WWE New Style

[Guest jm29195]

I remember that back in December I posted something along the lines of 'all WWE new style matches will be clones of the Taker- Austin bore from Backlash 2002'

 

Despite the odd hiccup, I am pleased to say that I feel I was proven wrong on this. I mean we've had loads of really decent main event matches where the mat based transitionary moves have been used, that have proved to be equally if not more exciting than the older style.

Just look at some main events from 99-00 back when the accpeted transitionary spot was brawling into the crowd- matches such as HHH- Austin from No Mercy 99 and Rock- Austin from Wrestlemania XV don't hold up at all imo compared to their more recent equivalents.

Matches such as Lesnar/Eddie from No Way Out and the triple Threat from Backlash mean so much more when the transitionary spots are used for psychology rather than the mindless repititive brawling used in the older matches.

This also applies to the midcard aswell, where matches like RVD/Orton from Raw or Armageddon, or the Mysterio/Chavo match from No Way out tell much better stories imo, than the midcard matches from 99/00.

 

 

Personally I'm suprised and encouraged that WWE has managed to adapt most of it's workers to the groundbased low risk style and keep the crowd into it, it's definetly a positive step for the long term health of the workers aswell.

 

 

Does anyone else have opinions on this, I seem to remeber a lot of people disagreeing with the new style back in December.....

[Guest duck420]

i think everyone wanted good wrestling. vince just never realized it.

[razazteca 0]

I still dont like the headlock that leads to commercial breaks.

[Guest jm29195]

I think it's better than two guys punching each other out through the crowd and then back down to the ring again, one often being led by his hair.....

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I still dont like the headlock that leads to commercial breaks.

Give's it an old school feel, that PPV main events are seen in their entirety, while TV matches have commercial breaks inserted.

[Tawren 0]

I still dont like the headlock that leads to commercial breaks.

Give's it an old school feel, that PPV main events are seen in their entirety, while TV matches have commercial breaks inserted.

I think he is referring more to it being chinlock city than to the commercial breaks.

[Guest jm29195]

Maybe it's just coincidence, but many people attribute the change to the attitude brawling style being directly in line with the wwf's desre to build and work all main event matches around the then (98) limited style of main draw Steve Austin. In effect they changed to cater to what he could do since he was making all the money for them.

Since he has retired, the loss of his influence on ring style has led to it reverting back to the post attitude match style- not always a bad thing. Matches like the recent Backlash 3 way and Raw tag main events have been increasingly reminding me of matches such as Bret/Austin from 96 and the Horseman tag matches from the early 90's- in that they utilize low risk action yet still create high drama and excitment by using psychology and building to the few highspots that are used, thus making them seem that bit more important.....

[razazteca 0]

I still dont like the headlock that leads to commercial breaks.

Give's it an old school feel, that PPV main events are seen in their entirety, while TV matches have commercial breaks inserted.

I think he is referring more to it being chinlock city than to the commercial breaks.

Commercials during a live match kills any kind of enjoyment I can get from it. Raw should go back to being taped at least that way nothing will be left out for another Burger King or Enzyte commercial.

[Guest Y2G]

I still dont like the headlock that leads to commercial breaks.

Give's it an old school feel, that PPV main events are seen in their entirety, while TV matches have commercial breaks inserted.

I think he is referring more to it being chinlock city than to the commercial breaks.

Commercials during a live match kills any kind of enjoyment I can get from it. Raw should go back to being taped at least that way nothing will be left out for another Burger King or Enzyte commercial.

Nooooo.... No tapes please. I hate the commercial breaks like the next one, but they got to pay the rent. Nothing beats live TV.

[Guest Choken One]

Taped Tv is drizzling shit.

 

I would much rather perfer the 2 minute breaks in the middle of a match then the shoddy and lackuster feeling of a taped show.

[Jebus 0]

Even if it's taped, you'll have to go to at least one or two commercial breaks during a match that's 30 mins. long like HBK's matches with Benoit and HHH on Raw...

 

Someone mentioned there were 6 breaks during Flair vs. Windham although I guess it didn't bother me cause I saw it on the DVD but still...

 

Maybe Raw can be like soccer and put ads on the right top corner of the screen...

[Guest Choken One]

Even Nascar, the MOTHERSHIP of avertisment still needs Commercial breaks.

 

The breaks pay for that 25 out of 30 minutes of goodies we got.

[razazteca 0]

Maybe Raw can be like soccer and put ads on the right top corner of the screen...

