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

[sabataged]

I am all for a indy guy like Punk or Danielson making it to WWE because they bust their but to get there. I just think people don't give WWE wrestlers enough credit. I am 100% sure that a large portion could go on the indy circuit and work circles around your average indy wrestler, but they aren't either allowed to or aren't asked to in today's current WWE style.

[HughBatey4]

Why are they failures? i bet in the few months they were on the main roster they were making more money than the indy workers were in a whole year or more. I wouldn't call be on RAW, Smackdown or ECW in front of millions of people complete failures. Most of those guys are being booked on Indy shows today for the simple fact they have name value.

 

They are failures because the development system is supposed to create the "stars of tomorrow".

 

How many people lined up to get an action figure of Ricky Ortiz? I bet those Spirit Squad shirts just flew off the shelves! I can promise that Pirate Paul Burchill got a lot of playtime on my copy of SvR!

 

Stars move merchandise. End of story. That's why Cena, Orton, Batista and Marella are the successes of the WWE developmental system. Santino moves shirts. Cena moves merchandise. As does Orton and Batista.

 

The Spirit Squad didn't. Ricky Ortiz didn't. None of the others did.

 

If you want to count just making it to the WWE as being a success, then let's induct Mantuar into the Hall of Fame. Or The Goon. Or Brooklyn Brawler.

 

Just getting there doesn't count. You have to succeed IN the WWE in order to be considered a success in WWE.

[MrCanada]

They are failures because the development system is supposed to create the "stars of tomorrow".

 

How many people lined up to get an action figure of Ricky Ortiz? I bet those Spirit Squad shirts just flew off the shelves! I can promise that Pirate Paul Burchill got a lot of playtime on my copy of SvR!

 

Stars move merchandise. End of story. That's why Cena, Orton, Batista and Marella are the successes of the WWE developmental system. Santino moves shirts. Cena moves merchandise. As does Orton and Batista.

 

The Spirit Squad didn't. Ricky Ortiz didn't. None of the others did.

 

If you want to count just making it to the WWE as being a success, then let's induct Mantuar into the Hall of Fame. Or The Goon. Or Brooklyn Brawler.

 

Just getting there doesn't count. You have to succeed IN the WWE in order to be considered a success in WWE.

 

You're kind of backing off your argument that WWE is completley botching the developmental system arnt you? haha. This could easily, maybe already has, become a decent debate on what makes a wrestler "good".

 

By that arguement, I would argue The Spirit Squad are better wrestlers then anyone in ROH.... Because they probably have sold more merchandise then any person on the roster from a brass-tax money stand point. Especially if you count PPV DVD's and PPV buys that they were on. They are also better wrestlers because more people know them. More people know who "Mikey of the Spirit Squad" is then Davey Richards. So Mikey > Davey Richards!

[sabataged]

They are failures because the development system is supposed to create the "stars of tomorrow".

 

How many people lined up to get an action figure of Ricky Ortiz? I bet those Spirit Squad shirts just flew off the shelves! I can promise that Pirate Paul Burchill got a lot of playtime on my copy of SvR!

 

Stars move merchandise. End of story. That's why Cena, Orton, Batista and Marella are the successes of the WWE developmental system. Santino moves shirts. Cena moves merchandise. As does Orton and Batista.

 

The Spirit Squad didn't. Ricky Ortiz didn't. None of the others did.

 

If you want to count just making it to the WWE as being a success, then let's induct Mantuar into the Hall of Fame. Or The Goon. Or Brooklyn Brawler.

 

Just getting there doesn't count. You have to succeed IN the WWE in order to be considered a success in WWE.

 

Hall of Fame = Success now? Wow your a bit dillusional. How many Danielson or whoever's indy action figures have been sold lately?

[Bigpapa42]

I'm assuming he was discussing WWE-success. I think ANYONE in wrestling who spends more then a blink (like a squash match) on WWE TV is a success to an extent. People way to often (and as I've said, me too) think the only way someone isnt a bad wrestler is if they are Bryan Danielson (or a worker who typically has interent-friendly matches) but you have to admit, whether you like it or not. There's a reason Benoit/Jericho/Guerrero/Angle never reached the heights of Hogan/Rock/Austin/Andre the Giant (aka becoming popular culture). I dont think anyone would say the last 4 are as good wrestling as the first 4, but the last 4 make more money and are more known in wrestling... so doenst that in some stupid way make them the best wrestlers?

 

(NOTE: I would rather watch Benoit vs. Jericho any day of the week. But I'm simply stating a fact. Just as I prefer the White Stripes, I must admit U2 is doing something better then them because they sell more records, which permits the argument they are the better band)

 

That, of course, raises the question of whether popular = better. Which is a whole debate unto itself.

