The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[FellaLibby]

I'd agree, if the entire point is to put Cody over and be done with it. However it isn't. It's to elevate both of them. Nakamura has been doing a lot more promos and angles of late, more than he has done in years, he has a character development going on with his vicious side that cares about hurting rather than just winning. Winning is more or less a secondary thing as far as I'm concerned. For Cody, it's a challenge he wants to overcome and it got personal as of Monday. And plus while a normal "blow off" that would be a one off, a taste of what's to come that's *not* on the house show circuit, helps sells the final match.

[Dawn]

5 hours ago, Matt_Black said:

Or, you can save the actual 1-on-1 match for the blow-off to the feud.

Yeah? Would you then not complain it's taking forever for that match to happen? Like everyone was doing during Bray Wyatt's return and feud with LA Knight. That setup took three months. What would you have Cody and Nakamura doing until the blowoff match?

Let's go with your suggestion then, plus let's be generous and assume they'd save it until the go home Raw before the Rumble. How are you filling two months of television for a feud supposed to elevate both men before the Rumble without more than one 1v1 (AND after Nakamura just lost his feud to Rollins, which means he NEEDS to be established as a threat specifically TO CODY)? Is really a month fewer than Bray v Knight's setup going to spare this program of complaints?

And what would it be until then? Infinite brawls? Infinite tag team matches? Please, I opened up that discussion hoping that you'd reply in kind and let us know of ANY solution you'd like to the DQ ''problem''. Shout out to guyver for actually making the research. ONE DQ in an entire month of television (the one I've been addressing this whole time, even) is nothing at all.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Dawn

[Dalton]

55 minutes ago, Dawn said:

Yeah? Would you then not complain it's taking forever for that match to happen? Like everyone was doing during Bray Wyatt's return and feud with LA Knight. That setup took three months. What would you have Cody and Nakamura doing until the blowoff match?

Let's go with your suggestion then, plus let's be generous and assume they'd save it until the go home Raw before the Rumble. How are you filling two months of television for a feud supposed to elevate both men before the Rumble without more than one 1v1 (AND after Nakamura just lost his feud to Rollins, which means he NEEDS to be established as a threat specifically TO CODY)? Is really a month fewer than Bray v Knight's setup going to spare this program of complaints?

And what would it be until then? Infinite brawls? Infinite tag team matches? Please, I opened up that discussion hoping that you'd reply in kind and let us know of ANY solution you'd like to the DQ ''problem''. Shout out to guyver for actually making the research. ONE DQ in an entire month of television (the one I've been addressing this whole time, even) is nothing at all.

Shouldn't a good booker be able to figure out how to do a three month build without a DQ

[Jaysin]

R-Truth should be protected at all costs. 

[Self]

I don't think there are any more or fewer DQ's than there used to be. It's both a difference in fan perception ("boo, that dastardly heel" vs "boo, that uninspired promotion") and a confusion over what constitutes a DQ these days. When matches can continue after falling off ladders, chairs, barbed wire, flipping powerbombs to the floor, etc... What can you do that will make fans legitimately feel "This needs to stop. This is a conclusion"? Which has been a problem since the ECW era. When "No Disqualification" matches are promoted as a positive stipulation that provide fun entertainment (and none of your favourites are going to be off TV to recover for more than a few days afterwards), or course disqualifications are going to feel bad. When Triple Threats matches and Royal Rumbles are No DQ, for reasons I don't fully understand. When wrestling matches are afterthoughts or stunt shows for star ratings and the 'stories' happen in the promo bits or on Twitter... It's unsurprising. 

 

[Dalton]

2 hours ago, Self said:

I don't think there are any more or fewer DQ's than there used to be. It's both a difference in fan perception ("boo, that dastardly heel" vs "boo, that uninspired promotion") and a confusion over what constitutes a DQ these days. When matches can continue after falling off ladders, chairs, barbed wire, flipping powerbombs to the floor, etc... What can you do that will make fans legitimately feel "This needs to stop. This is a conclusion"? Which has been a problem since the ECW era. When "No Disqualification" matches are promoted as a positive stipulation that provide fun entertainment (and none of your favourites are going to be off TV to recover for more than a few days afterwards), or course disqualifications are going to feel bad. When Triple Threats matches and Royal Rumbles are No DQ, for reasons I don't fully understand. When wrestling matches are afterthoughts or stunt shows for star ratings and the 'stories' happen in the promo bits or on Twitter... It's unsurprising. 

 

Three way matches are no disqualification because there is no way for them not to be.

