Casual fan=Money vs. Wrestling Fan=Quality.

[mrpink]

There is and idea, that from a business standpoint, wrestling should focus more on storyline and gimmicks to actual wrestling. That something will catch a normal fan's attention and he'll shell out money.
Or that most people only care about what most of us call crap.

Well, that may be true to a point. But consider this. All of us, "wrestling" fans started out as the casual mark. Most on this board would say that they were brought in by Hogan. I'm lucky. I can honestly claim that I was never a Hulkamaniac. I've always preferred heels.

Anyway, so Hogan brought you in as a mark. Why did you stay? Was it Bastion Booger? Kamala? The Dungeon of Doom?

No, most continued watching because of guys like Mr. Perfect, Ric Fllair, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Sure maybe Austin drinking beer or the NWO brought you in, but guys like Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho, and later Angle kept you there.

What I'm trying to say is that the WWE and TNA officials seem to think that the only way to have a successful product is to focus less on the wrestling, but the wrestling is exactly what makes us fans.

They deride the IWC as a bunch of "Think-they-know-it-all" geeks who have no place commenting on something we don't do. But you know something, in 10 years, 20 years, etc. us geeks will still be here hoping for another great match from a wrestler. Those fans they picked up because Cena said "Poop" will be long gone. Unless they are given a reason to stay.

In conclusion, is it a wonder that the things most people say turned them away from wrestling for good were the Arquette win, Dr. Heiney and Necrophillia?

Discuss?

[SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts]

It's the same in all forms of entertainment. They'd rather have the fringe fan over the hardcore fan. Why? The fringe fan is more likely to buy more products than that of the hardcore fan.

[-Lithium-]

I unno I was 7 or 8 when I started watching Nitro in 97. And I remember for like 3 years (atleast on WCW) after all I wanted to see was Sting, I would watch the whole show just incase Sting appeared in the beggining or middle (even though he usually appeared at the end), thats prolly why its alot easier for me to remember the main events on Nitro rather then the undercard...

I do remember I watched Shotgun Saturday Night before Nitro and that didnt have many big names so maybe I just watched because of well...it was wrestling and I thought it was cool...

[Kevin Hamilton]

I think you're generalizing a bit. I didn't get hooked on Hogan and then transition to 'quality wrestling'; personally I like to watch cuz it's fun. Sometimes great matches are fun to watch, sometimes goofy stuff is fun to watch. As long as I'm moderately entertained by the one or two hours, it's all gravy for me.


I also don't really know that I'd say you were lucky that you didn't like Hogan and rooted for only heels. That had to be some frustrating viewing right there.

[Andrew is Good]

I always thought about this actually.

If you had two wrestling fans, one was a casual fan, and one was a net fan, and asked them to book a wrestling show with any talent not currently signed by WWE or TNA (exclusively), how would they turn out.

The net fan would book a show that would have a lot of strong wrestling on it, and would generally be the better wrestling show. The casual fan however, that show that that fan books would draw more money.

Money is very important in wrestling, and goes over the quality of the matches for the fact that without money, you have no quality matches at all, because you don't have a show.

You also have to realize that the "Cena said poop thing" is a bad example and a bad look on casual wrestling fans. Two examples from my workplace. I know two casual wrestling fans, one in his 20s and one in his 40s and both said their favourite was John Cena. It's more then just that, it's his promo style, it's the way he attracts his audience, it's the way he works in the ring that brings fans in to watch him. Is he the best technical wrestler? No. But you'll definitely get your money's worth when you see him, no matter if he's cheered or booed. Because of the fact he's babyface, he can't really do anything to turn on the crowd (according to Ron Killings who talked about that in his shoot, how babyfaces can't really turn on a crowd, or usually aren't supposed to unless they're going heel). But you are always yelling, you're always having a good time, and because of that, you'll pay more money to see it.

Al Snow said it best. If you draw well, you are having a good match, no matter who it is, because people want to see you compete. And the over generalization about John Cena, many many people like John Cena. Yeah, there are some people who don't like John Cena because of his wrestling, but more fans like him as a personality, and the WWE will go with those fans, simply because it means more money.

And when you have more money, you end up with good wrestling matches anyway. So if you don't draw money and simply focus on having the good match, then eventually, you won't have anymore good matches, because you won't have anymore money.

The bottom line in professional wrestling is money, always has been and always will be.

[-Lithium-]

And I unno, even today I would rather see Austin/Rock then Joe/AJ. I like to really really care about the outcome and stuff and the drama and be sucked into the match...

[Andrew is Good]

Also, a lot of the names mentioned were more then just great wrestlers.

