|
Apropos of nothing watching the 1991 rumble when Heenan says "now we're off to Jack "On the take" Tunney always makes me crack up. I am watching this because I decided to use my tax refund to get Rumble tickets this year.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:Tom Zenk is the only wrestler I know of whose bitter hatred for Ole Anderson seems to match the bitter hatred Ole Anderson has for just about everyone involved in the wrestling business in any way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 03:31
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:They disbanded because Demolition kicked their asses too hard one night But they broke up one year after Demolition beat them for the titles. If anything, it was Tully & Arn that kicked their asses too hard that night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 05:55
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:But they broke up one year after Demolition beat them for the titles. If anything, it was Tully & Arn that kicked their asses too hard that night. Nope. It was Tito's fault. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
Critical posted:Nope. It was Tito's fault. Tito's only fault was that he was the best and Martel couldn't handle it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
Is there a specific reason the WWE is doubling up Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 as a PPV sponsor? Do you think it's worrisome that zero sponsors stepped up to get a product into this PPV, despite it being directly before Christmas, to the point where the WWE just said "gently caress it, we'll publicize our own game. Again." For comparison sake, here's the PPV sponsorships for '09 and '08: 2009: Royal Rumble - None No Way Out - None Wrestlemania 25 - The National Guard Backlash - None Judgement Day - None Extreme Rules- AT&T The Bash - Gillette Fusion Night of Champions - None Summerslam - Slim Jim and 7-11 Breaking Point - Batman: Arkham Asylum Hell in a Cell- TMNT: Smash-Up Bragging Rights - Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 Survivor Series - None TLC - Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 2008: RR- None No Way Out - None Wrestlemania 24 - None Backlash - None Judgement Day - Rambo DVD release One Night Stand - None Night of Champions - None The Great American Bash - AT&T Summerslam - Street Kings Unforgiven - None No Mercy - None Cyber Sunday - None Survivor Series - Smackdown vs. Raw 2009 Armageddon - Prince of Persia
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
AKA Driver posted:Is there a specific reason the WWE is doubling up Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 as a PPV sponsor? Do you think it's worrisome that zero sponsors stepped up to get a product into this PPV, despite it being directly before Christmas, to the point where the WWE just said "gently caress it, we'll publicize our own game. Again." It's Christmas. they're pimping a video game. go figure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 13:41
|
|
|
They've had their own games be sponsors plenty of times. Also Tom Zenk on Wrestling Observer Live from the beginning of the decade is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 13:53
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:They've had their own games be sponsors plenty of times. OK, but are the games a sponsor because no one else will step in? I would think if you order a PPV, you already watch their programming which is full of the game ads. So it's not like someone orders a PPV and sees the game as a sponsor and goes "OH! A game." Because if the WWE is their own sponsor, they are losing money right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 14:08
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Because if the WWE is their own sponsor, they are losing money right? I'm totally just spitballing here, but I don't think, like, John Madden ponies up the promotional costs of his game. Pretty sure that even though it's a WWE game, the game's distributors/publishers pick up the tab on advertising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 14:25
|
|
|
RKOMG! posted:I'm totally just spitballing here, but I don't think, like, John Madden ponies up the promotional costs of his game. Pretty sure that even though it's a WWE game, the game's distributors/publishers pick up the tab on advertising. He doesn't buy the TV commercials, but when he was doing commentary there would frequently be footage from Madden used to hype up the games. Similarly, while WWE probably doesn't pay the costs for commercials for SvR in other shows, I'd be surprised if they made THQ pay to sponsor a WWE PPV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
AKA Driver posted:Is there a specific reason the WWE is doubling up Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 as a PPV sponsor? Do you think it's worrisome that zero sponsors stepped up to get a product into this PPV, despite it being directly before Christmas, to the point where the WWE just said "gently caress it, we'll publicize our own game. Again." According to that list they've had more sponsors throughout the course of 2009 than 2008, they just used Smackdown vs. Raw an extra time.. What are you even talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Because if the WWE is their own sponsor, they are losing money right? No, it's advertising for their game. I would also guess that THQ throws some money their way. The Goog posted:He doesn't buy the TV commercials, but when he was doing commentary there would frequently be footage from Madden used to hype up the games. Similarly, while WWE probably doesn't pay the costs for commercials for SvR in other shows, I'd be surprised if they made THQ pay to sponsor a WWE PPV. Madden is paid for the use of his name, likeness, and voice. He has no involvement in the games past that. Also, just to note, WWE makes no money off of commercials, at least during Raw. For Raw, USA has sole commercial rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 19:29
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:Also, just to note, WWE makes no money off of commercials, at least during Raw. For Raw, USA has sole commercial rights. Which makes it all the more likely that they are being paid by THQ to sponsor PPVs. Besides, stuff like that happens all the time in the entertainment industry, Warner Brothers films has to pay DC comics to make Watchmen into a movie, even though Warner Brothers owns DC. Seems pointless, happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 19:38
|
|
|
