Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
A wallaby? Well it's like a kangaroo but smaller.
Joined
·
18,013 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I wanted to get your thoughts on this, many of you may remember when WWE would have unknown jobbers on the weekly shows, to go up and face the current talent on the roster, while they were involved in feuds, building up an angle which would lead to a PPV match between the two, you would every now and again get two main roster talents competing on the weekly shows, but it would never interfere with anything they were building up with two talents, that were set to face at a future PPV event.

Now, in todays WWE, the matches that you get on a PPV, you can quite easily get and see on Raw or Smackdown during the time, so to me this takes away the build up and excitement of the actual match being on a PPV, I mean, why should we believe that say if you see a match between Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan on Raw, why would it be any different, bigger or more exciting just because it's on a PPV card, it's the same match, possibly with a stipulation at best, but it does take away the build up and excitement for the match that is coming up at the PPV.

It's good that they have little clashes, like at the end of Raw, say a match interference for example, because this gives you a taster of what is to come, but with the lack of jobbers now appearing on WWE TV (which they served a great purpose) ... having matches on the weekly shows, does take away what it's supposed to be at the PPV (The same when they do the rematch the following night on Raw), people would get way more excited to watch a PPV, if these things didn't happen.

So what are your thoughts on this? Why should we be lead to believe that just because a match, that we've probably seen on Raw/Smackdown is at a PPV, that it's going to be anything bigger or more exciting, just because it's written on a PPV card? It's clear WWE know this, because you wouldn't see The Rock Vs John Cena on the weekly shows would you, because they KNOW that it's to be saved for a PPV, which should stand for all talents and feuds really, while they build up the excitement for the up and coming PPV event (something that seems to lack in WWE fans now, enthusiasm for PPV's don't seem to be there no more), so what are your thoughts?

I'd be interested to hear people's views on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
The jobbers stopped around 97 when the Monday Night Wars got heated.

The logic of removing the jobbers is all for ratings.

Superstar vs Superstar would get more ratings than Superstar vs Jobber.

WWE realized this and said to themselves, "Why only reserve superstar matches for PPV when we can have them on RAW too, and get the ratings?!"


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
Agree Totally. Why pay for something which I seen 6weks ago? Another point to go with that is wwe' love of doing a mid card match at a ppv (kofi/wade etc) and then repeating it the following night on raw or smack down. This week it was zigglers match a repeat of BG if I'm not mistaken!
Guess that's the issue with a small roster and so many hours of broadcasting every week. Saturation is quick
 

·
A wallaby? Well it's like a kangaroo but smaller.
Joined
·
18,013 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Agree Totally. Why pay for something which I seen 6weks ago? Another point to go with that is wwe' love of doing a mid card match at a ppv (kofi/wade etc) and then repeating it the following night on raw or smack down. This week it was zigglers match a repeat of BG if I'm not mistaken!
Guess that's the issue with a small roster and so many hours of broadcasting every week. Saturation is quick
Absolutely, people used to say unknown jobbers were pointless, but they actually were more important than people realised at the time.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top