The "Top Rope Rule" did wonders for Brian Pillman. Here's the best top rookie for the 90s. He's high-flying.... But he's discouraged from Flying. Now, let's all cheer for that SECOND ROPE Crossbody Block
Seeing that the Top Rope Rule was an on-air ruling, it does make me wonder if it was using the New Coke strategy to get over guys like Flyin Brian... or maybe just like New Coke perhaps it really was just a massive misstep. Either way I think it worked in the end
@@DaveKnowsWrestling definitely a New Coke moment. Watts seriously underestimated how much the younger crowd begining to trickle in during the 90s was a fan of the more Up-tempo High-flying "arsenal" showcased by the younger stars of "the times"
@@DaveKnowsWrestling My opinion on the top rope rule is that it wasn't special anymore because everybody was doing it at the time. In the late 70's and early 80's with Rick Steamboat, mid 80's with Bobby Eaton and the late 80's with The Great Muta and the early 90's with Brian Pillman and 2 Cold Scorpio, they were special. By the time Watts got there, P.N. News was splashing people off the top rope and Vader was doing moonsaults and a whole host of others. Take it away and slowly let the people that could do it well start doing it again, especially if they were a heel behind the referee's back. Again, just MY opinion. ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO AND TOPIC, BTW.
@@DaveKnowsWrestling I think it was definitely a New Coke situation because it resulted in the Light Heavyweight Championship getting scrapped after only 10 months and change, plus it knocked an entire division that was building steam down to jobber/lower-midcard status.
Being at the building 1 hour before the show starts was a territory rule across the country. The guys back then didn't need to show up 6 hours before the doors opened just to practice their match. The only that was discussed back in the day was the finish.
The “no talking on PA rule” was actually due to some state commissioners not allowing it. For example, in Kentucky, only paid Public Address Announcers were permitted to use the mic. If anyone else did the promoter would be fined. There were similar rules in other states. My guess is Watts didn’t want his wrestlers to have to know which state had which rule, so just don’t allow it anywhere.
yeah to keep kayfabe and keep the illusion its legit... cuz its the same as some states requiring you to have a sports license for legit sports...If they exposed the industry like it is now at that time that wouldnt have been a thing to even entertain. lol
Great video Dave, Bill Watts may have been a fish out of water in the corporate WCW of the time, and some of his rules were downright bad for the wrestlers trying to work, but I still respect all he did for wrestling and on his worst day he was still miles ahead of jim herd
No it really didn’t. It was a rule in Midsouth and Midsouth was huge for a time. People look at the rule wrong. People did moves off of the top rope in Midsouth but it was used as a way to generate heat when the ref wasn’t looking and so they did not kill the impact of coming off of the rope rope which is what has been done. No mats were to protect the wrestler as what could happen is the mat slips when you land and you can destroy your knees… happened to Jim Cornett when he was in WWF.
@@oslowilde6961 Yes it really did.The light-heavyweight division was actually giving WCW some momentum because the WWF was still the big man territory.I understood why Watts got rid of the U.S. tag team belts because a secondary tag team championship is unnecessary and it waters down the other belts,but Watts didn't care for the light-heavyweight division or Brian Pillman.Watts tried to renew Pillman's contract with a significant cut in pay,but Pillman told him to shove that contract up his ass because he was still under contract for X amount of dollars a year. Watts had no idea how to run a wrestling company on a national level in the 1990's because business got so bad that WCW couldn't even get 1,000 people in attendance for TV tapings. Not only did he kill off the light-heavyweight division,but he almost killed WCW altogether.
@@oslowilde6961 Bill Watts was oblivious to the fact that wrestling had changed a lot since 1987 when he was forced to sell the UWF/Mid-South Wrestling to Jim Crockett Promotions.
The over-the-top rule was inherited from the NWA and Crockett Promotions. WCW kept this rule up until around the start of Nitro. In some states, you actually needed a license to talk on the PA system(Kentucky being one of them). Some of these rules were added/kept just to not have to worry about athletic commissions and their bullshit.
