14 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
Farwell3d said on July 10th, 2012 at 9:04 am

I agree with pretty much all of that, and I would like to add another suggestion:

Hire Bobby Roode (and maybe Austin Aires.) Today.

ReplyReply
mygif

1.) Roode and Aries are both under contract with TNA.

2.) It oversimplifies things to just say “hire those guys I like.” Roode is an old-school Southern-style heel and Aries is a cruiser punching above his weight, and neither has really ever meshed with the WWF/WWE that well. More important is to create a fanbase where the guys you like can get over.

ReplyReply
mygif
ThatNickGuy said on July 10th, 2012 at 10:24 am

Basically, you’d be bringing back the Jack Tunney style role? APPROVE!

I would actually take something that CHIKARA uses for title shots: the three consecutive wins rule. In their tag matches, if a team wins three wins in a row, they earn a shot. However, if they lose once, they start from scratch. I think it’d be a smoother, easier to remember rule for the short-term memory audience.

Plus, I would bring back the flipping tag division. Take a lot of the new guys that WWE is trying to push up, pair them together in some maybe very odd ways (like the old Hart Foundation, which combined technical and power wrestlers), create actual tag team names/gimmicks (matching tights and all) for them and THEN let them get over with the audience with a slow burn. That way, you get to showcase 4 new guys at a time instead of trying to get each of them over by shoving them down our throats, whether we want them or not.

Best of all, by doing this, you team up the old Kings of Wrestling tag team and let them be your new, top tag team. Most important, KEEP those goddamn teams together for several years. Make them just as marketable as single wrestlers. Don’t rush to split them up.

ReplyReply
mygif
Oddstar5 said on July 10th, 2012 at 1:09 pm

I also agree. Make every match as important as possible. Actually, I would go even further: publish rankings for every wrestler in the company. Every time a wrestler wins a match with a higher-ranked wrestler, he moves up a spot. Every time he loses to a lower-ranked wrestler, he moves down a spot. The number one contender is guaranteed a title shot. You can publish different ranking lists for each separate belt. Anytime a wrestler wins a belt, he moves to the bottom of all the other lists, making it very difficult for any wrestler to hold multiple belts. It might be a good idea to cut down on the number of belts though, as you suggested.

But as good as some of these ideas are for wrestling, they would be even better for boxing. If you think the WWE has too many title belts, just look at boxing. It’s pretty much gotten to the point where every boxer has a belt.

Boxing seriously needs to merge the WBA, the WBC, the IBF, the WBO, and The Ring (at least insofar as it is a belt-granting organization) into a single boxing organization. It also would not be out of the question to cut down on the number of weight classes. Do we really need 14 weight classes, each with five different championship belts, one for each belt-awarding organization?

Secondly, boxing seriously needs to publish rankings of contenders, with clear and enforced rules about how contenders move up and down the rankings (they should basically follow the rules I gave before: beat someone higher, move up; lose to someone lower, move down). The number one contender should be guaranteed a title shot within a certain amount of time.

That would get rid of a lot of the corrupt politics within boxing that have frequently prevented great contenders from getting the title shots they deserve. It would also mean that every fight would potentially matter for the championship picture.

Right now, boxing really seems to be dying as a sport. There was a time when the world heavyweight champion was a household name. Everyone knew who Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Mike Tyson were, just to name a handful. How many people do you think know who Wladamir Klitschko is? It needs to change if it’s going to come back.

ReplyReply
mygif

See, I’ve always thought that good wrestling is based on good storylines. The reaction to the AJ/Daniel Bryan/CM Punk/Kane feud has been good, but then Kane gets shoveled into something else without that arc ever being resolved.

There’s been three “great” periods in wrestling history so to speak…

WWF-Rock & Wrestling Era
WCW-nWo Era
WWF-Attitude Era

Each of those featured one, engaging major storyline (Hulk Hogan’s dominance, nWo vs WCW, Stone Cold vs Vince McMahon), but also interesting feuds between midcard wrestlers that served to propel them to the Main Event.

CM Punk’s Summer of Rebellion, which some dubbed “The Reality Era” could’ve been the next step, but the WWE f’d it up and now it’s been the same old, same old. Lazy writing, feuds and teams haphazardly thrown together, meaningless matches, and the like.

ReplyReply
mygif

One Word: Luchadores

ReplyReply
mygif

I think WWE would also need to rebuild the cruiserweight division it’s willingly sacrificed to TNA. The WWE house style isn’t that entertaining in and of itself, and it’s made worse by the fact that so many of their wrestlers just seem like height and weight gradation of the same template.

ReplyReply
mygif

I could think of some ideas myself:

1) Bring back the Survivor Series matches, and have the “survivors” compete in a “Sole Survivor” battle royal in the match before the main event, wherein the winner gets the spot of his choice in the Royal Rumble.

2) Make all major title matches have to follow one of the following rule sets: two out of three falls, ironman, last man standing, Texas death match, steel cage (pinfall/submission only).

