The Wrestling Thread - Part 244

[Hunter Rider]

 

[Dr. Evil]

Mae Young Classic Spoilers:

Spoiler

- Shayna Baszler vs. Kairi Sane in the finals. During a previous Baszler match, her and the rest of the MMA Four Horsewomen taunted the WWE Four Horsewomen as Becky, Bayley and Charlotte were in attendance and Sasha appeared via Facetime from New Zealand.
- They played up the fact that Candice LaRae is married to Johnny Gargano.
- Jazzy Gabert is massively over. She gets a "Please sign Jazzy" chant.

 

[chamber-music]

Anthem trying to rip off the Hardys.

The battle over the “Broken” trademark is becoming an extremely personal affair.

The Hardys want full control of their creation. Matt Hardy created the “Broken” gimmick, while Jeff Hardy embraced it. The Hardys created and funded the gimmick on the Hardy compound, invested time and money into building the “Broken” gimmick, and were justifiably upset that a third party—Anthem Sports and Entertainment, which is the parent company of Global Force Wrestling/Impact—claimed ownership.



The two sides are actually not fighting over the “Broken Universe” trademark, because it is not trademarked by either side, but they are fighting over its ownership.

For those following the ebb-and-flow of the case, the smart move is to always follow the money. Sources tell Sports Illustrated that Impact attempted to sign Jeff Hardy to a lucrative offer, yet only offered Matt Hardy a fraction of what he had been making. Matt Hardy was also promised a position on the Impact creative team, but sources close to the situation informed SI that offer was rescinded by Impact head Jeff Jarrett.

Though the dispute has gotten ugly at times, especially on social media, it was nearly settled within the past month, according to sources close to the negotiation. Both sides came to terms on an agreement, sources say, with the Hardys paying $10,000 to $15,000 for the rights to the trademark. The deal would have included a non-disparagement clause, which Matt’s wife, Reby, mentioned on Twitter. A $1,000 fine would have been levied for the first offense, and then $5,000 penalties would have been enforced thereafter. The Hardys were even willing to sign off on a press release, publicly ending the ordeal on good terms. Yet Anthem then wanted 50 percent of all Hardy revenue, including Jeff Hardy’s art and music, which was viewed by the Hardys as a monumental heist and money-grab.

Tne Hardys may also have a legal edge in their pending lawsuit against Anthem. Impact did not pay for any of the “Broken” shoots on the Hardy compound, nor did Impact ever pay rent for filming an entire episode of Impact on-location on Matt Hardy’s property. Reby has tweeted that there were never any child labor laws signed when her son, Maxel, appeared on Impact television, nor was her father, who played the role of Senor Benjamin, ever paid for his appearances.

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/07/14/matt-jeff-hardy-boyz-broken-wwe-impact

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[Dr. Evil]

So what is with the WWE reducing Renee Young's presence on the Network?

 

[NDX]

No more pyro? What the ****?

Considering it ****ed up my hearing for a week after SummerSlam the last 2 years, that's a good thing.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

It's a cost cutting measure, to go along with no longer using pyro for entrances.

EDIT:
looks like both Talking Smack and Raw Talk will only air after branded PPVs from now on. So the weekly show is cancelled but not the whole thing.

I take it WWE is hitting hard times.

 

[Wheels]

Hypothetically, how do you think The Undertaker would have done if he was positioned as the top babyface in say 1993-1995? With WWF being more into over the top gimmicks back then, and the lasting popularity of a dark and mysterious hero like Batman, could it have worked?

 

[JabarR]

[YT]y7LcMjNszDo[/YT]

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Hypothetically, how do you think The Undertaker would have done if he was positioned as the top babyface in say 1993-1995? With WWF being more into over the top gimmicks back then, and the lasting popularity of a dark and mysterious hero like Batman, could it have worked?

Being the dark and mysterious hero worked for Sting in WCW when Nitro was winning the ratings war, and the Undertaker has always been popular, so I'm sure it would have worked. Maybe the WWF would have been more successful during the New Generation era than it was.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Hypothetically, how do you think The Undertaker would have done if he was positioned as the top babyface in say 1993-1995? With WWF being more into over the top gimmicks back then, and the lasting popularity of a dark and mysterious hero like Batman, could it have worked?

Its hard to say. Taker did main event programs during that time (Casket matches with Yoko, the mirror match at SummerSlam 94), but Vince was looking for his next Hogan and didn't view Taker as the face of the company. He seemed to view him as an Andre type (upper card special attraction that occasionally main events).

 

[Lead Cenobite]

That was probably a lot of the problem, that Vince couldn't let go of the Hogan archetype and let someone different be the man.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He tired to let Bret, Diesel and HBK be the man. His big problem was with Bret, he was basically one guy in a ocean of nothing, where the one other was his enemy. Austin of course changed everything.

