Shane Douglas planning ECW Reunion show

[Guest MikeSC]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

 

 

This I think is a smart move for them. If they don't try to show that they have any problem with Douglas putting on his own show and even allow ECW allums currently under contract to work on their show then perhaps those wrestlers working for Douglas may feel differently on not getting the big pay day on a WWE based ECW PPV.

Wow, you mean the WWE could attract the guys who couldn't keep a company afloat?

 

Woo hoo!

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

 

 

This I think is a smart move for them. If they don't try to show that they have any problem with Douglas putting on his own show and even allow ECW allums currently under contract to work on their show then perhaps those wrestlers working for Douglas may feel differently on not getting the big pay day on a WWE based ECW PPV.

Wow, you mean the WWE could attract the guys who couldn't keep a company afloat?

 

Woo hoo!

-=Mike

Umm, can you please reserve your trolling for the Current Events forum, thanks.

[NoCalMike 0]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

.

Err, umm, why Stephanie McMahon? Is this simply so she can have her name attached or is she going to amply destroy this ppv, the way naming her "owner of ECW brand" helped kill off the invasion angle?

[Guest MikeSC]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

 

 

This I think is a smart move for them. If they don't try to show that they have any problem with Douglas putting on his own show and even allow ECW allums currently under contract to work on their show then perhaps those wrestlers working for Douglas may feel differently on not getting the big pay day on a WWE based ECW PPV.

Wow, you mean the WWE could attract the guys who couldn't keep a company afloat?

 

Woo hoo!

-=Mike

Umm, can you please reserve your trolling for the Current Events forum, thanks.

Why not go screw yourself?

-=Mike

...Oh, sorry, I guess only ECW lemmings are permitted to speak in your shitty world, eh?

[Guest MikeSC]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

.

Err, umm, why Stephanie McMahon? Is this simply so she can have her name attached or is she going to amply destroy this ppv, the way naming her "owner of ECW brand" helped kill off the invasion angle?

Yup, it was Steph who killed the Invasion.

 

Not that the good workers from both companies were ALREADY in the WWE beforehand.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

 

 

This I think is a smart move for them. If they don't try to show that they have any problem with Douglas putting on his own show and even allow ECW allums currently under contract to work on their show then perhaps those wrestlers working for Douglas may feel differently on not getting the big pay day on a WWE based ECW PPV.

Wow, you mean the WWE could attract the guys who couldn't keep a company afloat?

 

Woo hoo!

-=Mike

Umm, can you please reserve your trolling for the Current Events forum, thanks.

Why not go screw yourself?

-=Mike

...Oh, sorry, I guess only ECW lemmings are permitted to speak in your shitty world, eh?

No, but it gets tiresome in every thread regarding "ECW" you chime in with your usually "witty" statements, adding nothing to the discussion, other then to try and unintentionally start a flame war. I am sure you have no interest in seeing this ppv or the Shane Douglas/ECW show, that was made apparent, about three replies earlier by you in this thread, so your presence is not needed anymore, you hate ECW and everything about it, Alright, we get it.

[NoCalMike 0]

Credit: PWTorch.com Newsletter

 

The latest word is that WWE is not going to try and block anything to do with Shane Douglas's show on June 10th and it will probably let it's talent work the show in addition to the June 12th show which the WWE is producing. As reported earlier, Heyman is going to be working as a consultant along with Jim Ross, Stephanie McMahon, Tommy Dreamer and John Laurenaitis.

.

Err, umm, why Stephanie McMahon? Is this simply so she can have her name attached or is she going to amply destroy this ppv, the way naming her "owner of ECW brand" helped kill off the invasion angle?

Yup, it was Steph who killed the Invasion.

 

Not that the good workers from both companies were ALREADY in the WWE beforehand.

-=Mike

I wasn't trying to imply she single-handedly destroyed it, however there was definately a collective hush over the crowd as she walks out and was introduced as the "owner of ECW brand" and it was pretty much downhill from there. Destroyed it, possibly not, but it was definately one hell of a shitty idea.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, but it gets tiresome in every thread regarding "ECW" you chime in with your usually "witty" statements, adding nothing to the discussion, other then to try and unintentionally start a flame war.

Again, wasn't aware that ONLY people who agree with your myopic view of the world are permitted to speak. I should spend more time reading YOUR rules of the world, to make sure I don't offend.

 

BTW, way to start a flame war here.

I am sure you have no interest in seeing this ppv or the Shane Douglas/ECW show, that was made apparent, about three replies earlier by you in this thread, so your presence is not needed anymore, you hate ECW and everything about it, Alright, we get it.

