TSM Town Hall: The Rebirth of ECW

[NYU 0]

Since I liked the Town Hall topics that Cheech and Dandy were starting, and I don't want to see the idea fall by the wayside, I'm going to pick up the idea for the time being. So away we go.

 

FORMAT

 

First, discuss the topic and your general thoughts about the item. After discussing the topic, check the additional questions located at the bottom of the post. Remember, the idea is to discuss the topic; the questions only serve as a guideline for what you might want to cover.

 

 

TOPIC

 

In June 2006, WWE decided to bring back Extreme Championship Wrestling as its third brand. It gave Rob Van Dam the Heavyweight Championship to kickstart the federation as the titleholder, and it signed superstars like Sabu and the Sandman to contracts to give the idea more credibility. It became evident from the first night though that they did not plan to bring back the ECW of old. As the months wore on, matches increasingly ended in disqualifications, the Main Events were regularly contested between guys that hardly had any connections with the ECW of yesteryear whatsoever, and the title was shuffled from RVD to the Big Show to Bobby Lashley to Vince McMahon. Use this thread to discuss whether you feel WWE has successfully adopted ECW as its third brand and whether the changes they made to the federation were for the better or worse.

 

 

Additional Questions

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

[NoCalMike 0]

Once it was apparent that Vince brought back "ECW" to show the world HIS VISION of what he thought ECW should be, it was doomed.

 

[NYU 0]

Mike, did the format of the thread throw you off or something?

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Mike, did the format of the thread throw you off or something?

 

I don't understand why these Town Hall threads have to have such a strict format. People should be able to express their opinions on a topic briefly rather than writing an analytical essay. Sure, people discussing things in the same manner and order as each other is nice, but it's stupid to get upset with someone for writing things their own way. These topics should be about content, not form.

[cabbageboy 0]

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

Yes, I think things would have gone somewhat different. I think both men would have at least stayed motivated in ECW with the thought that they could keep their pushes. Let's be honest about this though...ECW was brought back as a vehicle for RVD, not much else. Once he got busted and then depushed the entire show lost the point of its existence.

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

It basically wrecked the brand out of the gate. The Big Show was wildly overexposed when he had the title and while some of his matches were good it was him going against various guest stars. This made it impossible for ECW to develop its own main event scene. Once they didn't put the belt back on RVD and went with the Lashley experiment, the brand was dead in the water.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

Not really. There are too many belts as it is. At this point it's almost easier to just get rid of the ECW title itself rather than add new titles. It's a 1 hour jobber show at this point and that's all it is going to be.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

Sure. Morrison had already had runs on Raw and SD and held belts on both shows. If anything being any sort of world champ HURT Morrison since people looked at him with the ECW title as a joke. Punk would be a major star either way and if anything being on ECW this long has hurt him...it's time to put him on a major show. Burke might be on SD or something, but who knows.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

I am torn on this. Yeah I think to those who didn't see any of the original ECW, then this will forever taint it. For those who saw old ECW, this doesn't really taint it since it's easy to separate the two.

 

[NYU 0]

Mike, did the format of the thread throw you off or something?

 

I don't understand why these Town Hall threads have to have such a strict format. People should be able to express their opinions on a topic briefly rather than writing an analytical essay. Sure, people discussing things in the same manner and order as each other is nice, but it's stupid to get upset with someone for writing things their own way. These topics should be about content, not form.

 

You don't have to answer every question or provide elaborate answers. But your responses in this thread are meant to evoke discussion. One sentence posts rarely do that -- and especially when it's a single point that's been repeated ad nauseum by many for the past two years. That's why I provided five specific questions, in addition to a general sweeping opinion of the rebirth of ECW as a whole.

 

foleyfan, I don't mind if people leave short answers, but I do mind the quality of those short answers.

[NoCalMike 0]

Mike, did the format of the thread throw you off or something?

 

I don't understand why these Town Hall threads have to have such a strict format. People should be able to express their opinions on a topic briefly rather than writing an analytical essay. Sure, people discussing things in the same manner and order as each other is nice, but it's stupid to get upset with someone for writing things their own way. These topics should be about content, not form.

