MovieChat Forums > E.C.W. (2006) Discussion > WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO ECW???!!!

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO ECW???!!!


Seriously come one, back in the day when ECW was EC FN W! it was awsesome to watch. I remember Dean Malenko and Eddie Guerrero had the best matches ever and not to mention Pitbulls and Public Enemy had some amazing matches too.

But now we have morons like Big Daddy V??? What the hell?!?!?! Everytime I see this guy I feel like watching Star Trek, anyone else??? Come on now "Live Long And Prosper" crap he does with his hands is ridiculous! He needs to put a shirt on is what he needs to do, I've never seen tits so big before! I guess the whole angle with him is supposed to be he is a major tough guy and what not and everyone is afraid of him... yeah right, he is nothing but fat! I don't think he has any muscle at all!!! Well, everyone has muscle but what I'm saying is he is nothing but fat and that is nothing to be afriad of. When he was on RAW he got his kicked by smaller guys even though it is all staged but still all of a sudden now he goes on ECW and he is unstoppable???

John Morrison is another joke. He is not extreme at all, sure he is a good athlete but he knows nothing about extreme like Sabu or the Dudley Boyz or Sandman.

The Miz oh god shoot me now. A fag from the Real World??? Enough said about that.

Pretty much any "NEW" ECW superstar is a waste of time and should not have the privelage to be in the ring with the real ECW stars like Tommy Dreamer, Tazz, Sabu, 911, Big Dick Dudley and the rest of the Dudley Boyz, Terry 'Bam Bam' Gordy, Public Enemy, Pitbulls, The Rotten Brothers, Balls Mahoney, Newjack, Perry Saturn, Kronus, and all!!! It sucks that half of these guys are dead but still, the only newcomer I think is worth anything and is cool in my book is CM Punk. So what does anyone else think??? Any real ECW fans left out there anywhere???

"Keep Your Stories Haunted"
http://www.myspace.com/222069340

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, okay, now that you've heard the Moronic WWE Mark's Fabrication of History, let's correct it a little bit.

"The company's fan base was so small and tiny that they couldn't afford good arenas, or even pay there OWN wrestlers."

Yet a DVD of the promotion's actual history outsold every other WWE DVD besides the Wrestlemania ones. And this was released long before McMahon even hinted at bringing it back as a brand.

"Five years after the death of the original. Vince McMahon brought back ECW with his own ideas, storylines and gimmicks."

Five years later? There was only one ECW show in 2005 (One Night Stand)which was booked by Paul Heyman, not Vince McMahon. Vince would show up to water down ECW for another year.

"Just a little over a year, since the rebirth of ECW. The new version has already drew more fans, viewers and TV ratings."

As evidenced by the fact that the Vince McMahon "ECW" had only one exclusive PPV that drew a horrible buy rate and was panned by just about everyone who bothered to order it. Since then, the only way he can keep the brand afloat is to book it in conjuction with "Smackdown". Also, by comparison, ECW on Sci-Fi has lost a larger percentage of its viewers than ECW on TNN ever did. As for merchandise revenue, ECW merchandise doesn't seem to be selling quite like it did before Vinny Mac revived it.

"ECW lives on [but with a much better business man and wrestling booker in charge this time around]"

No denying that Vince is a better business man than Heyman but as far as booking goes, I'll gladly take anything Heyman did from 1994 to 1999 over the last six or so years of Vince's product.






www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

"Notice how you choose to pick on the years of the WWE that haven't been that great? Why didn't you compare your precious ECW to the great WWE years from 98 to 01. Or 82 to 90."

Wait. You're the one who started comparing the new ECW (WWE product) to the ECW of old. That's where the current WWE comparison comes from. Try to keep up. And there were no great "WWE" years from 98 to 01, those were "WWF" years. The WWF was a tremendous promotion but since becoming "WWE", it has been a shadow of its old self. But I guess from your "mark" perspective, if the WWF was so great, it would still be around. I guess the World Wildlife Foundation must just be a better company.

"At least Vince McMahon's version was able to reach higher than a 2.0 in ratings. A number Paul E couldn't even get to close to!"

Vince McMahon has a multi-million dollar marketing machine behind him. He was able to acheive high early numbers based off both a tie-in with his other established brands and networks and the popularity of the old ECW. The original ECW had no marketing dollars. TNN never advertised the show outside of the hour that it was actually on so if you weren't watching it already or weren't familiar with ECW through their efforts, you probably wouldn't have known about it.