[MrCanada]

That, of course, raises the question of whether popular = better. Which is a whole debate unto itself.

 

New thread possibly? haha.

 

I personally think you have to say popular = better. At least from where I live. I'm born and raised in Canada so I can only speak for what I know and thats democracy (I'm told thats what we have). In a democracy, the popular vote is the one that wins. Being "better" would assume you are also the "winner", to some extent at least.

 

I mean, I'm like a lot of people, especially on an internet board like this, especially as a 22-year old white male. I prefer often the stuff that isnt on the radio, or isnt the highest rated TV show, or isnt the most popular wrestler, or what have you. To me, Jack White is WAY better then Bono. Evan Bourne is one thousand times better then John Cena. Survivorman (look it up) is WAY better then How I Met Your Mother. I want to get that out of the way, and make sure if you are going to attempt to tear me a new one you note that I'm not a "POP CULTURE! YAY!" person.

 

Anyhow, to often I think people confuse opinion with fact or truth, especially in the recent times of "we're all special!" and the internet where you can say whatever you want. Whenever you want to argue that something is better then something else, you have to measure whatever is measurable between them. For TV shows, its ratings. For movies its box office & dvd sales. For music you have to look at record sales & concert attendance/money grossed. You cant measure how awesome Jack White is. Even if I give him 5 Stars on some scale i made up in my head and 2 stars to Bono, that doenst measure on a wider plain to anything else.

[HughBatey4]

Hall of Fame = Success now? Wow your a bit dillusional. How many Danielson or whoever's indy action figures have been sold lately?

 

The point is going over your head. I described what makes a WWE wrestler successful. I never said the Spirit Squad is better than Danielson. (Though on a similar note, Danielson is overrated. Good, but overrated.) However, by what makes a WWE wrestler successful and keeps them employed, is making money for the company. Danielson is a total black hole of charisma, so he will sell exactly ZERO t-shirts unless the IWC buys them. The point is being successful in WWE is different than being successful in wrestling. Just to clarify, WWE and wrestling are two different things. WWE is purely about money and merchandise.

 

Example of what I'm saying is CM Punk. Is he half the wrestler he was in RoH or IWA:MS? Absolutely not. This is Diet CM Punk. However, he retooled his style to fit more with WWE's idea of a wrestler. He's still there. He's a top guy, and he's moving merchandise.

[sabataged]

The point is going over your head. I described what makes a WWE wrestler successful. I never said the Spirit Squad is better than Danielson. (Though on a similar note, Danielson is overrated. Good, but overrated.) However, by what makes a WWE wrestler successful and keeps them employed, is making money for the company. Danielson is a total black hole of charisma, so he will sell exactly ZERO t-shirts unless the IWC buys them. The point is being successful in WWE is different than being successful in wrestling. Just to clarify, WWE and wrestling are two different things. WWE is purely about money and merchandise.

 

Example of what I'm saying is CM Punk. Is he half the wrestler he was in RoH or IWA:MS? Absolutely not. This is Diet CM Punk. However, he retooled his style to fit more with WWE's idea of a wrestler. He's still there. He's a top guy, and he's moving merchandise.

 

Ya I looked up and have no idea what you're talking about. WWE is the top is US wrestling...they are the Pro Leagues...so making it to WWE is about every wrestlers dream when they set out. So how is it not = successful?

[HughBatey4]

Ya I looked up and have no idea what you're talking about. WWE is the top is US wrestling...they are the Pro Leagues...so making it to WWE is about every wrestlers dream when they set out. So how is it not = successful?

 

Once again, you + my point = not getting it.

 

I'm not debating that making it to WWE makes you a successful wrestler, I'm saying that you have to do more to be successful IN WWE.

[sabataged]

Once again, you + my point = not getting it.

 

I'm not debating that making it to WWE makes you a successful wrestler, I'm saying that you have to do more to be successful IN WWE.

 

oh ok there is a difference in opinion then. I consider hitting WWE being successful. Then the guys that really truly become stars are a whole different ball

[Stennick]

Normally popular equals better. The biggest selling movies, the biggest selling musical artists. They get hated on for being "mainstream" or what have you but in reality if 100 million people like what your doing then guess what your doing something the majority of the public considers good. Since atleast in most countries these days the majority rule.

 

So who should judge who the best is? The same people that judge everything else the majority. It might not be your opinion. Afterall all some people thought Palin would make a good VP so they voted that direction. They might feel like she would have done a better job in office than the people we have in there now. The fact is the majority of the people voted that McCain and her would not.

