You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Lance Storm's Rules of Wrestling [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Lance Storm's Rules of Wrestling


SpicyMcHaggis
05-29-2009, 08:33 AM
I completely agree with all of these and I advise anyone who has any power in the booking of an independent promotion to take heed to these rules.

The World Title means EVERYTHING: This applies to all titles really but the World Title has to be the main focus of the company. Credibility needs to be restored to the Titles. Titles can not be flip flopped all over the place. Fans need to be able to follow title lineage, and any time the title changes hands it needs to be a significant event. The World Title should only be defended in a 1 on 1 match. You could argue for 3 ways but in that event they need to be elimination so the best man wins and the former champ is always beaten to lose the title. The World Title means you are the best individual wrestler in the company and it should never be on the line in a match where other factors or other people can play a major role in determining who the best is.

Champions do not Lose Matches: If a Champions gets beat what exactly is he champion of. Unless they are getting beat in a non title match that will lead directly to a title shot, the Champion has to go over. If he does lose a non-title match the loss has to be treated like a big deal and lead to something. If you can’t put the champion over in the match DON’T book it. The only exception to this rule is tag team champions getting beat in a singles match, or a singles champ getting beat in a tag match but even that should not be done too often and should lead to something.

Simplify the Product: Not every match needs to have an angle. Wrestlers are professional fighters they can be booked in matches just because it is their job. The angle or motivation for the match is that if they win they make more money and if they win enough they get a title shot. Simple angles can be spun from matches and their results, not everything needs to be a storyline. Fewer segments and focusing on one or two main angles per show will make for a far more effective and memorable program.

Gimmick and Stipulation Matches should never be done COLD: Throwing cage matches, ladder matches, 3 way matches, stretcher matches, etc. out there cold with no build or angle is… in a word WRONG. These matches are supposed to be special and mean something and if they are done for no reason with out any build, no one cares and their value is lost. A prime example of this was the So Jo Bolt – Taylor Wilde match on Impact last week. There was absolutely no reason for that match to be a ladder match. There was no heat or angle building to it, there was no promotion of it in hopes of drawing with it, and there was no time or importance given to it, so it was a pointless 3 minute match that sucked. Those two would have had a better match with out the ladder and fans wouldn’t have had to see a short boring ladder match which only served to kill the value of future ladder matches. Throwing gimmicks and stipulations everywhere on a show in hopes of drawing ratings only waters down their effectiveness, which leads to needing more gimmicks and stipulations in the future, which is a never ending downward spiral that is killing this business. I like to call this the Russo-Effect.

Bring back Managers and Valets: I’m not sure when the people in this industry decided to stop using managers and valets but it was a huge mistake. Some of the greatest money feuds in this business featured managers and valets. I large portion of the Hogan era was Hulk Hogan feuding with Bobby Heenan and his henchmen. Even the Austin era was largely fueled by Vince McMahon who was for the most part a manager type character. The only explanation I’ve ever heard for doing away with managers was that because they did all the talking they got all the heat and the heat needs to be with the wrestler. To this I ask, WHY? Why does all the heat need to be with the wrestler? Is it not more important to just have heat somewhere? There are a lot of workers held back because they can’t talk, and talkers held back because they don’t have the ability or the body. Let’s start pairing the talkers and the workers and as long as they get heat as a unit, everyone wins. Santino Morella needs to be a manager. Let him get heat by running his mouth and then have him hide behind a Mike Knox, or a Charlie Hass. Remember Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman! Now on to Valets. Not every girl needs to be having wrestling matches, and throwing 10 of them out there in 3 minute tag matches servers no purpose what so ever. Valets, like Managers can differentiate and help liven up the individual male talent on the roster. Dawn Marie made me who I was in ECW. She gave me depth and character that I never could have developed on my own. Take the girls who look the part and have the personality and pair them with guys who need an extra something to stand out. You can still keep the Women’s division alive, just do it with the girls who can work.

Maintain Company Integrity: Bookers need to remember that the company is a business entity and needs to be presented like it is both competent and professional. The Company as a whole can not be involved in any comedy bullshit. This is likely my biggest TNA pet peeve, and was also a big concern of mine in WCW (this could be the Russo Effect version 2.0) Matches that are booked and presented have to be something that makes business sense to the company. We can’t have blow up dolls on a pole, plastic Santas as weapons, guys playing on pogo sticks during matches, production crews visiting the “Deep Blue Sea” to interview the Shark family. The over all product, can not be presented as a joke, you can do comedy and have comedic characters but you can’t “Cross the Line” and let the company as a whole come off like a joke. There needs to be structure and knowledge behind the product, management has to be in control, if they are not it hurts the product and also opens up endless plot holes and storyline inconsistencies.

