Non-wrestlers dominating Raw

[MrRant 0]

Whiny little bitches. Why don't you just add onto one of the 8 million threads about the same goddamn topic instead of creating a new "There's a McMahon on my TV!" thread every 2 days?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Don't look at me, I don't make em...

[iggymcfly 0]

I do think it's kind of funny. I've been replying in four different threads, and I'm basically arguing the same point in every one of them.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

Look DH, I know what I watched back in the 80's and early 90's.  Although I am not a internet geek who has that information filed away in a cabinet somewhere.  I can remember Heenan and Ted playing roles in order to set up a storyline. 

 

If that isn't the "proof" you wanted then I am sorry.  I don't make it a habit of keeping up with every single thing that has happened in the biz for the past two decades.

If you were mistaken, then just say you were wrong and that'll be that.

 

You said that non-wrestlers have ALWAYS dominated the sport, just as they did last night. All I want is on example of were non-wrestlers dominated the sport as they do today, just one. Just one example of where the wrestlers were nothing more than pawns in the non-wrestlers storylines. It wasn't just one small angle last night where a non-wrestler was involved, oh no. It was THREE angles, each which are the most high profile on RAW at the moment, where the storyline is all about the non-wrestlers. This has never happened before, and it's fucking pathetic.

 

Either give me an example, or admit that you are wrong, that's all. If you can't backup what you say, then please, refrain from wasting our time.

No, I never said that non-wrestlers dominated anything. I don't think they dominated Monday night. You are the one who said that. Also the wrestlers weren't used as pawns. They were both furthering storylines. But I wouldn't say that I am wrong for not remembering something from 15-20 years ago. But I will admit that I don't care enough to research it.

 

Also did Shane disregarding Jericho to chase down Kane make Jericho look like an ass?

Edited August 27, 2003 by Johnson1620

[Austin3164life 0]

I think there's been one recurring theme throughout four similar threads.

 

McMahons on television = Bad Thing

[humongous2002 0]

I guess I was the only one on here, but I thought Raw was really great. Every segment throughout the night was exciting and interesting. They even used logic on stuff lke the Coach heel turn where a year or two ago, they wouldn't have even bothered. Maybe if you were watching the show to enjoy the segments instead of counting the number of wrestlers on it, you would have had a better time.

 

The reason RVD wasn't on the show is that he was selling the tombstone on the steel steps that happened a day ago. It would have been ridiculous to have him on the show a day after that. And say all you want about Shane, but I'd rather see him wrestle than Booker T anyday. The main event was fine for what it was.

 

Oh, and one more thing. Why isn't Jerry Lawler allowed to wrestle. He was a 41-time Mid South champion, and I'm pretty damn sure he's younger than Ric Flair. He's a legend in his own right, and if he wants to step into the ring a few times a year, he should be allowed to.

 

I think the problem is that people don't understand what the purpose of a wrestling show is. It's not to "get over" all the wrestlers on the roster. It's to entertain the fans. If they're more entertained by seeing Austin give an interview than they are by watching Test and Christian tag against Steiner and Nash again, then that's what the WWE should give them.

 

And then people say, when did the WWE give that focus to non-wrestlers before 1998. Well the answer is that they didn't. But how often did the WWE get 4.0 ratings for Raw before 1998? They didn't. The business evolved in a positive manner there, not a negative one.

 

The only problem I had with the show was Kane being burned alive. I mean, if that were real, how would he possibly survive? He should be dead. And if he's dead, then his whole push is for nothing. I'd really like to see them get out of this one with it still making sense.

 

Except for that one little blip though, (which I could give them the benefit of the doubt on since I don't know where they're going with this angle,) the show was very good and reminded me more of the old Raws from '99 than the crap from a year ago.

Well i'm glad you enjoyed RAW, more power to you.B ut as much as you try explaining the reasons why we should enjoy it as much as you did, it's not going to work with us, Shane is a non-wrestler, how is this going to help elevate Kane to the next level? We all know he is going to win, but why do it on a ppv instead of a RAW?

Kane is looking weak just by getting his ass handed to him by a non-athlete, how believable is that??Might as well have Spike Dudley get the upperhand on Kane, at least he is a wrestler and bumps way better than Mr. One spot Shane-O.

[Downhome 0]

Look DH, I know what I watched back in the 80's and early 90's.  Although I am not a internet geek who has that information filed away in a cabinet somewhere.  I can remember Heenan and Ted playing roles in order to set up a storyline. 

 

If that isn't the "proof" you wanted then I am sorry.  I don't make it a habit of keeping up with every single thing that has happened in the biz for the past two decades.

If you were mistaken, then just say you were wrong and that'll be that.