[Matt_Black]

49 minutes ago, Dalton said:

Three way matches are no disqualification because there is no way for them not to be.

Except for that one installment of Smackdown vs. Raw. 2005, I think. That was OBNOXIOUS. The titles could change hands that way, too. The heck?!?

[FellaLibby]

1 hour ago, Matt_Black said:

Except for that one installment of Smackdown vs. Raw. 2005, I think. That was OBNOXIOUS. The titles could change hands that way, too. The heck?!?

I know exactly what you mean. Had a Triple Threat, ran to get a weapon, got it, and got DQ'd instantly. I believe there was an instance on that in Day Of Reckoning in a Fatal Four Way story mode as well.

[The Blonde Bomber]

9 hours ago, Dalton said:

Shouldn't a good booker be able to figure out how to do a three month build without a DQ

No

[The Blonde Bomber]

4 hours ago, Dalton said:

Three way matches are no disqualification because there is no way for them not to be.

Yes there is. You could be eliminated from the match if you do something against the rules. Which would be logical.

[Dalton]

Just now, The Blonde Bomber said:

Yes there is. You could be eliminated from the match if you do something against the rules. Which would be logical.

Nope. If someone runs into the ring and attacks one of the three wrestlers, who gets disqualified?

[The Blonde Bomber]

7 hours ago, Self said:

I don't think there are any more or fewer DQ's than there used to be. It's both a difference in fan perception ("boo, that dastardly heel" vs "boo, that uninspired promotion") and a confusion over what constitutes a DQ these days. When matches can continue after falling off ladders, chairs, barbed wire, flipping powerbombs to the floor, etc... What can you do that will make fans legitimately feel "This needs to stop. This is a conclusion"? Which has been a problem since the ECW era. When "No Disqualification" matches are promoted as a positive stipulation that provide fun entertainment (and none of your favourites are going to be off TV to recover for more than a few days afterwards), or course disqualifications are going to feel bad. When Triple Threats matches and Royal Rumbles are No DQ, for reasons I don't fully understand. When wrestling matches are afterthoughts or stunt shows for star ratings and the 'stories' happen in the promo bits or on Twitter... It's unsurprising. 

 

This was very well said. I agree wholeheartedly with this. That’s one big issue I’ve had with Rumbles and Battle Royals. Why would anyone stay in the ring? If it’s legal to be out of it I’m not going in until the end. Also why would someone’s stable not just come out and stay in the ring to help since they can’t be DQed.

[The Blonde Bomber]

Just now, Dalton said:

Nope. If someone runs into the ring and attacks one of the three wrestlers, who gets disqualified?

-suspend the intruder

-fine the intruder

have consequences that make it dumb for someone to do such a thing. 

[The Blonde Bomber]

9 hours ago, Dalton said:

Shouldn't a good booker be able to figure out how to do a three month build without a DQ

You’re implying a DQ is bad. When it’s a tool to advance stories.

[Dalton]

2 minutes ago, The Blonde Bomber said:

-suspend the intruder

-fine the intruder

have consequences that make it dumb for someone to do such a thing. 

? that doesn't answer the question of who gets disqualified

[The Blonde Bomber]

1 minute ago, Dalton said:

? that doesn't answer the question of who gets disqualified

The match would be stopped in a case like this. A no contest.

 

could also say anyone who interferes is fired. Then no interferences happen and that’s no longer an issue.

Edited December 21, 2023 by The Blonde Bomber

[The Blonde Bomber]

I personally think so much of this hot shotting like interference, weapons, ref bumps, etc have occurred there needs to be a major break from using these crutches. 

[FellaLibby]

1 hour ago, The Blonde Bomber said:

The match would be stopped in a case like this. A no contest.

 

could also say anyone who interferes is fired. Then no interferences happen and that’s no longer an issue.

 

1 hour ago, The Blonde Bomber said:

I personally think so much of this hot shotting like interference, weapons, ref bumps, etc have occurred there needs to be a major break from using these crutches. 

I bet you'd write all this in a dynasty and I'd love it tbh.

[Matt_Black]

6 hours ago, FellaLibby said:

I know exactly what you mean. Had a Triple Threat, ran to get a weapon, got it, and got DQ'd instantly. I believe there was an instance on that in Day Of Reckoning in a Fatal Four Way story mode as well.

If I'm not mistaken, that was the same installment that classified the Dudley Boyz as Light Heavyweights.?!?

[Self]

5 hours ago, Dalton said:

Nope. If someone runs into the ring and attacks one of the three wrestlers, who gets disqualified?

I agree with The Blonde Bomber.

