One Night Stand To Receive Little Promotion by WWE

[Guest MikeSC]

What happens if the ECW ppv does bigger numbers than the brand only ppv shows? Would there be some epople demanding ECW to return or even replace smackdown as the secondary brand? Some internet "critic" makes a claim that ECW could replace smackdown next year.

Then it'd show that Vince is a markedly better promoter than Heyman ever has.

 

Oh and it'll show that ECW fans will buy anything that has the letters ECW attached.

-=Mike

...Of course, ECW fans will see how bad the product actually did suck and they'll blame the WWE, because blaming Heyman or not-that-talented performers is impossible...

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I don't know how anyone can credibly call ECW, at least from 1994-1998 crap. After that, things noticably sank for sure. But for a good few years, ECW put out a strong product.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't know how anyone can credibly call ECW, at least from 1994-1998 crap. After that, things noticably sank for sure. But for a good few years, ECW put out a strong product.

After Malenko, Guerrero, and Benoit left --- it was pretty much shit.

 

It's not a coincidence that the best PPV match on an ECW PPV --- by a healthy margin --- didn't involve ECW talent.

-=Mike

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

[justcoz 0]

Yes, RVD vs. Jerry Lynn, totally unwatchable stuff...

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, RVD vs. Jerry Lynn, totally unwatchable stuff...

Brutally overrated pap. Easily the most overrated series of matches in recent history. More masturbatory spots than a HBK v HHH Ironman match. It was great --- when compared to the unwatchable shit that ECW tended to churn out.

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

Quite a bit. Hope always sprung eternal.

-=Mike

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

Quite a bit. Hope always sprung eternal.

-=Mike

How much is a quite a bit ? A few years ? A few months ? What PPV's did you watch ?

[Guest MikeSC]

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

Quite a bit. Hope always sprung eternal.

-=Mike

How much is a quite a bit ? A few years ? A few months ? What PPV's did you watch ?

What PPV's? All but Heatwave 2000.

 

I had roughly 40 or so tapes of ECW footage at one point.

-=Mike

[justcoz 0]

Ok, MikeSC doesn't like much of later ECW....

 

Wasn't my promo killer? I have writing credits for two shows on public access, do you think I can get in to WWE creative?

[claydude14 0]

Ok, MikeSC doesn't like much of later ECW....

 

Wasn't my promo killer? I have writing credits for two shows on public access, do you think I can get in to WWE creative?

Dude, that writing was fucking sick and is what is needed to get me to order the ECW ppv. I'm not expcecting anything but the balls to the wall you had Paul E. suggest; and I will wait til the replay to decide if I have to.

[Jericholic82 0]

Yes, RVD vs. Jerry Lynn, totally unwatchable stuff...

Brutally overrated pap. Easily the most overrated series of matches in recent history. More masturbatory spots than a HBK v HHH Ironman match. It was great --- when compared to the unwatchable shit that ECW tended to churn out.

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

Quite a bit. Hope always sprung eternal.

-=Mike

I agree on RVD/Lynn

[Jericholic82 0]

and I started to watch ecw when my tv station got it in april 96. and I never order an ecw ppv, but have seen three barely legal heatwave 98 and anarchy rulz 99 (I have the vhs versions that came out in 2001)

[Astro7x 0]

Seeing the first RVD/Lynn match live on PPV... so much of what made the match good (For me atleast) was the possibility of RVD losing the TV title after a year of holding it. There were so many moments where you thought Lynn would win it and RVD would finally lose.

 

I would think that knowing the result going into it would make it not as great, but it was an on the edge of your seat experience seeing it live, amazing.

[Jericholic82 0]

Yes, RVD vs. Jerry Lynn, totally unwatchable stuff...

Brutally overrated pap. Easily the most overrated series of matches in recent history. More masturbatory spots than a HBK v HHH Ironman match. It was great --- when compared to the unwatchable shit that ECW tended to churn out.

How much ECW have you actually watched anyway ?

Quite a bit. Hope always sprung eternal.

