Wrestling Discussion

[Deleted User]

This is to continue the conversation in the shoutbox, and to also have a place to just talk wrestling without having to create a new topic.

@Fizanko, just gonna quote it here before it disappears:

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>But Charlotte has never been considered unstoppable, she had her share of loss already, but losing to jobbers after the "big win" is a very odd decision, that's the 50/50 booking that everyone dislike in wwe because "everything can happ

but it breaks any attempt at a "champion feel" then, probably a reason i like a lot more what i see in njpw
[/quote]
I never said Charlotte was considered unstoppable, my point was that if she starts defeating EVERYBODY, then she's going to fall into a boring character. There's absolutely no shame in getting beat down by a tag team.

If Charlotte can defeat two professionals on her own, it doesn't help her or Iconic. Flair is fine, her integrity as a character is intact, and Iconic got a HUGE rub by dominating her. Everyone wins.

That's not 50/50 booking. I hate that term because no one seems to be able to actually define what it means. A tag team beating up 1 person doesn't hurt the victim OR the team. It shows they work well together. By beating up Charlotte, they are established as a legitimate threat.

If it breaks the "champion feel" for you, I'm sorry. But it isn't realistic for her to beat up a team that knows how to work together.

Also, can you guys stop using the term "jobber", please? You're using it incorrectly. Jobbers don't exist in wrestling, anymore. And no, someone who loses a lot isn't a "jobber".

@KWG: Your comment about WWE lacking consistency is something I disagree with. Look at Brock. Cena. Charlotte. They have plenty of it, just not where people want it, but it isn't accurate to say WWE has no consistency.

@Neko

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>They were not jobbers on nxt either, they just never got a title which is different. Plus what did ya expect? them to come out to the main roster and get their asses beaten immediately so they would lose all credibility from the get go?[/quote]

This point makes so much sense it makes me wonder if you've been replaced by a doppelganger, lelz.

 

[Fizanko]

As a precision, in my head "jobber" isn't an insult, it's an important role as while they aren't booked to win any matches they will make other wrestlers go over. Back in the day when i watched wwf i remember the Brooklyn Brawler , he did just that and did it well.

By example in NXT they worked awesomely to help keep Asuka over again in her unstoppable gimmick, they had her suplex them both at the same time, jobbing and in the same time being awesome at building this.

Because Royce and Kay are doing a great job at it in their NXT run, and unlike most jobbers the way they act their gimmick allowed them to generated a big following.
Sure they haven't only lost matches, but they were never really considered for a title run.

But ok if you don't like the term jobber, i'll call them then midcarder enhancing talent then, it's their job to get the thing done and they're doing it very well and can go in ring.

Maybe now in wwe they're evolving from their role in NXT, we'll see but considering wwe has no problem pushing their total diva cast into main events over their best talents , who can say.

Now for losing credibility, i don't see how that is a factor anytime with wwe , they proved countless time they don't care about this both for the men and women division.

And due/thanks to that sure i agree that Flair's daughter will be fine as they know perfectly she's still one of their main event sure worker regardless, but i'm sure the way they did it with the Royce/Kay introduction could have been made a lot better, especially after the mania match that was establishing Charlotte as their big gun (as their other big gun, Banks got beaten by Asuka).

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>That's not 50/50 booking. I hate that term because no one seems to be able to actually define what it means. [/quote]
The definition as far as i always understood it is that on theory the booking will make wrestlers being paired in a serie of match will win 50% of the time and lose the other 50%
by example wrestler 1 defeat wrestler 2
next match wrestler 2 defeat wrestler 1
next match wrestler 1 defeat wrestler 2
The purpose of this practice is to generate "uncertainty" regarding a match result to get with the "everything can happen in wwe" , not something bad in theory but repeating the formula for nearly everyone is just plain wrong.
And so the way wwe works, after the pair beating down Flair, Charlotter will beat them, then they'll redefeat her again etc...

A good recent example of a 50/50 was the Banks vs Flair feud wwe ran a few time after they were called from NXT.
In that specific occasion it was actually making sense as both wrestlers were sold as being the top of their division it made sense they were beating each other until their feud ended.
But doing that regularly for every wrestlers is a problem.

An older good example was the best of seven between Chris Benoit and Booker T in WCW, but the concept of a "best of " serie is completely needing a 50/50 booking.

