPV, a couple of tag matches where they both have partners on Raw, and a couple of angles/promos), everyone comes out looking stronger because they proved their mettle.
People like Ziggler and Clay really haven't had any feuds to speak of, and when they aimlessly job, they are diminished in the eyes of the fans and probably even the writers who write the crap (a self-fulfilling prophecy kinda thing). Yeah, Ziggler gets mad at someone for a month, but then forgets about it the next month. He flounders and randomly jobs.
Even if some of our favorite guys lose, we'd at least like to know that there was a purpose to it all, that it meant something to both characters. And we'd like to know that things won't be forgotten about the next week.
The 50/50 booking refers to not only PPV matches, but Raw matches as well. How have they capitalized on Ziggler's win over Jericho and winning MitB? How have they capitalized on Clay when he was red hot for the first few months of 2012? The 50/50 booking provides no memorable feuds and doesn't further anybody.
It has me shaking my head at times. Raw is a good two hour show in a three hour slot, but if you're able to catch Main Event, Superstars, or NXT, you'll realize how unbelievably deep and talented this roster is (I'm absolutely blown away by Tyson Kidd's matches). They deserve better.
Well, you just answered your own question. There are guys that SHOULDN'T be jobbed constantly; that's why you employ jobbers, but as you said, they have very little of them now, so they have to have a guy like Clay or Kofi looking at the lights.
ReplyDeleteThis guy gets it.
ReplyDeleteI think Scott's point still stands in terms of even having the guys who lose still come out strong.
ReplyDeleteIt's not really executed anymore.
Cesaro
and ADR deserve strong wins but against much lower opposition. Then,
they need prolonged feuds with bigger faces. With those longer feuds,
then you sort out the pecking order and can have Clay or Ziggler tap
out. And even then, with a longer feud (I'm talking a couple of one on
one matches on PPV, a couple of tag matches where they both have
partners on Raw, and a couple of angles/promos), everyone comes out
looking stronger because they proved their mettle.
People like
Ziggler and Clay really haven't had any feuds to speak of, and when they
aimlessly job, they are diminished in the eyes of the fans and probably
even the writers who write the crap (a self-fulfilling prophecy kinda
thing). Yeah, Ziggler gets mad at someone for a month, but then forgets
about it the next month. He flounders and randomly jobs.
Even
if some of our favorite guys lose, we'd at least like to know that there
was a purpose to it all, that it meant something to both characters.
And we'd like to know that things won't be forgotten about the next
week.
The 50/50 booking refers to not only PPV matches, but Raw
matches as well. How have they capitalized on Ziggler's win over Jericho
and winning MitB? How have they capitalized on Clay when he was red
hot for the first few months of 2012? The 50/50 booking provides no
memorable feuds and doesn't further anybody.
It has me shaking
my head at times. Raw is a good two hour show in a three hour slot, but
if you're able to catch Main Event, Superstars, or NXT, you'll realize
how unbelievably deep and talented this roster is (I'm absolutely blown
away by Tyson Kidd's matches). They deserve better.
I don't mind decisively winning, my issue here is that Brodus is getting treated like a joke and squashed in two minutes. For me, and I know everyone always craps all over this analogy in real sports, it's like "If Clay can squash Ziggler in a minute but then goes out and loses to Cesaro in a minute, what does that say about Ziggler?" If he got to do his entrance, lost a competitive match, and had a storyline to continue on with afterwards, then fine. But now he's just the wacky big guy who loses quickly as of late and he doesn't even have a program. That is the one thing I will defend about Vince Russo and his "wins and losses don't matter" bullshit -- yeah, people traded meaningless wins on RAW every week, but at least there was a storyline behind almost all of them, no matter how silly. People had SOMETHING to invest in.
ReplyDeleteYup. In fact Vince personally did it to Brodus and Truth last week. You can't tell me that segment had any purpose other than to shit on Truth and Brodus, and "punish" them for not being over enough. In the 80s, Vince would have put over JYD or Koko B. Ware or Brutus The Barber (equally ridiculous gimmicks) as the greatest thing he ever did see. Nowadays, he tells his guys to dance their way out of his ring, just in case any TV viewer didn't know that they were bullshit. I mean, why would anyone change the channel on that?
ReplyDeleteI would never characterize Clay as being red hot, lukewarm, sure.