Reduce Scripting of Promos: Guys need to be allowed to come into their own, and find themselves. Too tightly scripting everything dulls individual creativity and will greatly decrease the likely hood of anyone breaking out. Leave the under neither and mid card guys alone somewhat and let them find their own way. When you book and script a guy to be a 2 minute undercard promo that is all he is ever going to be and no one will ever break through and become a star. Finding new Main Event stars is a real issue today and unless guys are allowed to develop themselves and create their own personality they are never going to get good enough to break out of that 2 minute cookie cutting promo that is keeping them in the mid card. Guide and nurture, but don’t out right script. Tell wrestler A the day or week before that he will have a 2 minute promo to cut on Wrestler B and see what he comes up with. Austin 3:16 wasn’t scripted, it just happened.

Well that’s my take, 7 simple rules to follow when presenting pro-wrestling. They are broken all the time in this industry yet I don’t see how anyone could possible argue that the wrestling business wouldn’t be a whole lot better off if they weren’t.

Lance Storm

conman823
05-29-2009, 08:40 AM
Lance Storm is completely incorrect.












At least thats what Stephaine McMahon told me once.

asayresk
05-29-2009, 09:39 PM
I agree with Lance. Comedy in wrestling is good, When I wacth a wrestling program i wanna see a good macth.

Dan G
12-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Lance has 7 rules, Fez has 6 points, and they're both quite similar.

Fez and Lance, The New Thrillseekers.

CYYYFYYY
12-18-2009, 10:54 AM
I read Lance Stomrs Blog regularly, hhe makes very good points, he is a tad too much against comedy and cool bad guys, but I like most of what he says

TripleSkeet
12-18-2009, 11:15 AM
He can be a little too uptight but all 7 of those points are spot on.

WWE breaks 6 of those 7 regularly. Which is why they suck now. The only rule they follow is not letting the champ lose. That is, if by "champ" you mean John Cena. Who never just loses cleanly whether he has the belt or not.

Melk
12-18-2009, 04:00 PM
I read Lance Stomrs Blog regularly, hhe makes very good points, he is a tad too much against comedy and cool bad guys, but I like most of what he says
Too much against comedy? What is "funny" about wrestling's attempts at comedy? I tend to like the weird ad-libbed moments that have happened over the years, but Vince and his ilk really seem to love terrible comedy. I just don't care about midgets, people kissing Vince's ass, people impersonating politicians, Todd Pettinggil or anything DX has ever said.

Chimee
12-18-2009, 04:10 PM
He can be a little too uptight but all 7 of those points are spot on.

WWE breaks 6 of those 7 regularly. Which is why they suck now. The only rule they follow is not letting the champ lose. That is, if by "champ" you mean John Cena. Who never just loses cleanly whether he has the belt or not.

That depends on the champion. Cena never loses with or without the belt, but they put the title on CM Punk and I think he lost almost every non-title match he had.

Melk
12-18-2009, 05:40 PM
That depends on the champion. Cena never loses with or without the belt, but they put the title on CM Punk and I think he lost almost every non-title match he had.
The best wrestling promotions have a top heel who wins title matches by stretching the "rules," like grabbing tights or putting his feet on the ropes. The WWE even has their faces win titles after a third, fourth or fifth person interferes.

TripleSkeet
12-18-2009, 10:08 PM
That depends on the champion. Cena never loses with or without the belt, but they put the title on CM Punk and I think he lost almost every non-title match he had.

Yea, that was kinda my point. Throwing a jab at how they make Cena out to be stronger then Superman.


And for the record, The Kiss My Ass Club ruled.

EddieMoscone
12-19-2009, 07:15 AM
Not for nothing, but Lance Storm never drew a dime in his career. So while I may agree with some of the points he is making, I wouldn't exactly take them as gospel.

TripleSkeet
12-19-2009, 10:18 AM
Not for nothing, but Lance Storm never drew a dime in his career. So while I may agree with some of the points he is making, I wouldn't exactly take them as gospel.

You dont have to draw money to know wrestling. Paul Heyman never "drew" money personally, but he knows how to make creative storylines.

Show me one Lance Storm point here youd disagree with.

MIKEYDAKEN
12-19-2009, 10:34 AM
Not for nothing, but Lance Storm never drew a dime in his career. So while I may agree with some of the points he is making, I wouldn't exactly take them as gospel.

lance storm in ecw was great. it's when they tried to push him over to the people in wcw and wwf that he sucked ass.