Because your bitchy whining is such a change.

 

Gee, why not use some MORE "the WWE botched the invasion" comments? Those are SO original and witty...

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Gee, why not use some MORE "the WWE botched the invasion" comments? Those are SO original and witty...

       -=Mike

 

Stating the obvious requires neither being witty or original.

[Guest MikeSC]

Gee, why not use some MORE "the WWE botched the invasion" comments? Those are SO original and witty...

      -=Mike

 

Stating the obvious requires neither being witty or original.

It also makes your petty bitching that you "get the point" of my disdain for ECW exceptionally hypocritical.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Gee, why not use some MORE "the WWE botched the invasion" comments? Those are SO original and witty...

       -=Mike

 

Stating the obvious requires neither being witty or original.

It also makes your petty bitching that you "get the point" of my disdain for ECW exceptionally hypocritical.

-=Mike

No, starting a thread about it, maybe would be hyocritical, or every five or so replies, adding a "yeah steph sucks" reply maybe, but an off-color remark once in awhile is much different then a consistent habit to show up in a thread simply to say, "Overrated Trash" over and over again.

[Guest MikeSC]

Gee, why not use some MORE "the WWE botched the invasion" comments? Those are SO original and witty...

      -=Mike

 

Stating the obvious requires neither being witty or original.

It also makes your petty bitching that you "get the point" of my disdain for ECW exceptionally hypocritical.

-=Mike

No, starting a thread about it, maybe would be hyocritical, or every five or so replies, adding a "yeah steph sucks" reply maybe, but an off-color remark once in awhile is much different then a consistent habit to show up in a thread simply to say, "Overrated Trash" over and over again.

I didn't. I commented that it is insane to gripe that nobody would order a show that consists of WWE Heat/Velocity fodder --- ignoring that they ignored the ones who aren't in the WWE when they have had the chance to see them in the past.

 

ECW was a non-profitable group with a mystique that far exceeds its actual quality level. I seldom even post in RVD threads anymore because the fanboys for that overrated shit worker are mind-boggling.

 

But if the WWE is going to do something so foolish as to actually promote a show based on a company who died is absurd.

 

And nobody besides me seems to question how Shane would even get PPV clearance for "his" ECW show.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

ECW was a non-profitable group with a mystique that far exceeds its actual quality level

 

Couldn't that be said for just about any indy that catches fire? The argument too often happening is between those who hated ECW and those who thought it was the best thing ever. Why can't it just be considered an entertaining alternative at the time?

 

The non-profitable thing, sure no denying that, but that is called Indy wrestling. Not many of them are profitable for any long periods of time without some very good sponsorship.

 

But if the WWE is going to do something so foolish as to actually promote a show based on a company who died is absurd.

 

Well maybe Vince sees money in it. Is it any stupider then having a Taboo Tuesday II? Vince seems to be an overall good business man, and he sees how well the dvd sold, and he probably figures not everyone who bought it is a former ECW mark, so possibly there is still interest in the brand. If the PPV bombs and/or no one buys it, he will eat it, but I guess that is part of taking risks in the business. Since he owns ECW and WCW likenesses now, maybe he is trying to see if there is enough interest to ressurect the ECW brand, who knows, really?

 

 

And nobody besides me seems to question how Shane would even get PPV clearance for "his" ECW show

 

Actually I do often wonder how the hell Shane Douglas got PPV clearance, and just how he convinced the PPV companies to broadcast it.

[BUTT 0]

And nobody besides me seems to question how Shane would even get PPV clearance for "his" ECW show

 

Actually I do often wonder how the hell Shane Douglas got PPV clearance, and just how he convinced the PPV companies to broadcast it.

Did he? I didn't even think he was trying to get it on PPV.

[NoCalMike 0]

And nobody besides me seems to question how Shane would even get PPV clearance for "his" ECW show

 

Actually I do often wonder how the hell Shane Douglas got PPV clearance, and just how he convinced the PPV companies to broadcast it.

Did he? I didn't even think he was trying to get it on PPV.

Actually I am not 100% sure how it is going to work. Some reports said it will be a dark show, later released by RF Video.

[Guest MikeSC]

ECW was a non-profitable group with a mystique that far exceeds its actual quality level

 

Couldn't that be said for just about any indy that catches fire?

Yup. TNA is very much in the same boat.

 

No indy fed, though, had the blind markishness that ECW had --- and no indy looked down on others as being "markish" as ECW did.

