WWE’s “50/50” booking
By Scott Keith on 9 November 2018
A lot of people complain about the WWE's "50/50 booking", but isn't it a necessary evil if you are going to have these 3 month or more feuds? I mean there would be no need for rematches or the programs to continue if one wrestler kept winning over and over against the other one, would there?
Sure, but the problem is that it only applies to certain people. John Cena would lose one match and then obliterate the other guy over and over. Brock Lesnar never does jobs. Undertaker went 20 years without losing at Wrestlemania.
Also, the point of wrestling is 50/50 booking. You win this one, I win that one. No one disputes that. But the point is not supposed to be "You win this one, I win that one two days later in a rematch mandated by the heel authority figure." The whole nature of telling a story is that you win this one, I move onto something else but I'm still mad about the loss, then we reconvene at a later date having grown as people and this time I learn something and win the rematch. That's an actual story, not just "Baron Corbin has decided to stage a rematch of a show that no one watched to impress Stephanie because reasons."