|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:ROH would have a War Games and it would be an enjoyable and well booked wrestling match, but 15 people would see it. and it would end in a time limit draw
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
But TNA and ROH both did war games!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
HulkaMatt posted:But TNA and ROH both did war games!!! Isn't Lethal Lockdown like War Games-Lite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:50
|
|
SAVE_US.CHR
|
It's War Games with weapons hanging from the ceiling or something. I just remember the first one they did the faces won the coin toss. The ROH vs. CZW one had the faces win the coin toss also but due to Bryan Danielson turning/injuring Samoa Joe, the heels ended up with a 2 man advantage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
My problem with WW3 was that it was just so hard to follow. There was just so much poo poo going on at once that it took forever to really be able to follow what was happening. And that problem was exacerbated by that stupid triple split screen. Decent idea in theory, but in practice it didn't work out for me. Think about how many people have gotten over by having long runs in the Royal Rumble, nearly getting eliminated on multiple occasions, but managing to hang on, or getting a hot streak of eliminations. With WW3, you never really got that story cause it was impossible to follow anyone specifically. It would get down to the last ring, and you'd be like "huh, Regal and Mysterio are still in there. How about that?" I had an idea for a match that took advantage of a two ring set up, but I was never sure if it would work out in practice. Have a title match going on in one ring, and a battle royal in the other (8-12 guys). If a wrestler eliminates another in the battle royal then he earns the right to join the title match and it's now a three way (and then as more elimination occur in the battle royal, a four way, five way, etc etc). So the guys in the title match are trying to end it before anyone else can join the match and the guys in the battle royal are trying to get an elimination so they can join the title match before it ends. Again, not sure if it would work out in practice at all though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Perry Normal posted:Again, not sure if it would work out in practice at all though. The trouble would be focus, really. You can't have two simultaneous matches that are, by necessity, differently paced, and a fast paced desperate title match might sound okay in theory but I really doubt it would work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:The trouble would be focus, really. You can't have two simultaneous matches that are, by necessity, differently paced, and a fast paced desperate title match might sound okay in theory but I really doubt it would work in practice. Yeah, that's what I figured. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
HulkaMatt posted:It's War Games with weapons hanging from the ceiling or something. I just remember the first one they did the faces won the coin toss. No, no, no. Isn't the match your describing that Raven match. Crow's Nest Match or something? Team Hogan vs. Team Flair was the last Lethal Lockdown. It was War Games in a cage basically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
ChampRamp posted:No, no, no. Isn't the match your describing that Raven match. Crow's Nest Match or something? Team Hogan vs. Team Flair was the last Lethal Lockdown. It was War Games in a cage basically. Do you know what War Games is? War Games in a cage is... War Games
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
When WCW had such an inflated roster and we're talking about sixty wrestlers in three rings, things being hard to follow isn't such a bad thing. However, I think there was ways they could have handled it better. It's really for the fans at the event until things get cut down into the central ring. Then you would have 20 of the best wrestlers in all of WCW in one battle royale at the same time and it was glorious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:When WCW had such an inflated roster and we're talking about sixty wrestlers in three rings, things being hard to follow isn't such a bad thing. However, I think there was ways they could have handled it better. It's really for the fans at the event until things get cut down into the central ring. Then you would have 20 of the best wrestlers in all of WCW in one battle royale at the same time and it was glorious. Things being hard to follow is always a bad thing. You should not put on a match where the audience has nothing to focus on during the majority of the match. It is completely counter-productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
I've only seen 1 of those really huge battle royals and it was pretty poo poo. 3 mini screens with people EVERYWHERE and random poo poo going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Battle Royals are my favorite types of matches and I'll watch just about any of them. One ring, three rings, seven rings - I'm there. World War 3 was awesome. I agree on the mini screens though, those sucked. I would have rather them just focus on one ring and if an elimination is missed then show it in a quick replay. I watched an FCW battle royal recently and enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