The argument too often happening is between those who hated ECW and those who thought it was the best thing ever.  Why can't it just be considered an entertaining alternative at the time? 

Because hearing an ECW fan refer to any decent match as less than the greatest thing in recorded history is nigh impossible. It was one of the few things I ever sided with that idiot Keith on --- ECW marks have a ridiculous high opinion of the mediocrity that ECW regularly churned out.

 

Lynn v RVD, for example, were NEVER great matches. Above average at best and downright piddling at worst. There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

The non-profitable thing, sure no denying that, but that is called Indy wrestling.  Not many of them are profitable for any long periods of time without some very good sponsorship.

But nobody holds up ROH as "the way to do business", as a lot of ECW marks do with ECW.

But if the WWE is going to do something so foolish as to actually promote a show based on a company who died is absurd.

Well maybe Vince sees money in it. Is it any stupider then having a Taboo Tuesday II?

It's worse --- because it'll be as bad as ALL ECW shows tended to be, but the ECW marks will finally recognize it and blame Vince because the matches were disjointed messes.

 

Yes, they always were disjointed messes.

Vince seems to be an overall good business man, and he sees how well the dvd sold, and he probably figures not everyone who bought it is a former ECW mark, so possibly there is still interest in the brand.  If the PPV bombs and/or no one buys it, he will eat it, but I guess that is part of taking risks in the business.  Since he owns ECW and WCW likenesses now, maybe he is trying to see if there is enough interest to ressurect the ECW brand, who knows, really?

Because it won't please anybody.

 

Fans of good wrestling will hate it because ECW was NEVER about good wrestling. ECW marks will hate it because they no longer have the blinded intensity to refer to anything involving ECW as being better than "anybody else out there".

 

The whole "Well, they tried harder" mentality -- -which A LOT of ECW marks used to explain away an utter lack of actual quality --- won't wear well because, darn it, if the show sucks, it's all because the WWE "neutered" ECW and not because ECW was never that good to begin with.

And nobody besides me seems to question how Shane would even get PPV clearance for "his" ECW show

Actually I do often wonder how the hell Shane Douglas got PPV clearance, and just how he convinced the PPV companies to broadcast it.

I don't believe that he HAS.

 

Hulk Hogan couldn't pull it off for XWF. Shane Douglas can do it for an ECW rip-off?

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

[Guest MikeSC]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

Honestly, Michaels v Mankind blew out the Guerrero/Malenko matches in 1995 (and I've seen more than a few of the Guerrero/Malenko matches, so I can speak on this).

-=Mike

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

[NoCalMike 0]

Why are you turning this into a conversation about whether ECW was good or not? It is irrelevant to the discussion, the question is whether the ECW brand is still marketable or not, and Vince must think it is marketable enough for one ppv.

 

Also, you seem to be assuming that whatever WWE puts on for the ECW show, will be a good representative of an actual ECW show from their peak, which is yet to be seen.

 

Anyways, we can pick this up tomorrow, I gotta hit the sack.

[NoCalMike 0]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

Honestly, Michaels v Mankind blew out the Guerrero/Malenko matches in 1995 (and I've seen more than a few of the Guerrero/Malenko matches, so I can speak on this).

-=Mike

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What does Michaels/Mankind have to do with matches in 1995 though?

[Guest MikeSC]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

Honestly, Michaels v Mankind blew out the Guerrero/Malenko matches in 1995 (and I've seen more than a few of the Guerrero/Malenko matches, so I can speak on this).

-=Mike

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What does Michaels/Mankind have to do with matches in 1995 though?

Ah, yes, wrong year.

 

Michaels v Ramon blew them out of the water.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

Honestly, Michaels v Mankind blew out the Guerrero/Malenko matches in 1995 (and I've seen more than a few of the Guerrero/Malenko matches, so I can speak on this).

-=Mike

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What does Michaels/Mankind have to do with matches in 1995 though?

Ah, yes, wrong year.

 

Michaels v Ramon blew them out of the water.

-=Mike

Oh, I see.....of course it did.

 

Ok really though, now I go to sleep.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why are you turning this into a conversation about whether ECW was good or not?

Did people not question is pushing JBL as a title contender as being a bad idea?

It is irrelevant to the discussion, the question is whether the ECW brand is still marketable or not, and Vince must think it is marketable enough for one ppv

Vince has also been wrong. See XFL. WBF. Lalonde v Leonard. ICOPRO.