 

You said that non-wrestlers have ALWAYS dominated the sport, just as they did last night. All I want is on example of were non-wrestlers dominated the sport as they do today, just one. Just one example of where the wrestlers were nothing more than pawns in the non-wrestlers storylines. It wasn't just one small angle last night where a non-wrestler was involved, oh no. It was THREE angles, each which are the most high profile on RAW at the moment, where the storyline is all about the non-wrestlers. This has never happened before, and it's fucking pathetic.

 

Either give me an example, or admit that you are wrong, that's all. If you can't backup what you say, then please, refrain from wasting our time.

No, I never said that non-wrestlers dominated anything. I don't think they dominated Monday night. You are the one who said that. Also the wrestlers weren't used as pawns. They were both furthering storylines. But I wouldn't say that I am wrong for not remembering something from 15-20 years ago. But I will admit that I don't care enough to research it.

 

Also did Shane disregarding Jericho to chase down Kane make Jericho look like an ass?

I can't stand when people wont admit that they are wrong, just like you right now.

 

Do not say something unless you can back it up, period.

 

You said that what happened on RAW has always happened, and that is not true at all. All I want is one example, and you can't even do that. Don't waste our time giving us a line of crap. If you don't care enough about the topic to actually know what you are talking about, then don't post.

 

Yes, the wrestlers DID help further storylines, I agree there. The problem, is that the wrestlers were simply PAWNS in said storylines, doing nothing at all to help the actual workers of the company. Each instance I presented was obviously there for the non-wrestlers, not the other way around. That is what makes me sick, the wrestlers should NEVER play the pawn in the non-wrestlers little play time storyline, not as they did on RAW. There is no excuse about it, and this has got to change.

 

*still waiting*

[Brush with Greatness 0]

I think the problem is that people don't understand what the purpose of a wrestling show is. It's not to "get over" all the wrestlers on the roster. It's to entertain the fans. If they're more entertained by seeing Austin give an interview than they are by watching Test and Christian tag against Steiner and Nash again, then that's what the WWE should give them.

 

I don't think you understand the wrestling business. WWE makes their money primarily off PPV buyrates, with house show ticket sales and merchandise also being large revenue streams. You want to know what happens at PPV's and house shows? Wrestling. Two guys (or more) getting in the ring and having a match. And fans prefer those guys to be trained wrestlers who can deliver an entertaining match. The purpose of television is to sell these products and get people out watching and buying PPV's and tickets respectively. They need to get wrestlers "over" because that leads to more people wanting to watch them wrestle and buy their merchandise and this in turn leads to more money. The purpose of wrestling television should never be to "pop a rating" or simply try to entertain the fans by any means necessary. So what if a bunch of people tune in one week to watch some stupid segment or what have you. People doing that doesn't make the WWE any money. Like I said, the money comes from PPV's, ticket sales and merchandise.

 

People are not going to buy PPV's or tickets or merchandise for Jonathon Coachman or Linda McMahon or any other fucknut non-wrestler. The fact that Stone Cold can't deliver in the ring anymore severly diminishes his money drawing power (although he still sell's merchandise). Therefore you should not be putting them over people who are capable of actually delivering the product, and that product is wrestling.

 

So yes, the purpose is getting the wrestlers "over". That is, if they want to make money. When your business is wrestling, the more "over" the wrestlers are, the more money you're going to make.

 

This is totally worthless shit doing nothing but ENTERTAINING THE FANS. This is how you build your fanbase, and end up earning way more money in the long run. Back in 1992, they couldn't even dream of drawing a 4.2 rating for Raw.

 

Let's see. A 4.2 rating. Back in 2000 the WWF was regularly drawing high 6's with the occasional low 7. Each rating point is equivalent to something like 900,000 viewers (I can't recall the exact number).

 

Now lets do some math:

 

A low 7 - a low 4 = about 3 ratings points.

 

That's almost 3 million people you've turned off the product in 3 years. You're telling me that's a good thing?

 

House show ratings are down, hence why thev'ye started running shows in every little Bumfuck, USA. Ever notice how they would never go near some of the towns they're touring now during the glory years? That's because they didn't need to. People in the major centers craved the product and wanted to see it more often. Merchandise sales are also down.

 

Not to mention their bread and butter, PPV buyrates, are drastically dropping.

 

It doesn't fucking matter if the WWE is drawing 10.0 ratings. It doesn't fucking matter if what is on TV is entertaining. If people aren't buying the PPV's, house shows and merchandise, the company is going to make very little money.

 

One more thing, someone give Iggy McFly a quarter so he can buy a fucking clue before he shoots his mouth off next time.