OK, I was wrong apparently about WWE losing money when their game is a sponsor of a PPV. The publisher ponies up the cash. But then there's something I'm still fuzzy on. Doesn't it seem counterproductive to advertise to an audience that is probably already theirs? The people buying have already seen the commercials and probably bought the game already or have decided not to. Doesn't it seem wasteful to spend more money to sponsor the PPV? Maybe someone can explain it to me because I must be missing an obvious point or something. Does anyone know why it's a smart move finacially to do this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 20:19
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:OK, I was wrong apparently about WWE losing money when their game is a sponsor of a PPV. The publisher ponies up the cash. But then there's something I'm still fuzzy on. Doesn't it seem counterproductive to advertise to an audience that is probably already theirs? The people buying have already seen the commercials and probably bought the game already or have decided not to. Doesn't it seem wasteful to spend more money to sponsor the PPV? Advertising a product that you get a cut of? Advertising to people who may not watch Raw religiously every week?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 20:21
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:OK, I was wrong apparently about WWE losing money when their game is a sponsor of a PPV. The publisher ponies up the cash. But then there's something I'm still fuzzy on. Doesn't it seem counterproductive to advertise to an audience that is probably already theirs? The people buying have already seen the commercials and probably bought the game already or have decided not to. Doesn't it seem wasteful to spend more money to sponsor the PPV? Holidays are coming up
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:According to that list they've had more sponsors throughout the course of 2009 than 2008, they just used Smackdown vs. Raw an extra time.. What are you even talking about? I just thought it was an interesting list. But it points out that they didn't really need to inflate their sponsorship numbers with SvR10 again (as they were beating last year), but did anyway, leading to a question about why that was. And the answer to that would be: Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 20:24
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:OK, I was wrong apparently about WWE losing money when their game is a sponsor of a PPV. The publisher ponies up the cash. But then there's something I'm still fuzzy on. Doesn't it seem counterproductive to advertise to an audience that is probably already theirs? The people buying have already seen the commercials and probably bought the game already or have decided not to. Doesn't it seem wasteful to spend more money to sponsor the PPV? Well, the sponsor is mentioned in all of the ads on other channels/programs leading up to the PPV, right? So attaching it to those ads for the PPV is even more lucrative and will reach people that might not watch Raw or the PPV. Honestly though, it's just an attempt to continuously remind children of the game so they continuously bug the poo poo out of their parents to buy them the game for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 21:14
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:
Dad doesnt watch Smackdown every week, but he'll sit down with little johnny to watch the occasional PPV and bore him with how much better the wrestlers he liked as a kid were. Huh... Theres a new WWE game that johnny would like? And Xmas is coming up? BAM, sale. There are probably a lot of parents/caregivers who dont watch the shows but will dip in and out when their kid is watching a PPV (if for no other reason than its on their TV for like 3 hours on a weekend). Constantly barraging the message "We have related merchandise! Kids today love their pac-man videogames" probably makes more financial sense (particularly with the WWE refocussing on family-friendly programming again) that AT&T or the Rambo DVD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Doesn't it seem counterproductive to advertise to an audience that is probably already theirs? The people buying have already seen the commercials and probably bought the game already or have decided not to. Doesn't it seem wasteful to spend more money to sponsor the PPV? You don't understand advertising as a concept. You can't just show or mention something once and assume people will buy it. You repeat it and remind people. By your logic, people would only buy a game the first week and then sales would go down to 0 because the market bought it. What happens with a successful game is a big spike the first week but sales maintain a strong position as people get around to buying it, get some spare cash, etc. I mean, seriously, I don't know how to respond. You're asking "why advertise to people who know about your product?" Just because someone knows of a product doesn't mean they're convinced they should buy it. Hell, Coca-Cola spends a ton on advertising and it's one of the most popular brand names in the world. They advertise to make people go "hey, I should buy a Coke!" There is no guarentee WWE fans will buy their game or remember it is out. Hell, the fans don't remember or give a poo poo about the first hour of 3-hour Raw episodes. Plus, you get the Smackdown vs Raw game mentioned on PPV commercials, event advertising, and posters that people see outside of WWE TV. That's why companies sponsor PPVs, you're getting your name mentioned and shown on advertising. Hell, it's similar logic to sponsoring a sports arena, you get your product's name out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 22:25
|
|
|
Ok. It was obvious and I just somehow didn't see it. Thanks to everyone for answering my question. It makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:44
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Considering it was 20 years ago, but I keep hearing this, can somebody elaborate on why? Tito was the man because he was a classic fiery babyface who could sell and rally fans behind him, and he had good chemistry with a lot of different wrestlers. Inheriting a bunch of 80s wrestling tapes from a friend's dad has shown me just how great Tito was. Not sure if I'd call Strike Force the best tag team of their era, but they were a fast-paced, NWA-style team in a promotion that didn't have very many teams like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:16
|
|
|