In retrospect it seems so crazy that wrestling promotions had to follow the actual rules of legitimate athletic competitions as set by state commissions.
@@suedenim Yes, but the risk was if they smartened commissions up, then the secrets would get out. Better to grudgingly comply and make it appear to be a real sport.
@@suedenim it's hard for people who never saw true Kayfabe to understand. A wrestling match was in the same general fan mentality as Boxing. Not the same, but in the ballpark. You would have people say "well it's all predetermined", but there were always rumors of Boxing matches being fixed as well. So wrestling was more like unsanctioned Boxing. Sure it was probably fixed, but you really just wanted to see people get beat up or do cool moves or lock in the figure 4 as the horsemen ran in that was really all it was. Nobody talked booking, we didn't know what a booker was. Nobody talked about heals or baby faces... we didn't know what those things were. As such promoters had to maintain the appearance of legitimacy in every way possible. Some of the commissions were smartened up, some not.
@@billhicks808 Good points. I remember that my dad (born 1926) didn't trust several sports, including boxing and even basketball (point shaving). As an aside, I find it alarming how much the major sports leagues are officially allied with gambling interests now. It took decades for many sports to earn legitimacy in the eyes of the public. I worry they're just throwing that all away now.
They still mentioned it sometimes in the first couple years of Nitro, usually requiring the commentators to come up with a reason why the match hadn't ended in a DQ when that happened.
the top rope was ridiculous. i remember watching wcw at the time. during some matches, the wrestlers would legit forget the rule. wrestler A tosses wrestler B over the top. the bells sounds, the wrestlers stop and look dumbfounded as to why the match ended. then the reverse would happen as well, wrestler A toss wrestler B over the top. the wrestlers would stop wrestling, while the ref is telling them to keep going, forgetting the match should be DQed.
I remember watching Nitro during 95 and a guy went over the top rope and there wasn't a dq but the announcers kept asking if there would be and then 2 minutes later they said that they had removed that rule from the book Tony said that
There are times that suddenly changing the rules will not break the type of wrestling that talent will do... like sometimes in a match that doesn't allow pin to win, sometimes they will pin because that's how things usual go...
The top rope rule was in the NWA territories for almost 50 years before Bill Watts went to WCW. It was a way for the local wrestler to win but the champion keeps the belt. WCW always had that rule until 1995.
Great video as always, Dave. I love your looks back into the history of wrestling. Watts definitely appeared to be doing his best to differentiate between Southern wrasslin and the stuff offered by Vince which is why you can see the weird mixes of kayfabe and real stuff. Also, forcing wrestlers to arrive on time makes sense but to force them to turn up regardless of their physical state is mad.
The big issue as I see it, is that everyone back then was just trying to be Not WWF or trying to be WWF. Either way it was like everyone was allowing Vince to define what they were doing
I've been a fan of pro wrestling since 1990 and this is the channel I need. The stories of behind the scenes of professional wrestling is more entertaining than what happens in the ring.
I'm gonna try and kayfabe the fighting around the ring & using posts, barricades and announcer tables as justifiable offense. The reason it isn't a DQ is cause you are not actively using the object in question itself but rather it is being used as collateral damage. So this is more a loophole or bending of the rules. The reason why the announcer table is allowed to be used and not a regular table is because the announcer table is part of the set up & falls under the collateral damage. Again, an extreme bending of the rules. The reason using a normal table is considered a DQ is because you have introduced an element not part of the natural set up or environment with the sole intention of it to be weaponized and thus are willingly actively going against the rules at that point. So I can see where you are coming from logically but this is how I see how wrestlers can get around that.
The barricades, ring posts and top turnbuckles are part of the ring and should be treated as fair game. Prohibiting that just seems arbitrary. Why would you want to limit what the wrestlers can do? More options means more spots which means more variety in the matches which means better shows. Dumb rule, imo.