EddieMoscone
12-19-2009, 01:32 PM
You dont have to draw money to know wrestling. Paul Heyman never "drew" money personally, but he knows how to make creative storylines.

Show me one Lance Storm point here youd disagree with.

And Paul Heyman lost money hand over fist. It's one thing to create storylines, it's another to create storylines that = money. And that has always been the point of pro wrestling since day one. It was a business, not an art.

And I already said, I agree with most of what he said (and reading it again probably all) for my own personal preference when watching wrestling, doesn't mean it matters at all to most of the yahoos who make up 99% of the money spending audience of wrestling today. Unfortunately if you want to be a financially SUCCESSFUL wrestling promotion, those are the idiots you have to book for.

There are place for people like you and me who appreciate the art, but the same rules can not be applied unilaterally for every promotion. If they were, what would be the point of having more than one?

CYYYFYYY
12-19-2009, 03:10 PM
EcW was a force, he did not know how to handle spending. I think Lance Storm could run a good promotion, I think Cornet who moans and groans all the time cannot. Vince sees the market and caters to it. Cena is selling plenty. He is bringing in a young audience. When they mature he well make it PG-13 and then back to pg or even G.

TripleSkeet
12-19-2009, 03:16 PM
And Paul Heyman lost money hand over fist. It's one thing to create storylines, it's another to create storylines that = money. And that has always been the point of pro wrestling since day one. It was a business, not an art.

And I already said, I agree with most of what he said (and reading it again probably all) for my own personal preference when watching wrestling, doesn't mean it matters at all to most of the yahoos who make up 99% of the money spending audience of wrestling today. Unfortunately if you want to be a financially SUCCESSFUL wrestling promotion, those are the idiots you have to book for.

There are place for people like you and me who appreciate the art, but the same rules can not be applied unilaterally for every promotion. If they were, what would be the point of having more than one?

Ive read youre posts before so it seems you know something about wrestling so your post seems baffling. ECW didnt lose money because of its storylines. It lost money because it didnt have the cash to shell out while waiting for their PPV money. Read up on ECW's history and youll see that.

Paul Heymans storylines and ideas are what saved the WWE in the Monday night wars. They fucking stole EVERYTHING from ECW. And at the time WCW had just merged and had to follow strict Time Warner guidelines of...hmmm...no blood, no cursing, no adult sexual situations, no hate speech...hmmm sounds alot like the WWE today.

Say what you want, but if you want to talk dollars and cents heres a number you cant argue. in 2000 the WWE was in full force Attitude Era mode. PG-13 programming for Raw and pushing the envelope wherever they could. They proclaimed everywhere how their main demo was 18-34 year old males and how they had cornered the market in that demo. The WWE was also worth $1 billion at one point in 2000.

Last month, as part of her running for Senate, Linda McMahon had to submit the paperwork showing exactly how much the WWE is worth now. And it came in as $500 million. So the company is worth exactly 1/2 billion dollars less now in the PG era then it was back then. And back then I could count at least 5 of these rules that WWE followed that they dont follow now.

EddieMoscone
12-19-2009, 03:44 PM
Ive read youre posts before so it seems you know something about wrestling so your post seems baffling. ECW didnt lose money because of its storylines. It lost money because it didnt have the cash to shell out while waiting for their PPV money. Read up on ECW's history and youll see that.

I know plenty about ECW and it's history. I spend more time promoting that company (for free) than some of the employees did.

When ECW went bankrupt, they had less than $2m in assets (including accounts receivable and the estimated value of their tape library) and over $8m in debt.

ECW owed so many wrestlers money it wasn't even funny. And not just from the last 12 months or so, when EVERYONE's checks were bouncing left and right. They owed wrestlers money dating back many years. ECW owed WWE over $500K in loans. That's how Vince was able to acquire the name and tape library.

Money owed to ECW for PPV buys DID NOT kill the company. Bad decisions by management did.

EddieMoscone
12-19-2009, 04:35 PM
I know plenty about ECW and it's history. I spend more time promoting that company (for free) than some of the employees did.

When ECW went bankrupt, they had less than $2m in assets (including accounts receivable and the estimated value of their tape library) and over $8m in debt.

ECW owed so many wrestlers money it wasn't even funny. And not just from the last 12 months or so, when EVERYONE's checks were bouncing left and right. They owed wrestlers money dating back many years. ECW owed WWE over $500K in loans. That's how Vince was able to acquire the name and tape library.

Money owed to ECW for PPV buys DID NOT kill the company. Bad decisions by management did.