Chris Jericho had a tremendous connection with the fans and was really over, not just for his wrestling. Same with Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. Guys you named off as bad examples like Bastion Booger and the Dungeon of Doom were brief flashes in the pan and did really nothing for wrestling anyway.

Same with Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart. Raven talked about how nowadays all the indy stars you see today emulated Shawn Michaels and the way he wrestled, but Shawn was more then that. Shawn had style, grace, a strong character, a great personality. Shawn Michaels was the total package. I know I pick on him a lot, but Matt Sydal is a perfect example of someone who just goes out and tries to wow the crowd to get himself over, and doesn't grasp psychology very well, especially crowd psychology. So if you compare a match with John Cena and Matt Sydal, one thing that needs to be asked is who would have a better match. Would it be Matt Sydal, who does a lot of great wrestling and cool moves, but the fans usually give him a fireworks reaction and aren't really emotionally involved in the match, or will John Cena have a better match, who is guarenteed to get a crazy reaction, a very emotional crowd, even though he's not gonna put on a technical masterpiece.

So yeah, a lot of people stayed for the good wrestlers mentioned above, but you also have to realize that they were more then just great wrestlers. They were great personalities that people could connect with.

[I Got Heat]

I think WWE/TNA want both the smart fans and the casual fans at the same time. They cater more to the group more likely to stop watching - the casuals. We're like that girl that you can treat like crap over and over but you know she's still gonna come back for more. The casual fan has and will walk away at the drop of a hat, so you need to be careful with them if you want to keep them. Some will say "well, if that bitchy fan will leave so quick, why should we even care about them?" and the answer is simple - money.

If we really did stop watching/buying merch/etc. when we threatened to, it would change the industry. They don't believe our threats, and neither do we.

[Joekishi]

mrpink said:

Well, that may be true to a point. But consider this. All of us, "wrestling" fans started out as the casual mark. Most on this board would say that they were brought in by Hogan. I'm lucky. I can honestly claim that I was never a Hulkamaniac. I've always preferred heels.

How does that make you lucky? seriously, I didn't stay on because of guys like Flair, HBK, and others, I stayed on because i love pro wrestling.

THat point you tried to make that "Hulk Hogan=Dumbasses lol I'm better than you, i feel sorry that you were a fan of that hack", made all of your other opinion still come off as typical elitist IWC fan.

Also those fans that thought Stone Cold flipping the bird are still here, the fans who were hulkamaniacs, little warriors, part of the clique, most of them are still watching.

Why is it that your opinion comes off like that stereotype you typed of IWC assholes

[HMARK Center]

It certainly is true that WWE and TNA cater to "smart" fans a lot more than they like to let on. Hell, the whole Matt Hardy/Edge story line was based on 'Net crap.

Anyway, I know that, for me, I came back to watching wrestling in 1998 after a four year hiatus because I heard that Nitro was having a main event of Hogan/Savage vs. Sting/Luger. For awhile, I mainly cared about the main event scene, and not a ton else.

However, by 1999, I was getting more and more interested by guys like Chris Jericho, Booker T, Chris Benoit, Muta (during his later WCW run), et. al. I still wanted to see the "main" guys, but as time went on, I'd find myself getting more interested in actually seeing good matches to go along with my good characters/storylines. I was about 14 or so at this point.

So, to a degree, yeah, I was kind of "hooked" due to there being more to the show than just the glitz of the main event scene, and my opinions on what constituted good wrestling started evolving from there.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Not sure what brought me in......I was 5 at the time, it's hard to remember. I know I saw some Stampede Wrestling first, then saw WrestleMania 5......I was a Hulkamaniac no dout, but I had other favorites, like the Hart Foundation......then Bret was my guy....then Shawn, then really no one, then Jericho and RVD.

Right now, I watch more out of habit, than anything.......I'll always be a fan, but right now things are just in a down period.....it'll come up again. It doesn't have to Monday Night Wars style to be considered up..

[destrucity]

Quality and better are just a matter of opinion. I'd rather watch a John Cena vs Umaga main event than a Gregory Helms cruiserweight title match even though Helms is a "better" wrestler and his matches have more "quality". I think that wrestling is like a giant buffet and that what you like at the buffet is personal preference. Just because you'd rather eat broiled fish instead of the prime rib doesn't make the fish better or a more quality choice.

[skskillz]

Wow. The original post is beyond an elist "smark" attitude. That seemed like something an anti-smark would say in satire.

I always say this: quality is subjective, money is not. I think Hogan matches are very entertaining. Am I wrong when I say that? No. It's a matter of taste. When you see that Hogan is the biggest name/draw/star in the history of the industry, that says more than any subjective opinion of his talent. He did what promoters want: he drew fans in. Same with Austin/Rock during the Attitude Era.

I guess after almost 20 years of watching wrestling (1986-2005), I can be considered a casual fan now since I haven't watched a single wrestling program in almost a year and a half (other than 10 minutes of WSX....and I metaphorically vomitted after seeing that). The only way I'll get sucked back in is if Hogan/Austin goes down, or Rock comes back, or something huge happens (nWo 1996 calibre). Even then I'm so apathetic that I won't really care either way. The point is, as a 20 year watcher, I never cared for "wrestling". Give me Hogan/Andre or Hogan/Warrior over anything Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle have done in their entire careers. That's what I consider quality. Fact is, quality differs from person to person. Ultimately, it's whoever draws more money that will stay on top.

During the last Nitro, both shows (Raw and Nitro) drew a combined 7.7 rating. From 2003-now, the WWE is lucky to draw a 4.0 on Monday nights. That means they lost half (or more than half) of the wrestling fanbase over the last six years despite giving the fans Benoit/Guerrero title runs, Michaels matches, Angle matches, etc, etc. So what exactly is quality if no one wants to watch it?

[mrpink]

Yeah I can be a little elitist and stereotypical. I'll admit it. And you guys make some good points too. The point I was trying to make, and I don't think I explained it very well, was that there is a section of casual fans who don't give a damn about wrestling. They don't. I've met them.

Someone tells them, "Hey check it out. You ever watch wrestling? Man I was skipping through the channels the other day and they had like five chicks in their underwear."

"Cool."

So they watch one week and something stupid happens that the find funny. They watch for a couple more months. Maybe they attend a live show once and chant boring during all the matches. Then they leave when something else grabs their attention. These are the fans that the companies cater too. And they look down on those who have spent more money than one cares to count. Namely us.

You may think I'm being silly, but I've met fans like this. Lots of them. They are not the majority, but they are the majority that's catered too.

Then you have those fans that are just incredibly dumb people. They will actually watch through thick and thin, so I shouldn't really knock them, but they still treat Hogan as a God. I know of lot of these people as well. I'm not saying thier stupid because they like Hogan. It just seems to be a common, defining charactersitic. And I'm not saying they are dumb because they don't know the inner workings of Montreal. I say they are dumb because they swear to me that Jericho is their Uncle's gay lover and that if they had $3000.00 they could start their own national company and compete with Vince. Yes, these are actual conversations I've tried to avoid. They weren't working me. They just didn't know any better.

Again, these people are catered to.

I am not trying to come off as holier than thou or to say that only "technical wrestlers" make money. I'm referring to things like the announcers being told to delibertly ignore the moves and focus on the angle or when a PPV card (Tonight is a good example) is just thrown together with buildup on only one match. It seems to say "They'll buy it because of the main event. WHo cares about these other matches. In fact, let's give them a 15 minute main event and 2 hours and thirty minutes of Divas. They'll love it. And if they don't, well at least we got their money."

The sad thing is that some fans, and those are the ones I was referring to, wouldn't mind.

But the majority of us. We would mind. And eventually we'll stop paying for it all together.

Yes money has always been the main focus of professional wrestling. But without wrestling their would be no money. Brawling, scientific, aireal, what have you. Without wrestling their is no money.

That was my point.

[TRMcGillicutty]

If I had a promotion, I'd cater to casual fans. Why? There's more casual fans than hardcore fans, and that means more money. Wrestling is a business.

[Mr. Backlund]

I think you're over simplifying it and taking a look at a few select groups that prove your point and ignore the rest of the audiences that get targeted. What the WWE does is target as many audiences as they can, from the young kids, to the teens, to the young adults, adults, men, women, etc. That's why there's so much hit and miss (outside of a lack of general direction at creative). They're trying to be everything to everyone and attract as many viewers and consumers as possible. While you may think that you have some spending power, try seeing what a kid can do when he has his parents pocket and orders a monthly PPV, a few shirts, a replica belt, action figures, etc. The fact of the matter is, there are not only more casual fans than hardcore fans, casual fans will make you a nicer profit margin at the end of the day. Compare buyrates, merchandise, advertising deals, etc. between TNA and WWE.

As for your point of wrestling being the underpinning of everything, that's mostly true, but it really depends on how you defined "wrestling". Again, it gets down to the point that not everyone watches the shows for the same reason. Some people may love to see chain wrestling and feel intelligent reciting every move used, some may like to watch to see the storylines that lead up to the violence, not caring if they're using sound techniques or just stomping the hell out of each other because of what transpired.

It again all boils down to the fact that quality is subjective. What you absolutely hate, I'm sure there's some out there that absolutely love it. No one person is entertained the exact same way as everyone else.

[Mr. Zombie]

The attitude era was probably the defining point of what a wrestling show should be in order to be profitable (combine both WCW and WWF). WWF had something that catered to everyone; good wrestling, good storylines, drama, good looking men and women, audience interaction....WCW had a lot of the same, this was a bit more kid friendly, though.

As for whatever it is that you are trying to say, I would stop generalizing casual fans as stupid and as hogan lovers. You may not be trying to say that, but, really thats what you are saying. Too many generalizations in your argument to be valid. "Smart fans", whatever that is,
don't necessarily equal better quality.

Take me, for example. Wrestling fan since as far back as I could remember (20+ years). I post here and see a lot of stuff here every day. I love the good match as much as anyone else. I've watched my share of stuff from Japan, Bret Hart vs. Stone Cold is probably my 2nd all time favorite match (after Jericho HHH last man standing). You know what though? I'm a huge, huge Hogan fan. My favorite wrestler is Gene Snitsky. I "mark out" for stupid crap (Snitsky punting a baby, replaying Vince's "Stand Back", I'm a firm believer that Shawn Micheals is the right answer in any wrestling poll, and I mostly watch wrestling for the hilarity of it all.

[Deleted]

It's not so much a difference between casual and hardcore as much as a difference between young and old.

When I was a teenager, ordering a PPV and getting drunk was the best thing to do on the weekend. And we all thought Austin 3:16 and NWO shirts were the ultimate fashion statement.

Now as an adult, I can go to a bar or club. Why would I want to pay $40 to sit at home and watch wrestling? And what kind of dork would I look like still wearing wrestling shirts?

While there's a lot of stuff in TNA and WWE that are completely stupid and makes no sense. More often than not, it's just that my tastes have matured and I'm jaded as a wrestling fan.

But to a 12-16 year old all this stuff is new and fresh and worth paying for.

[joeman]

rhzombie18 said:

The attitude era was probably the defining point of what a wrestling show should be in order to be profitable (combine both WCW and WWF). WWF had something that catered to everyone; good wrestling, good storylines, drama, good looking men and women, audience interaction....WCW had a lot of the same, this was a bit more kid friendly, though.

I know where you are getting at, but one thing is for sure about the Attitude era is that it didn't cater people who enjoy good wrestling. Matches were a few minutes long, and the titles were hotshotted every few weeks. If anything, the reason the fans chant boring during a Paul London match has a lot to do with the wrestling style from the Attitude era.

This thread makes me extremely uncomfortable. Are you(the thread poster) by chance tigeraid from other forums by any chance? Not to mean to be insulting, but I chatted with him days ago on how casual fans are not wrestling fans and that ROH is the only source for actual wrestling. He went as far as saying it is growing rapidly every year and that Danielson is a better wrestler than Chris Benoit.

[mrpink]

joeman said:

rhzombie18 said:

I know where you are getting at, but one thing is for sure about the Attitude era is that it didn't cater people who enjoy good wrestling. Matches were a few minutes long, and the titles were hotshotted every few weeks. If anything, the reason the fans chant boring during a Paul London match has a lot to do with the wrestling style from the Attitude era.

This thread makes me extremely uncomfortable. Are you(the thread poster) by chance tigeraid from other forums by any chance? Not to mean to be insulting, but I chatted with him days ago on how casual fans are not wrestling fans and that ROH is the only source for actual wrestling. He went as far as saying it is growing rapidly every year and that Danielson is a better wrestler than Chris Benoit.

No I am not him. And I'm not saying that casual fans are not real wrestling fans. I'm saying that I'm afraid that eventually the companies are going to get to the point where they eliminate the wrestling altogether in favor or pointless crap. That they'll say they're justfied in that their profit margins aren't affected.

It may just be that I'm paranoid, and a little off my rocker, but we're already seeing a trend of moving away from wrestling.

For example, look at the last couple of PPVs that the WWE produced. Cyber Sunday: Thrown together card with 1 average match Survivor Series: Thrown together card with 1 good match December to Dissapoint: 1 great match that wasn't even advertised and a bunch of crap. New Years Revolution: 1 good match, 1 average match and a bunch of crap. I'm not even referring to Hunter's injury and the aftermath. Royal Rumble: Up and Down a good show, but its also one of their cash cows. No Way Out: Thrown together card. WM: Seems like its getting pretty good, but originally it looked as bad as 9 or 13, Austin/Bret excluded.

I don't know. Like I said its mostly just me being paranoid and a little miffed that I can't seem to enjoy the WWE or TNA anymore. The same ol' same ol.


But to clarify, I never said that those fans weren't real fans. I just wish that the fans who have stuck through everything for the last 20+ years, watched the dying days of WCW and continued watching after Necrophillia were given a little more actual wrestling. That's all.