No, no and no. Look at wrestling these days. With barricades, tables and chairs able to be used, it just makes wrestlers lazy. Take away those things, and you force wrestlers to, you know, wrestle. Yet because the wrestlers use the same props, the matches begin to look identical. There are so many matches where, within seconds of the bell, the action spills to the outside. Might be okay if you're watching from home, yet it sucks if you've bought a ticket, two wrestlers brawl into the locker room, and you can't see anything. Why would you bother buying a ticket if half of the show doesn't take place in the ring? How would you feel if you went to see _Hamlet_ at your local theatre, and half of the play took place in the parking lot? Same thing. I urge you to watch British wrestling from the '70s, the World of Sport era. Those wrestlers could be extremely creative, holds and counters like you wouldn't believe. Granted, you didn't always hear a lot of heat from the audience, yet the fans were invested, and they turned up every week. Yet when they started putting gold records and ladders in the ring, well, beginning of the end for the prime years of professional wrestling in Britain.
Hard to believe that Bill Watts got any of the true highflyers over because of not being able to utilize the top rope for maneuvers. Flyin Brian for one.
I would take 1992 WCW over anything that's come out in the last 18 years. I love the sports presentation. Seems like now all they want to do are high spots to impress Dave Meltzer. The score he gives their matches more important to them then the match itself.
Smart video and in the Watts era pushing the kayfabe sporting version made sense. But in those days most people had very little idea of what a true, competitive sport fight looked like. Boxing was popular but the rules were so different nobody compared them for the sake of authenticity. Now that you have MMA, which is basically true professional wrestling, people know what is clearly horseshit. Your typical guy who would have been a pro wrestling fan circa 1983 is the guy today who has likely taken at least a class or two of at least low level MMA or BJJ and knows what actual combat sport submissions look and feel like in real time. Wrestling has nothing left but high spots, comedy and nostalgia, which this channel does pretty well.
Watts instituted these rules both backstage and, in the ring, for two reasons First: Backstage rules with fines and two comp tickets for each wrestler was to try and stop WCW from bleeding so much money from the huge contract's wrestlers had at the time. One thing that plagued that company was talent would get paid regardless the quality of work or even worse attendance. Bill was trying to find ways to break these ridiculous contract stipulations that Turner implemented; because all it did was create lazy, unmotivated workers. Second: In-ring rules were like you pointed out Dave was to help not only keep kayfabe but set itself apart from WWF. We can debate about the top rope rules but some of the other rule's IMO made sense and should be used even to this day; but in this climate of wrestling, logic is deemed as old and outdated.
Considering wrestlers put their bodies through hell with no off-season, and typically work through injuries that would put the average athlete on the shelf, smearing them as lazy and unmotivated is kinda gross. It seems like you share Watts’ attitude that wrestlers are simply disposable objects that don’t possess any humanity. Watts failed multiple times as a promoter. His “logic” didn’t work.
@@dantegood2195 Not to mention, Kip Frey (Bill's predecessor) had a much better idea to motivate wrestlers : giving a bonus to those who put the best match of the night. Also, Bill did consider one wrestler as a human : his son.
I think heels and babyfaces being friends is an often overlooked chance to make booking even more detailed an intricate. The only real one I can think of at the moment is the Lex and Sting angle where it was "Can Sting trust Lex?" in the late 90's. There were some shades of that in the 80's with Piper and Hogan when Piper was a face, but it should be used more often. I think that most people have "Ride or Die" friends .. why can't pro wrestlers? It always seemed so baffling to me every time Sting trusted Ric Flair, and ended up getting backstabbed.
Those attendance rules are weird. I understand telling your people that "X minutes before the show" is your actual start time, that's how basically all employees work. But to tell someone who is injured and can't work that they still have to be there is mental. And you know these rules weren't universally enforced, either. You weren't firing Sting (or even probably actually fining him) if he showed up a half hour in advance of the show instead of an hour, especially if he wasn't appearing until toward the end of the show anyway.