 

You don't have to answer every question or provide elaborate answers. But your responses in this thread are meant to evoke discussion. One sentence posts rarely do that -- and especially when it's a single point that's been repeated ad nauseum by many for the past two years. That's why I provided five specific questions, in addition to a general sweeping opinion of the rebirth of ECW as a whole.

 

foleyfan, I don't mind if people leave short answers, but I do mind the quality of those short answers.

 

All I was doing was basically trying to sum my thoughts in a quick to the point way. The reason I didn't answer each question individually is because I think they are irrelevent to the bigger problem of why ECW is/was failing as a brand. Maybe the point has been discussed ad nauseum, but it might be because it is a very valid point. I don't think an extra title belt would have made much of a difference. Of course when ECW was "rebirthed" I think the fans expectations were to see a piece of the world they had seen on all the ECW DVDs and maybe a continuation of the first two ONS PPVs. That isn't what they got. To me THAT is what has hindered the brand to this day more then a lack of titles, or whether this/that wrestler was or wasn't pushed.

 

For anyone who watched and was a fan of the original ECW, there is not much Vince has or can do to ruin that experience. For those that have never seen the original brand, I guess they have never heard of youtube or bit torrents or limewire or hell, online tape traders. It is out there, and not very expensive. Sure, you can buy the WWE-produced DVDs but those are strictly the matches without context and/or storyline. That is fine for those that know the context, but for others it won't be the same. It will make the average matches seem worse without the storyline/emotion/context etc etc etc.

[King Kamala 0]

You know I don't hate the new ECW. There I said it. Maybe it's because I never felt much of an attachment to the original ECW, here in the boondocks we didn't get it until it came on TNN and by then, the end was already in sight. Don't get me wrong, I like ECW and really should see some more of it but I don't hold any great affection for it and I wasn't nearly as upset by its demise as I was with WCW's. WWECW (lawlz) is what it is. A solid enough B show. It's not appointment television for me but I always know there'll be a good TV match or two when I do tune in. Actually, that kind of describes ECW on TNN as well... I think the biggest mistake with the new ECW was calling it ECW, by any other name, I think the IWC's opinion of it would be generally favorable. I mean does anybody really think CM Punk would be where he is today if he had started on RAW or Smackdown? He'd probably be paired in a comedy tag team with Funaki or something. And while the treatment of the originals has been shoddy at best, I commend them for putting guys like Tommy Dreamer and Stevie Richards on television on a regular basis. Anyways, onto the questions...

 

 

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later? I think the federation would have had a definitive #1 guy in RVD. RVD was one of the only guys on the early WWECW roster who could credibly main event on RAW or Smackdown! Heck, he's probably one of the only guys in the brand's short history who could make that claim. RVD's departure definitely hurt the show and basically made it a C show until the SD/ECW brand exchange bumped it up to a weak B show. So in summary, I think the difference would have been more starpower. The ECW World title may have felt like a World title rather than a secondary one.

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months? I think it helped it. Who exactly did they have for heels from the ECW original roster? And even if they did have a former big ECW heel, it would take time to build them up for the WWE fan who doesn't remember ECW (and there are more than you would think). I don't think Big Show was a good permanent solution but as a temporary one, he was servicable.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown? I think it would definitely help the brand. But I don't think it'd put them on the level of the other two brands. The problem with ECW, is there are too many storylines with seemingly nothing at stake. I think the Mike Knox-Stevie Richards feud might have meant a half shit if there was a TV title at stake or something.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?Less prevelant to an extent for all of them.Morrison would probably be a mid-carder if ECW never existed. Sometimes shifting up to the upper midcard and sometimes shifting down to the lower midcard. CM Punk would probably be suffer the same fate as London and Kendrick. I'm sure he'd still be on the roster but he wouldn't have been in any Money in The Bank matches let alone have won one. Burke would probably be a JTTS or released by now if there wasn't an ECW.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind? Nah, the original ECW's legacy was long cemented by the time Vince stuck his greasy paws on it.

[Mike wanna be 0]

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

Not really. I mean, it had been remodeled from the real ECW the second the bell rang to signify a disqualification on the very first show. Van Dam couldn't hold the belt forever and it was just a matter of time before somebody came in and took it.