Now for more precision about how i watch and probably explain some difference in my point of view : i don't watch the men wwe division, i simply can't care at all.
The women matches are the only ones i sometime watch, and not all of them only those that are recommended by my favorite sources , and they usually include those same wrestlers that do such good work.
Only in NXT i watch both men and women, because they're all just delivering everytime.

My primary wrestling interest is still NJPW before anything, probably why i like specific type of match and booking.

 

[Deleted User]

I don't think you are using "jobber" as an insult. At all.

However, I DO believe you are completely misusing the term itself entirely. Hate to be that guy, but NO ONE in the business uses that word. The position literally doesn't exist. "Smart" fans need to stop using it because it makes them look really dumb.

There are two instances of "jobber" in wrestling history. The first being the only guy that was paid on local television shows. What I mean by this, is back in the days of territories, you wrestled Monday-Friday at venues, and on the weekends you would wrestle at the local TV tapings. Now, the wrestlers wouldn't actually get paid for TV back then. You were paid in exposure and getting your name out to a broader audience.

There was only one group of guys who would get paid, however, the ones that lost to the stars on TV. This is for a couple reasons, but mostly it's due to losing on TV would hurt their payday during regular shows.

Now during this time, you also had bigger shows (such as Crockett Promotions) which would use the NWA's territory system to bring in bigger names and talent. When a storyline was finished, these bigger names would move onto the next territory to work a program with someone else, in front of a different audience, so they wouldn't lose that "special" aura they had. Flair, Andre are the two quickest examples I can think of.

The guys who never left the territory, but also were never the local stars, would be the ones enhancing the other talents by losing for the most part. But since they never left the show and were always on, they always had a job, thus, the term "jobber".

The Brooklyn Brawler could kinda fall into the category, but he's literally the LAST example of a jobber in Wrestling history, as the position literally doesn't exist, anymore. It's honestly cringe worthy when I see people throwing the term around because it's well... cringeworthy.

So I don't care what your head says jobber is. You're using the term incorrectly. It's something that needs to go away in wrestling discussion. You will literally NEVER see a veteran respect that term being used in modern wrestling, or respect the reasoning behind it.

Based on your definition of 50/50 booking, I don't see how it pertains to Charlotte at all, homie. If that's the case, than 99% of all wrestling matches from the Pioneer days through the 60's were 50/50 booking.

I can see where you get it, I just don't think it applies to Charlotte, or to a lot of the women's division. Does that mean Rock/Austin were also 50/50 booking? Because to me, I think it's just a competitive feud.

Most of the time the term "50/50 booking" is used with extremely negative implications. During the Raw Supershow era, you had a lot of what should have been bigger matches (like the US Champ wrestling the IC champ) that wouldn't have a decisive end, where you can't tell who WOULD have won the match. In my opinion, THAT is 50/50 booking, because you aren't getting a resolution to the match. Benoit/Booker T wasn't 50/50 booking in the slightest, you had definitive wins and losses through the whole series.

However, during the Supershow Era, damn near every bigger match had a finish that wasn't. It was usually something design to "protect" both guys without either having an actual loss. To me, that fits the definition better, especially since that's the time period that term popped up.

I hope you aren't taking this as me begin a dick, I'm enjoying the discussion, heh. I just have pet peeves when people complain about the product and use terms that I don't think are viable to the conversation, that's all. Especially the term jobber. It needs to go away.

 

[Champion_Gamer]

looks like I've been using an outdated insider term then. since Keson actually works in the business and was trained by Ripp Rogers. a guy who was around in the territory day's, I'll take his word for it

so is there a word for guys like Gillberg and James Ellsworth if jobber is not applicable ?



slightly off topic, but the other day me and a mate were playing some EWR together. and we decided we would choose wwe and more or less play it like SVR 06 GM mode. long story short we thought it would be best to have a draft and sign a couple of wrestlers. and by the end of the session i realised just how bloated and top heavy the wwe/nxt roster really is. it's chocablock with talent. and my fear is that there is just too much talent and not enough TV time.

 

[Deleted User]

Gillberg was light heavyweight champion and Ellsworth has three victories over AJ Styles. They weren't someone who was just showing up to do the favor for someone and get paid, they were features on the biggest wrestling show in the world. That's not a jobber.

Remember, a jobber ISN'T just someone who loses a lot.

I mean, if you REALLY want to, call them a carpenter. Someone who can't draw a house but can "build" other guys.

That's what the Brawler was, honestly. He wasn't really a jobber. He was on Raw, he was well known, he even had a victory over HBK in 96 when he was champ.