I think the reason why Watts isn’t looked upon favorably today is when you hold him to modern philosophies. Most of these rules were reasonable, especially through the lens of old territory philosophy(what Watts had). Keep kayfabe and a credible presentation.
@@DaveKnowsWrestling Dusty’s booking towards the end of his WCW/JCP days is what tarnished his legacy somewhat. His earlier booking was somewhere between acceptable to great.
@@DaveKnowsWrestling I look at Watts booking Sting vs Vader and Steiners vs Dr Death & Bam Bam Gordy as some of the best wrestling WCW ever had. His booking was excellent. Imagine what the SMW working relationship would have been like if he wasn't fired in 1993. The Bill Watts WCW seemed like JCP and not WWF-lite like 1991 had been.
See the main thing that I like about Bill Watts philosophy with booking and allowing what things should be grounds for disqualification is it creates opportunity for heel heat, and let's be honest here, if you call yourself a wrestler and you can't think of ways to get heat by throwing someone over the top rope, then you probably shouldn't be in the business.
But there in lies the problem….. in a strictly athletic competition, you may have stiff wrestlers and dirty fighting, but it falls apart when you have individuals deliberately losing a match through blatant DQ. AND that flies in the face of titles cannot transfer as a result of a DQ. There may have been a logic for each rule individually , but like the first batman movie and Smilex, certain rules when combined with other rules were just toxic
My dream wrestling company would be a dry, kayfabe-friendly league that at least pretends to be a legitimate sport. I find 1980s AWA or NWA wrestling much more interesting than the bullshit we have today. My problem with Vince McMahon is not that he drove all of the other companies out of business. My problem with Vince McMahon is that he has almost zero interest in professional wrestling.
I honestly give Eric, and Ted turners check book, a lot of credit for turning the wcw ship around and making it a success he just got lost in the sauce.
I'd take issue with the heels/faces split as feeling really forced and artificial; sure it makes sense for deadly rivals that are feuding not to ride together but suppose we want to believe wrestling is real life. Isn't it a little far fetched that, say, the babyface tag champs are so militantly honorable that they wouldn't share a taxi ride with the unscrupulous US champ who won the title last week with a cheap trick? Likely they ain't gonna approve of his win, probably they understand he's not the guy you ask to watch your wallet, but at the same time it's not really their problem, they are hardly going to start an airport brawl or completely blank a work colleague over the issue.
I like Watts's rules regarding basically disqualifications (except the top rope and ring out rules). I think his only rule I don't like is requiring injured wrestlers to make house shows
I remember Jim Cornette going ballistic when it Sonya DeVille and Mandy Rose were still socialising after their feud, even though the reason was because Sonya was being stalked by a mad man and Rose was protecting her friend. It reached the point where Cornette expected Rose to actually committe a crime (lie under oath) because to him protecting mythical kayfabe was more important than, you know, keeping someone safe from a potential murderer.
@@boroughmanager7067 Yes it is, Cornette was fuming a heel and a face got caught together and said he would fire them for such a thing. Even Brian Last called him out on it, especially given Sonya and Mandy were actually trying their best to keep kayfabe everywhere else. But in JimmyLand it's best one of them be murdered if that means "keeping kayfabe"
Here's my opinion on Bill Watts' 10 rules: 10. While I understand why Watts implemented that rule, I'm 50/50 on this. I agree that wrestlers should not use the ring posts and security rail as weapons because it can cause serious injuries if botched, I also disagree with the rule because it can add to the storytelling. 9. It would be wise to save the outside spots in ring for the big matches, not every single match. This is for storytelling purposes. Even the mid-card title matches should limit the outside spots. If you go outside of the ring constantly, it's not special. 8. I agree because wrestlers need to protect their "jewels" even for kayfabe reasons. Low blows are pure desperation. The only time a low blow is called for is if there is a special title stipulation like "If the champ gets disqualified, they lose the title." Case in point, Money in the Bank 2011. Randy Orton got disqualified with a low blow and Christian wins the secondary world title. 7. Wrestlers that are advertised should show up regardless of injury. Hold them accountable. 6. I agree with this rule. In the ring announcer has a job to do, commentators should be quiet until the ring announcers finish their job. Wrestler also should be accountable for the gestures they make and swearing to the crowd is unacceptable. 5. I wish we could return to this rule, but it won't happen thanks to the magic of social media. 4. Agree with this rule. The locker room should be for the athletes only. 3. Agree with this rule on the merit of accountability for the wrestlers. Promotions shouldn't be taking a loss because wrestlers have children while they are still in the business. 2. Over the top rope not only should be for special moments like in a world title match, but should be limited in general. Why? Because going the top rope is high risk even if you land on your feet. 1. Off the top rope, same thing, keep it limited because if you do it all the time, regardless if you connect or not, you're going to get hurt. Injury bugs are occurring in pro wrestling because of spot fests. Coming off the top rope is unfortunately part of people's moves in their arsenal. Bill Watts had it right because pro wrestling is in a rut as indicated by the ratings.