Casino Palace tatoos for everybody!

 

Here is a crazy idea......how about cutting out the 5 minute intros and show commercials instead so the match can be shown in full!

[Guest Choken One]

or cut out the Lita bullshit all together and have those two breaks during that alloted time.

 

How much trouble would Vince get in if Raw pushed it to 11:20?

 

Can Spike cut the feed? I doubt they would...

[razazteca 0]

Spike did cut to commercial unannounced during the main event.

[JoeDirt 0]

I have several tapes of RAW's from 1999, and it's really amazing how different things are from now and then. For instance, I watched Austin vs. Taker the night after KOTR 99 where Austin wins the title. Through the whole match, the only moves down other than punches, kicks, and clotheslines were two stunners, one vertical suplex, and a chokeslam. It's really kind of crazy how different things are now.

[Kizzo 0]

I have several tapes of RAW's from 1999, and it's really amazing how different things are from now and then. For instance, I watched Austin vs. Taker the night after KOTR 99 where Austin wins the title. Through the whole match, the only moves down other than punches, kicks, and clotheslines were two stunners, one vertical suplex, and a chokeslam. It's really kind of crazy how different things are now.

I missed those crash tv style matches

 

But you are correct..go back and look at some old tapes during the era of 97-2001 and you will see a big difference in the matches..

[The Tino Standard 0]

They do that mid-match commercial now to keep viewers. The theory is that if people start watching a match and they think it's good, they'll want to stick around to the end. If you put the commercial at the end, people can watch a whole match, be satisfied, then leave to watch something else.

 

It took me a long time to come around on the new WWE style, but there are still things I don't like. For instance, WAY too many chops. I know it's a nice little spot to get the crowd to go "Woooo!" but they really have no impact on the match and are used in transitions way too often.

 

The chop now is what the punch was in the Austin era.

[Guest Dazed]

I prefer chops to punches, though. When you get punched in the face in a real fight, it hurts like fuck. You do more than just recoil, especially if it's from someone the size of a WWE wrestler. A chop stings, and does hurt, but not as much as a punch. Selling it by recoilling is much more realistic, and doesn't look so silly.

[The Tino Standard 0]

I prefer chops to punches, though. When you get punched in the face in a real fight, it hurts like fuck. You do more than just recoil, especially if it's from someone the size of a WWE wrestler. A chop stings, and does hurt, but not as much as a punch. Selling it by recoilling is much more realistic, and doesn't look so silly.

Which begs the question: If you're going for a more realistic approach and a punch does so much damage, why are guys wasting time with chops?

[Guest JMA]

Which begs the question: If you're going for a more realistic approach and a punch does so much damage, why are guys wasting time with chops?

Well, supposedly there's the no-closed fist rule.

 

But aren't all fists closed?

[tekcop 0]

I prefer chops to punches, though.  When you get punched in the face in a real fight, it hurts like fuck. You do more than just recoil, especially if it's from someone the size of a WWE wrestler.  A chop stings, and does hurt, but not as much as a punch.  Selling it by recoilling is much more realistic, and doesn't look so silly.

Which begs the question: If you're going for a more realistic approach and a punch does so much damage, why are guys wasting time with chops?

Well... punches aren't exactly legal in wrestling, right?

[NoCalMike 0]

When WWE puts on matches with 2 good workers, you usually see a little something better, even though it is still toned down to comply with WWE-style standards. An example would be how whenever Regal & RVD would wrestle each other, you'd see Regal use that one suplex on RVD. Magically however, he NEVER used it on anyone else.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

I don't think the style's that much better, it's just everything being viewed in a different light, due to the IWC Golden Boy holding the title right now. Wait 'til he loses it, and the bitching about the style will resume.

[Guest BDC]

I have several tapes of RAW's from 1999, and it's really amazing how different things are from now and then. For instance, I watched Austin vs. Taker the night after KOTR 99 where Austin wins the title. Through the whole match, the only moves down other than punches, kicks, and clotheslines were two stunners, one vertical suplex, and a chokeslam. It's really kind of crazy how different things are now.

That's exactly the kind of crap I'm glad isn't on my TV anymore.

 

If that ends when Benoit loses the title, fine by me, my standards won't change.

[Guest duck420]

Even Nascar, the MOTHERSHIP of avertisment still needs Commercial breaks.

 

The breaks pay for that 25 out of 30 minutes of goodies we got.

exactly commercials are a good thing as long as they arent on my pay per view.