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

I don't think it was Show holding the title that did it so much as them constantly bringing in Raw/Smackdown guys to challenge for it. I mean, the idea was "Our champ is so good he can beat anybody on any brand, that's why our brand is better than yours", but when nobody on your own brand ever challenges for the belt you start to realize that the brand isn't that good, it's a one-horse stable next to Raw and Smackdown.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

No. Raw and Smackdown both have secondary singles titles and can't figure out a way to get them in with two hours of television a week; how's ECW supposed to manage with just one hour?

If we assume that this title would be rigorously defended (a TV title, defended every show, 15 minute time limit, old-school WCW style) it still depends on how it's booked, i.e. if we've still got Stevie/Shelton/Burke/Knox/Dreamer fighting 1-on-1 matches, adding a title to the mix doesn't really change anything.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

Morrison would still be Nitro and still be on Raw. Punk & Burke would probably be on Smackdown, but all three would be drifting the aimless midcard. Nitro would break even, Punk would be a drop off from where he is now, and Burke would actually improve from a C-show midcard drifter to a B-show midcard drifter.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

Once you look past the ECW letters, you realize it's just a third brand, and the letters mean nothing. ECW was the company I'd stay up until 2 in the morning on Saturdays to watch in syndication in the mid-90s. It hasn't sullied MY image of the legacy of ECW, but I can see how someone that didn't see anything beyond the Rise & Fall/Bloodsport DVDs could think "Well what's so great about ECW, it's just a bunch of guys being 'hardcore'?"

 

In summary, read NoCalMike's initial response. This is Vince's vision of the company. Midcard titles will be meaningless, anybody not fighting for a title flounders in the midcard, taking titles away from heavily popular stars and giving them to people he'd rather see have the belt regardless of fan reaction...

[Lil' Bitch 0]

ECW could've been taken more seriously if it wasn't for McMahon's ECW Vision. Had Heyman stayed and had been given more creative control, I would've loved to support the brand because I know Paul would've done his best to try to stick to his roots as seen with the original One Night Stand PPV.

 

December to Dismember was when I stopped giving a shit although CM Punk being given the belt for awhile was cool, but that was about it.

[haVoc 0]

I think ECW could have been better if they let guys work "WWE Hardcore" style and moved the cruiserweight division over, but most of that would have came to an end after Benoit. After all the reports of brain damage due to "violence" and flying head butts Vince had to stop chairs, tables and high risk spots.

 

How many chair shots to the head have we've seen since Benoit? I remember Edge giving Taker a few.

[King Cucaracha 0]

I think ECW could have been better if they let guys work "WWE Hardcore" style and moved the cruiserweight division over, but most of that would have came to an end after Benoit. After all the reports of brain damage due to "violence" and flying head butts Vince had to stop chairs, tables and high risk spots.

 

How many chair shots to the head have we've seen since Benoit? I remember Edge giving Taker a few.

 

Cena nailed a bunch of guys with chairshots during that ridiculous 2 vs. RAW roster match, IIRC.

 

 

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

 

I'd imagine RVD might have gotten a longer reign at least. It's possible ECW might have retained a closer link to it's roots, for a while, although I think it was a matter of sooner or later before the show became a true WWE product. Big Show's reign definately changed the way ECW was looked at. The inclusion of WWE 'superstars' brought in to challenge Show to tide things over changed the show itself. And of course, the match with Batista was the death-knell as far as marketing towards the old ECW fanbase after they shat on it. Whether that match would have ever happened if RVD didn't need to be covered for in the main-event, who knows?