Here's a good explanation from Al Snow on the term "jobber":

What is EWR? A general manager game or something?

 

[Champion_Gamer]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>Gillberg was light heavyweight champion and Ellsworth has three victories over AJ Styles.[/quote]

fair point. i like carpenter, it's got a nice ring to it.


<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>What is EWR?[/quote]

pretty much. you are the Booker/owner of a wrestling promotion. you deal with contract negotiations, give wrestlers gimmicks, book them in matches etc. it's pretty fun and more is more simple than it's TEW counterpart. which is also a really fun game but rather time consuming as it much more in depth and complex.

 

[Deleted User]

I tried TEW once and didn't have time to read the instructions, heh. Looks great but I didn't want to spend THAT much time learning to play.

Yeah, the roster really is stacked and it does create a problem with tv time, back in the day, we had WCW and WWF to separate and give breathing room. These days, though we have two "brands", it isn't nearly the same. And a 7 hour long Wrestlemania is proof of that. Too much time. Too many people.

Have a Raw wrestlemania Saturday, Smackdown sunday. Or vice versa, ANYTHING but 7 hours for one show. It's too much.

 

[Champion_Gamer]

anyone hear what billy graham said about Ronda Rousey ? the reason i ask is because I've seen it posted around but haven't seen any conformation that it is indeed true. however if what he is alleged to have said is true then wow he's an absolute cunt. i thought his argument was completely baseless and demeaning.

 

[Deleted User]

I haven't, got rid of my facebook so I don't see his updates. What was he saying?

 

[Champion_Gamer]

here's the link to what he said.

i find it rather amusing that he thinks that a highly trained female fighter couldn't credibly tap out Triple H and that the fans wouldn't buy into it. like i am as far from a feminist that you can get but it's ludicrousness to think that a female couldn't feasibly beat/tap out a male whether it be scripted or a shoot.

 

[Deleted User]

I think he's echoing complaints a lot of people have and I don't understand it.

I can't count how many times I've heard the "she lost her last two fights" argument, as if it completely takes away from all her victories, or her credibility as a badass.

Know who else lost their last two UFC fights before coming to WWE? Brock fucking Lesnar. Billy Graham always comes off as extremely bitter to anything WWE does. He wasn't exactly known for his ability, in-ring storytelling or ability to book. He had an effective gimmick that was ahead of it's time.

Rhonda could kick a LOT of people's asses. I really don't get all the hate she's gotten, it's silly.

 

[Fizanko]

While i have no care about UFC (probably the only combat sport i don't like), it's easy to google check that Brock Lesnar had 5 wins and 3 losses (and should have a 4th due to him being proved a substance cheater in his fight with Mark Hunt) in his UFC run.

Are those losses making Lesnar having no credibility in MMA in general ?
It's laughable anyone can think that. MMA (and UFC) particularity makes it so anyone can get knocked out on a second of inattention or miscalculation regardless of how a badass/expert you can be the more matches you'll accumulate.

Yet there are people like Billy Graham that thinks Rousey has no credibility because she has 2 losses (ignoring then that she has 12 wins)

 

[Deleted User]

I find it really dumbfounding how "fans" of the sport would tear into Brock and Rhonda when they had their losses. I think it says a lot about people, the way they reacted to OTHER people failing. I think it shows a real lack of self worth.

It doesn't matter that they lost, they were able to compete with some of the best athletes in the world, and not only compete, but keep up with them. They're fantastic athletes who have earned respect.

 

[Champion_Gamer]

had a discussion with some randoms about new japan on Facebook this is how it went. chime in on the topic at hand if you want,i try not to act like i know everything about the wrestling business, because i don't.i just try and use logic. hopefully that shines through as tried my best to argue a logical and unbiased argument.

Spoiler: click to toggle

 

[Deleted User]

As long as people are viewing this as "they are a THREAT to WWE", they're missing the point.

These are the same kind of people who will vocalize that TNA should shut down (because guys losing a place to work on national tv is apparently a good thing in the minds of these "smart" fans).

Why is it even an argument? Why can't people be happy for NJPW and also enjoy WWE? What's with this stupid narrative that it could all come falling down? WWE isn't losing money by any means, and they don't need to fill every arena for every Raw, anymore. They need to keep pedaling merch, which they have great success at.

