|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Jan 29, 2013 16:52:22 GMT -5
I think a key problem is that the standard of "old" in pro wrestling is skewed. At the same time, wrestlers in the old days could go from territory to territory plying and improving their trade, so they could lead longer careers without becoming stale in the eyes of the fans.
There are no real territories to go to anymore though. It's FCW (new blood), WWE (big time), or TNA ( WWE reject/washup/wannabe big time). The symbiosis is gone and in its place is the natural result of a (virtual) monopoly. Old wrestlers can't just go somewhere else the same way and new wrestlers have to compete with that.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the WWE should start an in-house territory system. They form deals with a company in each region of the US - New England, Deep South, Midwest, Southwest, and Northwest. Every company has approved trainers who teach up and comers their knowledge. No one gets called up until they can get over on a majority of the territories, and they must work every territory first. Disperse veterans across these territories to help teach the trainees and help get them over. That's what the Mania/Rock'n'Wrestling days had going for them - already seasoned workers all gathered under one roof.
I'm not saying that's the magic solution, but I think it's a key solution or the path to one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 17:06:53 GMT -5
It is an issue because they're in the way. It's perfectly spelled out in the OP. I've watched Undertaker/Rock/HHH wrestle for f***ing EVER, seriously since Ninteen Ninety-god-damn six, at least. That's 17 years! I get it from a business standpoint but it is beyond frustrating as a fan that wants to see the new shape of WWE take hold, and their presence simply does not allow that to full happen. So far that shape is John Cena, couple other guys that are allowed on his level-ish, and these old guys that have done everything 12 times over. Enough already! Did you miss the part where I responded to that by saying that it's a different thing if the problem is that you're just not entertained by the older names? That's not at all what I care about. The OP stated they're (the nostalgia acts) why WWE is failing. That's not true at all. You may not enjoy them, but they're not doing any substantial harm besides decreasing your personal enjoyment of WWE while increasing others' (mine, for example). The harm is that they're always around so WWE doesn't devleop new people and do anything interesting since they don't have to. It's a completely valid argument whether you agree or not. It's like children, as parents you have to let them go one day and do things on their own. In WWE, it's like a bunch of kids living with their parents forever.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 29, 2013 17:11:48 GMT -5
The territory system is dead and would never be sustainable with the amount of airtime that has to be filled each week now. It's an apples-oranges comparison.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 17:13:55 GMT -5
Did you miss the part where I responded to that by saying that it's a different thing if the problem is that you're just not entertained by the older names? That's not at all what I care about. The OP stated they're (the nostalgia acts) why WWE is failing. That's not true at all. You may not enjoy them, but they're not doing any substantial harm besides decreasing your personal enjoyment of WWE while increasing others' (mine, for example). The harm is that they're always around so WWE doesn't devleop new people and do anything interesting since they don't have to. It's a completely valid argument whether you agree or not. It's like children, as parents you have to let them go one day and do things on their own. In WWE, it's like a bunch of kids living with their parents forever. Ryback, Sheamus, Del Rio, the Shield are all new people who've been pushed hard in 2012 and WWE uses in their upper-midcard programs. John Cena and CM Punk are still their top two full-time guys. As was already said, most pay-per-views have risen in 2012, even without the attractions. WWE isn't suffering because they use them, at least not any more than they were before Rock and Brock returned, and there are new people being elevated up the card. Just because they're currently not where the attractions are (and the special attractions are rare talents that you don't see a lot of) don't mean that stars aren't being created. It's not a matter of whether or not I agree with it. It's just not a valid argument, because there's very little to actually support it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 17:16:21 GMT -5
The harm is that they're always around so WWE doesn't devleop new people and do anything interesting since they don't have to. It's a completely valid argument whether you agree or not. It's like children, as parents you have to let them go one day and do things on their own. In WWE, it's like a bunch of kids living with their parents forever. Ryback, Sheamus, Del Rio, the Shield are all new people who've been pushed hard in 2012 and WWE uses in their upper-midcard programs. John Cena and CM Punk are still their top two full-time guys. As was already said, most pay-per-views have risen in 2012, even without the attractions. WWE isn't suffering because they use them, at least not any more than they were before Rock and Brock returned, and there are new people being elevated up the card. Just because they're currently not where the attractions are (and the special attractions are rare talents that you don't see a lot of) don't mean that stars aren't being created. It's not a matter of whether or not I agree with it. It's just not a valid argument, because there's very little to actually support it. Okay. We'll see in a few years how they're doing, and if any of the guys you listed are worth a damn.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 17:18:28 GMT -5
It just feels like when the special attractions are around, everybody else has to step aside and let the big names shine, even when they're big names themselves like Sheamus, Ryback or Del Rio. I get that they make money and that's great, but they don't fit into the roster - it's the B group of 99% of the roster, and the A group of the special attractions. It makes the big stars seem illegitimate because they're not allowed to be in the same light as the stars from yesteryear. I think that's where people have a problem with it, it's because they make everybody else seem insignificant. Even when they're building new stars, they don't seem to matter because they're not allowed to be on Brock or The Rock's level, so the new stars always seem like they don't matter as much as the big names from the early 2000's.
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 61,903
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Jan 29, 2013 17:23:01 GMT -5
Honestly their biggest competitor is nothing but a nostalgia act and we can see how well they are doing, at least to me WWE only relies on the special attractions like Brock and The Rock when they need to because they know the name will draw. Look at last year alone we had Antonio, The Shield, Brad Maddox, Ryback, and this year Bo Dallas also Big E being pushed they realize the future is in NXT which is why its starting to get more hype that may have to do with Triple H having more of a say down there but it is what it is. The only problem I see right now in WWE is the Divas' other than that I say they are going strong they can still develop talent and not have to rely on the stars of yesteryear to get people to watch
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 17:23:18 GMT -5
Okay. We'll see in a few years how they're doing, and if any of the guys you listed are worth a damn. Yeah... just how you managed to get the idea that I was making some kind of prediction is beyond me. What I'm saying is that WWE has been pushing people even with the attractions being used. And I hope you realize that even if things don't work out with any of those guys years into the future, there could be a dozen different reasons for it.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 17:26:43 GMT -5
Even when they're building new stars, they don't seem to matter because they're not allowed to be on Brock or The Rock's level, so the new stars always seem like they don't matter as much as the big names from the early 2000's. It's not that they're not "allowed" to be on Rock and Brock's level, it's just that... they're not. Rock was one of the biggest stars in professional wrestling when he left, and added to that is an actual movie star now. It's not really fair to compare current guys to him and saying that it's WWE fault they're not on his level. Very few people are on Rock's level. He's (as well as guys who've achieved a similar or greater level of success) just that good at what he does.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 17:34:56 GMT -5
Even when they're building new stars, they don't seem to matter because they're not allowed to be on Brock or The Rock's level, so the new stars always seem like they don't matter as much as the big names from the early 2000's. It's not that they're not "allowed" to be on Rock and Brock's level, it's just that... they're not. Rock was one of the biggest stars in professional wrestling when he left, and added to that is an actual movie star now. It's not really fair to compare current guys to him and saying that it's WWE fault they're not on his level. Very few people are on Rock's level. He's (as well as guys who've achieved a similar or greater level of success) just that good at what he does. I can get that. Like I said, I'm a fan of the guy. But what about Lesnar? Here's a guy who up and left your company for MMA, came back after being gone for years and automatically gets shot right up the card to the main event. If JBL could still wrestle, they'd probably do it for him, too. Goldberg? You bet. It just seems like they have a fixation on always having some yesteryear star, or stars, in the spotlight to get people to go "hey, I remember him!" and buy the PPV or tune into the show. It seems like they care more about the casual fan than they do the fans that are already there - that's the only reason I can think of as to why they bring old guys back and hand them everything they want. They want to tap into people's nostalgia, and that's more important than building new stars and making them seem important.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 17:53:05 GMT -5
I can get that. Like I said, I'm a fan of the guy. But what about Lesnar? Here's a guy who up and left your company for MMA, came back after being gone for years and automatically gets shot right up the card to the main event. If JBL could still wrestle, they'd probably do it for him, too. Goldberg? You bet. It just seems like they have a fixation on always having some yesteryear star, or stars, in the spotlight to get people to go "hey, I remember him!" and buy the PPV or tune into the show. It seems like they care more about the casual fan than they do the fans that are already there - that's the only reason I can think of as to why they bring old guys back and hand them everything they want. They want to tap into people's nostalgia, and that's more important than building new stars and making them seem important. The same goes for Lesnar. I don't follow MMA, but wasn't he one of UFC's biggest stars? And prior to that, Brock was one of the top guys in WWE. He's up there too as a star that most guys on the current roster aren't, most guys weren't when he was around week to week, and most guys just aren't going to be. Same for Goldberg, who was extremely hot in the late '90s. JBL would probably be used like Chris Jericho is, a credible name who can put current people over. As far as your second point goes, the issue that the "fans who are already there" is that... they're always there. They're always spending money on the product. WWE doesn't need to entice those people, because chances are they'll be buying the product anyway. Sadly enough, many of those people will complain about things just like this, but come WrestleMania they'll be there, just like they'll be there every night on Raw. Why should WWE care about those people when the casuals are the ones who have already shown that they're a bit more stingy with their money?
