Answered on 8/29
Is it just me or do most "Main Event" feuds seems to last for three months (or three PPV). Usually, one match, a re-match, and then a rubber match which is usually a gimmick match. It seems to be a trend that they do. Sometimes it works well, like with Edge and Cena last year, but more often than not it just makes me want to skip the first match as I know it's the first of many boring plot points. Thoughts?
I don't mind WWE having the "three-match" cycle with wrestlers, since I think they often rush through the feuds too quickly. Back in the days of monthly Madison Square Garden shows, it wasn't unusual to have a wrestler defeat the champion (by DQ or countout) one month, lose to the champion (maybe by DQ or countout, maybe by pin, but usually not in decisive way) and then have a gimmick match for the third one. I think the problem is WWE usually doesn't book the feud in a way that it maintains it's heat, so fans either lose interest by the time the third match happens, or, in some cases, don't care at the start because, like you, they know it is only the beginning. As you said it is "boring plot points".
I remember one of you mentioning that Diesel's reign was one of the worst drawing and being the champion he has to take a major part of the blame. My question is that with record low ppv buys, would you put a major part of the blame on the drawing power of John Cena or it's a mixture of things?
I think that if you are going to give the credit to the champion for when business is good, the champion also has to take blame when business is bad. By no means am I saying Diesel then, or Cena now, deserves the majority of the blame, since good booking and interesting characters can turn even horrible wrestlers into draws, but at the same time, if you are the top star, and people aren't coming out to see you, then yes, you have to take part of the blame. They are the names that people are (or aren't) paying to see.
There was a rumor I had heard about Bruiser Brody that I had always wondered about. I'd heard he either wanted to have his final run before retirement be in WWE, but it didn't pan out and he ended up going back to Puerto Rico, or after that Puerto Rico tour he wanted to do that last run in WWE. Are either versions of this rumor true?
Brody definitely wasn't going to WWE after his tour of Puerto Rico for WWC. Brody was going to go over to All Japan Pro Wrestling and have a heavily hyped singles match with Stan Hansen, which would have been their first ever singles meeting. It is commonly believed that eventually WWF would have made Brody a huge offer to come in and lose in a feud with Hulk Hogan, and that Brody would "cash in" and take the offer as his career was winding down, but I have never heard that there were any talks between Brody and WWF about coming in the time that he was killed.
I have a thought that I would like to hear your opinion on. Do you think that WWE should just do 6 ppvs a year with them being every 2 months? This would give creative time to build up matches and come up with better ideas for the matches (I hope). We all know that the PPV numbers are down, I think that by doing them every 2 months this would give the fans a reason to want to pay to see them and help the numbers as well as bring back fans who have quit ordering ppvs (like me). They could keep the big 4 and incorporate 2 others into this schedule. Thank all of you for the great work that you do on this site.
Do I think WWE should do it? Absolutely. Will they do it? No chance in hell. Remember, while the buyrates are down, the PPV events are still profitable, and financially, it doesn't make sense to do less than 12 PPV events a year. While the average number of buys would no doubt increase if they did six shows a year, the total number of buys for those six shows wouldn't reach what they get now for 12 shows. WWE would rather go with the "sure thing" and milk the diehards 12 times a year, than run six shows a year to try and bring back some casual fans.
I was watching some old ECW videos, and I saw the BWO (Stevie Richard, Blue Meanie and Nova) doing an imitation of KISS. However, they had a fourth member with them, doing the Peter Criss part. Who was it?
On most shows where they did the KISS gimmick, it was legendary ECW enhancement star Devious Donn E. Allen. However, I know at least once (and possibly more than once) Pablo Marquez filled the spot.
from pwinsider
Is it just me or do most "Main Event" feuds seems to last for three months (or three PPV). Usually, one match, a re-match, and then a rubber match which is usually a gimmick match. It seems to be a trend that they do. Sometimes it works well, like with Edge and Cena last year, but more often than not it just makes me want to skip the first match as I know it's the first of many boring plot points. Thoughts?
I don't mind WWE having the "three-match" cycle with wrestlers, since I think they often rush through the feuds too quickly. Back in the days of monthly Madison Square Garden shows, it wasn't unusual to have a wrestler defeat the champion (by DQ or countout) one month, lose to the champion (maybe by DQ or countout, maybe by pin, but usually not in decisive way) and then have a gimmick match for the third one. I think the problem is WWE usually doesn't book the feud in a way that it maintains it's heat, so fans either lose interest by the time the third match happens, or, in some cases, don't care at the start because, like you, they know it is only the beginning. As you said it is "boring plot points".
I remember one of you mentioning that Diesel's reign was one of the worst drawing and being the champion he has to take a major part of the blame. My question is that with record low ppv buys, would you put a major part of the blame on the drawing power of John Cena or it's a mixture of things?
I think that if you are going to give the credit to the champion for when business is good, the champion also has to take blame when business is bad. By no means am I saying Diesel then, or Cena now, deserves the majority of the blame, since good booking and interesting characters can turn even horrible wrestlers into draws, but at the same time, if you are the top star, and people aren't coming out to see you, then yes, you have to take part of the blame. They are the names that people are (or aren't) paying to see.
There was a rumor I had heard about Bruiser Brody that I had always wondered about. I'd heard he either wanted to have his final run before retirement be in WWE, but it didn't pan out and he ended up going back to Puerto Rico, or after that Puerto Rico tour he wanted to do that last run in WWE. Are either versions of this rumor true?
Brody definitely wasn't going to WWE after his tour of Puerto Rico for WWC. Brody was going to go over to All Japan Pro Wrestling and have a heavily hyped singles match with Stan Hansen, which would have been their first ever singles meeting. It is commonly believed that eventually WWF would have made Brody a huge offer to come in and lose in a feud with Hulk Hogan, and that Brody would "cash in" and take the offer as his career was winding down, but I have never heard that there were any talks between Brody and WWF about coming in the time that he was killed.
I have a thought that I would like to hear your opinion on. Do you think that WWE should just do 6 ppvs a year with them being every 2 months? This would give creative time to build up matches and come up with better ideas for the matches (I hope). We all know that the PPV numbers are down, I think that by doing them every 2 months this would give the fans a reason to want to pay to see them and help the numbers as well as bring back fans who have quit ordering ppvs (like me). They could keep the big 4 and incorporate 2 others into this schedule. Thank all of you for the great work that you do on this site.
Do I think WWE should do it? Absolutely. Will they do it? No chance in hell. Remember, while the buyrates are down, the PPV events are still profitable, and financially, it doesn't make sense to do less than 12 PPV events a year. While the average number of buys would no doubt increase if they did six shows a year, the total number of buys for those six shows wouldn't reach what they get now for 12 shows. WWE would rather go with the "sure thing" and milk the diehards 12 times a year, than run six shows a year to try and bring back some casual fans.
I was watching some old ECW videos, and I saw the BWO (Stevie Richard, Blue Meanie and Nova) doing an imitation of KISS. However, they had a fourth member with them, doing the Peter Criss part. Who was it?
On most shows where they did the KISS gimmick, it was legendary ECW enhancement star Devious Donn E. Allen. However, I know at least once (and possibly more than once) Pablo Marquez filled the spot.
from pwinsider