Toggle sidebar

Unpopular Wrestling Opinions

JackSlater said:
I think that women's wrestling, at least among what we see in North America, is greatly overrated by internet fans. Perhaps I misunderstand the standards that people generally use but compared to the men the women are quite lacking. Even compared to women's wrestling in Japan in the 90s (Toyota, Kong, and company) it's not great by any stretch. I didn't really pay attention to the discussion around the women until I noticed people discussing the women's royal rumbles. It reminded me of the emperor's new clothes, as those were absolutely horrible matches but were described positively. Looking at the women who've gotten the most attention in WWE: Asuka is legitimately good, Flair has good elements (athleticism, presence) but is still pretty weak in other areas, Lynch has charisma but not much else, Rousey was not good and looked really awkward, Bayley is a big nothing, Banks is pretty bad, AJ Lee was bad outside of some mic work, Paige was bad. My sense is that people are generally comparing the women to the previous women they've seen (ie Trish and Lita, who were certainly worse than the current crop of women as wrestlers) and not the men (or people like Toyota or Kong) but I do find the way people rate the women very hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

All of the same arguments can be made about male wrestlers in WWE and about WWE wrestling in general as compared to Japanese stuff and what goes on in the besy indi promotions. Including that the guys 30 years ago like Savage or Bret or Flair aren't as good as the guys now.

Mind you, I don't buy any of that that either.
 
Last edited:
GarbageGoal said:
All of the same arguments can be made about male wrestlers in WWE and about WWE wrestling in general as compared to Japanese stuff and what goes on in the besy indi promotions. Inclusing that the guys 30 years ago like Savage or Bret or Flair aren't as good as the guys now.

Mind you, I don't buy any of that that either.
Click to expand...

If your favorite type of wrestling was stuff that happened in the 80s and into the early 90s, most of it is bad today, especially the women's stuff. I have family members who watched then and don't watch now who think the women being a draw or a pushed act or even be good is completely nonsensical.
 
Clint Eastwood said:
There's at least 30 people that online fellas yell "PUSH" to.

There's 4 singles championships. (2 singles womens titles)
Click to expand...

WWE has enough talent to fuel like 5 brands.

They could have a different brand each night of the week, and PPV’s for each one every Sunday and be able to fill it with quality wrestlers.

However, they only have 3, and they just took a giant portion of the NXT main people and brought them up to RAW/SD.

Just cramming more and more square block into a circle hole.

This “talent exodus” of talented but underused wrestlers wanting to be released is a good thing.

Perhaps more people on the Indies will realize it’s better to stay with ROH, NJPW, AEW instead of becoming square blocks.
 
There should only be 5 "PPV's" a year. Mania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series, Rumble, and MITB. This way, feuds have time to develop. Now, it's too watered down and having 3-4 weeks to put any story together is too short.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normand Lacombe and GarbageGoal
The Shield as a group was boring and I never understood why they got such huge pops. 3 guys in some vest walk down through the crowd, go sometimes 3 on 1 against someone and then it takes all 3 of them to powerbomb the person through a table.
 
GarbageGoal said:
All of the same arguments can be made about male wrestlers in WWE and about WWE wrestling in general as compared to Japanese stuff and what goes on in the besy indi promotions. Including that the guys 30 years ago like Savage or Bret or Flair aren't as good as the guys now.

Mind you, I don't buy any of that that either.
Click to expand...

To a small degree but not really. People pretend that WWE having some decent women wrestlers is ground breaking stuff but that's only vaguely true if you ignore other wrestling that's happened where the women were good and compare them to former WWE women like Lita. The push the women get is unprecedented in the company, that much is true. Guys like Kobashi and Misawa aren't so far ahead of say Styles and Bryan, and people don't generally call current WWE guys the best of all time and pretend that what they are doing is unprecedented to nearly the same degree. That point was mildly tangential to the main point about women's wrestling being very overrated though.
 
If they went down to 5 PPV's they wouldn't be able to build them. They'd get lost in their own writing and forget what they're doing or get bored of it. There was those two years recently with the brand split where Raw and Smackdown had to build like 2 1/2 months of PPV's and kept getting lost and bogged down. So it shouldn't be 5, but maybe 8 or 9.
 