You seem to be trying to create this "myth" that ECW died because of some small fan base when that is nowhere near accurate. I will absolutely agree that the guy running it didn't have a good business sense and that's why it failed but ECW's numbers were growing. Their PPV and TV tapings nearly always sold out or came close to it. Their crowd was going but Heyman didn't manage the money properly. As far as Vince's version, the numbers sank. I know you're a WWE robot but let's try and look at this from a somewhat balanced perspective. WWE is a mainstream international multi-media company with a built-in fanbase of well over 3 million people. That means that whatever outside business ventures that they choose to explore will already get immediate exposure to millions of people. Such was the case with ECW. Now out of those two-plus million people who started watching it at the beginning, how many stayed regular viewers? The original ECW which was not as big of a company from a financial sense, had nowhere near the type of marketing campaign where they could create that type of public awareness so from a "common sense perspective" (I know you're a mark and "common sense" is a very scary and new word to you but try and stay with me), they'd probably have a much smaller audience tuning in. It's like a small jump start beverage company trying to put out a drink against a new Pepsi product. Pepsi has a much larger company and can create bigger public awareness of their product through advertising. McMahon's new ECW hasn't grown at all but because he has two other brands and millions of dollars, he can afford to keep it running and switch it up. Heyman's company was growing but he didn't have the finances or the business savy to keep up with the demand.

"Who cares. Nobody gives a damn that a DVD of a company sold well, AFTER the company died."

More glowing proof of how big a mark you are. A lot of people gave a damn including Vince McMahon. That's why he put his money into a "One Night Stand" PPV and eventually tried to bring the company back. If there wasn't money to be made to still be made with ECW, he wouldn't have tried in the first place. He hasn't done anything like that with WCW and they had far bigger ratings than ECW ever did. Problem was Vince dropped the ball on the ECW thing and never was able to create the type of following for the new ECW brand that it once had. When he tried running his version of ECW on venues, it was received poorly. That's why he now books it with Smackdown. Ditto for the mixing of the PPV and TV products.

"Can't you count? ECW died in 2001. One Night Stand was in 2005. FOUR years idiot, not five."

ECW's last show was on January 2001. Technically, five years later, on January 2006, there had only been one show.



www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

"But i didn't pick a certain year, like you. You decided to go and judge the entire original ECW with the RECENT WWE product. The reason you did this, is because you know the overall product of WWE is better than the overall product of ECW. You know the Attitude Era was better than ECW. You know the Golden Era was better than ECW. WWE is just straight out better than ECW!"

Actually, it all comes down to opinion. The Attitude era acheived what it did because it "borrowed" from ECW. That is a fact. And there is no such thing as the "Golden era" of the WWF. Spefically, the new ECW sucks. The original ECW is better and that's been proven. When it comes down to WWF, WCW, and ECW in the 90's, from a business perspective, the WWF was obviously won the battle but they also had a lot of things in their favor. If you pick specific years, each company had the advantage with certain years but when you look at the consistency in the product, ECW put on quality shows for years.

"Are you some kind of idiot."

You seem to be asking a question yet you end the sentence with a period so I should be asking you the same thing. I guess if they explained what a question mark was on a WWE DVD, you might know better.

"Don't use that "Million Dollar Marketing" crap. The reason Vince McMahon has so much money, is because he took a little independent wrestling promotion and turned it into a global monopoly. McMahon become rich after hard work and years of building a fan base."

That and the fact that he took over his father's company (which was a lot bigger than a little independent) and grabbed talent from other regional territories. No denying it. Vince had an eye for talent and knew the business end of things but he didn't build it from the ground up. He took it over and brought it to the next level.

"Just get over it. ECW failed because it wasn't marketable enough, had a small fan base and couldn't make any money."

It made a lot of money actually. Are you gonna say that MC Hammer and TLC didn't make money because they went bankrupt as well? Bankruptcy can come from poor management of money, not just lack of funds. ECW was bringing in millions of dollars but the increased expenses of running national television and PPV's took their toll on them financially. As for not being marketable enough, that's just idiotic. They had their own magazine, video games, CD, sell-through videos, action figures, and other things. In order to get licenses for these items, you need to prove that there is a "market" for these things. Contrary to what your flawed logic tells you, brands don't just invest money in putting out your product and hope that it will sell. Acclaim developed two video games for ECW. Did they just put out one and it didn't sell so they decided, "Hey, why don't we see if we can lose some more money here?".