And the fact that the wrestling itself wasn't for a large audience. Their style was for a small group of fans, they never should have tried to get as big as they did.

lleeder
12-19-2009, 06:15 PM
The WWE was also worth $1 billion at one point in 2000.

Last month, as part of her running for Senate, Linda McMahon had to submit the paperwork showing exactly how much the WWE is worth now. And it came in as $500 million. So the company is worth exactly 1/2 billion dollars less now in the PG era then it was back then. And back then I could count at least 5 of these rules that WWE followed that they dont follow now.

I agree that WWE is way worse than it was in 2000 but I think using the company's current worth to compared to its 2000 worth proves nothing. How many big companies were making money in 2000 and now because of the economy have turned to shit? Its almost amazing that the WWE has only lost half there money. I would have bet that they were much worse off.

TripleSkeet
12-19-2009, 06:18 PM
And the fact that the wrestling itself wasn't for a large audience. Their style was for a small group of fans, they never should have tried to get as big as they did.

Thats bullshit. People always say that but guess what? Alot of people out there LOVE violence. If they wouldve put it on Spike TV without trying to restrict everything that made them ECW they wouldve started pulling a lot bigger audience then they had. Would it have topped WWF? No. Put it wouldnt have shit the bed either. I cant say it wouldve been enough to counter bad behind the scenes business decisions but the show itself wouldve done great ratings if it was given a real chance.

Look at how well EVERY UFC program Spike puts on does? They crush in ratings. Know why? Because people like seeing guys fuck each other up. Plain and simple. They want blood, they want hard punches and kicks, they wanna see guys dropped on their skulls. Its human nature. Between that kind of audience and a wrestling fanbase which at the time was just everywhere, ECW couldve done fine. Once again though executives and lawyers take something they know nothing about and try to conform it so that it looks like everything else and doesnt offend anyone. If UFC had taken that course it wouldnt even be on tv.

And out of those reasons you gave for ECW folding, storylines werent one of them. Theyve had some of the best storylines in wrestling and they were a little 3rd rate wrestling outfit. You really need to give more credit where its due.

Death Metal Moe
12-19-2009, 06:22 PM
Lance Storm is a girl. He's just pissed none of the other wrestlers ever asked him to be their date to The Slammy Awards.

TripleSkeet
12-19-2009, 06:24 PM
I agree that WWE is way worse than it was in 2000 but I think using the company's current worth to compared to its 2000 worth proves nothing. How many big companies were making money in 2000 and now because of the economy have turned to shit? Its almost amazing that the WWE has only lost half there money. I would have bet that they were much worse off.

Its not all because of the economy. Back then they were pulling 6's and 7's in the ratings, now they are lucky if they pull a 3. And they RARELY sell out now when in the late 90's and early 2000's EVERY live tv show was a sellout.

They dont put on a product that interests most of their older viewers anymore. They took the same turn in the early 90's when they were bringing out jobbers with gimmicks like The Goon and Isaak Yankem D.S. Their angles went all kiddy and they were giving titles to guys like Doink the Clown. It was that kind of shit that made it embarrassing to tell people you were a wrestling fan and fans from the 80's left in droves.

lleeder
12-19-2009, 06:29 PM
Its not all because of the economy. Back then they were pulling 6's and 7's in the ratings, now they are lucky if they pull a 3. And they RARELY sell out now when in the late 90's and early 2000's EVERY live tv show was a sellout.

They dont put on a product that interests most of their older viewers anymore. They took the same turn in the early 90's when they were bringing out jobbers with gimmicks like The Goon and Isaak Yankem D.S. Their angles went all kiddy and they were giving titles to guys like Doink the Clown. It was that kind of shit that made it embarrassing to tell people you were a wrestling fan and fans from the 80's left in droves.

Ratings are different then they were back then too. I dont have figures but shows just don't do the same numbers.

I have no interest in the product at all. I haven't watched a Raw for more then 3 minutes in the last 5 years. Basically I'm just arguing cause its snowing.

EddieMoscone
12-20-2009, 07:39 AM
And out of those reasons you gave for ECW folding, storylines werent one of them. They've had some of the best storylines in wrestling and they were a little 3rd rate wrestling outfit. You really need to give more credit where its due.

Hold on, ECW is my favorite wrestling organization EVER. I am not taking away from their storylines. My point is, most wrestling fans are not like you and me. They are goobers who like flashing lights, fake tans and crotch chops.

Yes, if the WWE followed Lance Storms Rules, us smart fans would love them a whole lot more...doesn't mean they'd be any more or less successful. I think Vince McMahon has been able to gauge what the yahoos want for a long time now.