 

Same thing with ROH and the NWA. People forget that entertainment has always drawn more fans than pure wrestling. People like to say JCP was close to McMahon before he sold WCW but truthfully McMahon was making money hand over fist if JCP was even close to Vince he would have been making more than enough money to NOT sell.

 

Now you get the same argument with ROH (they used to argue it with TNA as well but now days even TNA's biggest fans struggle to argue for them being a better pure wrestling show). How many times do you hear that if ROH could get a t.v deal, or a pay per view deal or get seen by a national audience that they could become a thread to Vince.

 

They might double or triple their business but then again maybe not. That form of wrestling has been dead since the 1990's. I'm 27 and I barely remember the Steamboat/Flair matches which really have to be regarded as some of the last mainstream "pure" wrestling matches. Sure some younger kids may latch on to the product of pure wrestling but for every 14 year old kid that likes it ten more are most likely going to be bored to death with it.

 

I don't understand how if your the best which in itself is a judgment of people if your the not the most popular. If you and ten of your friends think ROH is better than the WWE thats an individual judment. However the minute we put that judgment to a larger scale of multiple outlets we would quickly see thats the minority vote.

 

Individually we can think and judge whatever we want to be the best and it is the best. Its the best in our opinion. However to be generally regarded as the best I don't think theres any doubt you need the approval of the masses.

 

I hear all the time people say "well Vince is holding so and so back". That may be but remember Chris Benoit? People said he was the best wrestler in the world bar none. Vince GAVE him the World Title, he pushed him to the moon. He beat HHH and HBK two of the biggest names of the past decade at Wrestlemania. Then he did it AGAIN the very next month. Both clean victories. Did this set the world on fire? Not at all. But why not if he was the "best" wrestler in the world and all he needed was a chance?

 

We are all different people and all of our opinions matter the same. Thats why to truly get the feeling of who the best is in any area have to add up all of those equal votes towards the best and it usually becomes quite clear who the best is.....its who the most popular is.....because if your the most popular that obviously means more people have decided your the best. Its a perfect circle. That being said the best can change daily, weekly, hourly, its not a set title its a moment by moment thing.

 

So yes I don't see how you can say the best isn't the most popular when obviously if 10 people say one guy is the best and a 100 people say another guy is the best how can you not concede to the majority? They don't have to be your favorite, or your personal best and you might hate them but as much as it sucks their considered the best for a reason.

[sabataged]

Normally popular equals better. The biggest selling movies, the biggest selling musical artists. They get hated on for being "mainstream" or what have you but in reality if 100 million people like what your doing then guess what your doing something the majority of the public considers good. Since atleast in most countries these days the majority rule.

 

So who should judge who the best is? The same people that judge everything else the majority. It might not be your opinion. Afterall all some people thought Palin would make a good VP so they voted that direction. They might feel like she would have done a better job in office than the people we have in there now. The fact is the majority of the people voted that McCain and her would not.

 

Same thing with ROH and the NWA. People forget that entertainment has always drawn more fans than pure wrestling. People like to say JCP was close to McMahon before he sold WCW but truthfully McMahon was making money hand over fist if JCP was even close to Vince he would have been making more than enough money to NOT sell.

 

Now you get the same argument with ROH (they used to argue it with TNA as well but now days even TNA's biggest fans struggle to argue for them being a better pure wrestling show). How many times do you hear that if ROH could get a t.v deal, or a pay per view deal or get seen by a national audience that they could become a thread to Vince.

 

They might double or triple their business but then again maybe not. That form of wrestling has been dead since the 1990's. I'm 27 and I barely remember the Steamboat/Flair matches which really have to be regarded as some of the last mainstream "pure" wrestling matches. Sure some younger kids may latch on to the product of pure wrestling but for every 14 year old kid that likes it ten more are most likely going to be bored to death with it.

 

I don't understand how if your the best which in itself is a judgment of people if your the not the most popular. If you and ten of your friends think ROH is better than the WWE thats an individual judment. However the minute we put that judgment to a larger scale of multiple outlets we would quickly see thats the minority vote.

 

Individually we can think and judge whatever we want to be the best and it is the best. Its the best in our opinion. However to be generally regarded as the best I don't think theres any doubt you need the approval of the masses.

 

I hear all the time people say "well Vince is holding so and so back". That may be but remember Chris Benoit? People said he was the best wrestler in the world bar none. Vince GAVE him the World Title, he pushed him to the moon. He beat HHH and HBK two of the biggest names of the past decade at Wrestlemania. Then he did it AGAIN the very next month. Both clean victories. Did this set the world on fire? Not at all. But why not if he was the "best" wrestler in the world and all he needed was a chance?

