|
Post by Ganon83 on Jul 26, 2014 15:50:01 GMT -5
If Vince didn't like wrestling he wouldn't of pushed the Shield as much as he did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 15:55:18 GMT -5
WCW ended for one reason: Time Warner/AOL didn't like wrestling and didn't want wrestling on their network, so they cancelled all its wrestling programming. Their demise had nothing to do with low ratings, guaranteed contracts, bad booking, Russo, Bischoff, Hogan, or any of the other laundry list of things that people typically prescribe. Had their TV not been cancelled, WCW would have continued in some form under new ownership. I agree in part, but if the company had been making money or was as popular as it was in 1997-1998, I think somebody would of picked it up and opened bids on it. In 2001, WCW had a good TV deal, but it had 1. A depleted roster that had either given up, gone crazy (Steiner), or were politicians (Nash) 2. A brand name that, outside of a 3 year hot streak, had always been number 2 and had embarrassed itself more than anything 3. A bad reputation within a business most look down on to begin with 4. Was in debt and nowhere near profitable. Obviously the loss of TV WAS the main reason WCW died, but it isn't like the guys/reasons you mentioned didn't have a part in it. Of course, all those things happened and had a role in WCW's fall from grace, but none of those things are what killed the company. People forget how close that WWE was to going under in the mid 90's, and how Raw's lowest television ratings were actually lower than Nitro's lowest ratings. There's no question that WCW was mismanaged and was going through dark times, but things weren't so bad that they couldn't have still turned things around. Had Fusient bought the company, it would have continued. The only reason they didn't buy it is because the TV was cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 15:58:40 GMT -5
Wrestling is still here though? I think Cornette has the best approach to thinking about the contemporary state of something which could be called 'wrestling' (or at the very least resembles it): How many people today can make a successful living off of wresting compared to those from 30-40 years ago? How many people today watch wrestling compared to those from 30-40 years ago? While WWE has certainly consolidated most of wrestling business (save for the more well-known Japanese and Mexican promotions, and maybe TNA and ROH), can we say that there are more wrestlers today than ever making a successful living off of wrestling? Or that there are more people today than ever watching wrestling? People have different sources of entertainment and ways to consume it from 30-40 years ago. Cable tv was still in the pupa stage. If you watched wrestling, you had to go to the arenas or catch it on a local tv show. And not everyone was making tons of money during that era either. Guys had to hustle for paydays. You can draw a good living without having to be attached to WWE or TNA. Colt Cabana makes as much if not more than the average WWE midcarder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -5
I think Vince killed wrestling the moment the InVasion was botched. I know it's a broken record, but the WWF vs. WCW storyline should have been a huge financial success. Even if the WWF took their time and waited for the Time Warner deals to end before they brought in the big names (Hogan, Outsiders, Flair, Bischoff, Goldberg, etc), they still would have benefitted as business was still doing well in 2001 prior to the Invasion angle (and even in the Invasion PPV did well despite Vince botching it). The moment wrestling fans were robbed of a completely doable WWF vs. WCW card is when pretty much the only original storyline left to be made was thrown out the window. It's no coincidence business got worse in 2002-beyond.
