ACW Dumpster

[Pete]

Here's something where I agree with Slim. Just call a spade a spade. But I know you disagree.

 

[Pete]

"There is a method to everything I do"

LOL Andy are you thinking what I'm thinking? LOL

Anyway, let me give myself as an example: my first major feud was with a guy who kept beating me by, like, a point. EVERY week. Now, if I had just been told "you lost", I would have flipped out and called favouritism, etc. This way, I knew I just wasn't good enough. I got better, and eventually walked all over that guy, and most of the others in the fed.

Another time I made up a conspiracy theory that this guy was being favoured over me, as he was clearly inferior and yet kept winning. I called everybody out, made a ruckus, yadda. And that was WITH cearly visible and discernible scores. Now imagine without them.

Not enforcing my view necessarily, just sayin'...

 

[Slim]

But how can you evenly divide them? the "smaller weight" guys go here and the larger ones go here? What if the smaller ones are more talented? Or there is a mix/combo of smaller/middle guys that are more talented then the other? They will be stuck in their division.

And besides that you need non title matches cause not every match needs to be for a title or contendership. Gotta build feuds... which can be the most effective way to get a person over. Not just winning titles. So making sure everyone can compete for a title isn't the most important thing. Stories are. Paul Heyman showed that in ECW getting so many guys over... not with making sure they all managed to hold the TV title or ECW title, but with the stories they told inside the ring, their feuds. What is more memorable? Raven's title reign or Raven's feuds with Sandman and Tommy Dreamer?

Everyone can be consistently used. There is going to be a middle tier and upper mid... those are the ones that are about to be main eventers. There will always be that divide. But to just create a new division with a new title? That is excessive.

 

[Slim]

If someone would have just told you that you lost if you asked them without giving reasons... that is a poor excuse for a leader/staff member that should have been tossed from staff right after that.

I've had my feuds where there was a guy that I would face off and on for about 4 years... never beat him. Not once until our final match, his final match. I didn't accuse favoritism, I took it as I needed to find my holes, find my inconsistencies, find my flaws and make myself better. Anytime I asked why I lost... I was never told... oh you just lost cause the other person was better. I was explained why mine lacked, where it lacked, where his was better, what he was doing that I wasn't. We didn't need a points system. We needed coherent staff members that were willing to talk to people if there was a problem and explain why things were done the way they were.

There is another guy... we been feuding off and on from one fed to another... bout 6 years... he hasn't beat me one on one yet. Not one single complaint. Not one. Never beat me yet he has never complained. Didn't say favoritism. Just motivated him to push harder which motivated me to push even harder.

I'm just saying there are pros and cons to both... but the method that is at work now is working and working perfectly. The points system worked over in your fed so I wouldn't go over there and be like... hey we need to change things because my method has been successful for years everywhere. Your method hasn't had any problems in your place... so it'd be acceptable.

The method here has been effective, has not had a problem... why change it? It'd be like taking a working car and saying that changing the tires even though you've only ridden on them for a 1,000 miles is going to make everything better. It's going to ride the same, its going to feel the same. You wouldn't change the tires. So why change the system?

 

[Andy]

But how can you evenly divide them? the "smaller weight" guys go here and the larger ones go here? What if the smaller ones are more talented? Or there is a mix/combo of smaller/middle guys that are more talented then the other? They will be stuck in their division.

And besides that you need non title matches cause not every match needs to be for a title or contendership. Gotta build feuds... which can be the most effective way to get a person over. Not just winning titles. So making sure everyone can compete for a title isn't the most important thing. Stories are. Paul Heyman showed that in ECW getting so many guys over... not with making sure they all managed to hold the TV title or ECW title, but with the stories they told inside the ring, their feuds. What is more memorable? Raven's title reign or Raven's feuds with Sandman and Tommy Dreamer?

Everyone can be consistently used. There is going to be a middle tier and upper mid... those are the ones that are about to be main eventers. There will always be that divide. But to just create a new division with a new title? That is excessive.

Nah, it's not.

They're not stuck in their division. They just start there based upon their stats. Essentially, it's a way to keep more people busy, rather than them all just gunning for the middle tier's title. Doesn't mean it's any more/less prestigeous than say a cruiserweight championship would be. It creates a lack of clustering, which is horrible for contendership. Yeah, they can have good storylines, but after a while they'd become pissy if they didn't get anything in return, haha. But yeah, they can move up with W/L, and when I say move up, I mean from CW/Int to Heavyweight status, dude.