"TNN knew ECW had very little viewers so they stuck them on a crappy time, before eventually kicking them off there net work."

Well, you kind of left out a very important detail in all that. Yes, ECW was put on at a crappy time (Friday nights at 8 o'clock) and given no advertising but you forgot to mention how they were the highest-rated show on the network. Look it up. The only reason they were taken off was because TNN went and negotiated with the WWF behind Heyman's back.

You can say all you want but the fact is ECW was still as popular with the fans as it ever was. They still had solid attendance numbers and while most of their venues where nowhere near the size of the ones the WWF and WCW were booking, they still sold out some sizeable spots like the Hara Arena in Dayton and the Odeum in Chicago for their PPV's. They did international tours in Japan, doing cross-promotional stuff with FMW. Even with their stars defecting to WWF and WCW and the expenses of running a national TV program, the fans still came. The TV deal ended up crushing them as it cost them so much money to produce these shows and they walked out at a time where they needed it for exposure. You can humor us all you want with your "Mark's history of ECW" but it isn't correct at all. Yes, the WWF/WWE is a bigger company than ECW. Nobody is denying that. Did WCW also go out of business because they were a small company with no money?

"I mean honestly, after the whole WWE Invasion storyline and before the release of the Rise and Fall of ECW. Most people had forgotten about the old ECW."

Not true at all. The fans were still chanting "ECW" when something that resembled hardcore would happen, especially involving former ECW alumni. If all these people had forgotten, there would have been no DVD release. Again, companies do their research before they put money into something. If there weren't a strong amount of people who still cared about ECW, a DVD of their history would not have been released. More importantly, if all these people had fogotten, the DVD would not have been such a big seller. Now, please go on continuing to embarass yourself as usual.







www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Look this can be summed up very easily. The old ECW had a cult following, it appealed to a marginalized group of individuals. The reason the company never made a dime is not only due to the lack of financial banking(in fact the company had very little overhead due to the fact that it barely ever paid its wrestlers. Makes you wonder were all the millions Heyman borrowed from Vince went ) it was due to awful business decisions and just not a large enough audience. The way I see it there were two kinds of people that want to see that sh*t (and by sh*t, I literally mean sh*t as in a piece of sh*t of a company it was) big fat gundgy kids that would never take a shower and would always wear the same exact Sandman, heavymetal, or Raven t shirt or posers, wannabes that came about after ECW was done. "I'm a hardcore ECW fan!" Oh yeah, where were you when ECW was around? Maybe it wouldn't have gone out of business if all of its "fans at the time" were tuning in.

So WWE basically had two decision, invest and appeal to the cesspool that is the former ECW's fanbase by oh...idk....by having people get split open by cheese graters, put through flaming tables, etc or they can MAKE money by appealing to their wrestling fans by having WRESTLING matches. You guys can enjoy a wrestling match without weapons, right?

I find it funny that you people bash a great talent like Morrison then go turn around and call people like Big Dick Dudley(??????!!!!!!????), Raven, or New Jack talented! How many of those ECW guys can put on a great, no never mind, decent I'll say decent match without weapons? Most of the guys that actually could back in the day are too fat and out shape to even be considered for a push, but then again most of the old ECW roster were a bunch of fat, out of shape rejects from other companies. Let's face it WWE appeals to a broader audience than the former ECW company, they are bound to hire and push more camera friendly, more talented outside of weapons, more athletic wrestlers. Balls Mahoney alone is ugly enough to give me nightmares.

Ding Dong the Cena's dead FINALLY
CM = JM's bitch
Boycotting SD until Undertaker or Edge are WHC

reply

"The way I see it there were two kinds of people that want to see that sh*t (and by sh*t, I literally mean sh*t as in a piece of sh*t of a company it was) big fat gundgy kids that would never take a shower and would always wear the same exact Sandman, heavymetal, or Raven t shirt or posers, wannabes that came about after ECW was done."