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

 

I guess I just answered that already. I think it definately changed it. It probably hindered it in terms of the ECW marks, but it helped it evolve into what WWE top brass were more comfortable with marketing. So, take your pick really. Putting it on Show as opposed to any other established star was probably a hinderance considering his physical condition at the time.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

 

Not since the talent merger. The WWE Tag Titles are defended as much on ECW as they are Smackdown, if not more-so. There's more than enough singles titles as it is, adding another just dilutes it further, especially if it's made just to give guys something to do. If they were desperate for a secondary title for ECW guys to go after, well, they've got the US Title. Who is there really to go after a title on that level? Maybe Burke. Maybe Kofi. That's about it. A title any less important than the US Title would be a waste.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

 

Definately less, in terms of Punk and Morrison. Morrison might have been on the verge of being ditched had he not been thrown over to ECW in desperation and been given the character overhaul. Burke's struggling for airtime as it is, let alone without ECW. A guy like Kofi is much better off in ECW than he would have been debuting on SD or Raw. Miz was going nowhere fast too.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

 

ECW was what it was. The people who have a problem with ECW's 'good name' being 'sullied' are the same people who distance themselves from the current product being ECW anyway, so why should it matter? I'm not sure why the product still needs to be called ECW, to be honest. It's not as if Vince is using the show to bury ECW or re-invent ECW. He never really did (people will argue him winning the title, but the point was people were supposed to hate the idea and route for Lashley, so that's argueable). It's a total seperate entity now. So I don't know as it's done anything to ECW's legacy really. Unless you're a diehard ECW fan who loved everything Heyman ever did with blind devotion I suppose.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

ECW is what it should be. A place for young up-and-comers to hone their skills on national TV. The last thing WWE needs is the Sandman, Sabu, Balls Mahoney, etc. dragging their old asses around the ring in oversaturated hardcore matches for nostalgia purposes. The Benoit thing only presented another reason why that type of television show(original ECW) should not be attempted every week in 2007/8.

[Papacita 0]

I have a tape with ONS 06 and every ECW show from then until SummerSlam, and for all the criticisms you could throw at WWE for burying the company, a lot of that stuff was pretty good, especially when you're able to separate it from the politics and other bs going on at the time.

 

I think most people can agree that ECW as it existed back in the day probably wouldn't work in a WWE environment given the schedule and the fact that hardcore wrestling's been played out for a long time (the real ECW even seemed to be phasing it out by 2000 or so), but they fucked up by being so blatant with the changes. The DQ thing wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't feel the need to do it every week, knowing full well that this was gonna piss off the original fans. The fact that they had to start calling the workers Vixens and Extremists was another annoying thing, especially after they had Styles get on TV and blast WWE for being ashamed to call wrestlers "wrestlers" (and really, they couldn't think of anything better than EXTREMISTS?!), and of course having Sabu speak was another big fuck up. What I never got about this whole thing is that despite how people feel about it being best used as a glorified developmental, at the end of the day this was an attempt to capitalize off nostalgia. It's one thing to make a change here and there, but to rub the fans' noses in it...then get pissed when the audience you're trying to cater to starts to complain. I know we used to clown on WWE logic, but damn...

 

I wish they had played up the "old vs. new" concept a little more...especially in the beginning when everyone was still passionate about it.

 

 

Oh, and the questions...

 

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

-Probably not. Vince had an idea of what he wanted when he started the brand back up, and what we eventually got would've turned out that way regardless.

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

- Not Big Show itself, but having him defend against WWE stars every week hurt the brand overall. I know that Sci-Fi had a little to do with this, but it sent the clear message that they didn't have any faith in ECW or its stars, and I think even the densest person should've been able to see that.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

- Would've been interesting given the hour format...so long as they didn't go the "title match every week" route with it, I'd have liked to see this.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

-Seeing as I haven't watched Raw or Smackdown regularly since 05, I really can't say about Morrison, since from afar he seemed to be doing pretty well for himself with Melina. Same with Burke, although I think he probably got more benefit than Morrisson. The main reason Punk got over like he did was because Heyman protected him so well in the beginning (debut in the heart of ROH-country...smart); he wouldn't have gotten that kind of consideration on Raw or Smackdown, and I doubt he'd even be called CM Punk if he started out there, so he's probably benefitted from this experiment more than anyone.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

- In my mind, no.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well one of the main problems is that you had Vince on one hand saying "ECW isn't going to be about chairshots and blood" then the following Raw you have guys taking massive chair shots and bleeding etc etc etc........it's as if he wanted to protect the RAW/Smackdown brand because he didn't want "lesser workers" doing things usually reserved for the ME guys, which in itself is a total contradiction from the real ECW, because back then you could expect shit to go down anywhere on the card.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm surprised no one really commented on my assertion that ECW was brought back mainly as a vanity project to put RVD over and basically lost all its meaning once he was busted with weed. Call me crazy but I think they would have jobbed him out to the Big Show anyway, if for no other reason than to give him the belt back at D2D. The arrest just made the regaining of the belt impossible.