Number 3 - if an offender was to be fined for a low blow, why was the guy on the receiving end encouraged not to “sell” it? Surely, not “selling” it would hide the fact it had been done?! 😳
I assume it probably had something to do with state sport commissions, in most sports blatant low blows would result in DQs and fines so it was to keep with kayfabe since to sports leagues wrestling was treated as real as any other sport and while it would be entertaining imagine a batter after getting struck out on running to the mound and kicking the pitcher in the dick how that would play out
Who gives a damn if the ref “looks bad”??? This isn’t the 1910s in the George Hackenschmidt era-it was 1992! Who wants to see a match end in DQ b/c a wrestler rammed his opponents’ head on the post?? Or see it end in count out?? NOBODY is coming to see the refs lol. Oh and I lived through this Watts era of WCW….and thought his rules were DUMB AS HELL even then (the in-ring product of WCW in the early 90s was terrific….despite Watts’ idiocy)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: usually, the worst person to provide an answer to "why don't more people watch wrestling?" is a wrestling fan. If you want the answer, ask a *non-wrestling* fan why he or she doesn't watch. Very quickly, the non-wrestling fan will point out those referees who never see infractions committed in plain sight, never mind refs going down and staying down for five minutes after taking a simple shoulder block. I've watched wrestling for years, and the Clueless Ref Made From Papier-Mâché trope is one of the worst.
It’s always interesting to see the early days of promotion. Bill was a bit of a mixed bag for me, though he seemed to like the old style of wrestling some of the rules were reasonable. Others not so. The fines and talking and socialising rules was overkill in my opinion
1) The American Wrestling Association (Gagne's territory) had the post be a DQ. 2) The top rope (both iterations -- off it and over it) has been a DQ in various extents in a number of different situations. Remember, also, that part of the situation is the psychology of the heels doing it behind the referee's back. 3) I don't think this one is "in front of the ref". This one sounds really suspiciously like this one is universally enforced. 4 and 5) That's a workplace environment situation. You basically are "on the clock" an hour before belltime. And you best be there if you can be. (Remember, this is Watts -- a man from the territory days.) 6) Make sure they get paid for that, Bill -- and I have no problem with it otherwise. If someone is advertised and gets injured between announcement and card, then let's make sure they are actually injured (unless you're making an angle out of it, as they often do). 7) The last two are pure Southern views of profanity. The first is a function that, when the PA is on, the audience's attention should be pointed to IT. 8) Watts is bringing back kayfabe. To at least an extent. And, independent contractors aside, many jobs do (and are forced to) do just that (control who you can hang out with), especially if there's a belief they could be sued if they don't. 9) And here's another means of enforcing kayfabe. 10) This isn't unreasonable either.
