Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 17, 2002 this was on 411wrestling, by Eric S. "WWE does not stand for World Wrestling Entertainment. It stands for WWF/WCW/ECW, taking the first letters of each. It's an amalgamation, and all amalgamations, especially those with differing viewpoints on the same business, have protracted growing pains, especially if the companies themselves don't recognize it. With this match and with the appearance of Bischoff, WWE finally has recognized themselves for what they are. Look at the participants: Ric Flair: the man who embodied NWA/WCW Rob Van Dam: the exemplar of ECW The Undertaker: the thread of continuity over the past decade plus of the WWF Brock Lesnar: the first star produced by the amalgamation known as WWE This was recognition of the fact that the parts of the amalgamation make up the whole, each with a unique history, each with things they've all brought to the table. Assimilation into the WWF philosophy obviously did not work. They've finally realized that the best approach to take is to combine the best aspects of all three organizations under the umbrella, something they didn't recognize due to Vince's egomaniacal self-love-fest in finally winning the war once and for all. Once the afterglow wore off and Vince could see the self-inflicted damage that attitude had wrought, he realized what I just explained. That was the purpose of this match. Recognize the past, introduce the future, solidify the present. It's Brock Lesnar who represents this amalgamation better than anyone else. He has the fantastic wrestling talent that WCW had on tap during its best times. He has the propensity for outright violence and barely-controlled chaos of ECW. He has the charisma and potential audience drawing power that the WWF always looked for. He's not the Next Big Thing, he's the future of the organization." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nezbyte Report post Posted July 17, 2002 I said this and got laughed at on here. Or at the BYWL. One of the two. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 17, 2002 I actually think its pretty cool. The WWE should combine the best apsects of the 3 feds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Flyboy Report post Posted July 17, 2002 "It's Brock Lesnar who represents this amalgamation better than anyone else. He has the fantastic wrestling talent that WCW had on tap during its best times. He has the propensity for outright violence and barely-controlled chaos of ECW. He has the charisma and potential audience drawing power that the WWF always looked for. He's not the Next Big Thing, he's the future of the organization." ... Sorry that statement was funny. Anyways, I never noticed it until now, but... they're right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Psycho Diablo Report post Posted July 17, 2002 Get used to our future. Lesnar, Bradshaw, and Bubba Dudley. *edit* Oh, and Edge..bah gawd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smeghead Report post Posted July 17, 2002 He has the charisma and potential audience drawing power that the WWF always looked for. The key word there is "potential". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted July 17, 2002 I actually think its pretty cool. The WWE should combine the best apsects of the 3 feds. Should... unfortunately they're doing the exact opposite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted July 17, 2002 Did I miss the point in time where Brock showed any of this on WWE TV? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jester Report post Posted July 17, 2002 "It stands for WWF/WCW/ECW, taking the first letters of each." For a minute I thought they meant "taking the first word of each", meaning that WWE actually stood for "World World Extreme." I was confused there for a moment. jester Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Diesel Report post Posted July 17, 2002 Interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Just call me Dan Report post Posted July 17, 2002 How can anyone exemplify the best aspects of each of those three feds when they all copied eachother? Think about it. ECW's hardcore style was quickly on WWE TV as "Attitude" and both feds had "Hardcore" matches and titles. WCW went for WWF's Shock TV approach when Russo was in town. They all tried the same ideas at the same time, and now they have nothing. You can say they should combine all the good things from each three, but they are already doing it. The only way to do that is to use the only thing that was different. The wrestlers. They have those, but using ideas that they copied, had copied and feel like rehashing is NOT going to be an answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest deadbeater Report post Posted July 20, 2002 Ideally it should be WCW quality in-ring, combined with ECW management attitude and wrestlers' work ethic, and WWF out-of ring production and packaging. Instead we got WCW attitude and work ethic(right before the dissolution), ECW production and WWF in-ring style. Worst of the three. Time to add Chemical X to this sh--. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 20, 2002 dont forget the suger and spice either Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoSelfWorth Report post Posted July 21, 2002 Who gives a shit, they still suck dick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted July 21, 2002 Who gives a shit, they still suck dick. As the late Jim Backus once stated, that was very "deep and profound". Actually, while I often wonder the same thing I think those who cared to respond to this thread actually give a shit, as well as the author of the original piece. As fror the topic, I have to agree with bps. Brock has yet to show me any charisma or wrestling 'skill'. I would blame this on the fed rather than brock himself but if his current incarnation is the future then the future looks bleak. As for the blending of the 3 feds, I disagree. At its heart, ECW was a blend of different wrestling styles that attempted to attract us 'smarts' with technical wrestling while hoping the bloodlust of the vampires would be satisfied with the ECW brawling. WCW also offered different styles of wrestling (most noticably the cruisers). Unfortunately, the fed in its current state offers no variation, no individuality, and no reason for the fans to be attracted to any particular style because everyone wrestles the same style. Even the hardcore and cruiser matches are wrestled the same way making it difficult for me to differentiate between any two particular wrestlers (save for rvd, eddy and benoit). As for the shock approach, I don't think anything in wrestling surprises me anymore. Not because I read spoilers or because I subscribe to the sheets but because the storylines and the fed's lack of vision, and refusal to push NEW stars that the fans care about, makes it difficult to care. Plus, when the fed is the only major player, I wouldn't be shocked to see Goldberg or Poppa Pump show up in the same fashion that Bischoff appeared. I just accept it and move on. Right now, the only thing that could shock me in wrestling is if the fed actually hit rock bottom and lost their tv deals. I personally never thought I would see WCW go off the air. Many people believe the WWE is invincible. I'm not one of them. If Viacom felt the investment in the fed's product wasn't worth the return then I could see them dropping vinnie mac in a heartbeat. After writing that, I guess that wouldn't shock me either. I guess the only thing that would shock me right now would be RVD actually winning and retaining the belt for a long stretch of time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest M Nyland Report post Posted July 21, 2002 "World Word Extreme" I'd go see that...if for nothing else than to see what the hell they were exactly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
