Petty Annoyances

[Untouchable]

Another Rumble one for me as well..

People entering themselves in the Rumble. Remember the crowd going ape sh!t when Becky Lynch was talking to Finlay when Lana was injured a few years ago and Becky was screaming at him to put her in Lana's place, and he allowed it which makes sense seeing as he is an official. But scenarios like Nia Jax taking out someone (was it Curt Hawkins?) and just entering herself in the MEN's rumble. I get it, it's dramatic and exciting or whatever but it makes no sense (but if we question WRESTLING rules that dont make sense then what is life anyway haha) that you can just enter a rumble at any time you want. Of course, who is to say that if they win Vince may come out and say nah you werent in it so it aint your win, but still... it takes interest away for me. Keep that sh1t official please. 

[air_raid]

At the very least, being “unofficial” and winning sets up a perfectly logical storyline reason to have the winner forced to defend their shot at a PPV in between, as a few In Your House/No Way Out/Massacre etc February PPVs hosted over the years, to add some stakes to a B show and keep things exciting rather than just leave the winner as the challenger set in stone for three months.

Perfectly logical, and yet they haven’t gone in that direction. Not with Lynch, going with the lame suspension angle as her reason to have to fight her way back in, and not with Lesnar, who’s being afforded to chance to win the other title rather than defend the shot he has. Shrug.gif

Edited February 8, 2022 by air_raid

[BomberPat]

34 minutes ago, air_raid said:

At the very least, being. “unofficial” and winning sets up a perfectly logical storyline reason to have the winner forced to defend their shot at a PPV in between, as a few In Your House/No Way Out/Massacre etc February PPVs hosted over the years, to add some stakes to a B show and keep things exciting rather than just leave the winner as the challenger set in stone for three months.

Perfectly logical, and yet they haven’t gone in that direction. Not with Lynch, going with the lame suspension angle as her reason to have to fight her way back in, and not with Lesnar, who’s being afforded to chance to win the other title rather than defend the shot he has. Shrug.gif

That's the thing - I'm a firm believer in wrestling having rules, both within the match and outside of it, in terms of how things operate.

I've talked about the Dude Love/Stone Cold match from Over The Edge '98 a lot as being the best ever version of the crooked ref/evil authority stacking the odds dynamic, and probably the best Attitude Era match. That match works because, within the very daft set of rules they've created, they've made every effort to make it make sense. Vince can't just openly screw over Austin, because The Undertaker is out there to keep him in line, but he'll still try every trick in the book. When he makes rule changes on the fly, Pat Patterson's line is always, "I would like to remind you that this is a no disqualification match", as if it always was, because it gets so much more heat when the heels are just stupid enough to think that they're getting away with it. When they repeated the gimmick a while back with Lacey Evans refereeing a Corbin/Rollins match, she never did the "remind you" bit and just kept adding stipulations, which completely misses that point.

The difference is just in the attention to detail to making it work. The Lynch/Finlay angle was a great example that built crowd support because they knew what was coming, but were given a logical route to get there. 

Now, I'm not saying those rules should ever be broken. Breaking those rules is where good storytelling can come from. But everyone involved in the story needs to react as if there are rules being broken. Robotic Michael Cole not even questioning how Brock Lesnar got a Royal Rumble spot, no pause or confusion before his music started playing, no crew or referees acting like he didn't belong there. No, he was just in the Rumble match because they needed to get to Lesnar vs. Reigns, logic be damned.

[Jazzy G]

@BomberPatthey did something similar with the Duchess Of Queensbury rules match between Jericho & Regal where Jericho would pick up the win, then the Duchess would get in the referee and ring announcer's ear and explain that under the rules that finish was not permitted until Regal got the win.

Dave Rayne would do similar in PCW with the #Boom championship where he had his rulebook and would add to them whenever he was pinned etc to enable himself to retain the title for as long as possible. I think somebody either stole the book, or amended the rules themself in order to get around it and best him.