ReplyDeleteIt's outstanding what an absolute loser and geek Ziggler has been booked as since winning MITB. And the thing is, Ziggler isn't strong enough on the mic to overcome that kind of booking— he's got a shrill whiny voice, his body language (notice how he always shrinks when he talks) makes him look weak, and frankly his repetitive points make me long for listening to ADR discuss the ramifications of one's destiny. Honestly, he doesn't even seem to get the "I know he loses a lot but he's still awesome" reactions from crowds anymore. (Think back to how that crowd on Raw almost lost their shit when it looked like he might turn face against Swagger months ago.) Right now, Ziggler is the icest cold he has been in years.
ReplyDeletePutting the WHC on him anytime soon would be a disaster for both him AND the belt. I mean, say what you want about Sheamus' run, but it's at least made the WHC seem somewhat important. Whoever beats him now should do so after a long important match, not a cash in by a jobber.
So what I'm saying is, they fucked up and they should create a scenario in which they take the briefcase off of Ziggler. Have him lose it to a heel that they actually wanna push, like Cesaro or Barrett, or to an over face like Bryan or Ryback. There are too many guys who are more credible than Ziggler for them to just make Ziggler champ now because of a booking decision they made in July.
As for where that'd leave Ziggler... I dunno, disappears for awhile and then a face turn? But him as WHC in the near future isn't the answer.
There are actually I think only 3 solutions.
ReplyDelete1. The WCW Solution: Buy enough wrestler, so you have enough not so big stars, who can be jobbed against the bigger stars.
2. The Attitude Solution: Runins, screwjobs, no finishes etc., where you can protect everybody.
3. The Old School Solution: Buy some 20 jobbers and show star vs star matches only at the PPVs - like in the old days.
If you count all the FCW/NXT guys they probably have enough people to do option 1 (or 3). If you wanna use the developmentals as jobbers, just have Cole say "this young man is in our developmental system, not ready to join the main roster yet, but he's here to gain experience." Which is what they'd really be doing. Don't use anyone TOO regularly, just enough. Then when they debut, he's now "ready" after being in the farm system.
ReplyDeleteRemember when Jerry and George are pitching their show about nothing idea, and Russell asks why people would watch it? And George says "because it's on tv!". Same idea - why should we care about this guy if he never wins? Because he's on tv! Dolph Ziggler seems to lose a lot, what's so special about him? He's on tv! But not just any tv, the longest running weekly episodic show in history - if you're on a show that important you must be a big deal.
ReplyDeleteI thought Mayse was gone! j/k
ReplyDeleteThere's just something about Mary.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole voice thing, he'll eventually figure out how to drop his voice down a drop or two like Triple H eventually did.
ReplyDeleteListen to his voice when DX started in 1997, holy shit does his voice sound REALLY high pitched compared to Shawn Michaels.
Exactly, and even the name has grown on me. It's sounds so Eurotrash even though he's anything but.
ReplyDeletecrap I vaguely remember that. Trips used to have a very pleasant voice before he began barking all of his sentences
ReplyDelete"Not yet."
ReplyDeleteHow about option 4:
ReplyDelete4. Have midcarders wrestle competitive matches for 10 to 15 minutes with both of them looking good. A single competitive 15 minute match can do more for both wrestlers than 6 months of trading wins and losses in 3 minute matches.
The flaw for option 4 is that it will hurt PPV buyrates because you can't do better matches on PPV than the usual TV matches. The best way to somewhat counteract this flaw would be to have main eventers only face midcarders on TV, typically making the midcarders look good, but defeating them in around 10 minutes or so. If main event level matches are rare on TV, that means they will draw on the rare occasions when they are shown on TV. TNA has matches between main eventers that are near PPV main event quality on Impact on a frequent basis. This probably hurts buyrates and there is no evidence that any wrestling match can move quarter hours for TNA (only Aces and Eights and the Claire storyline have shown the ability to do that since Pritchard took over). TNA pretty much has to do matches between main eventers on Impact because the majority of the TNA roster is pushed at main event or near-main event level. WWE has the luxury of being able to keep big matches rare, while still putting on good matches on TV that get their wrestlers over. They just don't take advantage of it.
Ellaine will never know Russell Dalripple's (?) blood is on her hands
ReplyDeletethey could always bring back the time-limit draw.
ReplyDeleteWhy is she buggin?
ReplyDeleteI loved Russel.
