PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

 
 

WOULD I LIKE THE DRAFT BETTER IF IT WERE AFTER WRESTLEMANIA, DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, STATS AND MORE

By Dave Scherer on 2020-10-21 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A at pwinsider@gmail.com.

I just read you felt the whole draft is a booking crutch and tiresome like MITB.  I kind of agree in that it's always done to accommodate the whole "season premiere" concept which is a month before Survivor Series and we get the traditional brand vs brand matches so soon.  Would you have  a different opinion if the draft was held after WrestleMania which originally that's how it started?

Not really, no.  The concept is convoluted.  There are no authority figures making the picks. All of the wrestlers work for WWE.  Plus, wrestlers come and go all year long between brands so there is really nothing in the draft concept that interests me.  Now, if the booking was actually good and they could create interesting storylines out of it, I would probably enjoy it more.  But, that isn't the case.

I am so sick of all the podcast pundits like Pritchard, Ross, Cornette, Meltzer, and Bischoff - all crapping on the Ultimate Warrior's legacy - with their revisionist history. Let me drop some facts. He had epic rivalries with legends like the Honky Tonk Man, Rick Rude, Andre The Giant, Bobby Heenan, Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Undertaker, and Ric Flair - with memorable moments that fans of that era still remember to this day! His big PPV and SNME matches delivered quality action. Wrestling purists may hate this, but far more casual fans of the late 80's/early 90's knew of - and loved - the Ultimate Warrior more than 80's workrate "icons", such as: Sting, Ricky Steamboat, Terry Funk, Harley Race, and even Ric Flair (except in NWA strongholds.) The podcast pundits always give Vince and Warrior's opponents total credit for his success, but that assumes you can plug anybody into that role, which is not true. It's clear they can't separate their personal distaste for Warrior's ring style, preventing them from objectively assessing his legacy. Considering even lapsed fans older than 35+ still remember the Ultimate Warrior fondly, don't you think he should get more respect from the wrestling pundits? Not every wrestler has to have the workrate Daniel Bryan to be considered great!

I think everyone who does a podcast has an opinion and likes what they like.  I don’t listen to all of those shows so I can’t comment on what they said about him.  But with a guy like Meltzer, he likes workrate oriented talents so it would stand to reason he doesn’t like his matches.  I wasn’t a huge fan of UW’s matches either, but as you mentioned, a lot of fans loved him and that should be mentioned in critiques of him.

When AEW launched, much was made over their use of wrestler records and especially stats. The records on their website, which needs A LOT of TLC itself, are extremely confusing at times and so many don't add up no matter if you include "overall", "2020" or whatever. They flash the odd simplistic stat on Dynamite but not much else. Is AEW just proving stats, records etc. really don't work in wrestling?

I am probably not the one to ask since I think records have no place in a worked sport but I will say this, they have done nothing to show me I was wrong about that.

No offense to the fine people at ECW Press, but why would they put out such an idiotic press release to announce Steve Austin’s new book? The “What” chants are probably the worst thing Austin ever brought into WWE.

I go back to the question above.  Whether you or I like the chants, the fact of the matter is entire buildings engaged in them when Austin would speak so they were popular with the fans.  I can see why they would play off of that. It may make a fan from 20 years ago say “I need to get this book”.

I wrote in the column:

First off, I don’t look at wrestling as a competition in most cases.  Title matches, sure.  If you book heel vs. heel there at least you can say that the Title is what they are fighting over. But in an ordinary match, there needs to be more for me.  Unless there is something on the line, like a shot at the title, it just comes across as a match for the sake of a match.  That’s why the formula of heel vs. face works.  The heel does something despicable to the face and they have a reason to fight when there is nothing on the line.  For people that watch matches just to see great work, that isn’t an issue.  But when the business is at its best, and drawing in people from the outside, it’s when the characters and storylines draw them in.

The questioner responded:

So do you not feel good stories can be told heel vs heel or face vs face?  I wholeheartedly disagree.  I wasn't meaning a match for the sake of a match.  Two dastardly heels trying to one up each other could be a great story.  It's all about character development.  Predictability kills a lot of the potential for good storytelling.  Prime example: The champion is a heel, you have a #1 contenders match between a face and a heel, 99% of the time the face will win and vice versa.

Again, it’s about the story.  I never said it COULDN’T be done.  What I said was in this day and age, when matches are just thrown together without a story, face vs. heel works much better because there is a rooting interest.  In the absence of good stories, face vs. heel is the better structure.

You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A at pwinsider@gmail.com.

If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!

Use our reports with online gambling where you can play casino games or bet on different kind of sports!

CasinoHex.jpからネットカジノ一覧