Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to JTF Squaretable. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
[UWF] BULLET POINTS - EPISODE 2; Q&A with Terry & John
Topic Started: May 22 2012, 10:28 PM (688 Views)
Kickair
Member Avatar
Buttons aren't toys
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
And here we are with the second edition of UWF Bullet Points, featuring a different two man panel each time answering questions covering many topics regarding UWF.

This episode features your world heavyweight champion's handler, Mr. Terry Jue and a veteran handler since 1996... Mr. John DeWolfe. The cast of characters each man has handled is long, varied and rich in history which should help allow for some raucous rhetoric...

Gentlemen, let's get to it.

1: With the tag team scene seemingly undergoing a resurgence, would UWF be wise to follow suite and try to re-launch a cruiserweight division?

TERRY:
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. One problem with the UWF and the UWF/MBC merger for that matter, imo, was that there were/are way too many title holders sitting around doing nothing with their belts while a good portion of the roster was left with nothing to do as a result. IMO, adding a cruiserweight title right now would only further dilute the roster, when we could be focusing on making a strong number of contenders for the World, NA, and TV titles.

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
A great point. It always adds a lot of value to a title when there's a general sense that a whole bunch of guys want to win it. A cruiserweight title would just siphon challengers away from the TV and NA titles.

JOHN:
No, for a few reasons. An extra division would take focus away from the two existing "specialist" divisons, tag and women, at a time when both are showing signs of growing strength. Second, smaller guys in the UWF have been able to compete high up on the card since the very beginning and the Youth Gone Wild/Serge Annis feud. Creating a cruiserweight ghetto will just hold back those characters that should be higher up. Third, we've got a good set of singles titles for the men that all seem distinct and important. Adding another belt muddies that and takes away from the value of the TV title in particular, which has been smoking hot under both the Stephens and O'Connor reigns.

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
I couldn't agree more. The fact we're in the middle of "rebuilding" two other divisions makes the idea of adding another division at the moment a bad idea.


2: While the summary format is a way to help UWF shows get out earlier, does the format affect the overall quality of the product?

JOHN:
Yes, but I don't think there's a reasonable alternative. I'll always prefer play-by-play matches to summary matches, but we just don't have the time to write out everything for a roster this big. Besides, the summary matches the UWF does are damn good summary matches. In the end, more of the emphasis of shows ends up on promos, which to my mind really helps sell the programs as well as the feel that the UWF is a global, WWE style behemoth in our "industry".

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
I still think it's worth having a fully written match every now and then. Maybe just save it for a ppv main event or something, but I don't think completely abandoning play-by-play is the way to go. It simply makes the play-by-play matches look THAT much more important in comparison to the standard summary matches, imo.

TERRY:
Sometimes, yes. I admit it's great for squash matches, matches where no one rp'd or just inconsequential filler, but there's a lot of matches(big title defenses, main events, etc) that I believe deserve to be fully written out. Sometimes you miss out on having something with that "big match feel" when it ends up being condensed into a 5k blurb. I wouldn't mind the occasional main event or highly anticipated match to be fully written, written, for instance. Of course, I figure if I want that, I should just shut up and volunteer to write the match myself. lol

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
I think this is one of those cases where, yes, fully written out PBP matches would add something, but they probably wouldn't add enough to be worth the cost in time and effort. I still think there's a lot of "big match feel" in our big matches, and the strong promo work all the top card UWF handlers do is a big part of that.


3: Given the rich variety and history of characters the UWF has had over the years, what one character could make a return and make an immediate impact and be considered a game changer?

TERRY:
Anyone but Kauffman! lol...j/k okay seriously...considering just about everyone from UWF that I can think of has come back in the last cycle or two, I'm not exactly sure. Possibly EW4? No, wait...DUH....Harlequin Tragedy. I think the answer to this is always Tragedy.

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
Why didn't I think of Tragedy? I'm putting my hand up to officially second that motion

JOHN:
See, this is where you'd expect me, the old timey UWF original, to call for all kinds of returns from Pride and Legion... but at this point, anyone who was main eventing in 1997 probably should only be used for special, one-off appearances. Give me someone more recent and perhaps more unexpected... there are lots of guys who'd fit the bill, but if I have to pick just one, how about Big Tobacco? A great heel with resources to spend and scores to settle? That's a game changer.

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
I mentioned EW4 in my reply, but ultimately realized we had a similar heel before in Trey DaMann. Sure, DaMann is going through a gimmick change atm, but I think with him being on top so recently, EW4 wouldn't pack the same punch as Tragedy, who EVERYONE seems to miss.


4: Is the UWF product better or worse without a clear and regularly occurring on-camera authority figure?

JOHN:
Much, much, much better. The UWF has done so many epic storylines about who runs the place, and we just came off the (very enjoyable, I should point out) double-whammy of MBC/UWF factional war and Kyle Lee/Guard strife that I think we need a period where the wrestling, and not the power struggles, take center stage.

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
Yes, we don't need anymore power struggles, but I still think having an authority figure is important, just so someone's there to make big announcements or important decisions.

TERRY:
I think it suffers a bit. I think every fed needs at least one sort of authority figure to at least make matches or give the fed a symbol of law and order. In the WWE, for the longest time, all Teddy Long ever did was come out and make tag team matches...but at least everyone knew there was someone behind the scenes to make matches, suspend heels when they got out of control and to enforce the rules. I don't think we need a big dominating on-screen presence, but I would at least like to know the name of the guy in charge. A Jack Tunney sort of authority figure, if you will.

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
I still kind of disagree. I mean, there needs to be the concept of management, but I don't think it needs to be a specific person. Just say so and so has been suspended, or that the office wants to see a Vasquez-Taurus title match (make it happen, Beebs!) without having someone have to formally say it. I mean, when I watch a baseball game, I'm not thinking "Who decided the Yankees should play the Orioles this weekend?", I just assume some boring suit did and I focus on the game.