ReplyDelete"Get a good look Costanza?"
or how bout when George tries to spell his last name
ReplyDelete"not even close."
and he is from cleveland so bonus points for me... but so is Miz so we are back sqaure uno :(
ReplyDeleteProblem with longer matches is that less people get put on TV.
ReplyDeleteIs that...hair gel?
ReplyDeleteWhy is that a problem? If wrestlers are on TV less often, they will stay fresh longer. WWE has 6 1/2 hours of TV per week. Raw is 3 hours per week. Smackdown is 2 hours per week. With that much time, there's plenty of time to make sure everybody gets on TV at least once per week.
ReplyDeleteI said this a couple of weeks ago, but all of this has gotten to the point that winning doesn't make the winner look good, losing just makes the loser look bad. For example, Miz loses clean to Kane, then Cena, then Ryback. So in return, they have him beat Zack Ryder clean. Miz doesn't look good for beating Ryder, Ryder just looks bad for losing to Miz.
ReplyDeleteSo...bring back the Brand Split?
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't be a good idea because they need to have different wrestlers appear on Raw and Smackdown each week. The problem with bringing back the Split is that they'd quickly run out of fresh match combinations, especially at the main event level (unifying the WWE and World belts would also help and if they're concerned about replica sales, just have the Champ carry around both belts like Jericho did).
ReplyDeleteThe whole "winning doesn't matter" thing has gotten out of hand. I get that there's been times where a guy made himself a star in a loss, in that sense the actual loss didn't matter. But if a guy loses 3 of every 4 for six months, it matters. If this was the era where guys were given creative freedom they could come up with some character or some promo to get them over, but it's not.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point. I found Universe Mode as is to be pretty dull before I tweaked it and made Drew McIntyre a kick-ass World Champ in the process.
ReplyDeleteI actually like this discussion. It's really a "rock and a hard place" type scenario.
ReplyDeleteLet's see.
They can continue the "short matches with 50/50 booking", but people hate that.
Or, they could turn half the roster into jobbers/hire jobbers, and only have important matches on PPVs, but TV suffers.
Or, they could basically make every match matter in an effort to get everybody over, but that means half the roster doesn't get on television, or you spread the roster to thin, this also kills PPVs, because why buy a match that you get for free?
Doesn't seem to be any any simple answers here.
hmm...there's the formula that Main Event is using, people seem to be enjoying it. I watched the Punk/Sheamus match 2 weeks ago, Sheamus did not look bad in defeat. But this is a new show, we'll see if this formula is sustainable.
ReplyDeleteMain Event is great for show casing two wrestlers, and I will WAIT AND SEE if the overness from the "Main-event" lasts. I mean, if people forget about the great Kofi match, then...pointless.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'm fairly confident for now. I hope it works.
The said(or ironic/funny) part about this is that Vince and Steph want to be seen so much as a legit TV show, THEY SHOULD BE TAKING NOTES FROM LORNE ON HOW TO DO SO!
ReplyDeleteThe first one should be trusting your writers.
Agreed, which is why I'm scared he might cash in at the PPV.
ReplyDeleteI've said this before, but it isn't Vince's unwillingness to change that causes all of these problems. It's Vince's determination to change that does.
ReplyDeleteThere's a book out there, written by some crackpot, where he essentially says that a company should always cut losses in an area where there is no growth and "be great" by going into another area.
For instance, a company founded on operating paper mills stepped up and challenged Procter & Gamble and in the paper goods market AFTER selling a bunch of their paper mills. This was viewed as a good thing because that company (Kimberley Clark) became THE name in paper products.
This was stated, without irony, despite that fact that Procter & Gamble said "Screw off paper products, we're doing chemicals now!".
But people buy into this nonsense and, unless your intended competitor bows out, it leads to ruination.
Vince isn't trying to make a big star or turn wrestling around. He wants to be something else, the head of a "media empire" or whatever other nonsense crosses his mind that day. Wrestling is just a way to keep the bills paid until those dreams become a reality.
So we get the 50/50 booking, nonsensical title wins and hot acts having the rug pulled out from underneath them. The WWE isn't looking to move forward or grow their fanbase. Hell, they're not even "leading from behind" and trying to anticipate what's ahead. They're just taking in the "dirty money" in the hopes of running it through the wash and coming out "clean" on the other side.
Alright, anyone else need this soapbox or can I break it down and store it for use as kindling in the winter?