 

That said, even while buried RVD was still having some really killer matches on Sci Fi. The Bob Holly match with the sick table spot is one that comes to mind, and there was a match with Test that seriously might have been Test's best match ever (or maybe 2nd to the Shane SS 99 match). Once they put the belt on Lashley though, you could kinda tell RVD just stopped giving a shit, though I do recall him having some pretty solid matches with Elijah Burke during the New Breed/Originals feud.

[Timmy8271 0]

Additional Questions

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later? No. Sabu can't do his big moves anymore and probably would have failed a drug test anyways. Van Dam might have helped some but with things so scripted, it's not the same

 

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

- Hindered. Big show got lazy and was injured when he was in ECW. It made the title look like crap.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

- A singles title like the TV title could help the show. I wish they would do more with the US title on the show. Guys like Burke, Richards, and Knox would do good with a secondary title.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

- Punk, Morrison yes, Burke would have been a cheerleader. One good thing about ECW is that it helps young guys. It changed Morrison from a guy that is only over because of some chick doing the splits to a former Champion that is over with the Miz.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

- Not really. I knew as soon as I saw the first show that it would be different. Same thing with the Invasion angle and WCW.

 

I think ECW has gotten better as the years have gone on and has made some good stars. But like Mike said, It's Vince's vision of ECW.

[luke-o 0]

My main problem with the new ECW is that it's effectivly just been another show on WWE with nothing that seperates it. What pisses me off about that is that just shows they were cashing in on the Rise and Fall of ECW DVD cash cow and milked it for all it was worth. The show really may as well not be called ECW because it's a jumped up version of Velocity.

 

Having said that, it has done wonders for CM Punk and Morrison.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

Really, I think Punk's "no drugs" shtick is getting him farther than anything he's ever done in ECW. He may be generic looking with a bunch of lame tattoos, but they're going to give him bigger chances because he won't get nailed taking (insert substance) like a lot of other guys might.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Really, I think Punk's "no drugs" shtick is getting him farther than anything he's ever done in ECW. He may be generic looking with a bunch of lame tattoos, but they're going to give him bigger chances because he won't get nailed taking (insert substance) like a lot of other guys might.

Til Pepsi decides to sue to have him remove the tattoo and blur him out of all the previous shows like the scratch logo..

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Why would they? It's free advertising for the Pepsi company.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Why would they? It's free advertising for the Pepsi company.

 

theres this whole thing called trademarks..might wanna look into it.

 

I doubt they've cared up to this point of some no named wrestler has a tattoo of their trademarked logo on him somewhere, but if they see that WWF starts making money off of him then it might be an issue..

 

and to get back on topic, ECW shouldnt even be called ECW. I think the few people that actually had high hopes on ECW's comeback were deluded considering Vince was involved. Hed never admit that someone did something that was better than what he could do on his own.

 

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

No need to be condescending. I have yet to see WWE try to publicize the Pepsi aspect of the character. And as long as it isn't focused on (which it isn't), I am sure Pepsi would only appreciate the free advertising they get from millions (ok maybe not) of fans watching WWE and seeing the logo tattooed on an arm. By the way, you cannot sue someone for a tattoo. Well you can, but you'd lose.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

The Pepsi tattoo is absent in SD! 2008, IIRC. So there is something.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

There is a difference between seeing it on live/taped TV and putting it in games.

[Slickster 0]

Additional Questions

1. Would things had gone differently for the brand -- i.e. would the brand look different altogether today -- had RVD and Sabu not been pulled over for drugs, with Van Dam having to give up both Heavyweight Championships only a few days later?