Like you've already said the rules are a great help to the story of the match. 

[BomberPat]

Just now, jazzygeofferz said:

@BomberPatthey did something similar with the Duchess Of Queensbury rules match between Jericho & Regal where Jericho would pick up the win, then the Duchess would get in the referee and ring announcer's ear and explain that under the rules that finish was not permitted until Regal got the win.

Dave Rayne would do similar in PCW with the #Boom championship where he had his rulebook and would add to them whenever he was pinned etc to enable himself to retain the title for as long as possible. I think somebody either stole the book, or amended the rules themself in order to get around it and best him.

Like you've already said the rules are a great help to the story of the match. 

yeah, the Duchess of Queensbury was the same schtick, that the conceit was that even though the heels were obviously making it up as they went along, they kept up the pretence that they were just "reminding" people of the real rules.

WCW did an infamous at New Blood Rising, where they did a Canadian Rules match between Lance Storm and Mike Awesome, with Jacques Rougeau as the heel ref/enforcer adding new rules at every opportunity - problem was, the show was in Canada, so Rougeau just gets a massive pop every time he adds a new rule. 

What makes them work is always that sense that the heels are getting away with it, and think that they're being really smart in doing so, even though it's so obvious to the entire crowd. I was saying this at a seminar recently, and it's become my go-to explanation of how wrestling should work - what gets audiences annoyed isn't bad behaviour in a vacuum, it's transgression. If you don't try and enforce the rules, or act as if they matter, then a heel breaking them doesn't mean anything. But if the rules are consistent and well-enforced, then every time a heel finds away around them the audience will really get on their case for it. That's not just true in wrestling, that's true in life - people aren't angry with Boris Johnson for having a party, they're angry that he had a party that was outside of the rules that he insisted the rest of us follow. It's the transgression that matters.

The moment you start chopping and changing the rules to fit your story, rather than amending the story to fit within the rules, you start to lose the audience. They might necessarily recognise why, but you're telling them that nothing matters and there's no point getting invested, and that message will come through on some level.

[air_raid]

7 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

Dave Rayne would do similar in PCW with the #Boom championship where he had his rulebook and would add to them whenever he was pinned etc to enable himself to retain the title for as long as possible. I think somebody either stole the book, or amended the rules themself in order to get around it and best him.

The title can’t be won by submission on the 9th or 16th of the month. The title can’t change hands on the last Friday of the month.

Dave lost the belt when he was rendered incapable of amending the rules before the belt was long out of sight, losing it to the only person who could out-“rule book” him, the PCW GM, Joanna Rose.

[simonworden]

I like to assume that Shawn Michaels still has the only copy of the WWF rulebook since 1999 and hasn't given it back so they just go off the dodgy memory of Vince and pals.

Is the only time they've done a Rumble finish with a legit grievance Rock/Big Show in 2000?

I still get annoyed with Mysterio defending his win against Orton, losing and then Long putting him back into the match straight away. I know a babyface should always take the courageous route but why couldn't Rey have just gone "Nah mate, not doing it". Logically the shit shouldnt have been on the line then Orton wins at No Way Out and pressures Long into being added so there's more heat on the match's only heel. 

[air_raid]

2 minutes ago, simonworden said:

I still get annoyed with Mysterio defending his win against Orton, losing and then Long putting him back into the match straight away. I know a babyface should always take the courageous route but why couldn't Rey have just gone "Nah mate, not doing it". Logically the shit shouldnt have been on the line then Orton wins at No Way Out and pressures Long into being added so there's more heat on the match's only heel. 

Teddy’s got no reason to acquiesce to that demand. I think “Eddys in hell” as goading to get the match and cheating to beat Rey to steal his title shot was as much heat as they were going to get, rather than Orton winning a match without the stakes then whining his way in.

It did hamper Rey though. He looked stupid for being tricked into the match, then a loser for losing it. Then as champ they’d carry on making him look a loser with those non-title defeats to super heavyweights. Such shabby booking of an alleged babyface we won’t see again until Sashas run with Charlotte where she’d be booked as loser, choke artist AND quitter by the end.