I dunno WW3 just seemed like a huge clusterfuck. I think most battle royals are poo poo outside of the RR which they book really carefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
I agree, it was just a big loving mess till things got right down to the nitty-gritty. The major problem I had with TNA's Wargames was that it just assumed that every single person watching was intimately familiar with how Wargames worked, I remember the first one I watched they didn't actually mention there were no way to win the match until both teams had fully entered the cage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
HulkaMatt posted:I dunno WW3 just seemed like a huge clusterfuck. I think most battle royals are poo poo outside of the RR which they book really carefully. Mr. Carlisle and I are men of both questionable and discernible tastes. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
I dunno, maybe the clusterfuck aspect of them is why I really enjoyed them in a way. With The Royal Rumble you have everything so planned that it feels like you know who is going to eliminate who at alot of points and because it's booked so tightly most times it comes off feeling a little too planned - if that makes any sense. I guess one of the reasons I really like battle royals with a ton of wrestlers everywhere is not knowing what the hell will happen and guys getting eliminated left and right and in weird ways. I like both methods, really. One strength The Royal Rumble has over larger battle royals is that the guys each get their own entrances and that creates the excitement of hearing your favorite wrestler's music hit and then watching the fresh guy clean house. That kind of thing is missing from the larger ones. Orange Carlisle fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:I dunno, maybe the clusterfuck aspect of them is why I really enjoyed them in a way. With The Royal Rumble you have everything so planned that it feels like you know who is going to eliminate who at alot of points and because it's booked so tightly most times it comes off feeling a little too planned - if that makes any sense. I guess one of the reasons I really like battle royals with a ton of wrestlers everywhere is not knowing what the hell will happen and guys getting eliminated left and right and in weird ways. I like both methods, really. Which would be fine if it wasn't for realizing 5 minutes after the fact,"Oh hey, <Wrestler X> got eliminated at some point I guess, we just didn't see it and nobody ever mentioned it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Which would be fine if it wasn't for realizing 5 minutes after the fact,"Oh hey, <Wrestler X> got eliminated at some point I guess, we just didn't see it and nobody ever mentioned it." I agree - it definitely takes a production team and announce team that can come together to keep things focused on the eliminations and not just whatever one or two key guys they want to get over that day. Make each elimination feel like a big deal and at least show replays and have them comment on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:Do you know what War Games is? gently caress's sake, I'm confused. I don't know what the hell I'm thinking of then. WCW 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:I agree - it definitely takes a production team and announce team that can come together to keep things focused on the eliminations and not just whatever one or two key guys they want to get over that day. Make each elimination feel like a big deal and at least show replays and have them comment on it. I'm not sure this ever happened at any time in the entire existence of WCW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Perry Normal posted:I'm not sure this ever happened at any time in the entire existence of WCW. I'm not sure it did either - but it would have helped people enjoy it more that weren't battle royal marks like I am.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Stevie Ray explained the booking of WW3 in an interview. The gist was, "this is the guy who's winning it, make sure he doesn't get eliminated. Here's your final 6. If you're not in it get eliminated before then." It turns out the one spot that everyone remembers from it where Booker and Stevie squared off before thinking the better of it was something they came up with backstage 5 minutes before the match. It's a wonder the camera crew even caught it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Take the Elimination Chamber. Add two more pods. Divide the wrestlers in the pods into two teams. Boom, you have WarGames but with a WWE twist so now Vince won't hate it. You can even make it elimination style. This was my thought after accidentally booking a 3 on 3 EC match in Raw vs. Smackdown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
I always loved when Bischoff introduced the concept of the Elimination Chamber. He was explaining it as a cross between "the Royal Rumble, Survivor Series and my favorite... War Games." When he said it, he had the perfect poo poo-eating grin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
When DOESN'T bischoff have the best poo poo eating grin?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
This is true. Still, he seemed so overjoyed to be namedropping War Games on WWE TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