Also, if the baseball playoffs started as of when I'm writing this, Baltimore, Tampa, Cleveland, and Toronto would be in. Boston, New York, the Angels, and Detroit would not. Repent, for the end is near!


5: Would a lower handler per character ratio be beneficial or detrimental to the promotion?

TERRY:
It depends. If a handler is going off doing nothing but self-feuds with their own characters or forming their own 5-man self-handled stable, then I think it becomes a problem. If the characters are actually out there interacting with other characters, I have less of a problem with people handling 50 characters.

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
I'll admit that a quarter of the time, I don't even know who handles who. As long as the feud doesn't become about the handlers, it's all good to me.

JOHN:
I don't think it would make much difference one way or the other. As long as we have quality handlers with a diverse range of writing styles, which we currently do, we'll be fine.

With that said, I should be allowed to bring in like, 12 or 14 new characters.

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
Having basically run 9 characters if you count Miyuki's harem, I agree with John that I should be allowed to have 14 characters. But I still maintain that it all depends on what those characters are doing. Otherwise, they're just pointless filler.


6: Are there any innovations from other feds (real world or e-wrestling) that UWF would be wise to implement and adopt?

JOHN:
I love the "Proving Ground" idea ROH runs on its TV program. A champion has a non-title match, and if the challenger can either beat him or last the time limit to a draw, they earn a future title shot. If we could come up with something like that, I'd be really behind it.

Also, just like WWE, we should make our own movies. You know, Ravi Kapoor has some experience in the Indian film industry... I'm just sayin'.

TERRY'S REBUTTAL:
Proving ground sounds like a great idea for the tag or tv titles. It doesn't work if it's a "fighting champion" who would want to defend his title all the time...with that sort of character, the concept of a non-title match becomes a moot point.

TERRY:
Maybe AWA's self-written squash match? Do it for Throwdown and the Online countdown or something. If handlers write their own matches to showcase their own characters, it gets their characters across to the audience AND I think it'd save Mike the headache of writing 10 matches by himself every show.

JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
Terry and I went in different directions... he thought of e-feds, I thought of real world feds. I hadn't thought about the self-written squash, but it makes sense to me, as long as there were controls in place to allow some minor edits in case someone goes overboard and has their guy get inappropriate fan reactions or something like that.


And that wraps this edition of Bullet Points. Thank you John and Terry!

If you're up for a round, let myself or Kyle know and we'll put together episode III if you'll have it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crimsonjoe
The Luther Burger
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nice work by Steve, De, and Terry.

Save room for me on the "Bring Tragedy Back" train...

I do like the "Self Squash" matches. Gives the handler a chance to define his wrestler, helps fill up the card, and saves the fedhead some work.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yo Its X
Macktastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'll hop on the EW4 bandwagon. Mostly because it's the one feud I wanted to do at the time but we never got to. I'd even just taken one match on SNR at the time.

I just wonder how EW4 would work in the current UWF. He was good trying to get into power but far better once he was "in charge".

As for a game changer...

If we're talking UWFers...

If Joe Reed showed up out of the blue after all this time...wow. But it'd have to be something pretty damn amazing for a Joe Reed apperance after all this time.

As for anyone...I'm thinking one of the IIWF guys who've not been seen in a while. Most would balk at a Brody Thunder return. I'd welcome it big time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Overly_Critical_Jue
Member Avatar
Amigo, I ain't anybody but Juan Vasquez!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
EW4 vs Extreme is a game changer? :spam:

While I'm here...I also wouldn't mind seeing Michael Augustine return. I think one thing the fed lacks now that JV and GR aren't being superdicks is an undeniably evil heel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blibblab
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Overly_Critical_Jue,May 23 2012
12:30 PM
EW4 vs Extreme is a game changer? :spam:

While I'm here...I also wouldn't mind seeing Michael Augustine return. I think one thing the fed lacks now that JV and GR aren't being superdicks is an undeniably evil heel.

I thought that's what The New Alliance was for? Or are they getting muddled by the feuding stables wanting to feud with NA [which still doesn't make much sense]?
If a wholly Great One rules, the people hardly know that he exists. Lesser men are loved and praised, still lesser ones are feared, still lesser ones are despised. How thoughtful one must be in what one says! The work done, business takes its course, and all people think: "We are free." - Lao Tzu

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Overly_Critical_Jue
Member Avatar
Amigo, I ain't anybody but Juan Vasquez!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
They're not "evil" evil though. They're just I dunno...badass evil? At any rate, we don't have evil of the baby eating kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yo Its X
Macktastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Overly_Critical_Jue,May 23 2012
11:30 AM
EW4 vs Extreme is a game changer? :spam:



Forgive my lack of morning coffee.

Overall I'd want EW4 back and I think he'd be a game changer. An EW4-AE feud would be something I'd just like. I apologize for not being clear.

Bren: I believe this Mike trying to accomidate more than a few people. Myself included. If in doing so I've created a cluster--my bad. I seem to be doing that a lot these last few months.

Sorry e-w universe. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yo Its X
Macktastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Overly_Critical_Jue,May 23 2012
01:13 PM
They're not "evil" evil though. They're just I dunno...badass evil? At any rate, we don't have evil of the baby eating kind.


We had one.

He was really good too.

He give some guy cancer and broke some guys foot off permanently.

Then he went face. :banana: :banana: :banana:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Overly_Critical_Jue
Member Avatar
Amigo, I ain't anybody but Juan Vasquez!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He also punched the personality out of Brianna Landis and turned her into a stepford wife...but that's neither here nor there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · UWF · Next Topic »
Add Reply