You are right about one thing. That is the way "you" see it. It's unfortuante how often perception is mistaken for reality in these cases. I think to dismiss ECW's fanbase as this is to pretty much say the same of all die-hard wrestling fans as the same things had been said about people who watched pro wrestling for decades. When it became cool for casual non-fans to watch it, the general perception changed slightly but anyone who is a die-hard fan of any wrestling company is usually dismissed as a fat loser who spends his life on the Internet.

"I find it funny that you people bash a great talent like Morrison then go turn around and call people like Big Dick Dudley(??????!!!!!!????), Raven, or New Jack talented!"

Never bashed Morrison. Who has ever called Big Dick Dudley "talented" by the way? The guy wasn't even really a wrestler. He was just an enforcer for the Dudley Boys but honestly with a different gimmick, he probably would have gotten a world title push in McMahon's company. After all, he was well over six feet with a limited amount of actual wrestling moves. Not like the WWF/WWE would ever push a stiff giant with limited wrestling ability (Great Khali, Sid, should I go on?).

"How many of those ECW guys can put on a great, no never mind, decent I'll say decent match without weapons?"

A lot of them actually. Taz put on solid wrestling matches and very rarely used weapons (certainly used them far less than Michaels, Triple H, Austin, Undertaker, and just about any other main-eventer from the "Attitude" era). Rob Van Dam and Jerry Lynn had a classic series of matches using little more than a steel chair and a lot of high-flying moves. Lynn also had great matches with Justin Credible. Can't forget the Candido and Storm summer series feud. Tajiri and Super Crazy had some great matches too. Shane Douglas wasn't famous for doing a lot of hardcore stuff either. Bam Bam Bigelow had intense matches without a lot of weapons as well. If you look to the early ECW stuff, a lot of guys like Benoit, Malenko, Jericho, and the Luchadors had some great high-flying contests as well. In fact, the matches that did incorporate weapons and hardcore matches were far better booked than the "hardocre division" matches used in the WWF where they just threw out guys they didn't have a spot for in a ring filled with weapons and no story and had them hit each other over the head with cookie sheets. You can put just about any list of matches fought for the "hardcore title" during the "Attitiude" era up and I bet there's about a hundred or so more solidly-booked ECW matches.

I actually never cared for Ballz Mahoney, Axl Rotten, or a lot of these other violent trash wrestlers but contrary to what you think, they were never a huge part of the show. I wasn't an ECW fan simply because it was some violent company with hardcore matches. They had a good mix of everything. They really knew how to create storylines that actually interested me and compelled me to watch from week to week. There were a good share of awful vignettes and sleazy sex stuff that I didn't care for (thankfully, Vince never "borrowed" that element of their product, huh?). Their wrestlers knew how to cut intense promos. When a wrestler gave 100% in the ring, whether it was Tajiri and Super Crazy doing high-flying moves or Terry Funk and Sabu killing each other with barbed wire, the fans appreciated it and would give them a standing ovation. They kept tag team wrestling going when WCW and the WWF really had no place for it. No matter how people may feel about it or biasedly view it, ECW was a quality "alternative" to WWF and WCW and deserves far more credit than it really gets for innovating a lot of the ideas that the WWF and WCW used on their Monday night shows and that WWE still uses to this day.







www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

I got that vibe too but since it's such a popular school of thought amongst close-minded WWE marks, I could easily see how there could be at least a handful of other people who might think that way.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was watching it last night since there was nothing else on, I don't recognize it, all the matches had Raw or Smackdown players.

Is it losing its identity little by little?

reply

[deleted]

"Is it losing its identity little by little?"

That bird flew a long time ago.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

how does Kenny Dykstra beat Nunzio (an original) who is not much bigger than him. in like 3 mins, Nunzio had like 3 moves. ecw is lame

reply

[deleted]

ok smartass nunzio deserves to at least throw a few punches, not come out like a damn santas helper.

reply

How do you know he doesn't like putting younger guys over? Let's face it, the best he can hope for is Cruiserweight champion, which he has already won. Even in the old ECW where non credible guys like Raven, Tommy Dreamer, and Sandman were pushed to main event status, Nunzio or Little Guido in that case was not a force to be reckonned with. Longevity doesn't mean *beep* if you don't have the "it" factor and in WWE most ECW originals don't have the "it" factor, that is just the truth. Guys that come to the ring looking like they are going to go work out(windbreaker pants/sweatpants and a t shirt) aren't exactly marketable.

Come one, come all. Let me take you for a ride aboard the "old ECW" bandwagon.

reply

either is Kenny Dykstra (spirit squad was his better days) nobody in the crowd reacts to him.

at least Balls Mahoney, Sandman, and Tommy Dreamer all get good crowd reaction and they are much older than Dykstra.

u really sweat dykstra

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"I don't get why people like this new version"

Morrison, Punk, Burke, and Shelton are better than any original currently and are in my opinion among the top wrestlers today. That is why people like ECW, exciting matches and people that say different more than likely haven't even checked it out.

What is with you old ECW fans? Why are you all living in denial? Vince McMahon owns the name of ECW and WCW, the only somewhat VALID complaint I have heard was there are no hardcore matches. The complaints about how the Benoit matches, the 2 Cool Scorpio matches, etc were classics without weapons hold no ground. These are the new faces and quite frankly look no further than the excellent matches Morrison and Punk have put on, Burke and Punk, etc. You can't possibly be serious when you say that you would rather see over-the-hill, fat, 40 some-on year olds getting pushes. What can Tommy Dreamer do that is so special? He can take Foley-like bumps, ok, good for him. Look at ECW for what it is, stop trying to pick it appart with stupid flaws because the old ECW had many and the biggest flaw is what lead to it going under.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Zep, you are mistaken. He was in line for a push from the start, hence him beating Nunzio via squash his first match. Like I said these two put on great matches, so it obviously isn't plain and simple. Why not watch a few of this guy's matches, all of them are entertaining and he is a shoe in for one of if not the most athletic wrestlers on the WWE roster. Even when he isn't main eventing like his tag matches are some of the most fast past, high energy matches I have seen in some time. He can do a hell of alot more in the ring than any of the originals, that's for sure.

So what about Shelton and Burke? You didn't even mention them.

Come one, come all. Let me take you for a ride aboard the "old ECW" bandwagon.

reply

"No one would buy homeless looking people as champions."

That's funny because I could have sworn that not too long ago, Mick Foley was given a run at the World Title and got over quite well. In fact, he was part of the most watched TV segment in the history of the company. Now you add this to the fact that the guy admitted in his book (a huge best seller, by the way) that this period was the one where he was most out of shape in his life. Let's face it. The guy looked like a bum. It didn't matter to the fans. Terry Funk. Dusty Rhodes. Legends in the business. Not exactly know for their movie star good looks. Aside from his physique, Chris Benoit kind of looked like a homeless guy. For about the first 10 years of his career, Undertaker was made to look like he came back from the dead. News flash. This is pro wrestling. It's not bodybuilding. It's not casting auditions for "General Hospital". You're so brainwashed by McMahon's revisionist history that you seem to think wrestling is only one thing. Polished muscular guys. The reason nobody wants to watch the new ECW crap is because it's the same McMahon-oriented stuff that we get with the two other shows. The original ECW actually had something for everyone. Maybe if you were actually the least bit familiar with it, outside of what you've been told, you'd know that.

"This is WWE, the big time."

It's easy to be the "big time" when you're pretty much the only game in town.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

Well Mick Foley was an exception, Dusty actually had wrestling attire, and Terry Funk was only ECW champion in the old ECW which is less meaningful in my opinion than being ECW champ currently. Having an great physique means that you actually take care of yourself and go that extra mile to attain an athletic look. With few exceptions, ie linemen and certain baseball players, how many out-of-shape-looking athletes do you see? Not very many at all. No one wants wrestling to appears as a joke, there needs to be a distinction between the jobbers and the wrestlers. Once you make enough money to by real wrestling attire, enough money to get a gym membership, afford the right foods, eat a healthy diet, etc, you should do so. If you look like a jobber so you shall be. Mick Foley had above all else exceptional mic skills and was around during the Attitude era, the Hardcore champion gimmick had never been done and was controversial enough that he came at the right place/right time. End of story.

No one said that you have to have a body builder physique, in fact most guys in WWE don't even have anywhere close to the perfect physique, but you can't look like *beep* either. WWE is on tv, broadcast over a large audience. No a vast number of people are not gay or vain, but psychologically speaking people are more apt to want to see somewhat astentically-pleasing people on tv. You may disregard this and say "Oh well I don't care about looks, I'm not gay" It isn't about that, it isn't about attractiveness or for that matter sexual attractiveness, but even a newly born infant can tell the difference between any ugly person and an attractive person. Why do you think certain people do news broadcasts on tv and some can only do radio? WWE would rather have their product appeal to the broader audience because they want to be a success. You may call it selling out, but I call it smart, profitable. In the past it wasn't so much an issue, but nowadays fans are tired of having their intellence insulted by being accused of watching 'a bunch of cavemen, outcasts of society fake fight". You need to have storyline and you need to have actual athletes, doesn't have to be Batista, Cena, or Masters, but you do need to have the look of an athlete.

Come one, come all. Let me take you for a ride aboard the "old ECW" bandwagon.

reply

"Terry Funk was only ECW champion in the old ECW which is less meaningful in my opinion than being ECW champ currently."

Thanks for illustrating how little you know about Terry Funk.

"No one wants wrestling to appears as a joke"

As proven by having a major storyline where Vince McMahon reveals that his illegitimate son is a midget in a Leprechaun outfit. Wrestling has always been looked upon as more comedy sideshow than actual athletic competition and Vince did more to embrace this than any other promoter in the past two decades.

"In the past it wasn't so much an issue, but nowadays fans are tired of having their intellence insulted by being accused of watching 'a bunch of cavemen, outcasts of society fake fight"."

Because certainly Big Daddy V and Great Khali don't fit that cateogory. I mean, clearly it must be less "astentically-pleasing" to the average viewer to watch older guys in T-shirts and sweatpants than watching a 400-plus-pound guy with his man boobs hanging out.

"You may call it selling out, but I call it smart, profitable."

Well, that's certainly your view of things but I don't quite see it as smart business to push the same kind of product with the same kind of wrestlers over three seperate TV products. Creating a third brand and an extra hour of TV may add a small amount of revenue because of advertising but in the long run, it just results in overkill. There might be slight varaiations to each show but generally, it's the same guidelines. The same promotion runs them all and more or less, the same fans are watching them. It's not an issue of "selling out". It's an issue of putting more wrestling on TV when it appeals to the very same people who were already watching the stuff that was already out there. If the show was over as his own entity, it wouldn't keep being consistently demoted and repackaged.


www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

"Crazyjim owned KFK"

KFK pretty much owns himself. I was just the first person to point out how biased, delusional, and ignorant to wrestling history he is. This kid seems to lack any knowledge of ECW or wrestling in general that he didn't learn from a WWE DVD or a message board. While I can certainly name a number of ECW's many flaws, he seems so dismissive to its strengths and refuses to give it any credit at all. That's what makes him a sheep. Since he's not actually familiar with ECW. He seems to have it confused with XPW and many of these other hardcore companies that adopted some of ECW's more violent concepts but never caught on to its creative presentation or cutting edge booking. He brings up people like New Jack (an important part of the roster but as much a part of each overall show as someone like D-Lo Brown was during the early "Attitude" era) as if they were weekly main-eventers. He tries to work every piece of ECW talent into a "Catch 22" situation. If they chose to go to WWF and WCW, it was because "they realized how crappy ECW was" but if they stated, it was because "the WWF didn't want them anyway because they sucked". I mean, we are talking about someone who thinks Terry Funk's biggest claim to fame was "only being ECW champion". There is no mistaking how both major wrestling companies (WWF and WCW) changed their formats to incorporate the kind of stuff that ECW was doing at the time. And no, that doesn't just mean they added edgier content and a hardcore division (though that seems to be all that KFK thinks the old company was good for.) He has even swallowed the same crap about how wrestlers need to have marketable looks. This was the same kind of stuff that McMahon seemed to be preaching in the 90's before he switched it all up to compete with other companies. The only reason he isn't doing that today is because there is no legitimate competition.


www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

I was thinking the same thing. I can't tell a lot of these WWE marks apart anymore.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

Well, I wouldn't argue against Vince's gifts as a brilliant guy with both marketing and creativity but his ego has literally destroyed many potentially massive money-making opportunities in the past seven years. The sad part is he'll never truly get how much potential money he has cost himself since 2001.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

First thing's first

Arguing over a few things that shouldn't be argued on.

Yes ECW overall is doing better in TV viewers now under Vince, but that's 'cause everyone just about knows WWE and anything associated with it.

I didn't watch ECW as much as I could back in the day, but it was very innovative when it came to wrestling TV, but it unfortunately couldn't stand toe to toe against the supermoney powers in WCW and WWE (if you know MLB then think of it as Boston Red Sox vs. New York Yankees vs. Tampa Bay Devil Rays or Pittsburg Pirates)

ECW is better off AND worse off for soo many reasons.

If Vince let Heyman run ECW a bit here's what I would suggest then
(To rebuild a NEW BREED OF ECW at least make the ECW Title Belt contested under "Extreme" rules everytime, keep worthy new superstars as well as some originals who can handle the schedule: RVD, Sandman, Tommy Dreamer, Balls Mahoney, CM Punk, Kevin Thorn, Elija Burke, Shelton Benjamin, John Morrison, and The Miz (he may not be that good, but if you can get people to hate him enough he could be a good mouth piece for someone. he's a huge WWE fan and will do this best, but he hasn't shown enough promise to be able to be a good enough wrestler). Why not add some guys who can add to the extreme environment: Brian kendrick and Paul London, Carlito, and Cryme Time when they were still there...Just my opinions...Get some tag titles there as well)


Better off
Bigger names
Money Backing
Tied in with WWE

Worse Off
Too much crap
No more Paul Heyman
Where's the "extreme"?
Tied in with WWE


One more misconception that people keep making and I'm tired of it.

WWE=Sports Entertainment (they admit it too)
TNA=Sports Enterainment
WCW=Sports Entertainment
ROH=Sports Entertainment
ECW=Sports Entertainment
etc. etc. etc.

All "pro-wrestling" that's similar to these shows are sports entertainment because there is no real competition. Predetermined match outcomes and written up storylines all equate to sports entertainment because it's a display of athletic ability in conjunction with acting and improv in order to entertain fans.

Sports like Football, Basketball, Soccer, Baseball, Gymnastics, Hockey, Figure Skating, etc. are all non-predeterimined sports in which, theoretically have an equal chance to win a contest.

Shows like WWE and TNA, they're generally predetermined. Example, on the TNA side, how come Kurt Angle is still the champ? it's because TNA wants him to be champ. Angle is arguably the best pro-wrestler today, however anytime he would use outside help, why not use instant replay to reverse the decision? Ok, I'm reaching with the instant replay, but I think everyone gets the idea.

The only thing that TNA really has over WWE (and keep in mind I'm a lifelong WWE fan), is a more athletic and talented overall roster than WWE. Right now on all of the WWE shows, they rely on a few good young talent and big name veterans. TNA's got a lot of future and potential talent than WWE. I'd take Kurt Angle, AJ styles and Samoa Joe over Randy Orton, CM Punk and Edge at this point in time. Tough call but I'd go for that (and even though I don't hate Cena much if the champs were Cena, Bautista, and Morrison like it was before, for sure I'd pick the TNA trio then)

reply

[deleted]

Very true.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

Well, last week's edition of the show offered some glimpses into the past when it opened with the Extreme Rules Match for the WWE Tag Titles. It was a really cool match.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Too bad about him being deleted. I would like to have had his original posts around as an example of the ignornace at work but sadly, that's not the case. Oh well.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

ECW *beep**ng sucks now. They need to take it off the air and I got a feeling SciFi is thinking about doing just that. Its ratings probably suck.

reply

I agree that ECW has really gone downhill now. I haven't watched it in a few weeks now. I think I might be done with it altogether.

"I don't have a *beep* soul!."
-Cecil (Saw IV)

reply

Looks like they're finally dumping it.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO ECW???!!!, you ask? Well as of February 16, 2010, it's dead and buried. I do suggest tuning in to SyFy at the same time each week to see WWE NXT. I think most will find that NXT is what WWE should have done back in 2006 instead of trying to recreate ECW. ECW was, and always will be Paul Heyman's creation. It came to an end way back in 2001. ECW is gone now, and this time, it really does need to stay gone.

Those who refer to work as the highlight of their lives obviously don't have one.

reply

It got *beep*



The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.

reply

What do you think of wrestling today?

All he had was sushi and one PINK FLOYD record to last him all summer.

reply