Of course. Van Dam was getting the push of a lifetime and was the face of the brand, on par with Rey Mysterio and John Cena. Remember, RVD pinned Rey Mysterio and John Cena- both reigning World champions - in singles matches within a five-day span. He presumably would have carried the ECW title into the fall. Instead, he got a significant (and totally justified) depush until his departure in June 2007.

 

2. Do you feel making an established WWE star in The Big Show the unstoppable heel ECW Champion helped or hindered the brand in its developing months?

 

It definitely helped it in my view, especially since there was literally no one else on the brand with enough fan recognition to carry the load. Remember, they were still doing ECW-only house shows and putting Sabu or Tommy Dreamer as the brand's top guy wasn't going to draw shit with the new ECW fanbase they were working with. I feel like the reign revitalized Show's career by undoing the preceding seven years of midcard stagnation he had been stuck in. Heyman did the right thing by putting Show in Extreme Rules matches against top guys from the other two brands to establish him as credible.

 

3. Would adding a secondary singles title and tag titles make the brand more legitimate in your eyes? Would it help you place ECW on the same level as Raw or Smackdown?

 

At this point, I think a secondary title might work to elevate a guy like Elijah Burke or Kofi Kingston. With the talent exchange with SmackDown!, I think there's no need for ECW tag titles when the WWE tag title picture is already thin.

 

4. Do you think young wrestlers like John Morrison, CM Punk, and Elijah Burke would be more prevalent or less prevalent in the WWE if only Raw and Smackdown existed? Would they even still be in the federation at all?

 

Aside from giving guys like Sabu and Balls Mahoney national exposure, I think the best thing ECW has done is provide a forum for these young guys to showcase their abilities outside of Louisville. I think that these guys would definitely have been lost in the shuffle if they were ever called up to Raw or SmackDown! in the first place.

 

5. Has this reincarnation of ECW ultimately sullied the legacy of the ECW of the 1990s in your mind?

 

Not at all. If anything, it's like watching a great classic movie, then watching a remake of it from decades later. There are things you like/dislike about each version that can be compared.

[Slickster 0]

And regarding the tattoo, WWE removes it from all pictures/merchandise of CM Punk, so they aren't making any money off of it.

[Hawk 34 0]

No need to be condescending. I have yet to see WWE try to publicize the Pepsi aspect of the character. And as long as it isn't focused on (which it isn't), I am sure Pepsi would only appreciate the free advertising they get from millions (ok maybe not) of fans watching WWE and seeing the logo tattooed on an arm. By the way, you cannot sue someone for a tattoo. Well you can, but you'd lose.

 

It should also be noted that a majority of CM Punk signs from the crowd involve the Pepsi logo. WWE also has to edit other tattoos from Punk on video games and other merchandise.

 

I think about 2 years of the WWE version of ECW, people really need to drop this notion that the ECW name really means anything that is supposed to be sacred. It's a simple brand name to give to the Tuesday night telecast. It has done very well in its purpose for the company and that's to give people that would otherwise be out of the company or rarely used at all somewhere to perform. It has been the best thing for the company to let guys like CM Punk, Miz and Morrison shine in their own lights. Granted, ECW isn't seen by as many people as the other two established and long running brands but it's still a national televised program. Punk has proven that being "stuck" on ECW hasn't hurt his ability to get over with the crowds.

 

The show suffered greatly as the start because of a complete lack of direction, focus and understanding. It really picked up once they put things in the proper place and focused on specific performers and angles. At times, ECW was the most fluid brand under the WWE umbrella. It had the upside of weekly doses of 15-20 minute main events Did the lost of RVD, Sabu and other "icons" of the original version damage this brand? Not in the sense that most people want to assume it has. RVD was a lost to the company period regardless of what brand he was a part of. Sabu was severely limited beyond his initial debut and has a obvious track record of being an absolute idiot. It's best for the company that he isn't there. Sandman was always good for a pop but in the sterilized world of WWE, he wasn't likely to do much beyond what he had already done. The fact he lasted as long as he did without causing much trouble other then his departure was a surprise of itself.

 

ECW is a fine addition to the WWE umbrella as long as they don't retreat to the style that nearly killed it from the start and stick with this current direction. It does stand to improve just like the other brands.