 

[Andy]

If someone would have just told you that you lost if you asked them without giving reasons... that is a poor excuse for a leader/staff member that should have been tossed from staff right after that.

I've had my feuds where there was a guy that I would face off and on for about 4 years... never beat him. Not once until our final match, his final match. I didn't accuse favoritism, I took it as I needed to find my holes, find my inconsistencies, find my flaws and make myself better. Anytime I asked why I lost... I was never told... oh you just lost cause the other person was better. I was explained why mine lacked, where it lacked, where his was better, what he was doing that I wasn't. We didn't need a points system. We needed coherent staff members that were willing to talk to people if there was a problem and explain why things were done the way they were.

There is another guy... we been feuding off and on from one fed to another... bout 6 years... he hasn't beat me one on one yet. Not one single complaint. Not one. Never beat me yet he has never complained. Didn't say favoritism. Just motivated him to push harder which motivated me to push even harder.

I'm just saying there are pros and cons to both... but the method that is at work now is working and working perfectly. The points system worked over in your fed so I wouldn't go over there and be like... hey we need to change things because my method has been successful for years everywhere. Your method hasn't had any problems in your place... so it'd be acceptable.

The method here has been effective, has not had a problem... why change it? It'd be like taking a working car and saying that changing the tires even though you've only ridden on them for a 1,000 miles is going to make everything better. It's going to ride the same, its going to feel the same. You wouldn't change the tires. So why change the system?

I get you, but even if we were to tell them that, that's just going on word - it's fallible, considering there's no proof. For all they know, we could be biased and bullshit the reason as to why they lost. See what I'm getting at? It's like writing an essay...you need your sources.

 

[Pete]

I kinda get what Slim is getting at though, Andy. Maybe we DON'T need the point system if they tell people just exactly WHY they lost anyway. As that is the main function of points.

 

[Pete]

Dude. There's no one who's more about story than I am. Ask Andy

It's just that if you have one HUGE division, you either A - end up with 20 matches each card so as to use everyone, or B - start to have people bitching about "why didn't you use me in this show?"

 

[Andy]

Hmmm...how about we have a point system, but just keep it private?

 

[Slim]

But who is gonna know they are all clustered in said division besides us?

 

[Slim]

Keeping things private is essential.

I mean I probably won't use it in written form but in mind I do it unknowingly cause you grade by each of the criteria that you are using for the points.

Plus if they were to ask... then you would have words and you would have your system and instead of showing them everything you show aspects of it because word spreads quickly so if everything is put on the table it can look bad. But explaining first, then if that doesn't work then show them the points that they lacked in, then from there... they are pretty much sol

So yeah... point system private and only on a need to know basis if someone wants to know.

But still not mandatory but it is a good top option to have when necessary. So yeah it'll be there kinda like those cars where you have the choice of going automatic or stick shift. Points is the stick shift to show how things were done.

hmmm that analogy started good but I feel it went weak... ah well

 

[Andy]

But who is gonna know they are all clustered in said division besides us?

Well, the whole point of divisions is to make them public so people know where they stand amongst the rest of the roster. It's also very nice for us, 'cause it provides a way for us to keep contention organized.

 

[Slim]

I just don't like there being too many divisions with a limited number of people. Because not all of them participate so we'll have to thin out the roster eventually which would mean we could potentially wind up with around 10 to 15 which means that 2 divisions would suffice it just fine. If we had 20 I could see a need to break it up more cause then that would be very cluttered.

Plus you have to look at perception. Cruiserweight title is always going to look like the lower tier belt to the one that is "middle title to be named." So even though they are being divided based on size... it is going to be looked upon as being divided based on stature and those in the cruiserweight will feel they have a much longer route... even if that wasn't the case as they are one that is on the cusp of getting there.

 

[Pete]

Actually Andy, i will look at your division again, as for example Stevie and Darren were fighting for Heavyweight in the PWA...it's not just about weight, it's about potential too methinks.

 

[Slim]

It is supposed to be about potential but labels carry different weight, and not just by division.

Blame WWE for that.