I think house shows are good because it gives people people who can't get a RAW or SD in their area because of the lack of populator, or whatever. They also give people in foreign counties who can't normally see WWE programming outside of PPVs to see their programming live. I live in a smaller province in Canada (New Brunswick), and without house shows, I can never see a live WWE event, because we will never get a TV taping, at least in my area of NB
2007-11-20 07:55:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Wrestling
YES, Also the wrestlers can have an extra break
2007-11-20 07:58:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. In ways house shows are good, but then again not. In the USA, we get about 4 house shows a week. I think that's ridiculous. The superstars are always getting injured, and it's just too exhausting for them. Also the WWE should go to more arenas in different towns. Like you said, they don't go near you and they'd get a good profit with all the tickets being bought. In my area WWE comes here (East Rutherford) 2 or 3 times a year in the same arena, then they go across the river to MSG like twice a year! And just to let you know East Rutherford and Madison Square Garden in NYC are NOT far at all from each other. You just have to take the Holland Tunnel right once you get out of the East Ruther Arena (Izod arena) and then you're right there.
A reason why house shows are good is because they can have them for a week straight in Europe or in some other country. That's the only time WWE I think should have house shows because they're in America so much and barley go over seas.
Anyway, I just think they shouldn't have house shows in the USA and just keep having them outside of the US at the pase they are going now.
2007-11-20 08:06:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eliminating house shows would relieve them of a huge work load, but it would also relieve them of a paycheck as well. House shows make up a good part of the money that the WWE, and in turn the superstars, take in. Without them, superstar can expect to find a measly paycheck each month, as performing on house shows is what nets them their money. They'd be much better off eliminating one or two PPVs, which there are far too many of. It would also be good for a superstar to have one week a year where they don't have to appear on house shows, only regular shows. A week where they could appear on one show, then take the rest of the week of for rest and relaxation. That alone would be good for the wrestlers, as the only week where that happens is Christmas week.
2016-05-24 08:39:49 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the house shows better. Out of the house shows, Live & PPV events I have been to the WWE seemed more into the crowd at house shows. The PPV they have to really focus on the match, TV they focus some on the crowd, some on the TV audience and some on the Matches. The House shows very little is given to fluff in the match. They have them but iot is more relaxed and they put on matches that are more fun plus the crowd gets played to really well.
not to mention house shows are generally cheaper and it is easier to get great seats a good prices.
2007-11-20 08:06:45 · answer #4 · answered by David's Roast - Fuji Master 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed cause having house shows is much more tiring for wrestlers and that's why Kurt Angle left from the WWE and decided to go to TNA with easier schedule.WWE might lose other superstar because of the heavy schedule as well!!
Also they reducing the willing of the WWE fans to watch the main shows like SD,ECW and RAW.
It would have been much better without house shows and at most 2 brands.I can understand that WWE fans want to see their fav athletes on action in their towns but also they need to understand(if they don't know it already) that it would be better for the business and for them generally!!
*starred*
2007-11-20 08:04:03 · answer #5 · answered by Koumidiator WRW VLR OS 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
House shows are the bread and butter of pro wrestlers. They account for most of the wrestlers' salaries and pay. Without them, many of the performers should say goodbye to a lot of the money they regularly earn with house shows. Also, it keeps areas hot for PPVs and other regular television events, as well as test future wrestlers and such.
It would be a better idea to have another week where the wrestlers only have to perform on the televised shows, no house shows. That alone is a great break for them, as there's only one week like that, Christmas week.
2007-11-20 11:23:48 · answer #6 · answered by AmDrag5000 (dont stop believin) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO they shouldn't stop because i live in cardiff and they do a houseshow in cardiff every year and thats all they do so people like me get to see wwe every year in a houseshow and all the wrestlers put on a hell of a performance for us fans at the house shows so i say keep having houseshows =)
2007-11-20 08:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think no because all of us will have questions with the matches in house shows. I think it's too boring if we know all what is happening about the company.
2007-11-20 08:21:43 · answer #8 · answered by XTREME 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think its good because it gives lesser wrestlers who aint in the limelight such as super crazy and cody to wrestle and it gives us fans a chance to watch our favourite superstars...
i live in london and i have to wait months and months. for wwe to come over... but when they do its crazy fun....
i agree they need extra breaks because these guys aint robots....but i feel the lesser wrestler can step in......
except edge... edge always has to be there....he rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rated r!!!!!!!1
2007-11-20 08:06:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. Wrestlers need a break.
2007-11-20 11:40:54 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