-=Mike

I agree on RVD/Lynn

Seeing the first RVD/Lynn match live on PPV... so much of what made the match good (For me atleast) was the possibility of RVD losing the TV title after a year of holding it. There were so many moments where you thought Lynn would win it and RVD would finally lose.

 

I would think that knowing the result going into it would make it not as great, but it was an on the edge of your seat experience seeing it live, amazing.

well yea, but looking back on it you dont get that same live feel. There's only a select few matches that hold up that well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seeing the first RVD/Lynn match live on PPV... so much of what made the match good (For me atleast) was the possibility of RVD losing the TV title after a year of holding it. There were so many moments where you thought Lynn would win it and RVD would finally lose.

 

I would think that knowing the result going into it would make it not as great, but it was an on the edge of your seat experience seeing it live, amazing.

Meanwhile, great matches hold up quite well, even when you know the finish.

 

Guerrero v Lesnar from NWO last year is STILL an excellent match --- even with the finish quite well known.

-=Mike

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

MikeSC=Moron.

 

Only a moron would say that talent that hasn't worked on a national level since 2000 would be indicitive of "ECW" and make fans realize "ECW was crap".

 

After Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero left, it equaled crap?

 

Uh, ECW ushered in the style that WWF/WCW used during the Monday Night Wars.

 

Austin's vigilante angle, the "Hardcore title", the cursing, the weapons, the lucha...all that is because of ECW.

 

You need to go bash TNA and stay out of WWE folder. We have enough people that are negative. But at least they have some facts to base their posts on.

[Guest MikeSC]

MikeSC=Moron.

UTSU = lemming.

 

Wow, pointless insults are fun.

Only a moron would say that talent that hasn't worked on a national level since 2000 would be indicitive of "ECW" and make fans realize "ECW was crap".

When TNA is turfing ECW's "talent", you have problems.

 

If the talent was even DECENT in the ring --- they would have worked on a national level since 2000.

After Benoit, Malenko, and Guerrero left, it equaled crap?

Yes.

Uh, ECW ushered in the style that WWF/WCW used during the Monday Night Wars.

Except WWF and WCW had significantly better matches.

 

Oh, and WWF ALSO had better promos.

Austin's vigilante angle, the "Hardcore title", the cursing, the weapons, the lucha...all that is because of ECW.

Yes, lucha was ALL because ECW had the luchas for, what, 3 or so months? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, can ECW marks try and be realistic for one minute?

 

WCW couldn't POSSIBLY have signed the luchas because Eric Bischoff was involved with that Wrestling Peace Festival.

 

Oh, and WCW helped hype one of the all-time great lucha shows, When Worlds Collide, so ECW took luchas because of that.

You need to go bash TNA and stay out of WWE folder.  We have enough people that are negative.  But at least they have some facts to base their posts on.

It's not MY fault that lemmings bought any shit ECW put in front of them and thanked them for that.

 

It's not my fault the WWF had to help keep that shitty promotion afloat.

 

It's not MY fault that ECW's booking was pure shit but because ECW marks such as yourself were so blinded that you failed to notice it.

 

ECW fans were the biggest marks out there. NOBODY competed with them for pure markdom.

-=Mike

...Please notice that ECW fans thought New Jack, amongst the worst workers in history, was amusing and Sid got huge friggin' pops...

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I don't buy into this "Post 1996 ECW= Crap" stuff that's going around, simply because they still managed to put on kickass matches after that. Tajiri vs Psicosis from the ECW Arena September 2000 is still on par with anything that company had ever done in previous years.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't buy into this "Post 1996 ECW= Crap" stuff that's going around, simply because they still managed to put on kickass matches after that. Tajiri vs Psicosis from the ECW Arena September 2000 is still on par with anything that company had ever done in previous years.

No, it REALLY wasn't. I bought a DVD simply for that match and was underwhelmed.

 

If you were to argue FBI v Mikey & Tajiri at Hammerstein, I might buy into that --- but even that was more of a last gasp than the norm.

