Guest bigm350 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 I am curious what everyone thinks? Heyman seemed to incoporate many styles in ECW. From the technical styles of Benoit, Malenko, Guerrero, Jericho, and Storm to the hardcore styles of the Sandman, Dreamer, etc; to extreme lucha libre. Was there ever a promotion, other than ECW, that offered so many different varieties and styles of pro wrestling? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AboveAverage484 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 That was about 10 percent of it, but about 90% of ECW was garbage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 90% is a huge overestimation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 Simple answer to this question, No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 Agreed. I was such an ECW mark, and still am, but if it were the epitome, it'd still be running. Sorry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rrrsh Report post Posted June 15, 2005 90% is about correct if you add all of their years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 WCW at its peak. Cruisers (Rey, Dragon, etc.), old school (Hogan, Piper, etc.), brawling (Saturn, Raven, etc.), mat wrestling (Malenko, Benoit, etc.), big fat guys (Giant, Norton, etc.). Basically any type of wrestling you can name, WCW had it from 1995-1998. They even brought in the New Japan guys from time to time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slingshot Suplex 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 The difference between ECW and WCW from that same time span is that ECW had an emotional connection to it's fanbase that WCW rarely reached. So for my money, I'll take pretty much any ECW over mid-90's WCW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 The difference between ECW and WCW from that same time span is that ECW had an emotional connection to it's fanbase that WCW rarely reached. So for my money, I'll take pretty much any ECW over mid-90's WCW. But WCW drew more money, had much larger crowds, had cable TV and had decent PPV buys. Which is the point of having a wrestling promotion. And surely the "epitome" of anything, never mind wrestling, wouldn't have employed Hack Meyers? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bigm350 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 True. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JumpinJackFlash Report post Posted June 15, 2005 I don't think it embodies pro wrestling. I just think it's the People's Wrestling Promotion(though it wasn't nearly as popular as WWE or WCW). Great hardcore and technical wrestling can not be the entire embodiment of something that includes Viagra, Coal Miner's Gloves, and Judy Bagwell on poles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 ECW generally succeeded at being entertaining, with lots of unique angles, and usually two decent matches a show. (early ECW was really tiresome at times, though, as the cards were packed top to bottom wit garbage weapons brawls). Later on, when Paul was running out of angles, at least the lowercard was now filled with fun spotfests. I mean, I know he's no great shakes, but I preferred a Nova spotfest over the other lower-card matches at the time. Well, except WCW where the one good match on the show was usually the opener. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Papacita 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 The difference between ECW and WCW from that same time span is that ECW had an emotional connection to it's fanbase that WCW rarely reached. So for my money, I'll take pretty much any ECW over mid-90's WCW. But WCW drew more money, had much larger crowds, had cable TV and had decent PPV buys. Which is the point of having a wrestling promotion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WCW also had the backing of a huge corporation, which meant they had the resources to reach more people and thus draw more money and a bigger audience than ECW could. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest news_gimmick Report post Posted June 15, 2005 I agree, ECW wasn't able to be put on the grand stage that WCW always had. Who knows if ECW would've exceeded if it had millions of dollars behind it. Paul Heyman pretty much is responsible for ECW folding, as he just wasn't a good businessman, and couldn't handle the financial aspect of the fed. On the flip side, you could say ECW wouldn't have succeeded on the national stage with the majority of their content being too violent. Sponsors and censorship would have caused many problems that would prohibit them from keeping the same type of show they always put on. I think the attraction of ECW has always been it's intimate setting, the fact that they were counterculture and everything WCW and the WWF weren't. I agree completely with ECW being the "peoples" fed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jericholic82 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 ECW was at its base, an Indy promotion that seriously overachieved. It started small and grew large enough (through tape trading, word of mouth, and some lousy syndication) to draw a PPV deal and a national tv show. Heyman should be commended for being able to keept it afloat for so long and to have some decent success. I am not so sure about connecting with the whole fanbase, as I myself was still watching all three promotions (as well as any other wrestling I could find), but they did have a loyal following in Philly and along the east coast. Some of the more rabid fans were almost cult-like and as Heyman put it ECW became a counter-culture movement in pro wrestling. But it oddly enough was able to package with that some fine techical wrestling in addition to the mindless garbage. WCW did connect somewhat with the big nWo angle, but blew it away when they felt the heat from the WWF and due to poltics and overspending and large guaranteed contracts. The WWF basically stole the attitude concept from ECW and with it's large supply of cash and was able to market it correctly and draw tons more money, as well as basically brainwash wrestling fans into thinking WCW sucked and the WWF was the only place to be. WCW and WWF raids did hurt ECW as well. Vince can revise history all he wants, but him stealing the Dudleys and Taz at the same time ECW got it's TNN show certainly didn't help the credibility of ECW. But just think, would would have thought in late 93 when Paul was given the reins of a small NWA affiliate promotion, that it would become big enough to warrant numerous discussions, rip off promotions, big dvd sales, and its own reunion PPV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Promoter 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 Actually, I think the epitome of wrestling for the general audience is wwe. I kind of get the points that were being made with ECW, but I think in people's heart the wwf is always wrestling. I mean, look at how the internet was rallying behind the wwe to comeback in the war against the "evil" wcw. Hell, ecw "sold out" to the wwe by going on raw, but no one complained. I think the wwe is really the epitome. Now, this doesn't mean I agree with all the crap over the years, but when the wwe really hits its stride whether in matches, storytelling, or character it has no equal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 The difference between ECW and WCW from that same time span is that ECW had an emotional connection to it's fanbase that WCW rarely reached. So for my money, I'll take pretty much any ECW over mid-90's WCW. But WCW drew more money, had much larger crowds, had cable TV and had decent PPV buys. Which is the point of having a wrestling promotion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WCW also had the backing of a huge corporation, which meant they had the resources to reach more people and thus draw more money and a bigger audience than ECW could. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but what percentage of the turnover was profit for WCW over that time compared to ECW? Even if you don't just use $x which is I'll admit unfair due to the financial restraints of ECW I'm as positive as is possible without knowing the figures that percentage wise, more of the money WCW drew ended up being profit compared to the percentage of ECW incomes of the previously stated time period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2005 One of the things that helped with ECW in regards to it having that really intense connection with it's fans was the smaller venues. Fans were much closer to the action and the setting is way more intimate in a building that holds max 2,000. WCW in it's prime 95-98 were doing around 5,000-10,000 for regular arena attendance and well over 30,000 for some of their big Georgia Dome shows. ECW's ultraviolence, while a huge selling point, was also a reason they couldn't go mainstream. Advertisers aren't too fond of wrestling in the first place, so a hyper violent promotion that also advocated violence against women 10 times worse than WWE ever could isn't likely to get much needed money to stay alive in a marketplace where it's competition had millions to burn. I wonder how much the fanbase may have hurt ECW in terms of revenue streams. ECW fanbase is hugely internet based and a lot of them aren't cool with paying for shit. How could ECW make money from video sales when most of their fans are busy bootlegging the stuff? Why pay for the PPV when you can black box it. I'm not saying that was all of the ECW fans, but the question is was there a large enough percentage of them that it hurt the company in terms of much needed revenue? Sure they attended shows live and bought T-Shirts, but the revenue from that wasn't enough to compete with WWE and WCW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2005 I agree with the person who says it's the people's promotion. There was no cockteasing or pussyfooting around when it came to matches. Paul simply gave people what they would pay to see. The thing about it is that the people that were paying Paul were indeed off-mainstream and unappealing to a lot of fans of wrestling in general. Did Vince outright steal the concept? Maybe, but that wouldn't have been enough, he was smart enough to fine-tune the formula to the people who were watching and going to the shows. The characters were offensive in a rather trendy kind of way that didn't make them too menacing, garbage matches were more for comedic effect. There was only one or two guys who would push their threshold of pain as far as they could go, and one used it as his gimmick (Foley) and the other one was just some guy who could have stayed backstage trying to justify his TV time (Shane.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ether Report post Posted June 17, 2005 I wonder how much the fanbase may have hurt ECW in terms of revenue streams. ECW fanbase is hugely internet based and a lot of them aren't cool with paying for shit. How could ECW make money from video sales when most of their fans are busy bootlegging the stuff? Why pay for the PPV when you can black box it. I'm not saying that was all of the ECW fans, but the question is was there a large enough percentage of them that it hurt the company in terms of much needed revenue? Sure they attended shows live and bought T-Shirts, but the revenue from that wasn't enough to compete with WWE and WCW. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not necessarily sure of that. Most ECW fans I would come across were rabid fans that generally would buy anything that would help the promotion. Maybe this only applied to fans in the Northeast in contrast to non-local fans in the Midwest or West Coast. While I agree that epitome may be an overstatement, it was a promotion that could provide something for everybody. It was a place where wrestlers under 270 pounds could compete and were given 15 minutes to put on a good match (side note: the first time my wife - who had always seen pro wrestling as a joke - saw an ECW match she said "Wow, it looks like these guys are actually wrestling and hitting each other." And this was during a Mikey Whipwreck-Shane Douglas match from Hardcore Heaven 1996 - imagine that match on WWF/WCW TV/PPV in the 90's). And while there was garbage, it was generally more entertaining than garbage that the WWF and WCW had at the time, like a Diesel-Mabel or Hogan-Luger match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2005 I bought Anarchy Rulz for PS1 partially out of pity although the game wasn't that bad. Had some modes Attitude didn't have (Barbed Wire, Dumpster, Parking Lot, Inferno, ect). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted June 22, 2005 ECW was wrestling for me. I've seen WWE, WWF, WCW, TNA, and a ton of other Japan and Indy promotions and none of them can peak my interest like ECW did. It was the reason I began watching wrestling after I had stopped for many years, and since it died I haven't been as interested. I watch WWE sometimes, never on PPV cause I wouldn't pay for that crap, and it is so fucking boring. It is the same old crap week in and week out and I can't believe they are doing as well as they are. I first started buying tapes off the internet because I had to see what this ECW was all about. Instantly I was hooked and watched them faithfully till their last pay per view. I'm proud to say I have every singe Pay Per View of theirs on tape, as well as a bunch of other shows, and even the final ever ECW show that took place in Pine Bluff, AK. And I live in BC, Canada. I can only imagine what life would have been like if I lived in Philadelphia. One Night Stand was truly my Wrestlemania for the year. Probably the greatest time I've had while watching a wrestling show in my life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites