|
TLC
Jun 22, 2011 21:47:18 GMT -5
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 22, 2011 21:47:18 GMT -5
I just rewatched the TLC II match from Wrestlemania 17. That was from one of only two PPVs I ever saw and damn that match is still amazing.
How long has it been since WWE/F had at least 3 good tag teams at the same time?
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 22, 2011 23:48:50 GMT -5
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 22, 2011 23:48:50 GMT -5
Was there a third team to go along with MNM and the Hardy Boys when they were both around?
But I think you're right. The last time was Edge/Christian, Hardys, and the Dudleys. Plus, you could add teams like the aPa and a few others to the mix. I miss tag team wrestling that meant something. Gabriel/Slater and Kozlov/Marella just aren't doing it for me
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 8:19:55 GMT -5
Post by allpowerfulgarth on Jun 23, 2011 8:19:55 GMT -5
Well, when MNM and the Hardy Boyz were feuding back in 2006/2007, neither was really working as an established team -- they were mostly special attractions. But WWE did also have Brian Kendrick and Paul London at that time, so that's three, and you can add in the fourth team in the Armageddon 2006 ladder match -- William Regal and Dave Taylor -- if you want. Earlier in 2006, you would have had London/Kendrick, Regal/Taylor, Jamie Noble/Kid Kash and K.C. James/Idol Stevens on Smackdown, which is respectable.
The last time I remember a brand having a really healthy tag team division was late 2005 Smackdown with MNM, the Mexicools, William Regal and Paul Burchill, and the Heidenreich version of the Legion of Doom, plus Nunzio/Vito and London/Kendrick waiting in the wings. And if you can count a division with only three good teams as "relatively healthy," then mid-2007 RAW -- Hardy Boyz, World's Greatest Tag Team and Lance Cade/Trevor Murdoch, plus London/Kendrick when WWE remembered -- was pretty good too.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 9:29:19 GMT -5
Post by pulsar on Jun 23, 2011 9:29:19 GMT -5
In short....WWE has kind of stepped away from using tag teams. It's kind of like someone just takes two guys who aren't doing anything,and just throws them together. Then if they start building a little steam, they break them up. See Hart Dynasty, Legacy (who are back together i think?), Cryme Time, etc.
I think the tag titles have no prestige now, they change hands so ungodly much, seems like it's every time there's a new tag team, we have new champs 2 weeks later.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 21:06:09 GMT -5
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 23, 2011 21:06:09 GMT -5
No titles have prestige anymore. Even getting the WWE/World Heavyweight title doesn't mean a whole lot when there are a half dozen guys who have held them 10+ times (or close to it). I understand that there are no more "jobbers" (just jobbers to the stars) and that necessitates more frequent title changes, but the only way you get a long title reign these days seems to be when they forget you actually have a title (e.g. Daniel Bryan & the United States Title) or there is an injury overload. Take Christian... was it really necessary to hotshot the belt over to Orton in less than a week? They could have stretched it out to the next PPV and still had the angle end up in the same place.
They also have too many damn PPVs as well. I wonder if the recent buy rate plunge will continue so they stop making a significant profit off each one and have to cut back a few.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 21:27:44 GMT -5
Post by mdale2k on Jun 23, 2011 21:27:44 GMT -5
When was the last time someone held the belt for 8 to 9 months
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 21:29:40 GMT -5
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 23, 2011 21:29:40 GMT -5
They also have too many damn PPVs as well. I wonder if the recent buy rate plunge will continue so they stop making a significant profit off each one and have to cut back a few. Haven't they been running 12 PPVs per year for almost 15 years? Didn't they only go over that when they had 3 brands? When was the last time someone held the belt for 8 to 9 months Either CM Punk or John Cena. I think they are the only two guys in post-Invasion WWE to hold a title close to a year or more.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 23, 2011 21:38:09 GMT -5
Post by mdale2k on Jun 23, 2011 21:38:09 GMT -5
I remember Bradshaw held for like 10 months right
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 8:26:28 GMT -5
Post by allpowerfulgarth on Jun 24, 2011 8:26:28 GMT -5
Since the Invasion, WWE has seen three title reigns last longer than a year.
The longest was Trish Stratus' 448-day run with the Women's Title -- she beat Lita for the belt at New Year's Revolution 2005 and lost it to Mickie James at Wrestlemania 22. Second place is Gregory Helms' 385-day run with the Cruiserweight Title from January 2006 to February 2007.
The longest run with a world title is John Cena with the WWE Title, with 380 days from September 2006 to October 2007, and it's entirely possible that he would have held the belt even longer had he not gotten injured and vacated it (though the smart money for the coming No Mercy pay-per-view was on Randy Orton beating Cena for the title). That's followed by Batista with 282 days with the World Heavyweight Title in 2005 and 2006, though he didn't defend the title for several months after getting injured about seven months in and was supposedly booked to lose it even earlier than that to Muhammad Hassan before that whole angle went down the tubes. After that, you've got three 280-day reigns -- Triple H with the World Heavyweight Title 2002-03, John Bradshaw Layfield with the WWE Title 2004-05 and Cena with the WWE Title 2005-06.
The most recent title reign of significant length is probably Montel Vontavious Porter's 343-day run with the United States Title from May 2007 to April 2008. Again, though, it was propped up by injuries -- first MVP's heart condition in the summer of 2007, then Matt Hardy's injury later in the fall. The Miz had a pretty healthy 224-day reign as well, from 2009-10.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 17:10:27 GMT -5
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 24, 2011 17:10:27 GMT -5
Haven't they been running 12 PPVs per year for almost 15 years? Didn't they only go over that when they had 3 brands? They are doing more than 12 at this point. Right now there are two PPV's scheduled in October, so they have 7 left. I can't remember how many they've done this year, but I feel like it could be 7 as well. Keep in mind, though, when WWE went to one a month, first you had the two hour IYH PPVs. Then wrestling exploded so they could afford to have a full PPV every month. With the brand extension I think they were up to 16 a year. I'm not sure they even need 12 right now, especially with the number of 3 hour Raws they have been putting on.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 17:19:43 GMT -5
Post by wickedrex on Jun 24, 2011 17:19:43 GMT -5
I don't know about anyone else, but I like the idea of keeping the major 4 (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series), and then doing a three-hour Raw for the months without an event. Titles, and major storyline turns could take place there, and give more build-up time for the events, and may help elongate title reigns...
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 19:35:59 GMT -5
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 24, 2011 19:35:59 GMT -5
I don't know about anyone else, but I like the idea of keeping the major 4 (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series), and then doing a three-hour Raw for the months without an event. Titles, and major storyline turns could take place there, and give more build-up time for the events, and may help elongate title reigns... Or Big 5 if they didn't ditch King Of The Ring for some reason. Always seemed like a good way to elevate someone to me, yet last year they reduced it to a one night RAW tourney won by Sheamus who called himself king for a few months and didn't even have a televised match at Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 22:38:45 GMT -5
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 24, 2011 22:38:45 GMT -5
I don't know about anyone else, but I like the idea of keeping the major 4 (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series), and then doing a three-hour Raw for the months without an event. Titles, and major storyline turns could take place there, and give more build-up time for the events, and may help elongate title reigns... Not going to happen though. Because they won't make up those lost ppv buys on the lesser ppvs. You cut out 12 ppvs getting a couple hundred thousand buys a piece, where do you add that lost revenue? We might like it from a pure wrestling fan point of view (i.e., "The title reigns will be longer and thus mean more!" "The pay-per-views will seem more special!") but the company would lose a ton of money unless they came up with another revenue stream.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 23:45:16 GMT -5
Post by wickedrex on Jun 24, 2011 23:45:16 GMT -5
Wouldn't running less PPVs give them more time to devote to their other revenue streams (i.e., movies, music, etc.)?
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 24, 2011 23:55:46 GMT -5
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 24, 2011 23:55:46 GMT -5
I think at this point they have to keep doing the 12 a year (I'd say once a month, but there is more lead in time to Wrestlemania) for the aforementioned reason that it is a solid revenue stream. I think they've become even more unbearable lately because there are so many PPVs built around one kind of match now. Each brand has to have its own representatives taking part in those matches. It really makes the gimmick matches pointless.
I don't mind Money in the Bank being moved to its own PPV because its not like Wrestlemania needs it; it is already the biggest event in the company. Having it split the time between Wrestlemania and the Rumble gives them another avenue if the main event scene gets stale. I just wish they wouldn't do one for each brand. Same thing goes for the Elimination Chamber since it is only feasible to do it once a year. But again, when you have two of them it really dilutes everything. Bragging Rights would be fine, too... except there is no "brand loyalty" for the other 11 months of the year.
The separate PPVs for TLC and Hell in a Cell aren't necessary, though. The things that happened in those matches at their beginnings are memorable. I can't remember what the matches were last year and can barely think of what TLC had without looking at the roster. That kind of brings this thread full circle, I guess. Who would have thought after watching the first few TLC matches that you'd EVER get tired of that match? And yet they found a way to do it.
I try to be optimistic about WWE, but they sure do make it difficult for me to do so.
|
|
|
TLC
Jun 27, 2011 16:46:07 GMT -5
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 27, 2011 16:46:07 GMT -5
WWE's gimmicked PPVs are weird because for a long time WWF and WCW only had a few gimmicked PPVs and the rest were generic. It was the kind of thing you saw in e-feds and some TNM circuits. That it got adopted for real life is something I still find bizarro.
Money In The Bank makes sense as a PPV because the winner gets something. Hell In A Cell, TLC, and Elimination Chamber are the kinds of gimmick matches that should be broken out because it makes logical sense in a fued not just for the hell of it.
|
|