BHK Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Ron Simmons to Faarooq Asad is quite possibly the biggest disparity between gimmicks ever.
DerangedHermit Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 thread of the year. it's January 8th
Promoter Posted January 9, 2009 Author Report Posted January 9, 2009 thread of the year. it's January 8th
Broward83 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 I forgot how totally bad-ass Faarooq was when he was with the Nation.
Floridian Cool Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 There is a difference between edgy and risque. Eric Bischoff said on the Monday Night Wars DVD that they (WCW or Turner/TNT) did a focus group with wrestling fans and found that they liked "unpredictable" TV and "anything can happen" scenarios. Remember that Nitro beat RAW for 80+ weeks with no risque content. What made Nitro a hot product was the nWo angle. That angle was all about "unscripted" interruptions, run-ins, huge gang fights, never knowing if/when Sting or Hogan would show up to take part in the fight, etc. WWE has nothing like that. Not even close. 95% of the time, their run-ins and saves are totally predictable and don't feel like real street fights. If John Cena comes down to make the save, you can bet the house that he's going to clothesline the heel over the top or FU somebody. I haven't been a RAW viewer in like a year and a half, and that's generous considering that the show has sucked ass for about 10 years now.
bob_barron Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 WWE has nothing like that. Not even close. 95% of the time, their run-ins and saves are totally predictable and don't feel like real street fights. If John Cena comes down to make the save, you can bet the house that he's going to clothesline the heel over the top or FU somebody. I haven't been a RAW viewer in like a year and a half, and that's generous considering that the show has sucked ass for about 10 years now. What? That's every save. Face runs in, some punches and either the heel bails, or the face puts them out that way. Saying RAW has sucked ass for ten years is just not true either.
DarKnight Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 Would it be wrong to say that Raw has sucked for about 7 years? I always thought in 2002 when Austin and The Rock were gone and the Lesnar push began, that this was when the WWE started declining in quality, but thats just my opinion.
Old School Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 There's still good RAW shows. It's just that during the Monday Night Wars, almost out of necessity, there were long stretches of GREAT shows. The storylines were a lot more appealing, however let's not forget that we were all younger too. Probably less jaded as well.
Promoter Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Posted January 10, 2009 There is a difference between edgy and risque. Eric Bischoff said on the Monday Night Wars DVD that they (WCW or Turner/TNT) did a focus group with wrestling fans and found that they liked "unpredictable" TV and "anything can happen" scenarios. Remember that Nitro beat RAW for 80+ weeks with no risque content. What made Nitro a hot product was the nWo angle. That angle was all about "unscripted" interruptions, run-ins, huge gang fights, never knowing if/when Sting or Hogan would show up to take part in the fight, etc. WWE has nothing like that. Not even close. 95% of the time, their run-ins and saves are totally predictable and don't feel like real street fights. C/S They could just make it less "programmed" for a start.
The Niggardly King Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 I actually liked The Gladiator Farooq Assad, fucking up kidneys and cutting bad ass promos and such. Good times.
bob_barron Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 Would it be wrong to say that Raw has sucked for about 7 years? I always thought in 2002 when Austin and The Rock were gone and the Lesnar push began, that this was when the WWE started declining in quality, but thats just my opinion. Yes. 2002 and 2003 were pretty bad, but RAW really turned it around in 2004.
jester Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 I think what they should is have early Saturday morning shows aimed at a younger audience liked they used to, like WWF Superstars or Saturday Morning JobberSquash or whatever it was called, and start building a young audience. Then you have Raw and the late evening stuff for late teens, making it a little risque for the older folks, and the PPVs where it can all hang out for the mature crowd. More or less. Kind of like The Batman is for the young Batman fan, and The Dark Knight is for the more mature audience. I don't think I explained that well but I am too tired to fix it.
DarKnight Posted January 11, 2009 Report Posted January 11, 2009 Yes. 2002 and 2003 were pretty bad, but RAW really turned it around in 2004. Oh, I agree, 2004 looked like a very promising year from the start, with Eddie and Benoit having the titles, but I thought about the summer or so, it went to absolute shit. Thats when the JBL push began, and Orton's horrible face run. I also thought RVD was really underused on SD as well. They could have done a lot with him. If it wasn't for Benoit and Eddie being pushed earlier in the year, I might consider it the worst year the WWE has had in a long time.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now