-=Mike

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Mike, if people were entertained by ECW and enjoyed the matches (I am one of them), then that's a fact that you CAN'T dispute. Wrestling, like all entertainment, is purely subjective. If you think you can come onto a board and tell people that what they thought was good wasn't, then the only mark here is you. If someone enjoyed a segment/match, then it was good TO THEM. That's all that matters. Your not an idiot and you know this just as well as I do. So don't waste your time telling people that what they thought was entertainment wasn't. It won't achieve anything.

[Guest netslob]

no, no, NO, Mike is ALWAYS right. his opinion is the only one that matters. personal preferences don't matter, if you don't like what he likes or hate what he hates you are WRONG, WRONG WRONG! where have you been?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, if people were entertained by ECW and enjoyed the matches (I am one of them), then that's a fact that you CAN'T dispute. Wrestling, like all entertainment, is purely subjective.

Yet people here bitch about JBL, HHH, etc.

 

But dare to criticize ECW and the lemmings get all snippy.

If you think you can come onto a board and tell people that what they thought was good wasn't, then the only mark here is you.

Ah, so nobody is allowed to criticize?

 

Got it.

 

ECW sheep really were not too good at handling a differing viewpoint.

If someone enjoyed a segment/match, then it was good TO THEM. That's all that matters. Your not an idiot and you know this just as well as I do. So don't waste your time telling people that what they thought was entertainment wasn't. It won't achieve anything.

Their matches sucked and the company went belly-up because people, clearly, DIDN'T want to watch them. Their ratings were shit on TNN because people didn't WANT to watch them. Their PPV buyrates were shit because people didn't want to see them.

 

Obviously, YOUR love of them is a minority opinion.

no, no, NO, Mike is ALWAYS right. his opinion is the only one that matters. personal preferences don't matter, if you don't like what he likes or hate what he hates you are WRONG, WRONG WRONG! where have you been?

Hmm, I might start praising HHH now, simply because you've just said it is impossible to criticize.

-=Mike

...Do you know how idiotic your petulant whining is?

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

Good promo justcoz. But, I think you should have Eric Bischoff in there to and make it a 3-way promo. Hell you got the heads of three of the biggest wrestling feds under one roof. Might as well make the most of it.

[tominator89 0]

I'm still fascinated that Cornette, Heyman, and Bischoff all are working under Vince.

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

I'm still fascinated that Cornette, Heyman, and Bischoff all are working under Vince.

And think of all the things Vince could use them for on or off the camera but, won't because of his ego.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm still fascinated that Cornette, Heyman, and Bischoff all are working under Vince.

And think of all the things Vince could use them for on or off the camera but, won't because of his ego.

Well, he gave Cornette some power in 1995 and the booking in WWF went to shit. Bischoff had the power of the book in WCW and, outside of nWo, he was pretty bad. Heyman was burnt out years ago and his style tends to shorten careers.

 

Until Kreski comes back, I have little hope in the booking becoming solid again.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hey, the late 2002 SmackDown stuff wasn't bad under Heyman. It wasn't super-excellent, either, but it was nice to see PPV-quality matches on free TV regularly.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey, the late 2002 SmackDown stuff wasn't bad under Heyman. It wasn't super-excellent, either, but it was nice to see PPV-quality matches on free TV regularly.

His style, though, was going to end up shortening careers --- and I think it caused problems with the PPV's.

 

The 3-way at SSeries was disappointing, in large part, because everything was already done on TV.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It made PPVs more disappointing from a workrate standard, but let's be honest, marks will buy PPVs more for a blowoff than a good match. Good matches do make them anticipate PPVs.

[Guest MikeSC]

It made PPVs more disappointing from a workrate standard, but let's be honest, marks will buy PPVs more for a blowoff than a good match. Good matches do make them anticipate PPVs.

Thing is, some of his choices for blow-offs didn't, to me, make any sense. I thought Edge & Rey v Benoit & Angle 2/3 falls should have been a PPV match and the 3-way should have been on SD.

-=Mike