”We make movies” but we can’t write heroes to save our lives.

[Liam O'Rourke]

2 hours ago, simonworden said:

Is the only time they've done a Rumble finish with a legit grievance Rock/Big Show in 2000?

Does Bret/Austin in 97 count?

[Carbomb]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

WCW did an infamous at New Blood Rising, where they did a Canadian Rules match between Lance Storm and Mike Awesome, with Jacques Rougeau as the heel ref/enforcer adding new rules at every opportunity - problem was, the show was in Canada, so Rougeau just gets a massive pop every time he adds a new rule. 

It's an interesting thing, that - it sounds Russoriffic, but when you think about it, there's kind of a booking history there: in the past, wCw did upset the traditional paradigm enough with the nWo that they were able to book even the crowd as heels, i.e. via the nWo-themed PPVs, which the fans seemingly embraced with a fair bit of enthusiasm. Between the New Blood/Millionaires' Club feud and the Canadian Rules match, I wouldn't have been surprised if they still felt they could book things arse-about-face and have it seen as super-creative and intriguing.

[Winston]

1 hour ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

Does Bret/Austin in 97 count?

So little star power in that Rumble but a great story like that makes all the difference and memorable to this day.

97 was an excellent year.

[simonworden]

9 hours ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

Does Bret/Austin in 97 count?

I guess so. Did they ever have a match over it or was that shitcanned when Shawn lost his smile?

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

13 hours ago, BomberPat said:

 

WCW did an infamous at New Blood Rising, where they did a Canadian Rules match between Lance Storm and Mike Awesome, with Jacques Rougeau as the heel ref/enforcer adding new rules at every opportunity - problem was, the show was in Canada, so Rougeau just gets a massive pop every time he adds a new rule.  

What made that match even worse from memory was after Lance was pinned clean, the ref said "it has to be a five count" resulting in Lance being pinned by three or four counts multiple times, this making him look weak.

[WyattSheepMask]

9 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

What made that match even worse from memory was after Lance was pinned clean, the ref said "it has to be a five count" resulting in Lance being pinned by three or four counts multiple times, this making him look weak.

But it did give us Schiavone saying “And he’s kicked out at 4. What the hell am I saying!?”, so every cloud and all that.

In kayfabe it works to Storm’s benefit. Under “normal” rules he has to kick out by 2, whereas if he’s got till 5 under “Canadian” rules, that gives him an extra 2 seconds recovery time on every pinfall that Awesome attempted. Had they done it anywhere else other than Canada it would’ve gotten great heel heat

Edited February 9, 2022 by WyattSheepMask

[air_raid]

6 hours ago, simonworden said:

I guess so. Did they ever have a match over it or was that shitcanned when Shawn lost his smile?

The whole Final Four deal was the match over it. Austin in there with the three guys he illegally eliminated to determine who deserved the Mania title shot. Originally scheduled for Sid winning the belt in Lowell and Taker winning Final Four (potentially Shawn costing Bret, IIRC) leading to Sid vs Taker and Bret vs Shawn at Mania. Hastily rejigged to Bret winning the match and the belt then dropping it the next night to Sid.

Three points of interest - it’s unbelievably weird watching back the Rumble and Raw the next night re : Bret and Austin while reminding yourself that in the plan, this isn’t being blown off at Mania, and that Austin will work Smithers instead. Secondly, I think it’s crazy that if HBK wasn’t injured regardless, Final Four would have been the 3rd PPV in 5 that they ran without him, despite positioning him as the top guy (all three In Your Houses).

Finally…. I always thought “Final Four” was a misnomer, as after Austin winning and Bret being last out, the second to last guy eliminated was Glen Diesel, by Hart. I guess “Four From The Final Five” isn’t much of a name.

15 hours ago, Winston said:

So little star power in that Rumble 

……….. if you say so.