Institute a 30-minute time limit, and have three judges on hand in the event that a) the deciding fall is a DQ/countout or b) the time expires with both wrestlers at the same score (1-1 or 0-0 for a 2/3 fall match, for example).

The title can only change hands if the typical victory condition is met, or if the judges make a unanimous decision in favor of the challenger.

If the match ends in a split decision in favor of the challenger, he will not receive the title, but will be entitled to a rematch within 30 days (it could probably make for a Rocky 2-type scenario, so there’s that).

3) Would it kill them to do 6-man tags under trios rules*? This one is sort of incidental, but whatever.

Then again, this is wrestling, in which it apparently took until last decade for some booker to put a guy who goes by “The Hammer” in a team with a guy who goes by “The Anvil”, so as logical as any of these ideas may seem, it’s unlikely that any of them will come to light.

* For anyone who doesn’t know, trios typically involves two 3-man teams, each with a designated captain. It goes 2/3 falls, each fall being scored when a) the captain is pinned or submits or b) both non-captains on a given team are pinned/submit.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Crazed Spruce said on July 11th, 2012 at 1:58 am

Good article. I have a few other suggestions, though….

1: Beef up the tag team division. Right now, they have two, maybe three legitimate tag teams. And out of the past dozen or so tag champions, most of the teams were made up of two main-even caliber wrestlers slumming in the tag division to win the titles. (I loved The Rock ‘n Sock Connection back in the day, but they set a bad precedent.) And nine times out of ten, when they do bring in a decent tag team, within months they’ve split them apart into single competitors, neither of whom make it out of the midcard. What’s the point of even having tag team titles if you don’t seem to give a damn about them?

2: Improve the Divas division. I mean, sure, I like seeing attractive women in hot pants and halter tops rolling around with each other as much as the next guy, but they need to follow Impact Wrestling’s lead (well, TNA’s lead from a couple of years ago, at least), and start hiring women wrestlers based on how they perform in the ring, and not how they look in spandex. (Basically, right now, they have Beth Phoenix (who had a good run, but was buried in the roster once she dropped the belt), Natalia Neidhart (who didn’t even get the title run before her burial), and Kharma (who made one appearance since coming back from maternity leave), along with a bunch of bikini models. It’s kinda telling that, even now, Impact Wrestling has a much better women’s division, even though their current Knockout champ competed in the last Hooter’s Girl bikini pageant, and one of their biggest faces humps the ring rope when she enters the ring.)

3: The next time you hire a large, intimidating slab of meat, make sure he can actually wrestle first. For every Kane, Big Show, and Undertaker, there are about twenty Great Kalis and Giant Gonsalezes. Intimidating, sure, but they move like statues in the ring. And good luck getting them to work a match longer than two minutes….

ReplyReply
mygif

The problem with any sort of ranking system is it interferes with WWE’s main booking strategem, which is “whatever catches Vice’s attention right now.” It kneecaps your ability to book completely on the fly, for better or worse.

I’v lost track of the number of times that TNA’s introduced a ranking system only to abandon it a few weeks later.

Crazed Spruce, you might be pleased to hear that WWE’s reportedly offered Sara Del Rey a contract (which is the first thing I’d do if I was booking the Divas or Knockouts). Whether it’s to wrestle on TV or train Divas behind the scenes remains to be seen, I guess.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jason Barnett said on July 11th, 2012 at 11:01 pm

The problem with number three is if the potential challenger attacks the champ enough then the champ will insist on defending the belt against him.

WCW had five titles at it’s peak, World, US, TV, Crusierweight, Tag Team

Crazed Spruce: WWE actually has more teams than that. Currently there’s Truth and Kofi, THe Prime Time Players, The Colons, The Uso, Hunico and Camacho, Reks and Hawkins and depending on if Kidd’s slight singles push screws it up Justin Gabriel and Tyson Kidd

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 12th, 2012 at 2:00 am

It might have been me? I dunno.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Crazed Spruce said on July 12th, 2012 at 8:54 pm

@Karl: Yeah, I heard that news after I posted. Haven’t seen Sarah Del Rey wrestle, but I’ve heard nothing but good things. If they don’t have Kelly Kelly squash her, it ought to be good. The problem is, they’re probably gonna have Kelly Kelly squash her. (Remember when Gail Kim went back to WWE? How’d that work out for her?)

@Jason Barnett: R-Truth and Kofi Kingston are two mid-carders that were slapped together as a tag team because they’re still over with the crowd, but creative didn’t have anything for them. I’d be amazed if they’re still together this time next month. Hawkins and Rex are too busy being squashed by whatever new or repackaged wrestler Vince is trying to push in any given week to be considered serious contenders. By the time Tyson Kidd’s singles push fizzles out, they’ll have repackaged Justin Gabriel, so that tag team is pretty much dead. That leaves four teams. And four teams do not a tag division make.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jason Barnett said on July 13th, 2012 at 4:50 am

Kofi and Truth are two guys they wanted in the tag division, but didn’t pan out with Air Boom and Awesome Truth

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments