FORUM HOME > TNM > Discussion
The wrestlers we choose

JeepGuyPosted on 01/30/08 at 16:05:07

What motivates you to pick the wrestlers put into your circuits? Do you pick your favorite wrestlers? Look for particular wrestling styles? Gimmicks? Looks? Random picks?

For myself, I look mostly for storyline potential. I currently have 2 circuits - Southern Championship Wrestling and Alternative Wrestling Entertainment (GO READ!) and used slightly different criteria for my wrestler picks.

SCW is a small studio TV program circa 1985 so the first thing was finding wrestlers from that time period. I chose guys I was relatively familiar with (the main guys) and guys who would have wrestled in the southern region of the promotion. Most of them had to have something that would be fun to write about angle-wise.

AWE is slightly different. A current era promotion, I wanted something that was more "wrestlecrappy". Take some wrestlers, some I like, some I'm not real familiar with and throw them together and twist stuff around. The idea was to make something funny, stupid and not so politically correct in a short show which would hopefully be a quick read but have you coming back for more. So ... each wrestler was picked with storyline material potential. I'll admit, I laugh quite a bit when writing this stuff, so hopefully the readers (if any) would do so, too. I stayed away from the big names as I wanted to emulate something you might see on TV. Might.
ZedjaPosted on 01/30/08 at 16:43:03

I mostly pick my favourite Wrestlers. Which is why Eddie Guerrero has a permanent spot in all my rosters. Then the rest are just fillers or replacements (after throwing out people that can't make great matches in TNM, like Hulk Hogan etc.)
VertigoPosted on 01/30/08 at 18:31:51

It's funny because I have the entire wrestling universe at my disposal and sometimes I have a hard time finding 20 that I want to use.

Usually I'll choose from time period first and narrow that down. Then the type of promotion I'm running, indy or big league or whatever and that narrows it down some more. Then I choose the ones I think will make for a good, interesting start, usually around 8-12 guys, and then fill in the rest randomly.

As the circuit continues, it's almost ALWAYS a random occurence when I bring someone in. I love the 'm' key.
91Posted on 01/30/08 at 19:48:48

I generally pick a group of wrestlers that I always have to start off with. Bear in mind I haven't started a new circuit in some seven years, but the guys who'd usually get in were people like Benoit, Jericho, RVD, Douglas, Michaels, Pillman, Storm, Edge, Christian, the Hardys, Hennig, Malenko and a couple of others. Those sorts of guys. After that I'd set out several categories (main-event, mid-card, tag-team, cruiserweight and jobbers), work out how many I wanted in each, put what I already had in whatever section I thought they would end up and then fill the rest at random, keeping to guys I was happy to take.
rey619Posted on 01/30/08 at 20:41:26

First I pick a concept. It's usually either an Indy-circuit or some light version of WWE (takes too long to run all three brands).

Then I try to balance the circuit with a few top level indy-stars (Austin Aries, Low-Ki and Christopher Daniels are favorites), some midcarders and some unknown guys. Just to make it balanced. I usually run it in a realistic way, so no mixing time periods or WWE/Indy. You won't see Triple H vs Jimmy Jacobs in my feds. If someone is released from the WWE, they are fair game.
pszPosted on 01/31/08 at 02:22:01

Generally, I try to pick wrestlers who I like of at least four styles (Technical, Hardcore, High Flyer, Power), and then make sure I've got some "set in stone" tag teams.

My main rule, though, is nobody dead is allowed. So, Bret Hart generally makes it in, but Owen doesn't.

(I always figure that "retired" means "one more match down the road")
Psycho ScottPosted on 01/31/08 at 17:54:12

I think Hulk Hogan in TNM is extremely flawed. Not all Hogan's matches were bad

Case in point:

Hulk Hogan vs. Stan Hansen
91Posted on 01/31/08 at 19:37:11

The stats are there for you to update as need be. Most "bad" wrestlers have had a good match at some point though. The Ultimate Warrior should have a fairly low workrate figure by comparison to most other wrestlers but then some could make the match against Randy Savage at WM7 as a "case in point" and give him stats that'll produce **** matches on a regular basis just because he did on that one occassion.

But it's up to you if you want to amend Hogans profile. Do you change his figures to what he was capable of and say "hey, look at those matches against Hansen, Savage, Flair and Hennig" or do you say "hey, look at his other matches".
The TNM Members ChampPosted on 01/31/08 at 19:49:18

Let's not forget that Hulk Hogan carried The Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI to a remarkable match. Hogan had the ability but the character really didn't need to be a technical expert to get over either.
91Posted on 01/31/08 at 23:01:14

On 01/31/08 at 19:49:18, The TNM Members Champ wrote:Let's not forget that Hulk Hogan carried The Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI to a remarkable match.
That's not strictly true. In a unique move, perhaps knowing that the match would have sucked if left to their own devices, they not only carefully plotted out the match move-for-move to such extents that DDP or Savage would have balked at the amount of pre-planned detail but I think I even heard once that they rehearsed the match several times in the weeks leading up to the big night. They'd have had to have been beyond diabolical to have screwed that one up.

Also, why do people throw around the term "carried" so much?
pszPosted on 02/01/08 at 00:53:49

What is Workrate? I've seen people refer to it in cases where I thought "wrestling skill" would have been better, and I've seen cases where people have used it when "attitude" would have been better.

Just curious, as I always thought that Warrrrrrrrior had a good work rate (IE: He always attempted to look like the match MEANT something and/or he was INTO the match even when he out-right sucked).


As for carried, I've not seen many "carried" matches lately. Other than some of the Diva stuff, anyway. Most of the TV Guys in WWE seem to be able to put on OK enough matches that being carried isn't needed.



Now... You get Jay Leno to seem LEGIT in the ring, and whoever he's wrestling deserves a pay raie for the ULTMATE carry-job.
pszPosted on 02/01/08 at 01:00:55

Ya know, that came out really convoluted... So let's try an example:

Tommy Dreamer in the original ECW and when it was first re-launched, to me, had a higher "Work Rate" than he does now, or back when he was just another guy in WWE... He worked harder to make the matches better, if you follow me.

Hence, Warrior, for all his faults, had a decent workrate in the WWF because he at least SEEMED to try to make matches interesting.

Hope that makes slightly more sense.
91Posted on 02/01/08 at 01:15:11

I'd refer to "workrate" as being how good the matches were myself. I'm taking this from Bret Harts own context when he's used the term.

And I've not seen ANY "carried" matches lately. Like I said, people throw that term around like candy. A wrestler someone likes had a decent match with someone they don't like? They always say they were carried. Someone has all the offence in the match? Probably a carry job, right? Wrong. The only example that comes close that I can think of in the last year was the Cena/Khali trifecta. One to consider for all those who think Cena can't work.

Oh yeah, and outside of his entrance, I can't see how the Warrior worked any more (or less for the most part if I'm fair) harder than the next guy.
pszPosted on 02/01/08 at 02:16:48

I was going to bring up some early Khali matches for examples of "carried" but thought they'd be too obvious ;->

Yes, I think Khali is CONSIDERABLY better than he was.

I still think his in-ring performances suck compared to 90% of the rest of the main roster.
Psycho ScottPosted on 02/01/08 at 03:55:15

On 02/01/08 at 01:15:11, 91 wrote:I'd refer to "workrate" as being how good the matches were myself. I'm taking this from Bret Harts own context when he's used the term.

And I've not seen ANY "carried" matches lately. Like I said, people throw that term around like candy. A wrestler someone likes had a decent match with someone they don't like? They always say they were carried. Someone has all the offence in the match? Probably a carry job, right? Wrong. The only example that comes close that I can think of in the last year was the Cena/Khali trifecta. One to consider for all those who think Cena can't work.

Oh yeah, and outside of his entrance, I can't see how the Warrior worked any more (or less for the most part if I'm fair) harder than the next guy.
I also thought Cena and Umaga had a pretty good match too.
ZedjaPosted on 02/01/08 at 16:01:35

On 02/01/08 at 02:16:48, psz wrote:I was going to bring up some early Khali matches for examples of "carried" but thought they'd be too obvious ;->

Yes, I think Khali is CONSIDERABLY better than he was.

I still think his in-ring performances suck compared to 99,999999% of the rest of the main roster and a brick.
Fixed
91Posted on 02/01/08 at 20:35:01

On 02/01/08 at 03:55:15, Psycho Scott wrote:


I also thought Cena and Umaga had a pretty good match too.
What does that have to do with anything? If you think either man carried the other then you're so far off track you're never going to get back on.
Psycho ScottPosted on 02/02/08 at 22:04:53

On 02/01/08 at 20:35:01, 91 wrote:

What does that have to do with anything? If you think either man carried the other then you're so far off track you're never going to get back on.
Actually I don't, I just thought it was a good match, LOL. Not all Cena's matches are bad, that's my real point
91Posted on 02/03/08 at 00:06:43

On 02/02/08 at 22:04:53, Psycho Scott wrote:

Actually I don't, I just thought it was a good match, LOL. Not all Cena's matches are bad, that's my real point
Oh, in that case I've completely misunderstood and you made a decent point. My bad.