That's the first I heard about the Heyman thing. It surprises me he is still so well liked by smarks after reading that.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 16:02:54 GMT -5
Sports entertainment comedy variety with action based stories or whatever bullshit euphamism Vince and Dunn love is still here. Wrestling in WWE is limited mainly to NXT, which thankfully he has the least amount of interest in. That's been around since Hulkamania and especially during the Attitude Era. And I don't know why people act like wrestling matches only happen on NXT. Top notch wrestling matches happen on Raw and Smackdown every week also. But since NXT is the new IT thing, folks forget that. NXT has its good and bad weeks. Not everything is perfect. Sports entertainment during the Hulkamania era was very different to today's product. It had more of a sporting tone to it. The WWF was very much presented as a fairy benign, neutral, sporting organisation, not the personal plaything of corrupt authority figures and the emphasis was on winning titles, not the meta vibe of "hey, we're just having fun!" that you get today. As for NXT, it's not just the actual wrestling that makes it distinct, but the overall presentation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:07:00 GMT -5
Sports entertainment comedy variety with action based stories or whatever bullshit euphamism Vince and Dunn love is still here. Wrestling in WWE is limited mainly to NXT, which thankfully he has the least amount of interest in. That's been around since Hulkamania and especially during the Attitude Era. And I don't know why people act like wrestling matches only happen on NXT. Top notch wrestling matches happen on Raw and Smackdown every week also. But since NXT is the new IT thing, folks forget that. NXT has its good and bad weeks. Not everything is perfect. The Hulkamania days were presented as a sporting event. Yes, the characters were cartoony and there were comedy skits from time to time, but it was never presented as a variety show where the results don't matter. It was the perfect mix of "entertainment" and "legitimacy" (in terms of booking). Hogan didn't lose to Andre at the Main Event and then do a promo with a smile on his face talking about how great the fans are. He was holding back tears in an interview with Mean Gene about losing the title. There is a huge difference in the way things are presented today. It is closer to the Attitude Era, though. That's when the "cat was out of the bag", so they had to mix in the the kayfabe breaking stuff because the fans were too smart to it.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 16:08:20 GMT -5
That's been around since Hulkamania and especially during the Attitude Era. And I don't know why people act like wrestling matches only happen on NXT. Top notch wrestling matches happen on Raw and Smackdown every week also. But since NXT is the new IT thing, folks forget that. NXT has its good and bad weeks. Not everything is perfect. Sports entertainment during the Hulkamania era was very different to today's product. It had more of a sporting tone to it. The WWF was very much presented as a fairy benign, neutral, sporting organisation, not the personal plaything of corrupt authority figures and the emphasis was on winning titles, not the meta vibe of "hey, we're just having fun!" that you get today. As for NXT, it's not just the actual wrestling that makes it distinct, but the overall presentation. As someone who grew up during the heyday of Hulkamania, it wasn't accepted by diehard wrestling fans as being more sportslike. NWA was the pure wrestling company that treated wrestling as a sport. WWF was the kiddie, cartoon company that set back wrestling. Sounds familiar, don't it? The Hulkamania era tends to be romanticized by those who didn't witness as it happened.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 16:10:43 GMT -5
Sports entertainment during the Hulkamania era was very different to today's product. It had more of a sporting tone to it. The WWF was very much presented as a fairy benign, neutral, sporting organisation, not the personal plaything of corrupt authority figures and the emphasis was on winning titles, not the meta vibe of "hey, we're just having fun!" that you get today. As for NXT, it's not just the actual wrestling that makes it distinct, but the overall presentation. As someone who grew up during the heyday of Hulkamania, it wasn't accepted by diehard wrestling fans as being more sportslike. NWA was the pure wrestling company that treated wrestling as a sport. WWF was the kiddie, cartoon company that set back wrestling. Sounds familiar, don't it? The Hulkamania era tends to be romanticized by those who didn't witness as it happened. Yes I grew up during that era too and witnessed everything myself. The NWA was indeed more serious in tone, but WWF still had the sports vibe to it, although more fantastical and flamboyant. Very different to today's product.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 16:19:46 GMT -5
That's been around since Hulkamania and especially during the Attitude Era. And I don't know why people act like wrestling matches only happen on NXT. Top notch wrestling matches happen on Raw and Smackdown every week also. But since NXT is the new IT thing, folks forget that. NXT has its good and bad weeks. Not everything is perfect. The Hulkamania days were presented as a sporting event. Yes, the characters were cartoony and there were comedy skits from time to time, but it was never presented as a variety show where the results don't matter. It was the perfect mix of "entertainment" and "legitimacy" (in terms of booking). Hogan didn't lose to Andre at the Main Event and then do a promo with a smile on his face talking about how great the fans are. He was holding back tears in an interview with Mean Gene about losing the title. There is a huge difference in the way things are presented today. It is closer to the Attitude Era, though. That's when the "cat was out of the bag", so they had to mix in the the kayfabe breaking stuff because the fans were too smart to it. WWF was a combination of pro wrestling mixed with a variety show. Wins and loses mattered because WWF treated titles and title matches like it matter. Mainly because that didn't happen every week. You didn't see Hogan unless it was a pretaped promo or a few months before a ppv to start the build for it. But WWF did do its goofy comedy which the fans loved. It wasn't SRS all the time. They blended it in a way that everyone got what they liked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:26:52 GMT -5
WWE basically did what other sports organizations have down before them and still continue to do. The NFL faced off with a number of upstart leagues through the decades with them either absorbing the competition or making life hell for them to the point they shut down. The NFL made ESPN chose between covering XFL or losing the rights to cover the NFL. ESPN choose the bonafide over the upstart. They also told their major advertisers and stadiums the same thing. Same for the NBA who were locked in a WWF/WCW type war with the ABA. The NBA waged war with them until the latter's bad deals, low attendance and ratings, and declining public image ended that. And the NBA absorbed the best from the ABA and tossed the rest in the trash. UFC owns just as many former competitors' intellectual rights as WWE. The closest threat in their field is Bellator who basically is their TNA; not a big enough of a threat to stay up at night worrying about. MLB and NHL have been lucky that no one has attempt to challenge them for the crown and accept they are the leader in their respected fields. All those aforementioned companies are doing gangbusters even with the lack of competition. WWE suffers from wrestling fans who fondly remember their former competition and haven't accepted them as the leader of their industry. When WCW went out of business, a vast number of their fanbase stopped watching pro wrestling period. They didn't flock to TNA either. They moved on leaving a massive void in their wake. Sure competition brought out the best in WWE and offered different choices for fans, but it's not up to WWE to keep it going. If Coca Cola had the chance to shut down Pepsi once for all, they would do it and not look back. WWE plays it safe because there is no need to take bold risks especially when not necessary. They do take them when it is needed but they aren't doing it every time. Some fans want to the feel of anything can happen and will happen of the Monday Night Wars. But that method desensitized people and scorched the earth in the process. Sometimes I think people have a romanticized idea of "competition." I want people to really focus on the bolded. Notice "putting on a better product than the competition" is nowhere in there. What you'll end up getting is WWE winning by way of throwing money around to buy out competitors while making it hard for any actual competition to gain traction on a network or get cozy with advertisers.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 16:32:20 GMT -5
As someone who grew up during the heyday of Hulkamania, it wasn't accepted by diehard wrestling fans as being more sportslike. NWA was the pure wrestling company that treated wrestling as a sport. WWF was the kiddie, cartoon company that set back wrestling. Sounds familiar, don't it? The Hulkamania era tends to be romanticized by those who didn't witness as it happened. Yes I grew up during that era too and witnessed everything myself. The NWA was indeed more serious in tone, but WWF still had the sports vibe to it, although more fantastical and flamboyant. Very different to today's product. Of course it's different. Like how the current NFL is different from the 80's NFL. But going back to the past isn't going to cure WWE's perceived woes. That time has passed. How many people here would be happy going back to the midcarders and debuting wrestlers squashing the local jobber and a main event between Kofi Kingston vs Heath Slater as the main event? WWF had the benefit of people caring about the characters and the product on screen instead of what's happening backstage.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 16:52:27 GMT -5
Yes I grew up during that era too and witnessed everything myself. The NWA was indeed more serious in tone, but WWF still had the sports vibe to it, although more fantastical and flamboyant. Very different to today's product. Of course it's different. Like how the current NFL is different from the 80's NFL. But going back to the past isn't going to cure WWE's perceived woes. That time has passed. How many people here would be happy going back to the midcarders and debuting wrestlers squashing the local jobber and a main event between Kofi Kingston vs Heath Slater as the main event? WWF had the benefit of people caring about the characters and the product on screen instead of what's happening backstage. The NFL is still the NFL. At the core, it's about the game. WWE now beats audiences over the head that none of this really matters. It's all about having fun and forced booking. The problem is their product requires people to care about the core of the business, wrestling matches for titles and logically built storylines based on characters that the fans care about. As for jobbers, fans can be conditioned to accept them again, just like they have been conditioned to no longer expect to see overtly sexual conduct, chairshots to the head, and blood.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 17:11:52 GMT -5
Of course it's different. Like how the current NFL is different from the 80's NFL. But going back to the past isn't going to cure WWE's perceived woes. That time has passed. How many people here would be happy going back to the midcarders and debuting wrestlers squashing the local jobber and a main event between Kofi Kingston vs Heath Slater as the main event? WWF had the benefit of people caring about the characters and the product on screen instead of what's happening backstage. The NFL is still the NFL. At the core, it's about the game. WWE now beats audiences over the head that none of this really matters. It's all about having fun and forced booking. The problem is their product requires people to care about the core of the business, wrestling matches for titles and logically built storylines based on characters that the fans care about. As for jobbers, fans can be conditioned to accept them again, just like they have been conditioned to no longer expect to see overtly sexual conduct, chairshots to the head, and blood. The NFL is different. They actually address & treat concussions instead of sending them back out on the field. They don't dope up a player after an injury to send them back in the second half. The NFL used to glorify the thunderous hits. You're not getting the best hits compilation with a football phone with a subscription to Sports Illustrated anymore. A majority of fans don't buy WWE as a sport. They see it a goofy, fun entertainment. Not to say they don't want or appreciate good wrestling with strong characters. How many people here roll their eyes when they do an injury angle and treat is as serious? Or when they do the contract signing trope? We may say we want it treated like a sport but the genie has been out of the bottle for a while. I rather be entertained even if it requires me to suspend my belief. I don't want a serious product that just SportsCenter with matches. I like the variety show format. Give me the right blend of humor, seriousism, and fun. Characters that I can remember and care about.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 17:18:08 GMT -5
The NFL is still the NFL. At the core, it's about the game. WWE now beats audiences over the head that none of this really matters. It's all about having fun and forced booking. The problem is their product requires people to care about the core of the business, wrestling matches for titles and logically built storylines based on characters that the fans care about. As for jobbers, fans can be conditioned to accept them again, just like they have been conditioned to no longer expect to see overtly sexual conduct, chairshots to the head, and blood. The NFL is different. They actually address & treat concussions instead of sending them back out on the field. They don't dope up a player after an injury to send them back in the second half. The NFL used to glorify the thunderous hits. You're not getting the best hits compilation with a football phone with a subscription to Sports Illustrated anymore. Those are peripheral aspects of the sport. The core of the sport is the game itself, and that remains the same. They don't need to buy it as a legit sport, but rather a staged sport. That's what it used to be. They had their goofy characters, but even they were presented in the context of meaningful wins and losses. And why is that? It's because they've been overused and poorly booked. Back in the day, when Hulk Hogan was injured by Earthquake and Steamboat injured by Savage, it was well booked and well sold. Today, those injury angles would play out within a few weeks. That's the point. They don't have that blend anymore. They've either lost the ability or will to do it.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,702
|
Post by schma on Jul 26, 2014 17:40:16 GMT -5
As a kid I watched WWF whenever I could in the late 80s and early 90s. I missed the mid 90s due to the inability to get cable (lived in a very rural area) and then in 97 at the start of High School, came back to wrestling. I was fortunate at that point that TSN would air Raw on Tuesday after school and Nitro on Wednesday after school so I never had to choose during the wars. I got to see both products. Both had their ups and downs, both had their great moments. Yeah for a while WCW was stinking things up but the thing is, they were in the process of revamping, rebuilding and getting back on track when they died. When I heard it was the last Nitro ever I was absolutely shocked.
Some say the roster was depleted or there were other issues but really, it was more that some of the older guys were finally giving some breathing room to the younger guys who'd been held down and hadn't jumped ship to wwe like Jericho or the Radicalz. Right until the very end the Luchadores/Cruiserweights were an awesome part of the show, far more exciting than the main event once I got past the nostalgia of watching the guys I'd seen as a kid. The only time I'd really been annoyed with Luchador stuff was the LWO and that was because the payoff for it was so anticlimactic and terrible it could almost be compared to the invasion.
Then you had a bunch of guys rising like Jindrak, O'Haire, Polumbo, Helms, Booker T (if you had told me in 97 that he would be a five time, five time, five time, five time, five time WCW world champion I wouldn't have believed you as I was much less savvy then).
WCW could have thrived if AOL hadn't pulled the rug out from under them. I don't blame Vince for any of what happened except maybe botching the invasion which turned the most exciting thing ever for a wrestling fan into a load of crap. Still, I hold that if WCW had survived, even if it had downsized or altered its corporate structure, things would have been better.
People gave examples of the NBA and NFL doing all kinds of crazy stuff to ruin their competition and whatnot but those are pure sports. Yes there is entertainment there but at the end of the day the outcomes aren't pre-ordained. There aren't writing teams.
Wrestling would benefit from competition, true competition. But I don't think Vince ruined wrestling, though I will say he'd made some very questionable choices over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jul 26, 2014 18:13:49 GMT -5
Something weird happened with ECW's death. Tommy Dreamer, during the Austin podcast, said that they were offered over a hundred million dollars for the company, but didn't want Heyman in charge of the financial end. Later Heyman no showed the meeting with the potential buyers making Tommy look bad, it was almost as if heyman didn't want to sell it. Nobody knew Vince had been pouring money to ECW over the years, Bischoff called Tommy and proposed an invasion angle in 2000, Tommy proposed the idea to Heyman, he said "Vince would get pissed off". Dreamer thought it was weird but never thought much about it, in 2005 while promoting One Night Stand, he learned Heyman was in bed with Vince the whole time, he finally added two and two together and wanted to kill Heyman. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I find it VERY hard to believe that anyone offered over a hundred million dollars for ECW, I mean, come on!
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Jul 26, 2014 18:39:50 GMT -5
Something weird happened with ECW's death. Tommy Dreamer, during the Austin podcast, said that they were offered over a hundred million dollars for the company, but didn't want Heyman in charge of the financial end. Later Heyman no showed the meeting with the potential buyers making Tommy look bad, it was almost as if heyman didn't want to sell it. Nobody knew Vince had been pouring money to ECW over the years, Bischoff called Tommy and proposed an invasion angle in 2000, Tommy proposed the idea to Heyman, he said "Vince would get pissed off". Dreamer thought it was weird but never thought much about it, in 2005 while promoting One Night Stand, he learned Heyman was in bed with Vince the whole time, he finally added two and two together and wanted to kill Heyman. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I find it VERY hard to believe that anyone offered over a hundred million dollars for ECW, I mean, come on! Dreamer at one point made a reference to Austin, "I could offer you a 100 million for that beer you're drinking, if you don't want to sell it that's it." Maybe Heyman wanted to keep ECW under his direction, it was his way or the highway, Joey Styles once said that Paul ruined ECW's relationship with TNN on the first day, when instead of following their instructions of what they wanted, Heyman just send the RVD-Jerry Lynn match instead of taping a fresh program.
