phases of wrestling

[tap]

I've noticed that a lot of people on Wrestlecrap don't believe that wrestling is cyclical. I guess they mean in overall entertainment popularity and crossover with mainstream audiences. I'm not sure really. I think it is, but I wouldn't go so far to say there's a specific formula or time period to prove when wrestling's "hot" or "cold." However, thinking about the past 25 years or so, I think there are certain trends that ebb and flow that may prove my point of view right, perhaps to varying degrees, depending if you agree or not. I'm gonna chart how I see the business over the past 25 years or so, but please feel free to insert, remove, or criticize what I think are the phases.

Some of these overlap.


Ric Flair and the Four Horseman (1983-1988)
Rock 'n' Wrestling/Hogan's first title reign (1984-1988)
Savage's first title reign- Hart's first title reign (1988-1992)
The New Generation (1993-1996)
The Birth of Extreme (1994-1997)
The Monday Night Wars (1995-1996)
The NWO (1996-1997)
Attitude (1997-2001)
War is Over, Brand Split, and Decline (InVasion-2005)
An Emerging Competitor? (TNA 2002-current)
Batista and Cena's first title reign, Recovery? (2005-current)

[YouStayClassy]

ROH hitting the fabled land of PPV should be on there as "An Alternative Arises 2007-" or something like that.

[Reverend BTY]

youstayclassy said:

ROH hitting the fabled land of PPV should be on there as "An Alternative Arises 2007-" or something like that.

I don't think so. Solely for the fact there has yet to be any impact by ROH by going on PPV. Now it could change but as of now, I don't see it as a phase of wrestling.

[YouStayClassy]

vincerussoisgod said:

youstayclassy said:

ROH hitting the fabled land of PPV should be on there as "An Alternative Arises 2007-" or something like that.

I don't think so. Solely for the fact there has yet to be any impact by ROH by going on PPV. Now it could change but as of now, I don't see it as a phase of wrestling.

I was thinking in the way the market is strong enough and open minded to support a third player in the PPV game. Sure, they're not taking the money out of Vince's mouth but it's awesome such a tiny company has reached the promised land in 5 years and is enjoying continued success doing so.

[KEJB]

Looks like you labeled eras. I dont see how this proves wrestling is cyclical.

[tap]

True, I guess it's too implicit. The business in the mid-80s into the 90s was really hot, the major success of course being the WWF. Around 1993, to me at least, things seemed to go downhill. I'd say wrestling as a whole was growing in popularity in 1997, and the involvement of Mike Tyson and Stone Cold in 1998 kicked off the Attitude boom, in my eyes. Granted, there were other promotion such as ECW and WCW around, and I incorporated them as such.

The panned InVasion angle spelled the decline of Attitude's popularity felt for a couple of years insofar that with Batista and Cena's emergence at the top of the card in 2005, a turnaround is in progress, but with a lot of growing pains still. I labeled eras as a basis of situating people in between the 80s boom and the 90s boom. For instance, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels at the top of the card, how were they influential, positively or negatively, as main events?

By demarcating eras, people can bring up wrestlers within these eras and where they fit in the overall booms and busts of wrestling. I mean, I could get into social and economic factors that could have shaped popular imagination and the relationship audiences had with the product, but I'd like to keep the argument self-contained for the most part.

And to be fair, you didn't provided a reason it is not.

[KEJB]

Hey hey. This isnt my thread, I dont have to do the proving! haha

[tap]

Unfortunately, the two booms of wrestling that get the most discussion are the only true examples I can use as evidence. I'm not too familiar with wrestling before the 1970s, besides the odd name like Lou Thesz or Verne Gagne, so to do a holistic analysis of the popularity of professional wrestling with the advent of the National Wrestling Alliance would be somewhat difficult, although I could venture vague guesses at best. So, granted, two booms and two busts in 25 years is not a theory proved, but I'd wager it to have more of a legitimate basis of discussing wrestling's popularity than assuming the industry as a whole, within entertainment and historically, is anarchic or completely disassociated from popular trends, social change, and economic conditions that would support wrestling as a consumable good.

[KEJB]

But I mean, if we are looking at only 4 time periods, its a little soft to decide if its a sign of things being cyclical.

Like anything else, sometimes your up, sometimes your down. If it was all similar time lengths, maybe.

[Red Impact]

I don't think "Monday Night Wars" really only fit into a 2 year span.

For ROH, these eras seem to be talking about really defining events. ROH getting PPV's haven't had that yet, and we likely won't know if they would until well after they've had it.

[Painz_Daughter:HD]

I sort of believe that wrestling goes in cycles but I also believe there are other factors like star power, main-stream attention(positive or negative), and quality of product that factor in. However according to your chart I guess if you believe that wrestling goes in cycles then the next boom is just around the corner then?

[Kevin Hamilton]

The cyclical thing is an excuse for promoters when business is down-- " See it's nothing we're doing, the business is just cyclical"

Notice they never say that when they've hit upon something that connects with people and causes the upturn of a boom period. Then it's all them.