Personally, don't think Taker would have worked. Back then the Deadman thing just wasn't over in that way. Not the days of Austin did Taker really start to become something bigger in the WWE context.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Its hard to say. Taker did main event programs during that time (Casket matches with Yoko, the mirror match at SummerSlam 94), but Vince was looking for his next Hogan and didn't view Taker as the face of the company. He seemed to view him as an Andre type (upper card special attraction that occasionally main events).

It took Vince a few years to find his next Hogan and when he did find it, it became one of the greatest things to ever happen to the WWE. In my opinion, the Attitude Era is the greatest era in WWE history, because they were dying from 1993-1996. There was the mass exodus of talent to WCW and the steroids scandal. Desperation was in the air and when Hall and Nash went to WCW a lot of the WWE's fanbase went to WCW. They had HBK and Bret Hart, but Bret was likely on his way out. In my opinion the turning point was the King of the Ring 1996 when Stone Cold did that now famous "Austin 3:16" promo, which led to the Austin vs. Bret Hart feud soon after and WrestleMania 13 made Austin a star.

As for Dwayne Johnson, when he was Rocky Maivia and he was getting "Rocky Sucks" and "Die Rocky Die" chants, they could have released Dwayne from his WWE contract, but they did not. That injury he suffered that kept him on the shelf in the Spring of 1997 did him a lot of good. He joined the Nation of Domination when he came back and the rest is history.

The Attitude Era also created two of the greatest feuds in WWE history: Austin vs. McMahon and Austin vs. The Rock. Now match wise, Austin vs. McMahon was not all that great, but the storylines of that feud was awesome. To me, this is what people tend to forget about the WWE these days: it wasn't ever about the matches and hasn't been for 30 years. Austin vs. McMahon had a lot of great non-wrestling segments. The matches might have been at best 5 out of 10, but the segments and angles and storylines were at least an 8.

Take away the storylines of Austin vs. McMahon and just look at it from a Wrestling Perspective........mediocre. But add in the non-wrestling stuff and it's considered one of the greatest feuds in pro wrestling history.

 

[Wheels]

My hope with WWE cutting Talking Smack and pyro is that they put more resources into producing the backstage segments and interviews on the main shows. I mean I don't give much thought to the fact that Lucha Underground doesn't use pyro. WWE's best stuff is rarely in-ring promos now and is usually pre-taped sitdown interviews, or video packages, or documentaries, or Talking Smack. Really long in-ring promos tend to lose steam and I think Impact and Lucha Underground's way of shooting stuff outside the ring is more effective. Lucha Underground is more cinematic, while TNA/Impact/GFW adopted a more gorilla vibe placing the camera outside office windows stuff like that.

The way WWE shoots things just feels old hat, and I have always kind of hated how the camera is ignored like there's not someone right there shooting conversations, and the announcers magically know everything that's going on, yet another wrestler involved in a story never sees these conversations, despite monitors being everywhere.

 

[The Batman]

Hypothetically, how do you think The Undertaker would have done if he was positioned as the top babyface in say 1993-1995? With WWF being more into over the top gimmicks back then, and the lasting popularity of a dark and mysterious hero like Batman, could it have worked?

I think the company would still be in the spot it was in, though I think a Taker title run in 1995 is preferable to Diesel having the belt in 95.

It's a shame 94-96 era Taker never got a title run.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Taker's best feuds were in the Attitude Era, so by the time that era ended, he went from a very good wrestler who was a solid main event hand to a legend.

 

[Darkness Falls]

disappointed talking smack got axed, it was definitely refreshing for superstars to truly shine on the mic

 

[aNarcHy2day]

It took Vince a few years to find his next Hogan and when he did find it, it became one of the greatest things to ever happen to the WWE. In my opinion, the Attitude Era is the greatest era in WWE history, because they were dying from 1993-1996. There was the mass exodus of talent to WCW and the steroids scandal. Desperation was in the air and when Hall and Nash went to WCW a lot of the WWE's fanbase went to WCW. They had HBK and Bret Hart, but Bret was likely on his way out. In my opinion the turning point was the King of the Ring 1996 when Stone Cold did that now famous "Austin 3:16" promo, which led to the Austin vs. Bret Hart feud soon after and WrestleMania 13 made Austin a star.

As for Dwayne Johnson, when he was Rocky Maivia and he was getting "Rocky Sucks" and "Die Rocky Die" chants, they could have released Dwayne from his WWE contract, but they did not. That injury he suffered that kept him on the shelf in the Spring of 1997 did him a lot of good. He joined the Nation of Domination when he came back and the rest is history.