Sionistic posted:When DOESN'T bischoff have the best poo poo eating grin? I love poo poo eating grins. We need to start calling them cake eating grins. Much more positive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I love poo poo eating grins. But poo poo eating fits Bischoff better
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
Regarding all the battle royal conversation, I seem to remember that from 2002 to around 2005, Raw and Smackdown had an absolutely absurd amount of battle royals. Like, nearly one a month. Anyone else recall this? Also, WCW didn't have too many of them, minus WW 3 and Battlebowl. The only two ring battle bowl was 91, I believe. All the others were just a single-ring event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Ghidzilla posted:Regarding all the battle royal conversation, I seem to remember that from 2002 to around 2005, Raw and Smackdown had an absolutely absurd amount of battle royals. Like, nearly one a month. Anyone else recall this? WCW had periods where they had random battle royals. Like the battle royal for control of the nWo B Team that is among the worst matches of all times. Or the random battle royals Vince Russo would do. For example: the battle royal where all of the losers were "fired" and no one was told if they would really be fired or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Basically the good thing about Battlebowl was DDP winning it in 1996 at Slamboree, but that mostly because his whole storyline of leaving WCW, being homeless and then coming back was kinda neat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:I dunno, maybe the clusterfuck aspect of them is why I really enjoyed them in a way. With The RoIyal Rumble you have everything so planned that it feels like you know who is going to eliminate who at alot of points and because it's booked so tightly most times it comes off feeling a little too planned - if that makes any sense. I guess one of the reasons I really like battle royals with a ton of wrestlers everywhere is not knowing what the hell will happen and guys getting eliminated left and right and in weird ways. I like both methods, really. While we're explaining pros and cons of the Royal Rumble. I always found it amusing that the rules, explained before the match, say that wrestlers will enter every 90 seconds. Then the match gets under way and that rule is quickly thrown out the window with wrestlers entering seemingly every 30 seconds. The last Rumble mentioned this when the commentators made a crack about "those 90 seconds are going by pretty fast". I imagine it's because of runtime reasons, like the guy running the gorilla position has to send more guys out because the clock is running short.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
Someone (TNA) needs to one up WW3 and make a 9 ring battle royal. Have the rings form a larger square, keypad style. 31(More than THOSE GUYS UP NORTH) wrestlers start in each corner ring, and have to be thrown into another ring, at 2,4,6,8 on the keypad, then and only then can they be thrown into the central ring. Last man outside the middle ring then faces the first person eliminated in a lumberjack match, with the other 122 participants surrounding the middle ring. This will cost 3 million dollars and get a rating of 1.2. BOOK IT DIXIE!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
I like the way you're thinking. I figure they should put a bunch of rings together and make it look like a Q*Bert level layout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 09:27
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Someone (TNA) needs to one up WW3 and make a 9 ring battle royal. Have the rings form a larger square, keypad style. 31(More than THOSE GUYS UP NORTH) wrestlers start in each corner ring, and have to be thrown into another ring, at 2,4,6,8 on the keypad, then and only then can they be thrown into the central ring. Last man outside the middle ring then faces the first person eliminated in a lumberjack match, with the other 122 participants surrounding the middle ring. And have the run-in finish come in from the wrong side, so a crowd of heels have to brutally fight their way past a knocked out Shannon Moore and a tipped-over ladder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
Dixie: I want 9 rings Assistant: The Impact Zone can only fit 3. Dixie: Then make the rings SMALLER.... geez, do I have to think of everything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Dixie: I want 9 rings Assistant:Well, the carts from WM3 got put up for sale... Dixie:YES! WE ONLY NEED RING CARTS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Assistant:Well, the carts from WM3 got put up for sale...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0055 posted:While we're explaining pros and cons of the Royal Rumble. I always found it amusing that the rules, explained before the match, say that wrestlers will enter every 90 seconds. Then the match gets under way and that rule is quickly thrown out the window with wrestlers entering seemingly every 30 seconds. The last Rumble mentioned this when the commentators made a crack about "those 90 seconds are going by pretty fast". It's true that the time can be pretty variable, but it often seems a lot shorter than it really is because by the time the guy gets to the ring, 30 seconds to a minute has already gone by. From this year: code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 15:15
|
|