Tito was good enough that Vince put him out in the first match of the first Wrestlemania. I know we can joke about curtainjerkers etc, but opening the first ever Wrestlemania is a pretty good sign that the guy is drat good at his job of getting the crowd going without overshadowing the top draws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:28
|
|
|
CombineThresher posted:Not sure if I'd call Strike Force the best tag team of their era, but they were a fast-paced, NWA-style team in a promotion that didn't have very many teams like that. I can't think of anyone who would call them that, or even in the top 10. Purely fast-paced Rockers were betterm and the Hart Foundation and Bulldogs were also better. NWA-style, they had loving Arn and Tully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:57
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:NWA-style, they had loving Arn and Tully. For about two seconds, yeah. I agree that the Bulldogs, the Rockers, and the Harts were better, but when you consider the (sometimes literal) bulk of WWE's tag division up to that point, it's not hard to see why people thought so highly of Strike Force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
Can I get a link to the Low Ki vs KENTA match from ROH? It is being way too difficult to find.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
The A-Team Van posted:Can I get a link to the Low Ki vs KENTA match from ROH? It is being way too difficult to find. HMMM
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 06:19
|
|
|
HulkaMatt posted:HMMM You try lazily searching Google videos for 'low ki vs kenta' and tell me what you get thanks honeypie 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 06:26
|
|
|
if tito were 10 years younger and debuted 5 years later, he would have become a much bigger star.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 06:51
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:if tito were 10 years younger and debuted 5 years later, he would have become a much bigger star. Had he debuted 5 years later, he probably would have been stuck with a Santo gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 06:59
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:if tito were 10 years younger and debuted 5 years later, he would have become a much bigger star. He was a 2-time IC champion in a time when that meant something and a 2-time tag champ. I would argue that he was a pretty big star for his limitations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 07:04
|
|
|
Matlock posted:Had he debuted 5 years later, he probably would have been stuck with a Santo gimmick. Tita Santino?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 18:00
|
|
|
Tito had a really great feud with Greg Valentine in the mid 80s I'd advise anyone unfamiliar with either to track down. 24/7 ran an LA house show from like 1988 a year or so ago with them on it (the actual feud was in like 83-84 btw) and it was loving great. They just beat the poo poo out of each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Tito had a really great feud with Greg Valentine in the mid 80s I'd advise anyone unfamiliar with either to track down. 24/7 ran an LA house show from like 1988 a year or so ago with them on it (the actual feud was in like 83-84 btw) and it was loving great. They just beat the poo poo out of each other. Yes they did. Their lumberjack match is on the WWE Superstars of the 80s DVD set, and stupid finish aside, it's a fun match. Tito was a machine during that period and got good matches out of pretty much everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
I was curious as to what the overall opinion here was about which Wrestlemania match is Shawn Michaels best. I've listed all of them below even the Rockers matches just for the hell of it but I think it's safe to say you can start the list at Wrestlemania X. WrestleMania VI: The Orient Express defeated The Rockers WrestleMania VII: The Rockers defeated The Barbarian and Haku WrestleMania VIII: Shawn Michaels (with Sensational Sherri) defeated Tito Santana. WrestleMania IX: Tatanka defeated Shawn Michaels (c) by countout in a match for the Intercontinental Championship . WrestleMania X: Razor Ramon defeated Shawn Michaels (c) in a Ladder match for the WWE Intercontinental Championship. WrestleMania XI: Diesel (c) defeated Shawn Michaels in a match for the WWE Championship WrestleMania XII: Shawn Michaels defeated Bret Hart (c) in an Iron Man match for the WWE Championship WrestleMania XIV: Stone Cold Steve Austin defeated Shawn Michaels in a match for the WWE Championship WrestleMania XIX: Shawn Michaels defeated Chris Jericho. WrestleMania XX: Chris Benoit defeated Triple H (c) and Shawn Michaels in a triple threat match for the World Heavyweight Championship WrestleMania XXI: Kurt Angle defeated Shawn Michaels. WrestleMania XXII: Shawn Michaels defeated Vince McMahon in a No Holds Barred match WrestleMania XXIII: John Cena (c) defeated Shawn Michaels in a a match for the WWE Championship WrestleMania XXIV: Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair in a Career Threatening match Wrestlemania XXV: The Undertaker defeated Shawn Michaels It's REALLY tough to just pick one. For me personally it's between the Jericho and Angle matches, going back and rewatching those I enjoyed them the most. Jericho tuning up the band will always hold a special place in my heart. There really is no wrong answer to this unless you picked the WM9 match or something. Bearnt! fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Dec 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 17:59
|
|
|
Bearnt! posted:I was curious as to what the overall opinion here was about which Wrestlemania match is Shawn Michaels best. I've listed all of them below even the Rockers matches just for the hell of it but I think it's safe to say you can start the list at Wrestlemania X. drat, a 6-9 record?! Mr. Wrestlemania my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
Pneub posted:drat, a 6-9 record?! Mr. Wrestlemania my rear end. How many of those matches were the best of the show?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Bearnt! posted:I was curious as to what the overall opinion here was about which Wrestlemania match is Shawn Michaels best. vs. Angle
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
If we're going to look at it from a historical perspective, it's easily between his matches at WMX and WMXXIV. The ladder match with Razor revolutionized the ladder match entirely and the match with Flair (supposedly  ) put Flair into retirement. The others were just really, really good matches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 19:15
|
|
