Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MPDTT

All Elite Wrestling trademarks filed

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

The way CHIKARA do it is that a win earns you a point, and getting three points grants you a title shot, but a loss resets your points to zero. Some matches are specifically exempt (usually if they're for another championship, or part of a tournament), and in a four-way eliminator, each person you pin counts as a win. 

That's the closest to a working "ranking" system I've ever seen in wrestling. Anything else becomes fiddly and over-complicated, because you start having to account for DQs, count outs, injuries, Dusty Finishes, and every other wrestling trope that came into being because bookers needed to work around any kind of legitimate trappings.

I dunno, I was thinking that they could have a very simple ranking, not based on points, but simply by position, a bit like combat sports' informal rankings. Say you have a tournament at the beginning to decide the No.1 contender, and people's rankings thenceforth. Then you have a simple system via which people move up or down the rankings depending on whom they beat in the pecking order, or by how many wins in a row they put together. You could have angles where placements are put on the line; say, for example, a storyline where a popular underdog or jobber on a losing streak, rooted to the bottom of the rankings, is being bullied by a much higher-ranked villain - the blue-eye finally stands up to him and challenges him for his place, and obviously the villain accepts, arrogantly believing he can't lose. Cue maybe some interference by another blue-eye feuding with the antagonist to cost him the match and his place, and all of a sudden the jobber is in a Cinderella story, climbing his way painfully yet steadily towards a title shot.

There are all sorts of possibilities; if wrestling's shown us anything, especially WWE at their best, it's that you can book anything to happen and it'll get over with enough thought and effort put into it. Who'd have thought we could have four Wrestlemanias on the trot where the Undertaker could defend his streak against the same two guys, and everybody would not only buy into those matches, but hail them as classics too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jericho’s podcast this week is just him talking about his journey to signing for AEW. Funny story about the Rusev Taker casket match that everyone seen it as shitting on Rusev, when it was flicking Jericho about cause of his new japan deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I dunno, I was thinking that they could have a very simple ranking, not based on points, but simply by position, a bit like combat sports' informal rankings. Say you have a tournament at the beginning to decide the No.1 contender, and people's rankings thenceforth. Then you have a simple system via which people move up or down the rankings depending on whom they beat in the pecking order, or by how many wins in a row they put together.

The simplest way to get these across to your viewer in a way that makes sense is a re-establishment of "the championship committee" who determine the rankings. This gives you easy stories to tell where the heel gets to be a whiny bitch about their latest challenger or the fiery babyface gets to go all out to prove that they deserve a title shot all in the direction of the faceless committee without having to adhere to the worn out trope of the visible in-ring/on-screen authority figure taking too much mic time away from the talent and boring the viewer to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be a PWI style ranking system to work, IMO. it doesn't need points or anything complicated, just a published ranking every fortnight or month that takes roughly into account wins and losses and doesn't have any glaring fault.

I think it can have a place. It saves you running millions of #1 contender matches or arbitrarily picking someone from nowhere. It gives fans something to discuss. And it can be a useful storytelling tool if you use it to have someone climb the rankings or have the #1 and #2 guys face off in a big match to determine the challenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, air_raid said:

The simplest way to get these across to your viewer in a way that makes sense is a re-establishment of "the championship committee" who determine the rankings. This gives you easy stories to tell where the heel gets to be a whiny bitch about their latest challenger or the fiery babyface gets to go all out to prove that they deserve a title shot all in the direction of the faceless committee without having to adhere to the worn out trope of the visible in-ring/on-screen authority figure taking too much mic time away from the talent and boring the viewer to death.

100% agreed. No more bloody Vince simulacra; apart from being overplayed, it also doesn't feel quite as "authoritative" any more, now that we know somebody can stand up to the evil boss, beat the shit out of him, and foil his machinations. With a committee and perhaps a Jack Tunney type who only shows up on rare occasions to deliver a judgment with an air of authority that cannot be challenged (mainly because nobody can find the fuckers to deliver the decision-changing beatdown), it would make storylines a bit more solid, I think.

EDIT: On a personal note, I would also like to see the use of bullshitted (bullshat?) random occurrences, like Pat Patterson creating the Inter-Continental title by apparently winning THE South American championship at some kayfabed tournament in Brazil. Would help facilitate storylines and angles by enabling the bookers to mess with the rankings using "outside events". Also, it's funny.

Edited by Carbomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

With a committee and perhaps a Jack Tunney type who only shows up on rare occasions to deliver a judgment with an air of authority that cannot be challenged (mainly because nobody can find the fuckers to deliver the decision-changing beatdown), it would make storylines a bit more solid, I think.