Also, you seem to be assuming that whatever WWE puts on for the ECW show, will be a good representative of an actual ECW show from their peak, which is yet to be seen.

He'll actually tone down a lot of the unmitigated bullshit that ECW would show. New Jack, Mustafaa, and Kronus are unlikely to make appearnaces.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

There was never a year where an ECW match should have even be mentioned as the best match of the year in the US.

I would argue that the Malenko/Guerrero matches that took place in '95 were some of the best matches in the US that year. Certainly the WWF wasn't doing anything great that year, outside of Michaels and Hart, and Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero's matches in WCW generally weren't as good as their ECW work because they were usually given less time.

Honestly, Michaels v Mankind blew out the Guerrero/Malenko matches in 1995 (and I've seen more than a few of the Guerrero/Malenko matches, so I can speak on this).

-=Mike

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What does Michaels/Mankind have to do with matches in 1995 though?

Ah, yes, wrong year.

 

Michaels v Ramon blew them out of the water.

-=Mike

Oh, I see.....of course it did.

 

Ok really though, now I go to sleep.

Absolutely did. The curse of high expectations and it still delivered.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

DAMMIT. Ok this is really the last reply.

 

 

Vince has also been wrong. See XFL. WBF. Lalonde v Leonard. ICOPRO.

 

Those were Vince ORIGINALS though, not something that at one time had an establish fan base.

 

He'll actually tone down a lot of the unmitigated bullshit that ECW would show. New Jack, Mustafaa, and Kronus are unlikely to make appearnaces.

 

The return of "unmitigated bullshit" I like it. Oh and hey Kronus could be pretty decent when he laid off the donuts. New Jack, was well, New Jack, and Mustafaa, yeah, no comment, but hey Christy Hemme(sp?) has a match on WM, so Vince obviously doesn't have a problem with unmitigated bullshit on shows.

[BUTT 0]

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What do you mean Malenko/Guerrero didn't have crowd heat? Didn't you see the fans politely applaud after every wrestling sequence?

 

 

Oh wait..you mean the fans did that for EVERY match in ECW? OK, my mistake.

 

 

Anyway, I think it's funny that WWE is doing the PPV mainly on the strength of the "Rise and Fall of" DVD and yet this one won't even be released on its own on DVD.

[Guest MikeSC]

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What do you mean Malenko/Guerrero didn't have crowd heat? Didn't you see the fans politely applaud after every wrestling sequence?

 

 

Oh wait..you mean the fans did that for EVERY match in ECW? OK, my mistake.

 

 

Anyway, I think it's funny that WWE is doing the PPV mainly on the strength of the "Rise and Fall of" DVD and yet this one won't even be released on its own on DVD.

ECW marks sat on their hands for wrestling. Malenko v Guerrero had so many matches in near total silence (like Japanese crowds --- except ECW crowds didn't pop for ANYTHING) it was almost sad.

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

...And, unlike Guerrero/Malenko, Michaels v Mankind actually had crowd heat...

What do you mean Malenko/Guerrero didn't have crowd heat? Didn't you see the fans politely applaud after every wrestling sequence?

 

 

Oh wait..you mean the fans did that for EVERY match in ECW? OK, my mistake.

 

 

Anyway, I think it's funny that WWE is doing the PPV mainly on the strength of the "Rise and Fall of" DVD and yet this one won't even be released on its own on DVD.

ECW marks sat on their hands for wrestling. Malenko v Guerrero had so many matches in near total silence (like Japanese crowds --- except ECW crowds didn't pop for ANYTHING) it was almost sad.

-=Mike

Well, that wasn't their fault. Eddie and Dean went out there, busted their asses, and the crowds were silent because they weren't hitting each other with barbed wire baseball bats. BUT THE FANS LOVED THEM FOR IT! Or so we were made to believe by the tearful going-away party they had when they left. Surely, the people who inhabited the ECW Arena were an odd kind.

[1234-5678 0]

I've been to ECW, CZW and 3PW events, all at the ECW Arena, and I'd still rather see Sandman vs. Raven over Styles vs. Daniels, so suck my dick. It has nothing to do with "workrate", which is a nonexistent term anyways. Did you know Raven can do a plancha over the top ropes! Did you know Sandman can do a hurrancanrana and has used a Cripple Crossface! Add 2 stars to that match pronto! It has to do with entertainment, and it has to do with characters.

 

Ugh.

 

I'll be attending both shows if I can.

[Guest KOR420]

I cant believe anyone would say any match with scott hall in it is better than malenko/benoit/guerrero...just horrible