 

We are all different people and all of our opinions matter the same. Thats why to truly get the feeling of who the best is in any area have to add up all of those equal votes towards the best and it usually becomes quite clear who the best is.....its who the most popular is.....because if your the most popular that obviously means more people have decided your the best. Its a perfect circle. That being said the best can change daily, weekly, hourly, its not a set title its a moment by moment thing.

 

So yes I don't see how you can say the best isn't the most popular when obviously if 10 people say one guy is the best and a 100 people say another guy is the best how can you not concede to the majority? They don't have to be your favorite, or your personal best and you might hate them but as much as it sucks their considered the best for a reason.

 

Hey when you go on your book tour can I get an autograph

[Stennick]

Ten bucks for my name, another ten for personalized copy

[sabataged]

Ten bucks for my name, another ten for personalized copy

 

I'll just settle for Dustin Diamond's...

[HughBatey4]

oh ok there is a difference in opinion then. I consider hitting WWE being successful. Then the guys that really truly become stars are a whole different ball

 

At least we're on the same page now. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

 

I'm impressed with the amount of intelligent individuals on this board. The other wrestling forum I frequent, http://gwhforum.proboards.com/index.cgi, is sadly full of inbred morons.

[GDE71]

I want to clearly say that popular does not equal better as far as true quality is concerned. Now you can say something that is popular has been marketed better and therefore has become more popular. However, that does not make them better(more talented).

 

There are plenty of examples of turds in the entertainment industry being polished and marketed to the point they become popular.

[mistaken]

which is better Lamborghini Diablo or Toyota Carolla.

 

I know which is the more popular buy. and to be honest if we include house wives in the voting I know which would still be the more commonly recognized.

 

but are you really going to argue which is the better car.

 

better can be an opinion thing, music. But it can also be a quantifiable fact thing, computers.

 

So saying Popular has anything to do with better is to truly mislead yourself.

 

One more example, Intel's celeron processor is one of it's best selling most popular chips. It is also it's Worst chip. There are many things like this in life.

 

When something is designed for mass consumption, cost of production is added to the equation, and quality is usually the first victim. Low price usually leads the product to be the most popular choice. But it is almost NEVER the best, it is merely mass marketable acceptable.

 

just my thoughts on: Popular vs Quality

[PeterHilton]

I want to clearly say that popular does not equal better as far as true quality is concerned. Now you can say something that is popular has been marketed better and therefore has become more popular. However, that does not make them better(more talented).

 

There are plenty of examples of turds in the entertainment industry being polished and marketed to the point they become popular.

 

Popular equals better in pro wrestling.

 

Pro wrestling is a work. It's a con. It's the result of carnies realizing that crowds wanted to pay to see fighters they LIKED more than they wanted to see fighters they thought were "GOOD."

 

Net fans can talk about workrate or move-set or whatever other gibberish they want, but at the end of the day the business was created specifically to trick fans into spending their money on the most popular 'fighters' in the area.

 

There was never any distinction or desire for artistic merit or critical acclaim. That's something that was invented by people who report or follow the business.

 

But the promoters? The guys running things..they understand the truth:

 

The more people you draw, the better you are.

 

That's wrestling.

[The Final Countdown]

I don't understand the whole popular=better argument. Popular=more successful, sure, but the quality of something is down to the taste of the individual. I don't see why wrestling should be looked at any differently in that respect than movies/music/TV/books etc. I can acknowledge that WWE is more successful than ROH; that's inarguable. But if I prefer to watch ROH, they're obviously better in my opinion.

[The Masked Orange]

I don't understand the whole popular=better argument. Popular=more successful, sure, but the quality of something is down to the taste of the individual. I don't see why wrestling should be looked at any differently in that respect than movies/music/TV/books etc. I can acknowledge that WWE is more successful than ROH; that's inarguable. But if I prefer to watch ROH, they're obviously better in my opinion.

 

To put it in movie terms, Harry Potter, or The Godfather?

 

To put it in book terms, Harry Potter, or To Kill a Mockingbird?

 

To put it in music terms, Black Eyed Peas, or Beethoven?

 

Yeah, some are considered "better", but the one considered not as good will always be more successful.

[PeterHilton]

I don't understand the whole popular=better argument. Popular=more successful, sure, but the quality of something is down to the taste of the individual. I don't see why wrestling should be looked at any differently in that respect than movies/music/TV/books etc.

 

Because in all those instances, creativity and artistic achievement were ALWAYS part of the equation. The people in those fields were actually concerned with making something beautiful, or original, or unique.

 

The people in pro wrestling never were. They wanted to sell tickets. That's it.