AtlantaWhaler said:
There should only be 5 "PPV's" a year. Mania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series, Rumble, and MITB. This way, feuds have time to develop. Now, it's too watered down and having 3-4 weeks to put any story together is too short.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is unpopular but it is true. Cut it down to five so that you don't burn through every permutation of wrestlers immediately and actually have time to build something instead of chasing the cheap pop of "moments". I do expect (or maybe hope) that WWE will eventually cut it down, perhaps not to five sadly, given that the PPVs are on the network and thus don't bring in big money and are a hindrance to the quality of the TV show. Put on five (or somewhere very close to that number) big shows per year, and also give wrestlers some time off (either an off season or a rotating off period among the wrestlers) and even WWE's quality would go up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlantaWhaler
JackSlater said:
I don't know if this is unpopular but it is true. Cut it down to five so that you don't burn through every permutation of wrestlers immediately and actually have time to build something instead of chasing the cheap pop of "moments". I do expect (or maybe hope) that WWE will eventually cut it down, perhaps not to five sadly, given that the PPVs are on the network and thus don't bring in big money and are a hindrance to the quality of the TV show. Put on five (or somewhere very close to that number) big shows per year, and also give wrestlers some time off (either an off season or a rotating off period among the wrestlers) and even WWE's quality would go up.
Click to expand...

To me just from the business sense they want a monthly PPV. I would bring back the hard brand split and do it like so...

Big 4 are interbranded. The other 8 are split between Raw/SD/NXT 3/3/2. 7 in total for SD/Raw, two takeovers. Raw/SD will try to go for a bimonthly ppv schedule, although I would consider having MITB as an interbrand.
 
Alex Jones said:
To me just from the business sense they want a monthly PPV. I would bring back the hard brand split and do it like so...

Big 4 are interbranded. The other 8 are split between Raw/SD/NXT 3/3/2. 7 in total for SD/Raw, two takeovers. Raw/SD will try to go for a bimonthly ppv schedule, although I would consider having MITB as an interbrand.
Click to expand...
From a business side, of course it's dumb to cut the number of PPV$. But as fans, having that many (as well as crappy booking for the last decade) has killed the WWE. Hopefully, AEW doesn't have nearly as many.
 
I'm not sure that cutting the number of ppvs, as they currently exist, would be bad for WWE's business really. WWE is pretty good at drawing more money out of its fanbase instead of growing its fanbase, but growth could be very beneficial. The ppvs are all on the network now and don't bring in the money that they used to. Fewer people may subscribe to the network if there are fewer ppvs, but I'm skeptical that the number would be that large and I don't think that the network is a big earner anyway. Cut the ppvs however and it should help WWE's product quality, which might lead to better ratings and real money down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlantaWhaler
Some more...

- Alexa Bliss shouldn't be a wrestler, but she should be a manager. She has charisma and can talk, but she is terrible in ring and looks ridiculous.

- John Laurinaitis was very good in his on screen role.

- WWE should only allow its wrestlers to have public social media accounts if they maintain kayfabe.

- Bobby Heenan was not the greatest manager in wrestling history.

- The Midnight Express and The Rock n Roll Express were not that good.

- Barry Windham was not very good.

- Rey Mysterio was much better in WCW than he was in WWE. In WCW he was pretty good, in WWE he was largely bad.

- The "Dominick I'm your papi" feud was pretty good.

- Cody Rhodes was pretty good in WWE and has been quite disappointing since leaving.

- Kanyon really was the Alliance MVP and had world title picture potential.

- Tony Schiavone is one of the greatest announcers in the history of our sport.

- The McMahons should all be faces going forward (this may be a popular opinion).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iamjs
JackSlater said:
I'm not sure that cutting the number of ppvs, as they currently exist, would be bad for WWE's business really. WWE is pretty good at drawing more money out of its fanbase instead of growing its fanbase, but growth could be very beneficial. The ppvs are all on the network now and don't bring in the money that they used to. Fewer people may subscribe to the network if there are fewer ppvs, but I'm skeptical that the number would be that large and I don't think that the network is a big earner anyway. Cut the ppvs however and it should help WWE's product quality, which might lead to better ratings and real money down the road.
Click to expand...
This is true. I'm still used to the old school way of thinking. I actually forgot it's all on a network now.

And stay off my lawn!
 
Bret/Owen at SummerSlam 1994 was a godawful match.

No, honestly. When you have a cage match where the only way to win is "Escape", the match consists of mostly escape attempts.

And, frankly, that's why cage matches suck in general.
 
Sheppy said:
A “5 star match” in the 80’s/90’s would get “boring” chants today.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s unpopular.

Steamboat/Savage from WM, if rewatched, probably doesn’t get the same love it did back then from the audience today.

wrestling is super cyclical and audience tastes change. I think very few matches from that time frame hold up to today’s audience as being on that level, especially with more people using Meltzer as a reference and his ridiculous 7 star ratings and whatnot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scandale du Jour
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom