The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Mar 19, 2011 1:18:58 GMT -5
I guess that's where we differ. I really think Vince Mcmahon was a once in a lifetime individual. He turned a carnival side show into a billion dollar conglomerate. I don't think anyone else could have done it. Carnival sideshow? It was much more than that, regional promotions put lots of butts in seats. yeah, I don't know if it's WWE's revisionist history at play, the general public's dismissal of wrestling as whole,something else, or a combo, but I really don't get where the idea that wrestling was in the proverbial dark ages before Vince went national came from. Sure, it wans't a national or global game, yet, but the NWA, AWA, WCCW and other territories were still selling out the same arena's that the WWE is (and often times isn't) able to today, just within a more defined region(and by the end of things, those regions were pretty f'n huge. I mean, the NWA had the South East, and decent chunks of the US elsewhere like the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Tri-State areas. So yeah it was still regional, but those regions were expanding to the point where it was inevitable that national expansion was going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastergrim on Mar 19, 2011 1:29:50 GMT -5
Not being a dick (I hope) and I welcome differing opinions gut to me, whoever thinks that wrestling wouldn't exist today or be just a carnival sideshow....well I feel that they got their information from WWE's "documentaries".
Would wrestling be the same? No. There would be no Wrestlemania per se, but there would be SOMETHING and I'm not hating on Vince as I love WWE but maybe we missed out on a better, more wrestling focused product.
|
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Mar 19, 2011 2:01:38 GMT -5
I think Vince's biggest effect on the business wasn't just expanding, it was blowing the lid off kayfabe and playing it up as a soap operatic larger-than-life spectacle. Without that, I expect wrestling would've gradually transitioned into something resembling MMA around the turn of the millenium.
Lucha Libre would likely still be very popular in Mexico, and would become the main bastion of stylized, simulated fighting with predetermined finishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Mar 19, 2011 7:54:37 GMT -5
I think Vince's biggest effect on the business wasn't just expanding, it was blowing the lid off kayfabe and playing it up as a soap operatic larger-than-life spectacle. Without that, I expect wrestling would've gradually transitioned into something resembling MMA around the turn of the millenium. Actually pro wrestling was more like MMA before it became a television staple. World champions were legit shooters and hookers. Matches were normally 3 rounds and last for hours. They would fill baseball stadiums for fights. The only difference between old school wrestling from the late 1890's to 1950's and current MMA is that wrestling was predetermined in most cases. Since a number of wrestlers were shooters, double crosses did occur. |
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,295
|
Post by Push R Truth on Mar 19, 2011 7:55:50 GMT -5
Not being a dick (I hope) and I welcome differing opinions gut to me, whoever thinks that wrestling wouldn't exist today or be just a carnival sideshow....well I feel that they got their information from WWE's "documentaries". Would wrestling be the same? No. There would be no Wrestlemania per se, but there would be SOMETHING and I'm not hating on Vince as I love WWE but maybe we missed out on a better, more wrestling focused product. The reason wrestling got big in the 80's was because the entertainment surpassed the wrestling in the eyes of Vince, wrestling had been around for a long, long time and never been anything more than a regional thing. So it's not like "wrestling focused product" didn't have it's chance to shine, it just wasn't popular on a national scale. I equate it to BBQWars, every region has the BBQ that they like and everybody elses BBQ is crap. (like today's Texas vs Memphis, or Carolina vs Georgia) Then Vince comes along and makes the McRibb, a quasi-BBQ sandwich that sorta kind resembles something like BBQ but he markets the hell out of it and gets people going. Sure, all the regional stuff is a hell of a lot better if that's what your tastes like, but no regional BBQ outsells the McRibb. So no, I haven't watched so many WWE shows that I've turned into a zombie. I'm a student of history. Thanks for the insult though. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 19, 2011 8:04:10 GMT -5
Not being a dick (I hope) and I welcome differing opinions gut to me, whoever thinks that wrestling wouldn't exist today or be just a carnival sideshow....well I feel that they got their information from WWE's "documentaries". Would wrestling be the same? No. There would be no Wrestlemania per se, but there would be SOMETHING and I'm not hating on Vince as I love WWE but maybe we missed out on a better, more wrestling focused product. The reason wrestling got big in the 80's was because the entertainment surpassed the wrestling in the eyes of Vince, wrestling had been around for a long, long time and never been anything more than a regional thing. So it's not like "wrestling focused product" didn't have it's chance to shine, it just wasn't popular on a national scale. I equate it to BBQWars, every region has the BBQ that they like and everybody elses BBQ is crap. (like today's Texas vs Memphis, or Carolina vs Georgia) Then Vince comes along and makes the McRibb, a quasi-BBQ sandwich that sorta kind resembles something like BBQ but he markets the hell out of it and gets people going. Sure, all the regional stuff is a hell of a lot better if that's what your tastes like, but no regional BBQ outsells the McRibb. So no, I haven't watched so many WWE shows that I've turned into a zombie. I'm a student of history. Thanks for the insult though. I think the question is, though, was Vince McMahon the only person who could thought to take wrestling and make it a national show, rather than a regional one? It's not a question of quality, it's a question of business, would someone else have looked at it and thought "I bet I could do better business if I took it national?" Maybe they wouldn't be as successful, but I can't believe no one else would have done it. |
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Mar 19, 2011 12:26:44 GMT -5
I don't think Verne would have done it. Wasn't he mad about Vince doing it? Mad about expanding not just taking his guys. from what I heard, he was well on his way. He was selling tapes to other markets and was buying up a stacked roster from other territories. That was before Vince's deeper pockets put an end to that. For years when WWF was in AWA town, the crowd chanted "Vince screwed Verne" I'm no historian, but this is what I heard. |
|
|
|
Post by BRAINFADE on Mar 19, 2011 14:22:16 GMT -5
If it hadn't been Vince that took it national, I believe it eventually would have been the Crocketts. I think Dusty would have pushed for it, much like he pushed for the original Starrcade- which was THE mega event in wrestling pre-WrestleMania. I think Verne was too old and too stuck in his ways to try it.
|
|
|
|
Post by alabastergrim on Mar 19, 2011 15:21:11 GMT -5
Not being a dick (I hope) and I welcome differing opinions gut to me, whoever thinks that wrestling wouldn't exist today or be just a carnival sideshow....well I feel that they got their information from WWE's "documentaries". Would wrestling be the same? No. There would be no Wrestlemania per se, but there would be SOMETHING and I'm not hating on Vince as I love WWE but maybe we missed out on a better, more wrestling focused product. The reason wrestling got big in the 80's was because the entertainment surpassed the wrestling in the eyes of Vince, wrestling had been around for a long, long time and never been anything more than a regional thing. So it's not like "wrestling focused product" didn't have it's chance to shine, it just wasn't popular on a national scale. I equate it to BBQWars, every region has the BBQ that they like and everybody elses BBQ is crap. (like today's Texas vs Memphis, or Carolina vs Georgia) Then Vince comes along and makes the McRibb, a quasi-BBQ sandwich that sorta kind resembles something like BBQ but he markets the hell out of it and gets people going. Sure, all the regional stuff is a hell of a lot better if that's what your tastes like, but no regional BBQ outsells the McRibb. So no, I haven't watched so many WWE shows that I've turned into a zombie. I'm a student of history. Thanks for the insult though. Didn't insult you. Facts are important to any discussion though. It's VERY clear that Crockett was doing it so I don't buy that McMahon is the only person who could pulll it off, not by a longshot. Starrcade was Wrestlemania. |
|
|
|
Post by dlg3000 on Mar 20, 2011 2:09:33 GMT -5
I think without Vince McMahon, Jim Crockett would have been the guy to take over literally. He was doing pretty much the same thing except he was not criticized for putting most of the territories out of business. The biggest star at the time would have been Ric Flair with Hulk Hogan coming in a close second.
|
|
|
|
Post by bitteroldman on Mar 20, 2011 11:35:48 GMT -5
Just my opinion but there's someone else out there who might have been able to go national, but never tried to. I think that the Memphis territory could have gone national with a few tweaks and suceeded. At the same time, World Class was also attempting to break out of the regional mode, as there were running shows in places like Chicago and would even do international tours with shows in Israel and South Africa. Bill Watts tried as well, with the UWF but failed.
Someone other than VKM would have tried, and succeeded.
|
|
