RedRooster Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 8 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: How can forcefully seperating your top acts and putting up a barrier stopping them from interacting with eachother not be harmful? Let me give you a scenario - you have Eddie Kingston on Collision and Samoa Joe on Dynamite...now they can't feud with eachother because of a "brand split". Why would you intentionally put up a brick wall to stop Kingston and Joe feuding? I want to see Joe/Eddie feuding! All the positives you've listed you can absolutely do without a brand split. Brand splits are shit! And the second you start "trading" people over to the other show the whole concept becomes pointless anyway. See, the reasons you dislike them are the reasons I like them! The brick wall you describe is imaginary really, you can shift talent any time you want. But it can create demand to see a match; and by having that demand it allows you to create a feeling of freshness any time a wrestler moves from one show to the other. Without a split, you can't do that. As it stands, there are too many top wrestlers competing for the same top spots - it means people who should be main eventers, can't be as prominent as they perhaps should be. Split the rosters, that problem is solved. I disagree that 'trading' makes the concept pointless - the whole idea behind them is to create more opportunities (I think it's hard to argue that they don't) and to keep each show feeling fresh - which trading allows. It would also end the need to rely on factions to cram everyone on to one show - something that single-handedly justifies a split for me. My preference would be, however, that AEW cuts down the number of shows it airs - if it ever went back to being Dynamite only or to just Dynamite and Rampage, I think you'd eliminate most of the issues AEW faces overnight. People would definitely be left wanting more, but that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted February 1 Paid Members Share Posted February 1 (edited) 26 minutes ago, RedRooster said: See, the reasons you dislike them are the reasons I like them! The brick wall you describe is imaginary really, you can shift talent any time you want. But it can create demand to see a match; and by having that demand it allows you to create a feeling of freshness any time a wrestler moves from one show to the other. Without a split, you can't do that. If you can shift the talent whenever you want then a split is pointless! It's what happens with every WWE split, they start moving people about and before you know it the split is dead and everyone ignores it/forget it even exists then a few years later the cycle repeats. Relying on a brand split to create demand to see a match is a lazy short cut. It's creatively bankrupt. Wrestlers, stories and matches can and should be kept fresh with good booking and good storytelling. Plenty of companies have managed to do this in wrestling history without a brand split. And finally, a "brand split" is such a WWE concept I never want to see it anywhere near AEW. AEW should always be different. EDIT: I think fundamentally RedRooster me and you see wrestling in completely different ways, we rarely seem to agree on anything. Glad we can disagree constantly without being arsey with eachother though x Edited February 1 by LaGoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) 14 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: If you can shift the talent whenever you want then a split is pointless! It's what happens with every WWE split, they start moving people about and before you know it the split is dead and everyone ignores it/forget it even exists then a few years later the cycle repeats. I don't think we're going to agree on this - which is fine, obviously it's fine to hold different views on things like this - but I think you've misunderstood what I mean. When I say you can shift talent whenever you want, I mean theoretically - not that you should. A degree of keeping wrestlers on one show helps give that show an identity. But having wrestlers 'move' through trades is fine, if you're smart about it. The idea of a brand split isn't to stop matches from happening, it's to make it more exciting when they do, and to open up opportunities. The occasional wrestler moving from one show to the other doesn't affect that. 14 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: Relying on a brand split to create demand to see a match is a lazy short cut. It's creatively bankrupt. Wrestlers, stories and matches can and should be kept fresh with good booking and good storytelling. Plenty of companies have managed to do this in wrestling history without a brand split. Obviously I disagree with this - I've given examples already as for why it forces you to be creative, but I'll do it again - without the brand split we may not have had the JBL gimmick, Eddie Guerrero as WWE Champion, the 'Smackdown Six', AJ Styles as a multi-time champion, the rise of Batista and John Cena, 'Hall of Pain' era Mark Henry, CM Punk and Daniel Bryan moving up the card and, of course, Jinder Mahal as WWE Champion. It forces you to push new wrestlers and try new things. While you can do that in the current format, it really isn't essential, because you have the opportunity to rotate things quite easily, and a large number of wrestlers competing for the same main spots. Khan has tried to rectify this by creating more titles, but I don't think that has worked. 14 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: And finally, a "brand split" is such a WWE concept I never want to see it anywhere near AEW. AEW should always be different. You don't need to be different for the sake of it. Some of the best ever AEW angles could easily have been done in WWE - the Omega/Page storyline, Christian's 'dad' gimmick, La Dinner Debonairre, MJF/Punk, MJF/Wardlow and 'Timeless' Toni Storm. The two companies aren't that different when you break it down. WWE has its distinct tropes and approaches, as does AEW - but they are more similar than they are different, I'd argue. Aaaanyway, we're probably in danger of derailing the thread - so I'll add this question: does anyone actually think Don Callis is any good in his role? I feel like he overshadows the wrestlers he's associated with, rather than compliments them. I'm not a fan... Edited February 1 by RedRooster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted February 1 Paid Members Share Posted February 1 27 minutes ago, RedRooster said: without the brand split we may not have had the JBL gimmick Have you ever watched the shows from this period back? Full of absolutely awful stuff. Heindenreich's, Basham Brothers, Orlando Jordan's, Renee Dupree's...the list of shite hawks stinking up the cards is overwhelming. Argument enough against brand splits. As for Don Callis...I like him more than most but no, he's not good right now. He works when he's with Kenny but no one else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 1 Paid Members Share Posted February 1 4 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: Have you ever watched the shows from this period back? Full of absolutely awful stuff. Heindenreich's, Basham Brothers, Orlando Jordan's, Renee Dupree's...the list of shite hawks stinking up the cards is overwhelming. Argument enough against brand splits. Yeah. It’s fucking crackers to think of the shows they did in 2000-Mania 17, then that they planned the split because of all the new names they were getting from WCW and ECW, and within 2 years it had become “Shit, we better get Billy Gunn, Hardcore Holly and Scotty Too Hotty on the PPV. To job for Mordecai, Luther Reigns and Kenzo Suzuki.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) 25 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: Have you ever watched the shows from this period back? Full of absolutely awful stuff. Heindenreich's, Basham Brothers, Orlando Jordan's, Renee Dupree's...the list of shite hawks stinking up the cards is overwhelming. Argument enough against brand splits. Yeah, they made some terrible decisions, but it doesn't have to be that way - they were pushing Vince McMahon's vision of what a wrestler would be, AEW obviously wouldn't do that. Having said that, I thought the Basham Brothers were pretty decent. I won't defend the rest of them, though! It's mad that we went from what Smackdown was a year prior, to what it then became. They managed to dig themselves out of that hole eventually, but it was a grim year of programming for sure. JBL was pretty good as champ, though. Edited February 1 by RedRooster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 1 Paid Members Share Posted February 1 2 minutes ago, RedRooster said: JBL was pretty good as champ, though. They made a midcard tag team jobber into WWE Champion. It was awful. Like an 8 on the Jinder scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 minute ago, air_raid said: They made a midcard tag team jobber into WWE Champion. It was awful. Like an 8 on the Jinder scale. I liked him at the time, and thought he had really good matches. I only started watching in late 2002 though, and my first experience of Bradshaw was when the APA returned in (I think) 2003, so I didn't really have any idea as to who he was or what he had done beforehand. He was essentially a new wrestler and new character to me, so I didn't have any strong opinions on him. I mean, I was about as keen as anyone on him when he first emerged as a contender, but he won me over pretty quickly and I genuinely enjoyed his run with the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Land Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 How you know the magic's gone. Prospect of Hangman v. Swerve III and Sting & Darby challenging for the tag titles next week. Attendance woes, brand splits and JBL are key talking points the day after Dynamite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted February 1 Paid Members Share Posted February 1 JBL was good in retrospect for me. I enjoy watching the highlights of his run now but at the time his sudden main event spot felt completely unearned and out of nowhere. Watching week to week was pretty brutal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrodyGraham Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Infinity Land said: How you know the magic's gone. Prospect of Hangman v. Swerve III and Sting & Darby challenging for the tag titles next week. Attendance woes, brand splits and JBL are key talking points the day after Dynamite. Next week feels like it should be a named show. They're really throwing a lot at that particular episode. This one was pretty much a nothing Dynamite which served as little more than prelude to what should be essentially a mini PPV next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 4 hours ago, RedRooster said: The brick wall you describe is imaginary really And that's why it doesn't work. The idea behind the "brand split" as WWE envisaged it was to recreate the excitement of the 90s when wrestlers moved from WCW to WWF, and the fans fantasised about and then paid to see "dream matches". Goldberg and Austin, Taker and Sting etc. (Odd that those ones actually never too place!). But it never worked for Smackdown and Raw. I can't think of a single brand-created matchup I ever wanted that didn't happen within 6 months. You're right that the era gave rise to some big stars, but they would have been stars anyway - Batista, Orton, Cena, Lesnar were the cream regardless of circumstances. The only way it could ever have worked was if they had been literally separate companies, separate tv and one joint PPV a year. The WWE could never restrain themselves and Tony Sniff certainly wouldn't be able to. The original brand split was also a reaction to the fact that WWF/E had killed all its competition so it HAD to create one. In 2002 there was nobody else but WWE. That's not the case now, you have AEW, WWE, TNA, NJPW, AJPW etc all producing stars who can move around and create novelty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Land Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 CMLL just "invaded". Free agent RVD main evented this week, MiSu last week. Forbidden Door's every year. There's an ROH title belt every other segment (except for the women's division). Kinda defeats the purpose. Have TK be the GM of one show and an AITK run the other one. Actually let the AI one do the booking as an experiment. I don't think it could do any worse at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddymagic Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 The fact that the last 3 pages seems to be arguing about a WWE angle from 20 years ago seems fit for a promotion that has not just lost its way but but no longer has access to Google maps. Can't say I enjoyed much AEW last year despite being a big fan in 2019 - 2021 - and this weeks Dynamite was the pits. No direction, no real stories. Just going through the motions. It ain't ever gonna change is it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted February 2 Paid Members Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Daddymagic said: Can't say I enjoyed much AEW last year despite being a big fan in 2019 - 2021 - and this weeks Dynamite was the pits. No direction, no real stories. Just going through the motions. It ain't ever gonna change is it?! Mox beat down by CMLL Toni Storm building up her story with Virtuosa Young Bucks decent into heeldom Sting/Darby challenging the tag champs Swerve and Page huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.