There's lots of rumblings pertaining to future ownership of the company which may or my not happen, and there's also rumblings about a new territory being structured, which will also be owned by WWE.

It seems as though these fans definition of "bad booking" = Roman Reigns. Welp, cry me a river. If ticket sales of the last Wrestlemania is any indicator, it isn't hurting them at all.

Negativity is going to ruin wrestling for fans, but the business is just fine.

 

[Champion_Gamer]

i think you missed the entire point i was trying to make.

i don't want the WWE to go out of business or any other company for that matter, it just irks me that people think the WWE are infallible.

correct me if I'm wrong but house shows are still one of if not the WWE's main source of income, and it's been reported numerous times that house show numbers on a whole are down. WWE may not be hemorrhaging money or anything like that but it’s still not exactly a good sign that your main business model is starting to show signs of market fatigue.


WWE having a monopoly on the wrestling market isn’t exactly what I’d call a good thing either. competition creates a better product overall for everyone involved as it means you have to innovate or at the very least offer the best most compelling product you possibly can. And to be frank the WWE are not doing that and haven't for a long time, they have become complacent which in business is never a good thing.

of course there are plenty of good things happening in wrestling right now, it's the hottest it's been in decades.

Kenny Omega and Okada, Jericho and Naito, Braun Strowman, Brock Lesnar and NXT to name just a few, but is still doesn't stop the fact that there is a lot of room for improvement especially when it comes to the WWE and it's product.

 

[Deleted User]

House shows aren't their main source of income, quite the opposite (Or so I've been told). They never really have been. House shows are there for two main reasons: To test crowd reactions for storylines, and to keep the boys on their toes. Their main source of income is merchandising and advertising space.

I will agree that WWE seems to take less chances now that they don't have any actual market competition, though. They take less chances and go forward with whatever they feel like. They don't really seem to build the show around the wrestlers, but more around the "WWE" brand.

I don't think they're infallible in the slightest, I just know that unless another eccentric billionaire decides to get into the business and give Vince a run for his money, we won't see anything really competitive on that level. I'm extremely happy for the success of NJPW, Lucha Underground, and Impact. I just don't see them really competing any time soon unless they can break into a broader audience.

As much as athleticism is being brought to the forefront of many of these promotions, it's never been athletic competition that has brought in big money in the United States wrestling scene, it's been memorable characters that reach an emotional connection with the audience.

You can have the greatest cruiserweight matches in the world, and many die hard wrestling fans will love it and have their minds blown, but unfortunately, to the broader, casual audience (which is what companies need to break into in order to increase their market share) it only validates what they think they know about wrestling: That it's choreographed and completely fake.

Flair didn't draw because of his incredible cardio (which he most definitely had), he drew because of his over the top persona that people related to. Hogan got the kids behind him and tuning in. Austin and Rock got people who didn't even WATCH wrestling, knew how "fake" it was, tuning in every week just to see their antics and (hopefully) have them beat up somebody.

It's just like movies. Which trilogy was better, the original Star Wars trilogy, or the Prequels? Most would say the original is, even though the prequels had better special effects, more intricate fight scenes, and tons of more action. The characters and story in the original trilogy gave us characters we can relate with and join on an emotional ride.

Lucha Underground has great stories and action, but you kinda HAVE to be a wrestling fan to get into it. The Elite have done some amazing sketches and character work, but it doesn't placate to the masses, it placates to the hardcore wrestling fan.

Until there is another Hogan/Austin ect to come up and break through to the mainstream in one of these other companies, we'll probably always have one big company and a lot of really good, smaller shows.

 

[Champion_Gamer]

so... how bout that backlash :jew:

i now wished i had of played 3hrs of stardew valley or rocket league with my mate.

i reckon it's probably one of the worst pay per views I've seen in 3 years, anyway I'm just a jaded cunt so i'm probably extremely biased.

 

[Deleted User]

I keep hearing that, but I couldn't tell you as I didn't watch it. Lately I have been watching a lot of old school stuff.

I read the post-PPV thread in reddit and laughed when I heard about the crowd immediately leaving. That's rough. It's also a sign of what we were discussing: The WWE is in a spot where they don't have to change the course of their booking because they think they don't have competition.

It's a shame. Lots of talent on the roster.

 

[The NekoMancer]

It was a bad PPV. The only match I liked was Seth vs Miz.

Shinsuke Nakamura vs AJ Styles was good but the finish ruined it.

This coming from someone who really likes what the wwe has been doing so far.