Agreed. The authority figure used to be important and powerful because they delivered summary judgement from their ivory tower which couldn't be challenged - they could neither be challenged nor coerced with face to face pleas or threats. Vader duffing up Gorilla Monsoon was shocking as hell at the time because it simply wasn't done and established Vader as an unpredictable monster heel more dangerous that anyone had ever seen (and then he broke Yokozuna's fucking leg!!... for a month). Steve Austin standing up to Vince with the threat of being fired hanging over his head was fresh and authentic, but 20 years later it's repetitive and dull in truth, and the kindest way of putting it would be that if a startup wants to sell itself as "the alternative" it's one of a thousand things to avoid to stand out as satisfying viewers disenchanted with WWE.

Edited by air_raid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

What a 5 star burial of Cody Rhodes in Forbes.

7og1w2tq3oa21.png?width=640&crop=smart&a

I was moaning about this article on Twitter - it's utter tosh, and sums up a lot of what's annoying me about coverage of AEW; it just has no grounding in reality, it's so deep in the Bullet Club T-shirt wrestling fan bubble, and has no sense of perspective. The whole thing is comparing AEW to WCW, because fans so desperately want there to be another WCW - people who grew up thinking the Monday Night Wars were the default state of how wrestling works just can't conceive of a world where wrestling isn't two equal competitors at "war" with each other.

The article unquestioningly echoes Jericho in comparing him signing to Hogan signing with WCW, refers to Kevin Nash as a "name from the '80s", and buries Nash as a booker, saying that it resulted in "obvious conflicts of interest", then praises Cody & The Young Bucks' "track record" as bookers based solely on All-In, a show on which Cody and the Bucks won their respective matches, but apparently that's not a conflict of interest.

And if you can make sense of what those quoted paragraphs even mean in relation to one another, you're a more perceptive man than I.

16 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

EDIT: On a personal note, I would also like to see the use of bullshitted (bullshat?) random occurrences, like Pat Patterson creating the Inter-Continental title by apparently winning THE South American championship at some kayfabed tournament in Brazil. Would help facilitate storylines and angles by enabling the bookers to mess with the rankings using "outside events". Also, it's funny.

In CIWW, we've now had one "tournament in Rio de Janeiro" to crown our first Tag Team Champions, and a United States Champion who just debuted with the belt. So much easier than faffing about with rankings, that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authority figures are so done. Have a faceless governing body who make the decisions and managers of factions who do the talking.

I feel making the concept of a Pro Wrestling Promotion different to what 'the norm' is, is paramount to creating a successful market so anything they can throw at it that is so far away from WWE can only be a good thing.  You aren't going to get very far just doing the same thing. Tony Khan as heel GM etc. WWE is just far too oiled and stable now that having another show that is similar will just die on it's arse. 

But maybe people just want the same but just not under the WWE umbrella?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I was moaning about this article on Twitter - it's utter tosh, and sums up a lot of what's annoying me about coverage of AEW; it just has no grounding in reality, it's so deep in the Bullet Club T-shirt wrestling fan bubble, and has no sense of perspective. The whole thing is comparing AEW to WCW, because fans so desperately want there to be another WCW - people who grew up thinking the Monday Night Wars were the default state of how wrestling works just can't conceive of a world where wrestling isn't two equal competitors at "war" with each other.

In fairness though, its neither the default state of wrestling to have one juggernaut enjoying a monopoly-like market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with a ranking system is it creates losers as well as winners. It's alright if you can find enough losers that you're not wasting potential winners which maybe why they've hired Kazarian. 

If they want to be an alternative and not the poor man's NJPW everyone is expecting them to be they should go with no titles. Clearly. Have people wrestle for interpersonal reasons or for speedboats, lawnmowers and cuddly toys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see how a kayfabe ranking system can be made to work, just look at any of the rankings of any of the world boxing organisations. They seem to be able to come up with "Eliminator" and "Final Eliminator" matchesthat make very little sense. Look at the WBC heavyweight rankings. Wilder is champ and they don't rate Joshua in the top 15 despite the fact he is champion of all the other organisations. Wins and losses matter but they are not the be all and end all. The rankings can be used as a storytelling device,  they are in boxing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vamp said:

the poor man's NJPW everyone is expecting them to be

If they have the Golden Lovers as well as the Bucks, in the eyes of many that will leave the poor man's New Japan as actual New Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WCW ran a successful enough top ten for 3 or 4 years. It's a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BigJackTaylor said:

Authority figures are so done. Have a faceless governing body who make the decisions and managers of factions who do the talking.

I feel making the concept of a Pro Wrestling Promotion different to what 'the norm' is, is paramount to creating a successful market so anything they can throw at it that is so far away from WWE can only be a good thing.  You aren't going to get very far just doing the same thing. Tony Khan as heel GM etc. WWE is just far too oiled and stable now that having another show that is similar will just die on it's arse. 

But maybe people just want the same but just not under the WWE umbrella?

 

The problem is finding a balance. As someone said earlier, WWE have a demonstrable model that is known to work and make money. The challenge for any promotion looking to get anywhere near a fraction of that level of success is to take the elements that work, like perhaps philosophy of performance (match structure, psych, booking principles) and production values, while working that all into a model that differentiates them enough from WWE in terms of presentation and "feel" that will give the fans a reason to tune in for something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...