Context matters. Referees shouldn't be impotent robots, unable to step in unless there's a specific written rule. They should be authorities, using their own judgement to determine the correct solution to unexpected events. And by "own judgement" I mean, "what they are booked to do". First priority should be "who is at fault?" and then punish that person. If they're part of the match, disqualified. If they're not part of the match, have security restrain them. Either way, proper punishment would be decided later by the real bosses. Second priority should be "are the victims okay?" and "can the match continue?". Context matters. Was it Brock Lesnar? Answer's probably No. No contest. Rematch when the injuries heal. If it's Grayson Waller, you can probably restart after an ad break. Did one guy take a bigger beating that the others? Referee needs to use their judgement. Maybe may make the 'wrong' decision and you make a story about it. 

It's not something I'd book often, but the threat should to be there. 

[FellaLibby]

8 hours ago, Matt_Black said:

If I'm not mistaken, that was the same installment that classified the Dudley Boyz as Light Heavyweights.?!?

I just checked and yes, they are light heavyweights... Somehow.

[Dalton]

10 hours ago, Self said:

I agree with The Blonde Bomber.

Context matters. Referees shouldn't be impotent robots, unable to step in unless there's a specific written rule. They should be authorities, using their own judgement to determine the correct solution to unexpected events. And by "own judgement" I mean, "what they are booked to do". First priority should be "who is at fault?" and then punish that person. If they're part of the match, disqualified. If they're not part of the match, have security restrain them. Either way, proper punishment would be decided later by the real bosses. Second priority should be "are the victims okay?" and "can the match continue?". Context matters. Was it Brock Lesnar? Answer's probably No. No contest. Rematch when the injuries heal. If it's Grayson Waller, you can probably restart after an ad break. Did one guy take a bigger beating that the others? Referee needs to use their judgement. Maybe may make the 'wrong' decision and you make a story about it. 

It's not something I'd book often, but the threat should to be there. 

So....no one gets disqualified, unless the referee is able to recognize that the person doing the run-in is buddies with one of the competitors, but only if they can identify that they're buddies? And if the intruder can't be identified as a friend then the match continues if possible (which would mean that the match is.........no disqualification by the way)? That is an arbitrary set of circumstances that moves the goalposts so far that it proves my argument that it isn't possible lol. 

Sure, if we uproot the rules and logic of WWE and wrestling as a whole (and leave them up for interpretation rather than having actual rules I guess?) then of course, you can do literally anything you want. You could make every match submission or surrender if you'd like to. You could make everyone have one rope break. You could make suplexes illegal. 

Remember, your original statement was that three ways are "no DQ, for reasons [you] don't fully understand," so I mentioned the main reason that is the case. Ideally there'd never be interference in any match ever but that wasn't the topic at hand. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Dalton

[The Blonde Bomber]

35 minutes ago, Dalton said:

So....no one gets disqualified, unless the referee is able to recognize that the person doing the run-in is buddies with one of the competitors, but only if they can identify that they're buddies? And if the intruder can't be identified as a friend then the match continues if possible (which would mean that the match is.........no disqualification by the way)? That is an arbitrary set of circumstances that moves the goalposts so far that it proves my argument that it isn't possible lol. 

Sure, if we uproot the rules and logic of WWE and wrestling as a whole (and leave them up for interpretation rather than having actual rules I guess?) then of course, you can do literally anything you want. You could make every match submission or surrender if you'd like to. You could make everyone have one rope break. You could make suplexes illegal. 

Remember, your original statement was that three ways are "no DQ, for reasons [you] don't fully understand," so I mentioned the main reason that is the case. Ideally there'd never be interference in any match ever but that wasn't the topic at hand. 

Well no as I said if someone just assaulted someone else in the middle of a three way match than that would be a no contest. If that’s still no DQ to you ok. 
what would you call a match that can end in a no contest? 

[The Blonde Bomber]

So let’s say we have a triple threat. Triple H v Shawn Michaels v Edge in 2004. The entirety of Evolution comes out and assaults Michael’s and Edge in front of the ref.

what should happen? 

[MightyDavidson]

39 minutes ago, The Blonde Bomber said:

So let’s say we have a triple threat. Triple H v Shawn Michaels v Edge in 2004. The entirety of Evolution comes out and assaults Michael’s and Edge in front of the ref.

what should happen? 

No contest would be logical, in my opinion.  WWE doesn't do elimination style Triple Threat matches after all, otherwise Triple H could be DQ'd and eliminated.  Not super fond of DQ finishes myself but they should be a thing sometimes, if only to provide the illusion that there are rules and consequences for breaking those rules.