The Attitude Era also created two of the greatest feuds in WWE history: Austin vs. McMahon and Austin vs. The Rock. Now match wise, Austin vs. McMahon was not all that great, but the storylines of that feud was awesome. To me, this is what people tend to forget about the WWE these days: it wasn't ever about the matches and hasn't been for 30 years. Austin vs. McMahon had a lot of great non-wrestling segments. The matches might have been at best 5 out of 10, but the segments and angles and storylines were at least an 8.

Take away the storylines of Austin vs. McMahon and just look at it from a Wrestling Perspective........mediocre. But add in the non-wrestling stuff and it's considered one of the greatest feuds in pro wrestling history.

Soooo much this!

Which is why I don't understand some of the 'criticism' of how WWE goes about it's narratives. Sure, they don't get it as right as they once did but some of the criticism is like those people walked into John Wick expecting The Godfather.

WWE's style of narrative is why Braun Strowmann is over AF and Miz has a HoF career. It's different from New Japan- which I do love too- but I know better than to expect WWE to ape that. They have a different audience and a different aim- they are and always have been about 'sports-entertainment'.

Do I like the fact that they go overboard with company branding terms like 'Superstars'? No, I don't. But it doesn't change the fact that they just look at the genre differently.

And in all this, there is no real right and wrong in the broad sense- companies will do what works for them in the long run- if something doesn't work, they'll hopefully change or risk extinction.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Soooo much this!

Which is why I don't understand some of the 'criticism' of how WWE goes about it's narratives. Sure, they don't get it as right as they once did but some of the criticism is like those people walked into John Wick expecting The Godfather.

WWE's style of narrative is why Braun Strowmann is over AF and Miz has a HoF career. It's different from New Japan- which I do love too- but I know better than to expect WWE to ape that. They have a different audience and a different aim- they are and always have been about 'sports-entertainment'.

Do I like the fact that they go overboard with company branding terms like 'Superstars'? No, I don't. But it doesn't change the fact that they just look at the genre differently.

And in all this, there is no real right and wrong in the broad sense- companies will do what works for them in the long run- if something doesn't work, they'll hopefully change or risk extinction.

Also, remember back in the 80s.....one of the greatest feuds during that time was Hogan vs. Andre and neither of them were great and in fact both were very mediocre in the ring. The thing that made the feud so iconic was the storytelling. In fact, Hogan at best was a 5/10 wrestler.

This is what people tend to forget about WWE. Austin vs. McMahon was never Okada vs. Omega in regards to match quality. But what made the feud so memorable was the story. Stone Cold holding Vince at gunpoint with a toy gun, destroying Vince's expensive car with a cement truck, the beer bath on Vince and his goons, all memorable moments in that storyline.

For me these days, if the storyline leading up to a match is awesome, the quality of the match is secondary. I love the Braun vs. Roman feud but hated the Alexa vs. Bayley feud.

 

[Loki882]

The problem is that WWE rarely gets it's storytelling right these days either. And when they do, they sort of just blunder into it basically. Braun vs. Roman is actually a great example of this as Braun is supposed to be the heel in this, yet the crowd doesn't treat him as such.

So NJPW does both storytelling AND match quality better these days.

 

[famicommander]

I take it WWE is hitting hard times.

Not quite yet, but there are signs.

They are still getting huge revenue, they're still profitable, and they're probably still more than 10X bigger than their two closest competitors (NJPW and CMLL).

But:
-Attendance is falling, and has been for years
-TV ratings are in free fall and have been for years
-The average age of a WWE viewer has increased from early to mid 20s to mid 50s in 15 years, meaning they are not creating new long-term fans
-Raw and Smackdown are in no danger of cancellation but USA will likely make WWE take a HUGE reduction in TV rights fees when their current deal expires at the end of next year. TV revenue is BY FAR their biggest source of income at the moment.
-WWE Network is growing but not nearly at the rate that TV viewership, attendance, and likelt PPV buys have been dropping

Basically, WWE is well beyond the state of stagnation and showing early signs of major decline.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

I was gonna try and get back into this thread hoping to discuss some ideas as none of my mate are into wrestling but I'll be honest seeing the same crap posted over and over again nah I'm good lol

 

[famicommander]

The problem is that WWE rarely gets it's storytelling right these days either. And when they do, they sort of just blunder into it basically. Braun vs. Roman is actually a great example of this as Braun is supposed to be the heel in this, yet the crowd doesn't treat him as such.

So NJPW does both storytelling AND match quality better these days.

Every major promotion except Jeff Jarrett's gong show and maybe AAA does match quality better. By a lot.

 

[The Apocalypse]

I was gonna try and get back into this thread hoping to discuss some ideas as none of my mate are into wrestling but I'll be honest seeing the same crap posted over and over again nah I'm good lol

Huh?