This is a discussion on Lance Storm's Rules of Wrestling within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; I think sometimes randomly throwing out a stipulation match out of nowhere for the hell of it can be great, ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
I think sometimes randomly throwing out a stipulation match out of nowhere for the hell of it can be great, however of course I'm talking about, like, once a every few years.
WWE bookers are just sit-com writers who write to please Vince, and TNA bookers are just plain morons.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
None of these are exactly ground-breaking or revolutionary, it's more just common sense. But nowadays, these "Rules of Wrestling" can't really be described as common sense and instead uncommon sense with how many bookers are fucking this up.
I agree with just about everything he had to say. Three things I want to disagree/nit-pick about though:
1) I don't agree that all World Title matches have to be strictly 1-on-1 matches. It's perfectly reasonable for there to be 3, 4, 5, or even 6 wrestlers. For the most part though, I agree it should be mostly 1-on-1. Then you can treat those unique matches where there's more than one guy battling for the belt... because it actually would be unique if you booked it that way. Trying to advertise a Six Man Scramble for the World Title as a unique match is kind of like selling snake oil because it's starting to happen all the time.
2) Santino kind of was treated as Beth Phoenix's sort-of-manager at first, but then we all know what's happened and how he's become this Santina crap.
3) Everything he said about TNA was spot on... but it's useless. They are beyond repair because they are so far up their own ass that they've gotten use to the smell of their own shit and aren't trying to get their heads out anymore.
BTW that thing Davey said was brilliant.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree with just about everything he had to say. Three things I want to disagree/nit-pick about though:
1) I don't agree that all World Title matches have to be strictly 1-on-1 matches. It's perfectly reasonable for there to be 3, 4, 5, or even 6 wrestlers. For the most part though, I agree it should be mostly 1-on-1. Then you can treat those unique matches where there's more than one guy battling for the belt... because it actually would be unique if you booked it that way. Trying to advertise a Six Man Scramble for the World Title as a unique match is kind of like selling snake oil because it's starting to happen all the time.
I don't think they have to be strictly 1v1, but they should predominantly be. Its about presenting the champion as the best wrestler. That's moreso proven in a contest against one other opponent. This is particularly important when you are looking at big matches, and title changes. Because becoming the new champion shouldn't just be about winning the belt, but beating the current champion. In mutli-man matches, that often doesn't happen. And its usually not the wrestler who wins who inflicts most of the damage on the champion.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I don't think they have to be strictly 1v1, but they should predominantly be. Its about presenting the champion as the best wrestler. That's moreso proven in a contest against one other opponent. This is particularly important when you are looking at big matches, and title changes. Because becoming the new champion shouldn't just be about winning the belt, but beating the current champion. In mutli-man matches, that often doesn't happen. And its usually not the wrestler who wins who inflicts most of the damage on the champion.
Yes but the point is not that you shouldn't have multi-man matches, it is more the way WWE handles them. Personally, I would rarely if ever have the title change hands in a multi-man match, because as you say, it makes it look like the new Champion doesn't really deserve it. One thing that should NEVER happen is the title changing hands without the Champ being pinned, such as Jeff Hardy's title win at Armageddon. This is especially true if the new Champion is a face, as Jeff obviously was. That just makes the Champ look so weak and devalues the title as well as harming them.
Multi-man title matches do serve a purpose though. For an example of how it can be done right, look no further than Wrestlemania XX. Would you say Benoit looked worse because the match he won the belt in wasn't one on one? No. He went in there with two of the best, survived double teams, made the Champion tap out and walked out with the belt.
Multi-man title matches are also good for title defences without a new Champion. I love seeing champs retain in triple threats and fatal four ways. It just makes things a bit more interesting and can actually make the Champion look better if he is able to survive in a match in which the odds are not in his favour, such as facing multiple opponents. They always put over in commentary that the Champion is at a disadvantage in such a match, and so obviously it makes him look great if he is able to survive such a situation. Title CHANGES though should usually be one on one, but not always, as the Benoit example proves.
Something which is a problem in WWE and not promotions such as ROH is the role of the heel. In ROH, they use common sense so that the Champion, whoever that may be, always looks like the best wrestler in the company. In WWE, heels are always made to look so much weaker than faces that this isn't even possible. Can you imagine a heel Champion in WWE ever looking like the undisputed best wrestler on the brand? Edge always looks like a joke, Orton always looks infinitely weaker than the likes of Triple H and John Cena because he never defeats them one on one etc. WWE seems to like giving heels title wins that they don't deserve (in kayfabe) but in reality all this does is damage the credibility of the title. There are far better ways to get heels heat than this. I am not saying heels should always win matches clean, because dirty finishes have always been a big part of mainstream wrestling, but I would say that when the heel isn't even in the same league as the face, you have a problem. The Champion should always look like the best.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