As some of these are ridiculous, I completely understand the one about tickets for family and them not being backstage cuz I can only imagine how old that got very quickly 😂. And then although we all know kayfabe is a thing, the heels and faces traveling and being friendly breaks the illusion very quickly. Like of course it's cool to be friends cuz you're co-workers, but just be more mindful in public settings 💀. But yeah, some of the others were kinda wack
you had to be smart and get the ref to be distracted! that was Bills whole point , he just wanted the wrestlers to THINK out side the box and well screw with the ref
Except he was born in the 1930s, which doesn't make him a baby boomer. The term "boomer" is utterly moronic. It's ageist bullshit. To me, it shows utter disdain for older generations.
@@zlinedavid God damn, that sounds like that'd be the exact breakdown too. Always gotta keep a breakdown in mind when discussing James E. Cornette, right?
@@MaxAngor Always. FWIW, I’m a big Cornette fan. He’s a bit out of date on the aesthetics of wrestling, but on vision and structure, he’s one of the best.
@@zlinedavid I have two shirts from him. I agree with him about most of his takes on wrestling. Politics, on the other hand, are why I don't listen to him as much as I do Dutch Mantell. I would chalk it up to difference of opinion if he didn't cite the most dumbass sources in history. If you're gonna be histrionic, at least find better sources than the mainstream media. And his co-host makes me ashamed of my heritage.
@@MaxAngor I just fast forward though his political tirades. Even if I agreed with him, I don’t want politics mixed in my wrestling. That’s one of my escapes from the real world. I don’t need more of it dragged in. And are you talking about Brian?
The top rope rule was a long con. He put it in place one, to give more structure to something that should look like a legitimate contest. Rescending it babyfaces the company to make the fans feel like management is on their side. It can also make it mean something when it does happen. Also I don't find any of these controversial but then I was trained by some of the older guys so these rules just make sense in my mind.
the "be at the arena 1 hour before the show" had another part as i understood it.... (that) no wrestler was allowed to leave the arena until the whole show had finished either.. i can understand that there is need for "reserve performers" just in case. but this one really pissed off a lot of them as it stopped many wrestlers from making flights home or being able to leave at a time when otherwise they could have made it home, and when many of them are on the road 300+ days a year... well, you understand the annoyance!
I think the ring rules like throwing over the top or fight outside area or ring like weapon outside make sense except for instant disqualification AnD the backstage rules is awful
the kayfabe rules can work in moderation and have the Deathmatch wrestling or hardcore match in special occasion. terminus pro wrestling is old wcw kayfabe era is good but fan don't like rules
Heels & Faces 'Fraternizing... Unless you're running a 'Best Friends, Better Enemies" angle most of the talent should have been ahead of the curve on preserving Kayfabe and swapped road partners ... especially in a world were Duggan and Sheik got Arrested doing Coke while carpooling -- as to Sting and Luger one would argue that A. Steve Borden and Larry Pfohl co-owned that Gym, not "Sting" and "Luger" B. if you were that read in enough to know Steve and Larry had a Gym they wouldn't be the first Business Partners to have personal issues Family in the Locker Room: There was one of the Multi-Generation Talents (was it Cody?) who talked about their Father selling an Injury while home between TV Tapings.. -- so in an A vs B feud if A is willing to wear a cast at home for 3 weeks and convince Their Kid that B is evil, I doubt they're in a rush to have B bring their kid to the locker room and introduce them as "My Best friend A"... or more so if the booking is about to end A v B and A v C is the next program up does anyone want C's kids to get a peak behind the curtain?
[ Truthfully ] Fining wrestlers for putting their opponents threw the table make a lot of sense but the rest is kind be justify. It how the promoter look at it in their eyes. True that fans want to be entertain watching wrestling but at the same time fan have to understand stuff wrestlers do ( Most of the time ) is illegal.
I think the Bill Watts rules could work today, especially when you watch wrestling today. No matter what promotion you watch today, it's the same thing. Some matches are longer than they should be, and false finishes being over done
@DaveKnowsWrestling Like remove the floor mats, throw your opponent on the steel is a dq, throw your opponent off the top rope, and jump off the top rope. Maybe it'll slow the pacing down, and add a layer of storytelling
So you suggest reinstituting an old set of rules in the hopes that it in a round about way it might alter wrestler behavior... instead of just making new rules to directly address the issues.