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,656
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Jan 29, 2013 18:10:10 GMT -5
This has pretty much been a problem since the day WCW closed. I mean look at WrestleMania 18 compared to WrestleMania 17. They used the NWO as soon as they could and threw their young up and comers aside. Same when Shawn Michaels returned. Vince likes to book big stars. Had WCW gone out of business in 1995, there's no doubt in my mind that Wrestlemania 15 would have been Hogan vs. Savage in the main event with The Ringmaster vs. Blue Chipper Rocky Miavia in a heatless European Title match in the undercard.
Outside of John Cena, they have not created a trancendent star since the Monday Night War ended. You could stretch it and say that CM Punk is close and you could mention Brock, but he doesn't count, since his status is almost completely due to the fame he gained as a pro wrestler in the UFC. No one knew who he was before then.
I understand that it is a business risk to set aside these money making stars and try using some homegrown, newer guys in the big main events, but they are going to have to at some point. The youngest of their "big stars" is CM Punk, who will be 35 this year. If they go down this path they'll be like 2000 WCW (roster wise- they don't have to get THAT s***ty with storylines), where one day you have Hogan, the Outsiders, Sting, Savage, Flair and others, and then overnight they're gone and your left pretending Jeff Jarrett, Booker T, and Scott Steiner are big stars, when everyone just spent 5 years watching those old timers beat these guys with ease. And by then, there will be no knight in shinning Attitude armor to ride in and save your company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 18:10:58 GMT -5
Okay. We'll see in a few years how they're doing, and if any of the guys you listed are worth a damn. Yeah... just how you managed to get the idea that I was making some kind of prediction is beyond me. What I'm saying is that WWE has been pushing people even with the attractions being used. And I hope you realize that even if things don't work out with any of those guys years into the future, there could be a dozen different reasons for it. The whole point is that they're screwing themselves long term for popping a buyrate right now. I'm saying the guys you say are really getting pushed aren't going to get where they could without getting treated like the biggest stars when it really matters. Ryback is the prime example. He got over huge, and got a string of title matches which he had to lose in screwy fashion over and over, because The Rock was coming in for his big title match at the Rumble. His push was directly affected by Rock's presence. Now, he still gets his reaction (it's not as strong as it was), and he might get to win the second tier fake world title as a consolation prize, and/or be in the 5th most important match on the card at Mania. If you don't see how this is a bad thing, you're blinded by your fandom for the stars that are taking those spots.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 18:21:45 GMT -5
I can get that. Like I said, I'm a fan of the guy. But what about Lesnar? Here's a guy who up and left your company for MMA, came back after being gone for years and automatically gets shot right up the card to the main event. If JBL could still wrestle, they'd probably do it for him, too. Goldberg? You bet. It just seems like they have a fixation on always having some yesteryear star, or stars, in the spotlight to get people to go "hey, I remember him!" and buy the PPV or tune into the show. It seems like they care more about the casual fan than they do the fans that are already there - that's the only reason I can think of as to why they bring old guys back and hand them everything they want. They want to tap into people's nostalgia, and that's more important than building new stars and making them seem important. The same goes for Lesnar. I don't follow MMA, but wasn't he one of UFC's biggest stars? And prior to that, Brock was one of the top guys in WWE. He's up there too as a star that most guys on the current roster aren't, most guys weren't when he was around week to week, and most guys just aren't going to be. Same for Goldberg, who was extremely hot in the late '90s. JBL would probably be used like Chris Jericho is, a credible name who can put current people over. As far as your second point goes, the issue that the "fans who are already there" is that... they're always there. They're always spending money on the product. WWE doesn't need to entice those people, because chances are they'll be buying the product anyway. Sadly enough, many of those people will complain about things just like this, but come WrestleMania they'll be there, just like they'll be there every night on Raw. Why should WWE care about those people when the casuals are the ones who have already shown that they're a bit more stingy with their money? Eh, I guess so. UFC's, and MMA's in general, (from what I gather, I don't follow the sport as closely as I'd like to) lighter divisions tend to be more popular - which is why you get guys like Chuck Liddell, Rampage Jackson and Jon Jones that are real popular and are household names. From what I gather, the Heavyweight divisions are popular, but not as popular as the lighter, more agile guys. That's the point, though. Just because Goldberg was popular 14-15 years ago doesn't mean that he should be handed everything on a silver platter in 2013. Same goes for any big name star - past success and relevance doesn't mean they're more important than modern day superstars - but that's how Vince seems to look at it. My point was the people who don't watch anymore. My folks haven't watched wrestling since WCW went under, but whenever they hear an old name they get interested. That's the kind of market that Vince seems to want to bring in - the fans that used to watch or the people that want to start watching, who, in his eyes, need a big name from 15 years ago in order to do so. And cesaro brought up a good point - the roster is affected by these special attractions coming back. Ryback was a hot name, and all of a sudden he's been denounced to comedy sessions with the Prime Time Players all because The Rock is back and they need to make the show all about him and all the other 10-15 year old big names. I get that The Rock coming back was done well in advance, but it's still the point. Rocky, or Brock or Goldberg or JBL or Scott Steiner or Glacier comes back and Vince wants to pretend it's 1999 again.
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Jan 29, 2013 18:26:41 GMT -5
The harm is that they're always around so WWE doesn't devleop new people and do anything interesting since they don't have to. It's a completely valid argument whether you agree or not. It's like children, as parents you have to let them go one day and do things on their own. In WWE, it's like a bunch of kids living with their parents forever. Ryback, Sheamus, Del Rio, the Shield are all new people who've been pushed hard in 2012 and WWE uses in their upper-midcard programs. John Cena and CM Punk are still their top two full-time guys. As was already said, most pay-per-views have risen in 2012, even without the attractions. WWE isn't suffering because they use them, at least not any more than they were before Rock and Brock returned, and there are new people being elevated up the card. Just because they're currently not where the attractions are (and the special attractions are rare talents that you don't see a lot of) don't mean that stars aren't being created. It's not a matter of whether or not I agree with it. It's just not a valid argument, because there's very little to actually support it. I would agree with your point if all of those guys were presented to be on the same level as Rock or Brock, but they aren't. They are all presented as threats until Rock or Brock comes back and then they get nothing. It would be different if Rock/Brock were coming back and using their star power to put over someone else. Look at what Bret Hart did for Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13. That kind of stuff doesn't happen these days because the returning attraction never really puts anyone over. Again let me repeat, I LOVE watching those guys, I'm just worried about the future. Eventually the WWE is going to have to make new stars. They can't just keep trotting out Rock, Brock, Undertaker, HHH, and Jericho every year at Wrestlemania time. It pops huge buyrates now but what happens ten years from now when they have to rely on guys being built up now? The attitude era was awesome because new guys got pushed and the old guard was gone, the New Generation sucked because they had no talent. This era has the talent, they just need to unleash who they have and try and put the past behind them before it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 18:31:12 GMT -5
or TNA ( WWE reject/washup/wannabe big time). That's not a fair criticism anymore, and hasn't been for a while. TNA has been doing what people said they needed to do for years - and they're finally building up their own talent. Sure, guys like Sting are still around, but they're not presented as being above the rest of the roster, they're simply on the roster. That's one area where TNA has WWE beat - homegrown talent that you actually care about. They're past the era of giving WWE rejects the belt, as is proven by the fact that James Storm, Austin Aries and Bobby Roode are 3 of the top 5 names in the company (in my opinion). That's what WWE needs to do, but until they get competition that threatens them, they won't.
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Jan 29, 2013 18:34:14 GMT -5
I agree with you 100 percent. The biggest problem in WWE is that we're constantly reminded how good it USED to be. During the Attitude Era, they never mentioned how great it was in the '80's. Who's to say one was better than the other? In today's product, you have a constant reminder of how things once were.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 29, 2013 18:35:04 GMT -5
Okay. We'll see in a few years how they're doing, and if any of the guys you listed are worth a damn. Yeah... just how you managed to get the idea that I was making some kind of prediction is beyond me. What I'm saying is that WWE has been pushing people even with the attractions being used. And I hope you realize that even if things don't work out with any of those guys years into the future, there could be a dozen different reasons for it. And I'm sure none of them will have anything to do with them bullshitting their roster for the sole fact that they had no reason to invest in them, take risks with them, or put any effort into them whatsoever so long as as they could fall back on Rock and Lesnar. Regardless of the new rules of reading off scripts and having a handicapped in-ring style, it'll always be retroactively that they "just couldn't hack it" and they just weren't on the level of the Attitude Era guys.
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 29, 2013 18:35:12 GMT -5
Too Much nostalgia? Have fun over the next 15 or so months. WWE 50th, WWE title 50th, Hogan's WWF title win 30th, WM 30.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 18:38:46 GMT -5
The whole point is that they're screwing themselves long term for popping a buyrate right now. I'm saying the guys you say are really getting pushed aren't going to get where they could without getting treated like the biggest stars when it really matters. Ryback is the prime example. He got over huge, and got a string of title matches which he had to lose in screwy fashion over and over, because The Rock was coming in for his big title match at the Rumble. His push was directly affected by Rock's presence. Now, he still gets his reaction (it's not as strong as it was), and he might get to win the second tier fake world title as a consolation prize, and/or be in the 5th most important match on the card at Mania. If you don't see how this is a bad thing, you're blinded by your fandom for the stars that are taking those spots. Ryback is an awful example. First, he only got the push he did because Cena went down and he was over, not because of Rock's title match. Second, if a guy can't sustain his momentum after taking some very protected losses against the top heel of the company, then he wasn't worth investing a lot into in the first place. Third, if his reactions have gone down, it could very well be because of a multitude of reasons, one of them being that he's no longer in a main event angle anymore. Nothing that happened to Ryback automatically links up to The Rock, especially when if WWE were that concerned about him, they could have protected him by not putting him there. Fourth, he's still over and a featured part of the product. His depush has more to do with the fact that Cena/Rock/Brock are more important to the product than he is at the moment, but WWE is still putting him out there. This idea that you need to main event to be important is laughable. If I actually saw hard proof that WWE's using Rock and Brock hurt them in any significant way, then I'd see how they'd be a problem. But neither you nor anyone else have supplied any of that. The best you've been able to come up with is a shaky example in Ryback that could be explained several different ways. As for your last sentence ( : , I do enjoy seeing Rock in big spots at WrestleMania. He's the reason I'll be ordering the pay-per-view. But my stance here has more to do with the fact that you've not been able to prove in any significant way that he's (or 'Taker, Brock, etc.) have been hurting the product at all, than any actual blindness. And instead of presenting that, all you've done is worry about stuff that may or may not happen in the future. I get what your point is, but I'm not seeing anything to actually back it up.
|
|