Maybe, off the record, Vince owned ECW years before the sale, I've always found weird that when someone left for WCW Paul put up a fight, begging them to stay, or completely stop them from going (Sabu), but when WWE wanted someone, they were going to get him, period (The Dudley Boyz wanted a minimun raise, but Paul refused to do it.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 20:14:26 GMT -5
The Hulkamania days were presented as a sporting event. Yes, the characters were cartoony and there were comedy skits from time to time, but it was never presented as a variety show where the results don't matter. It was the perfect mix of "entertainment" and "legitimacy" (in terms of booking). Hogan didn't lose to Andre at the Main Event and then do a promo with a smile on his face talking about how great the fans are. He was holding back tears in an interview with Mean Gene about losing the title. There is a huge difference in the way things are presented today. It is closer to the Attitude Era, though. That's when the "cat was out of the bag", so they had to mix in the the kayfabe breaking stuff because the fans were too smart to it. WWF was a combination of pro wrestling mixed with a variety show. Wins and loses mattered because WWF treated titles and title matches like it matter. Mainly because that didn't happen every week. You didn't see Hogan unless it was a pretaped promo or a few months before a ppv to start the build for it. But WWF did do its goofy comedy which the fans loved. It wasn't SRS all the time. They blended it in a way that everyone got what they liked. The variety show aspect was not nearly as prevalent in the 80's, though. Not even close actually. They did have their moments, sure, but for the most part even the cartoony characters were presented as athletes trying to win a wrestling match, and that there were consequences to losing those matches. The WWE today is almost entirely a variety show where nothing matters week to week.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Jul 26, 2014 20:27:33 GMT -5
Sports entertainment during the Hulkamania era was very different to today's product. It had more of a sporting tone to it. The WWF was very much presented as a fairy benign, neutral, sporting organisation, not the personal plaything of corrupt authority figures and the emphasis was on winning titles, not the meta vibe of "hey, we're just having fun!" that you get today. As for NXT, it's not just the actual wrestling that makes it distinct, but the overall presentation. As someone who grew up during the heyday of Hulkamania, it wasn't accepted by diehard wrestling fans as being more sportslike. NWA was the pure wrestling company that treated wrestling as a sport. WWF was the kiddie, cartoon company that set back wrestling. Sounds familiar, don't it? The Hulkamania era tends to be romanticized by those who didn't witness as it happened. Compared to today's WWE, the Hogan-era WWF is comparatively more serious, but yes. Bad News is correct. The WWF was the cartoon show and Crockett was the serious show.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 20:36:37 GMT -5
WWF was a combination of pro wrestling mixed with a variety show. Wins and loses mattered because WWF treated titles and title matches like it matter. Mainly because that didn't happen every week. You didn't see Hogan unless it was a pretaped promo or a few months before a ppv to start the build for it. But WWF did do its goofy comedy which the fans loved. It wasn't SRS all the time. They blended it in a way that everyone got what they liked. The variety show aspect was not nearly as prevalent in the 80's, though. Not even close actually. They did have their moments, sure, but for the most part even the cartoony characters were presented as athletes trying to win a wrestling match, and that there were consequences to losing those matches. The WWE today is almost entirely a variety show where nothing matters week to week. Guess Tuesday Night Titans didn't exist. Guys in 80's WWF were treated as larger than life first and athletes second. They had the sports atmosphere with Jack Tunney showing up to take the blame whenever WWF booked themselves into a corner. Gorilla Monsoon saying things he memorized from a medical journal. Announcers treating most of the things happening in the ring as a life or death. But let's not forget it wasn't that all of time. As I said before, the NWA was the company that treated wrestling as a sport. They rarely had comedy or skits. Blood wasn't a rarity. The action was more smashmouth than WWF. People keep saying nothing matters nowadays. So the build of Roman Reigns doesn't matter? Daniel Bryan's climb to the WWE title didn't matter? Or Seth betraying his comrades and eventual feud with Ambrose? The announcers should do a better job of calling the matches. Angles could be structured better. Payoffs should be better. But they do treat things as they matter.
|
|