I agree with the kayfabe rule about brawling outside the ring. It's done way too much these days. I think rules can be a good thing if they're used right. I mean how can the heels cheat if they have no rules to break? I also agree with the legitimate rule about the heels and babyfaces not associating with each other. The dedication to kayfabe was the true art of pro wrestling. Anyone can learn how to do moves, but working is a whole other playground. For the, the art of wrestling is dead and gone. Convincing people that what they were seeing was real, or at least making them question it was the whole point of pro wrestling. Without, there's really no point.
The problem with that is you breed an atmosphere where corporate things like Fake Razor and Diesel The Lawsuit over the Broken Universe And of course Mexican Promotions owning the masks of Luchador's happen. Also does knowing that Arnold Swartzenger is NOT a murderous android totally destroy going to the movies?
@@davidlewis5312 No. Shit like that never happened in the territories. Wrestling should never be corporate. If Arnold was constantly breaking character and winking at the audience just to remind us that what he was doing was bullshit, yeah. It would definitely ruin going to the movies. If Iron Man and Thanos suddenly stopped fighting in the middle of Endgame just to break out into a fucking dance routine, yeah. That would have ruined the movie... You're not getting the point anyway. That's where almost every modern wrestling fan gets it wrong. Wrestlers aren't supposed to be actors. Actual pro wrestling no WWE, but legitimate professional wrestling was never about acting. It was about reacting. Dedication to their craft is what set pro wrestlers aside from every other performer. That's what made them special. Without it, they are just another shit ass actor and those come a dime a dozen. Do you know why MJF is so popular? Because nobody is sure. He's always on. He never breaks and that raising the question "Is this guy really an asshole?" That's all anyone needs is a sliver of doubt.
But then you treat wrestlers as freaking slaves. This obsession with Kayfabe is even more ridiculous considering : 1. This wasn't universal (some countries like France always talked about how predetermined wrestling / catch was, well before Sayama and Vince exposed the business their countries) 2. Even if we accept this rule, reality is far more grey than that : there aren't just saints because they're blessed by God and evil persons because they're evils. Even people with vastly different opinions about everything and that hate each other sometimes have to talk and work together, because life itself is complexe. So if anything, that rule does more to kill Kayfabe than anything.
@@Harakengard It would appear that everything I was taking about went over your head. You obviously don't get it because you don't want to get it, so I'm not wasting my time and energy arguing with you about it. Think whatever you want to think, man.
@@DaveKnowsWrestling I think I can narrow it down, because the image I have in my mind is of Sting throwing Vader into the guardrail then hitting a Stinger Splash.
@@MrBeardsley That might have been in the leather strap match in 1993. You were allowed outside the ring in gimmick matches. He wanted to discourage it in regular TV matches.
If you're talking about the kayfabe rules (which are not the 10) the difference was that the piledriver happened anyway in Memphis. Heels just did it to get heat because it was illegal. The top rope thing just prevented babyfaces from doing it
Exactly. He was also giving heels more rules to break. None of th tese rules would have been contraversial in the territory days, which is where Bill had so much success. However, that ship had sailed by the time he was brought into WCW.
