Promoter

Okay, so I guess this question is invalid since most of us won't be here I should guess

The company was known as World Wrestling Federation Entertainment. They maintained the two most important parts of the Name. WORLD-WRESTLING. And it was a ENTERTAINMENT SHOW...not a federation anymore. The name change was perfect... It didn't change the name brand familarity at all for the common fan. No, I understand this. It was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment and they took the F out. I even get the logo although a lot of people still see it as stupid as it doesn't really allude to wwe from a cosmetic viewpoint. Sometimes I still think some call it wwf. One time I remember someone from ESPN asking what the hell wwe was. I don't think it changed over too well to be honest as in some video stores it is sometimes on the shelf under world wrestling without the entertainment part and this is 2 years later. Maybe with hardcores in transfered well, but not with the casuals who I believe still refer to it as the wwf. I still think Vince was a dumbass over losing his wwf name. The wwe logo actually looks like www. Maybe world wide wrestling. Actually, who thinks a change over in name without the Mcmahons would give a different outlook that would differentiate this company from all the negative aspects associated with the old wwe attitude era? Then again, all the good would be gone too.

I know I hate wwe too. None of my friends even call it that. They still say wwf(the ones who still watch anyways ). I mean couldn't Vince come up with a better name? The name just sounds dumb.

I think the wwe started to go to hell right after Judgement Day personally. The wwe from Rumble to Backlash was well thought out. I don't know what the hell they were doing after Judgement Day though. I won't go into that now though and I agree the stuff was still very watchable. Here are some reasons why I believe Backlash 2000 should have been the WM 16 ppv, but I do understand why they went that route though. Wasn't Backlash in the same month of Mania? Anyways, with hindsight I believe it for these reasons which do have to deal with business aspects. 1. It was WrestleMania and the big blow-off event. The fatal four-way was a weak main event and was done because the wwe felt Triple H wasn't strong enough as a draw imo. The wwe had posters of Rock/Triple H for WM 16 at the time. The wwe used WrestleMania to get Triple H over plain and simple as there is nothing wrong with that, but he in turn weakened Big Show and Foley who really had no business in there. I even marked out for it to be honest since a heel never really won those WM main events before. The event should have been Triple H defending against Rock. Triple H was basically the world champ since around SummerSlam. The Rock was gaining a lot of steam in 1999 with the wwe having polls asking fans who was more popular, he or Austin. The Rock lost his title and his chase for the title was de-valued due to the mix up in the chase by Foley and Big Show. It came off disjointed. The wwe also gave away the triple threat WM main event on free tv without getting a big rating. They could have did the twists and turns and still lead to Rock/Triple H at WrestleMania. 2. The Rock's character was kind of damaged by choking. I know what the arguments will be against this philosophy, but can anyone say Rock's popularity was ever as hot again after that month of March? It would be like jobbing Hogan to Andre at WM III or having Austin drop the match to HBK at WM 14(which was rumoured if HBK wasn't hurt). Besides the WM main event there was just too many damn multiple match ups on the card. You don't do that to your big show because it kills the heat for matches. Backlash had a hotter crowd for a reason. 3. Again, the build up made more sense for Austin appearing at WM in the corner of the Rock. The wwe could have manipulated the situation from Survivor Series and add heat about Rock trusting Austin who was the man who won the title from him the year prior at WM 15. Doing the program that they did at WM would not have people on a downer. The wwe had just ran the Day Long special as you said. It was not too bright to show all the great finishes of years past and then deliberately piss of the paying customers by having the heel go over. They need to keep goodwill with fans after doing that. All they created was people comparing that ending to past Mania shows and having dis-satisfaction of "not feeling like WrestleMania". The buy-rates in general have never been the same since. 4. If they wanted to increase the surprise factor for their minor ppv shows it would have been better to have Rock job the title quickly at Backlash(that is another topic completely and won't get into yet). If fans were satisfied with the WM ppv there wouldn't be a baklash for backlash. It could be argued the happy ending and feel good atmosphere might be more appealing for casual fans coming back for the minor ppv show and have Triple H regain the title there. 5. Rock's winning the title on a minor ppv killed his reign. He didn't win when it counted. I am glad the wwe was smart enough not to do this with Chris Benoit this year. They learned their lesson. (as a sidenote I believe the chinks in the armour of the 2000 booking began after Judgment Day and if they did a few things differently that year the outlook would be different completely 2-3 years laters).

I'm just glad that Austin/Bret's feud is getting love. I for one think Bret does not get enough credit and Flair doesn't know what the hell he is talking about in terms of Bret Hart. You have Bret jump instead of returning to the wwf in 1996 and the wwf would have been in real trouble. No Bret/Mcmahon before Bret/Mcmahon in Montreal and there goes the whole damn Austin/Mcmahon roots.

Backlash 2000 was perhaps the best non big four ppv of all-time. That should have been WM 2000 imo.

Well, I wouldn't like to see it, but anything is possible in business. I am actually frightened what will happen without Vince Mcmahon in charge. For all the jokes we make on Vince's foolishness at times at least we know he is the general of the ship and tries to right it. Every other wrestling business has fallen to wayside because perhaps Vince Mcmahon really is the only man who can run the business successfully without being manipulated like past promoters. Do some have tapes of wcw in 1996-1998? Who would have thought that juggernaut would be sold to the wwf at the time(which had a very depleted roster and that is the wwe's lowest point imo during 95-97 til around SummerSlam '97 where things began to pick up again). I also believe Vince wanting to be all things in everything might be his achille's heel. It's funny the wwe to some jumped the shark after making that No Holds Barred Movie in 1989 and it's kind of hard to argue with the turn of presentation that year for the business.

There are good things and bad things about "paying your dues". I do think there are exceptions like Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle in that they created a character to fit their background. Angle really should be sweeping through the wwe in his first year and the same with Brock, but as someone said maybe it was a bit too extreme. I think if Brock actually won the title at WM 19 against Angle instead of going over Rock he would not have been played out for his second title within a year of his "rookie season". There is a character excuse sometimes for not paying your dues. What would Vince Mcmahon do in 1991 with Ric Flair coming up north with the NWA World Heavyweight title? Job him out and work his way up? He was "the real world's champion" wooo! (Excuse me lost it there). Then there is the excuse of paying your dues as a way not to push someone they don't want to. I mean did wcw have to pay their dues in the storyline invasion of 2001 too? I guess the best reason for paying your dues is to prevent people like Goldberg coming in destorying the other wrestlers and then turn around and bash the artform after making big money. The problem with paying your dues is that it all depends on the motivation behind it. Is it to improve the wrestler? Is it to keep people down? Is it to prevent swelled heads? Is it used to just piss of the wrestler to make him quit? It all depends.

The Rock leaving smackdown was kind of a root. I think it really started at the Survivor Series last year. There was a little side story of raw outshining smackdown. At the time some just thought the wwe was trying to boost raw(which did need it). It slowly grew to the Heyman/Bischoff scuffle at the Royal Rumble. Then there was Benoit jumping, Triple H down talking the WWE title on raw, etc. etc. until what we have now. Maybe they are so demented they feel creating this much discrepancy is re-creating the anti-wcw/pro wwe days of the net.

I don't think the pointing out of the inconsistencies in the stories of Kane/Taker are nitpicking at all. Can someone please go into detail about both their characters since Kane arrived at Badd Blood in 1997? However I will sign a waiver to not get sued by the brain damage that it may inflict trying to make sense of any of it. I rest assure we will all see how STUPID the writing has been. Vince likes to claim "I make movies", well I don't think this particular topic would ever get him to have hollywood big wigs knocking at his door to produce a movie(isn't there a Kane movie on the way too ). Vince recently stated in public that NWA wasn't a challenge because they were in the pro wrestling business and he was in the entertainment business. Well, if he wants people to not put wrestling in a box and think outside the circle he better write better plots. Remember Kane being burned in fire last fall? Come on, this stuff is mindnumbingly stupid that you would think it was 12 year olds writing this crap at times. He has a SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT show and not something like ER. He needs to get a clue sometimes.

Some of this stuff is quite interesting to say the least, but I agree with those who question some of this because of the ghost writers. This stuff seems very ass-kissing to me. Look at this....Flair rips on Bret Hart who we all know has/had problems with the company. The stuff Flair is saying sounds like he knows by saying what he said he would get on Vince's good side. He is also getting back at Bret for Bret's attacks on him(and you know in some ways Bret was right), That is understandable. He goes off on Randy Savage who is kind of black-balled from the company for whatever reason. Ass-kissing and politics again. The Foley stuff seems like it was done to create a match down the line between the two "authors". Wasn't there a rumour the wwe wanted to create a worked shoot with these two? His little thing on Hogan was a nothing jab(about keeping the belt or something) because when he does interviews he gives Hogan a lot of praise especially when he just returned in 2002. Flair is being a politician here guys. His kissing up to HBK and HHH says it all.

Smackdown's surely a steaming pile eh? Look who has been leaving, been injured, been promoted and demoted this year...not to mention the fantastic storylines and characters that have been introduced. What a wonderful year. I won't be surprised I woke up sometime next week and read that smackdown's been cancelled

Long story short you are correct

Well, if this report is true all it illustrates is that the wwe cannot maintain two rosters at full potential plain and simple.

I agree with the sentiment that Vince giving us Bradshaw as WWE CHAMPION is really pushing it. It would get blasted in 1984(hell there were rumbles of people debating if Vince should put the title on the hot Hogan), 1994(no way he would have got pushed ahead of Luger or Hart and be behind Owen Hart as top heel), and in 2004(it's been stated all over the net). Trying to pass this guy off as a champion of the promotion is ridiculous and he is midcard. The day the fans start to accept this crap from the Mcmahons I will shudder to think what other crapola they will try to pass off. Yes, Eddie is somewhat starting to become a caricature of himself. He also seems to lose his cool easier than Benoit as champ, but who wouldn't lose it with the programs he's been dumped with.

The wwe has no excuses for the weakness of the main event scene on smackdown. Anyone remember a storyline tool in the draft lottery? The wwe could have used that to prevent this disease of crap spreading across smackdown. Don't let them off so easy because Angle. Big Show, and Brock are missing. Angle and Show will be back soon. I do think the wwe has more faith in Eddie than Benoit as champ and for good reason. Eddie has the much better overall character. However, that doesn't mean they had to saddle the man with heat sinkers like The Bashams and JBL(and no his heel heat on the net is not mainstream filling arena type heat).

Man, this Kane/Taker/Bearer thing has to be the most convoluted thing in "sports entertainment" history. Wasn't there a rumour that Kane had a movie in the works? Maybe Vince is taking this "I make movies" thing a bit too far Next thing we know they show the Lita/Kane sex scene in the movie. I agree with those who say that even Jim Ross could have asked Kane about his father dying(although they are claiming he isn't dead). Why does Kane have to be all bad? I thought Vince came out in 1997 and stated this was passe?

Quote Vince McMahon... "Anything can happen in WWE." Yep, that's why "anything can happen" can also mean giving the impression Eddie will regain his title to appease pissed off fans to tune in and then screw them over some more in hopes that Eddie will regain the title on major a pay per view show called SummerSlam. I hope he does win it back(although I still wouldn't really care for this feud)and normally it would be so, but they haven't been conventional to say the least in the last few months since the draft lottery with some of the choices they have made.

I wonder if Brock was still the reigning champion he would have packed his bags and left? Seriously, I liked the guy and all, but he seems to be a mark for himself and using excuses when things don't go his way. Look how he phoned in the match at Mania XX just because the crowd let him have it. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't be surprised to see him return as a heel for WM 21 in LA. I say bring bring back Austin(yeah, like this guy can't do a match) and Lesnar as an attraction. They will surely get some money off that match-up.

I'm not sold on Eddie regaining the title in 2 weeks. I can't see them giving away a title change when they did it last September. I just don't trust them. Why would the company take the belt off Eddie on a ppv show just to put it back on him on free tv?

I don't think it was any more times than people saying wcw sucked and was dying during the great depression of wcw post 1999 I don't think Bobby Heenan would have fun watching smackdown at its current rate. It actually may give someone cancer

Nah, the draft lottery ruined wrestling. Actually, some might say this whole brand split ruined wrestling, but that is another story. Turth be told wrestling has gone downhill ever since WrestleMania 17. I think that was this generation's Mania 6 in terms of fans disappearing after the last true mega event and main event of this era.

Four months ago I would have thought that was a bad joke, but not so much now How would they re-package him? Never mind as there is no need to give them any more bright ideas

I have been lurking here ever since the last smartmarks website went down. I use to post at that one and it seems like the rulers of this site have made it mandatory to be a member(not that I'm complaining). It is interesting that my first post is about Bradshaw as WWE Champ. I will add another 2 cents here as I can't see someone who has watched wrestling over the years can see this crowning of Bradshaw as WWE Champion as anything positive. They are screwing with the instrument that is suppose to be the main source for drawing on the main event level. I really don't think Vince put the title on JBL to piss off the internet. He put the title on JBL most likely because he got heat from CNBC and some little attention, however I think the Billy and Chuck angle had much more heat than this(even getting GLAAD involved) and Vince never put the tag titles on them. Their heat vanished as soon as the angle went south. This is short-sighted on the company's part because I think the majority of fans don't even know that Germany incident happened. Actually, I think most wouldn't even care and just wonder why he did that to begin with. I also understand the less griping may make the wwe pull back on the JBL main event push, but more likely it wouldn't because it seems as if the wwe could care less what the internet thinks(which is why some of my bashing has stopped on smackdown). If they did things to appease or piss off the internet a lot would be different with their booking. I really have to wonder why the company has given Bradshaw this monter push. I think he has broken the records set by winning a world championship after having only 3 televised matches after being in a tag team. A tag team way past their prime and who were losing to the Bashams of all people. Bradshaw broke Lesnar's record by winning the title within 3 months of a singles career(I know about his 2002 abysmal run). I don't like how the wwe is treating its own historical title like an experimental championship in terms of putting the title on someone in hopes of getting them over because they wouldn't be otherwise. The reason I'm starting to believe this theory is that you have to look how the title has been booked since September 2002. For all intents and purposes the wwe used the lineage to give the champ some credibility, while they built up the world heavyweight championship on raw. Brock had to keep the wwe title because of the way the storyline ran and to also keep credibility for his main event championship role and the title was somewhat still in a good light. The chinks started show when Big Show won the title while a few weeks prior he was jobbing to Jeff Hardy. That wasn't too bad since Big Show with help from Heyman got back some of his credibility. The title started to trade back and forth between Angle and Lesnar. Both men have strong athletic backgrounds, so it wasn't really any problem until Lesnar started to defend against the likes of Bob Holly and even having matches with Billy Gunn on smackdown. Eddie Guerrero was now primed for a title run as he went over. All was well and good, but since he got the title the only real credible person to go up against Eddie has been Kurt Angle and that was at WM XX. Attendance and ratings actually went up for a while when Eddie got the strap. What the hell happened? You know what happened? Eddie became a sitting duck champ and the wwe did nothing to help him by pitting him against tag team wrestlers and now he loses to a tag team wrestler? I don't think there are any real excuses because the wwe had a storyline tool to help out smackdown and decided not to. I also don't think Eddie winning the title again will mean anything. They had it right the first time because fans were really wanting to see someone like Eddie get a chance. Winning it again will be like everyone else just getting a turn. It also worries me that the wwe will start to create champions in this fashion in the future. It's against all logic to put the title on someone who is not drawing, not making ratings go up, can't generate heat that really has people caring, can't put on good matches, and is costing you money and giving bad publicity. This just does not make any sense whatsoever. If the plan is to put the title back on Eddie after a rematch what was the sense? It would have only weakened Eddie's presence as a real main eventer. This type of thing only works with someone of a stature of an Austin or Hogan where the mainstream fans will accept them as the real deal regardless of any losses because they are that strong. Eddie has just started to main event and to do so in a championship role. You don't cement new guys in the main event scene in this fashion by not going over people like Bradshaw who would be laughing stock if he was champion in the hey day of Attitude. Again, look at this title and look at the title of Benoit's? The more this settles in the more I realize how dumb this move is.