 

The fans and dorks on internet boards created this 'artistic imperative.'

 

Even guys like Jim Cornette (wrestling genius to the IWC) and Paul Heyman (same) ..when they criticize the stuff TNA and WWE do, it's not about how "creative" or "good" the shows are...it's that they feel the things they do don't make people want to watch.

 

Listen to Cornette's tirade about TNA a few pages back. What's the one thing he says consistently: "How is THIS selling our product? How is THIS making any stars?"

 

They may all have differing opinions on the means, but everyone in wrestling has the same ends in mind: selling tickets.

[PeterHilton]

To put it in movie terms, Harry Potter, or The Godfather?

 

To put it in book terms, Harry Potter, or To Kill a Mockingbird?

 

To put it in music terms, Black Eyed Peas, or Beethoven?

 

Yeah, some are considered "better", but the one considered not as good will always be more successful.

 

The Godfather was one of the most successful movies in the history of the film industry.

 

To Kill a Mockingbird sold 30 million copies at the time of it's first release in the 60s.

 

At the time it was made, Beethoven's musis WAS the pop music of the day.

[The Masked Orange]

The Godfather was one of the most successful movies in the history of the film industry.

 

To Kill a Mockingbird sold 30 million copies at the time of it's first release in the 60s.

 

At the time it was made, Beethoven's musis WAS the pop music of the day.

 

I know, but there is no sarcasm smily face

[lazorbeak]

Because in all those instances, creativity and artistic achievement were ALWAYS part of the equation. The people in those fields were actually concerned with making something beautiful, or original, or unique.

 

The people in pro wrestling never were. They wanted to sell tickets. That's it.

 

The fans and dorks on internet boards created this 'artistic imperative.'

 

Even guys like Jim Cornette (wrestling genius to the IWC) and Paul Heyman (same) ..when they criticize the stuff TNA and WWE do, it's not about how "creative" or "good" the shows are...it's that they feel the things they do don't make people want to watch.

 

Listen to Cornette's tirade about TNA a few pages back. What's the one thing he says consistently: "How is THIS selling our product? How is THIS making any stars?"

 

They may all have differing opinions on the means, but everyone in wrestling has the same ends in mind: selling tickets.

 

Peter Hilton, you are exactly right in your analysis. It's not about how good you are about throwing in a bunch of moves together or how many stars you get on some Canadian's blog, it's about getting people to buy tickets, period.

 

As far as the age-old arguments about "watering down" talent, I can tell you from my own acting experience that working in a black box-style theater is completely different from an audience of over a thousand. In the smaller venue, you can do a lot more subtle emotional beats, and basically get away with film acting- acting with your head only, speaking in your normal voice. At a big venue though, you have to deal with the fact that not everyone can see or hear what you're doing: you have to cheat out more, you have to act with your whole body, you have to project your voice to where everyone can hear you; basically you have to add a lot of unnatural things that "water down" your performance so that people know what the heck is going on. I think in wrestling it's a similar phenomena: you really can't have CM Punk singling out one person in the audience the way he could in a crowd of 500. You can't have an entire match based around mat-wrestling because some fans can barely see what is going on. You have to "cheat out" so the fans can recognize what you are doing while you fake fight somebody.

 

 

As far as WWE's tendency to bring in their own guys, I think that has a lot to do with the fact that when you train your own people they don't come in with as many bad habits and excess baggage as some indy guys. Again using the film/stage actors analogy, when you've got a non-actor, it's pretty easy to teach them film acting. With someone with stage experience, you basically have to teach them to stop doing things they have been doing unconsciously for years, or you end up with something that looks incredibly stagey/hammy/bad. With the exception of guys that have had runs in the past and guys that have worked in Japan, nobody in the current indy pool today has any real experience working in front of crowds like the WWE's, but some Indy guys get it in their heads that WWE=crap and that they shouldn't have to re-learn things they already know how to do.

[GDE71]

Just because WWE is making cash doesn't make the product better than other wrestling promotions.

 

It just means the public is bunch of inbred rednecks and illiterate jackals who will swallow anything that is fed to them. (shoot!!!)

 

 

I enjoy watching some WWE, but this is the only place I will admit it.

I enjoy watching some TNA, but this is the only place I will admit it.

If I could watch more ROH I would and I would admit it to almost anyone.

 

I do wish TNA was more like ROH because I enjoy AJ/Angle/Daniels/MCMG/Beer Money/Eric Young/Homicide(except for the escape fail) and many others.

 

I do feel if WWE wasn't so stupid that I would enjoy Cena/Morrison/Miz/Punk and a few others.