That's just what you directly said, Dave. A sport presentation. To be honest, what made Bill Watts the best booker in wrestling history. Obviously, there are breaches and irregularities due to the lack of comprehension they had back on those days like the talent issues in case of not being able to be on a show. Anyway, the cowboy made all the possible to increase the wrestling status and that's how you make an industry goes on. Just imagine a RAW or a Dynamite where the important pieces don't get buried when there are 4 guys inside the ring in a tag match or obeying the ref when a guy throws another one out of the ring
But wrestling isn’t a sports presentation. It’s supposed to be entertaining and fun. Hence the phrase “sports entertainment”. If people just wanted to watch the boring, real stuff they’d watch amateur wrestling. Watts couldn’t evolve from the 1970s
@@dantegood2195 That's an exaggerated perspective. Wrestling is supposed to be entertaining, but looking serious, dramatic but not that much and making sense. That's the way you have fun with it. Not the silly sports entertainment where you find out the wrestlers can do all what they want with limited rules, burying the ref, making look the officials like useless elements or even the announcers. Starting with the mother who brings her son to a wrestling show and watches Jon Moxley starting a match throwing his opponent to the barricades, the steele steps, spending a lot of time out of the ring... And, at the same time, she asks herself "Why is all of this allowed when their job is inside the ring?". The other day, my brother asked me why in a tag team match some competitors are on the floor for minutes? Or why they are illegally at the same moment in the ring with the referee just watching them? Wrestling is a sport and it doesn't matter that is determined. It has to be for all the audiences and not for a close marky circle. And, for that, it has to make sense with psychologic matches and rules applicated. Not for people who just want to see a guy wrestling like Moe from The Simpsons dancing or an idiot doing the cobra. People in the territory days handle with it, even Vince McMahon at that time
@@juanluis2855 - History doesn’t bare this out. Bill watts’ vision of pro wrestling failed. So did Jim Crockett’s. Meanwhile, Vince’s vision of sports entertainment prevailed. Whether it was the cartoonish, 80s Hogan era, the over the top attitude era, or the current era with the WWE signing billion dollar TV deals, the public has spoken. They don’t want some ultra serious, no fun ‘rasslin product. They want theater.
@@dantegood2195 Basically, the public hasn't spoken, they just left and the beginning was in the middle of the attitude era with the goofy stuff as the perpetrator. Back in 1999, the numbers survived because of the most natural individuals in the roster, Steve Austin, The Rock or Mick Foley. Now, the inheritance that Vince McMahon, Eric Bischoff or Paul E. gave is a bunch of marks, smart fans or a low number of fans who try to enjoy the product despite their own critique. A half of all those millions just stopped watching. Bill Watts' formula made people go watch wrestling and still caring for every single minute of a show. Obviously with main event stars except massive attractions like Hogan. The failure of Jim Crockett's promotions was because of Jim Crockett Jr. himself. Watts wasn't even the booker at that period of the big fall. Jim herd's booking was atrocious and a parody, and no one sane of his mind would put Ole Anderson in that place. Plus, the WWE in the late 80's wasn't that cartoonish and retained respect for every single rule
I feel like Bill is very behind the times okay they took away the rule where you can't come off the top rope and they allowed it I never liked the throw over the top rope rule you could have a great match for getting disqualification if somebody got thrown out of the ring
And a giant money's fine for a low blow I better Ric Flair did not like Bill. Is he had to do everything to make sure he did not get caught doing a low blow and you can count how many times Ric Flair will do that in a match
Over the top rope DQ was not a Bill Watts thing. It was already in WCW. It's a holdover from the NWA days where the local guy had to beat the NWA Champion, but the champ had to keep the belt. It's an easy out for the booker.
Well bill had a point, he had a thing for logic in wrestling it made it look like a legitimate contest in regard to suspending your disbelief, thing is though some guys like mick foley and the nasty boys actually got over as heels by ignoring the rules. Also street fights etc meant more when the normal matches had those kind of rules. The max payne/mick foley vs the nasty boys Chicago street fight happened under watt's watch. The no padding rule like watt's said "we'd been bumping outside for years". People hold that rule to a double standard because it was ok when Todd Gordon did it in ECW. I think the talking into the PA rule was although rick rude was working for wwf at the time, Watts had worked for territories that had previously got into trouble due to "cut the music" promos from adrian street and rick.
@@ericthomas917 No, presenting as fake is an insult. Trying to make it as realistic as possible is the right way to do it. I assume you hate movies that try to be realistic too.
WWE isn't WCW. They have their own "rules" as did other territories at the time. Shouldn't call your channel "Dave Knows Wrestling" if you don't know the basics.
