[Long] How the WWE is killing itself:

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Everyone's had their say on how to fix the WWE. Now damnit, it's my turn.

 

Overexposure:

 

Let's take a look at how many hours of wrestling programming there is in a week from the WWE, assuming your markets get all their programming:

 

Pay Per View (3 hours)

Raw (2 hours)

SmackDown (2 hours)

Sunday Night Heat (1 hour)

Velocity (1 hour)

Confidential (1 hour)

AfterBurn (30 minutes)

BottomLine (30 minutes)

 

So the average cable/satellite customer gets 7-8 hours of WWE programming delivered to them each week, week in, week out, all year long. As much as 11 if that person buys a pay per view. That's simply way too much, and annihilates people's interest by flooding the market.

 

Back in early 1999, you only had Raw. When I was a mark, when Tuesday or Wednesday came around, life was hell, because I was like a drug addict begging for another fix of Raw is War.

 

These days, even though I'm more cynical, the things I treasure from markdom are coming and going (i.e. Mick Foley, heel Rock run in 2003, etc) and I often forget that Raw is on until 15-30 minutes after it starts. "Oh, crap. Damn, guess I'll watch it. Really don't want to stop what I'm doing, though.")

 

This is counterproductive for WWE. The amount of programming ought to be cut by about 50% and PPVs reduced to a more respectable number, such as 5 a year.

 

Way too much dependance on angles

 

The other problem for the company is that they fail to deliver what fans would expect of any recreational sport, fixed or not. I mentioned this in another thread, but I was reading through a Best Of collection of The Onion's parody news reporting, and one issue's Local News had a story titled "Cage Match Settles Nothing." The report was a bunch of imaginary fans offended and shocked that a cage match was booked in a way that nobody won and both competitors still claimed to be better than the other.

 

At this point, the WWE is complimenting angles with matches instead of complimenting matches with angles. You may like brawling, technical mat wrestling, high-flyers, or guys who bump themselves up like crazy, but chances are you don't watch pro wrestling for the interviews, promos, or alternative uses of ATVs and Monster Trucks.

 

No crappy match has ever been salvaged as watchable because of it's buildup, but there has been many decent matches ruined by crappy buildup. Almost no one in WWE puts priority on what really counts.

 

They need to stop running 6-12 angles at a time and simply focus on a few. Unfortunately, splitting the programming between two leagues has actually ADDED to the number of angles, promos, interviews, ambushes, or scenes of someone wrecking a guitar/motorcycle/lowrider/limo/mink coat/whatever.

 

Many, many people are now being increasingly employed to contribute nothing but to provide extraneous crap to a match. While I respect the performer for typically beind honest to fans, what did hiring Paul Bearer accomplish? What's he even doing here in this managerial role that couldn't be done by one of the "divas" they already have that have no wrestling talent, yet oddly are being booked in DUD-level "matches"? At least she would give more heat. That begs the question, is Bearer somehow giving the Undertaker any heat in the first place? The character seems over enough that no manager is really required.

 

Nobody is watching in hopes of seeing crappy matches that serve no purpose but to shill a PPV. Nobody is watching for authority figures, managers, or for head shaving. If we had less PPVs, they could spend more time putting good matches on TV and more time promoting a PPV in a slower, more logical fashion.

 

Heck, in the early era (think 60s/70s here), you tuned in on any particular evening and only got one long match by guys who know typically knew what they were doing. A couple 30-45 minute matches in a week, especially if you're going to keep both Raw and Smackdown, would not hurt the viewership at all.

 

Lack of a blowoff, World Series/Super Bowl/Whatever event

 

And no, don't give me WrestleMania. It is no longer a special event. This became no more evident to me than the night after WrestleMania XX, which had been hyped up all year as some sort of even of monstrous proportions.

 

As my father watched HHH act like a baby and throw water bottles around, he mentioned that even though he generally doesn't watch wrestling beyond the occasional T&A event, if they had some sort of blowoff event that he'd watch it. I mentioned they had one just last night, and he responded, "No, that's not right. This guy is out here throwing a fit and yelling about how he's going to get the title back and it's only been, what, twenty-four hours?"

 

And then it hits me. I don't care about football, but I watch the NFL. I don't care about hockey, but I imagine I'd watch the final game for the Stanley Cup if I knew it was on. I don't really enjoy baseball that much, but like any warm-blooded human with a heart, I enjoy seeing the Yankees go down in flames at the crucial moment.

 

This show never stops, it just keeps going. And rarely is there any finality, at the expense of the storyline that the pilots steering the ship are concerned are so very important.

 

If you had a fed start in January, and then go on until November, and move it towards a big blowoff PPV in November where people go over their opponents clean and everything is resolved, and then go totally off-air until next January, you'd have several things.

 

You'd provide viewers time to stop and recharge their batteries.

You'd provide the talent with the chance to do the same thing (and don't tell me the constant shows and moving around hasn't been effecting match quality.)

And most importantly, you'd have a reliable program with appeal to "outsiders" who are curious to see how it all ends.

 

What's currently happening:

 

Instead, Vince McMahon is choosing to increase the amount of PPVs again, run a string of bullshit matches on last week's SmackDown, and spend an hour with "matches" that involve people like Stacy Kiebler or are a complete abomination such as Lesnar-Goldberg.

 

As the old adage goes, the marquee says wrestling. There's no laws that say that wrestling can't adapt to a slower, less-crazy, less-oversaturated method. Especially since one company effectively *IS* pro wrestling for the forseeable future. Instead, the company is going full-tilt ahead for short-term gains, which will kill it in the long term. And nothing can be done unless Vince either retires, falls victim in a particularly nasty accident, or wakes up.

 

People tend to think that the only people who care pure and simple about wrestling regardless of kayfabe and angles are the hardcore fans. And that the casual fans are the ones who want a constant soap opera that feeds on itself.

 

 

I think it's about time someone consider these roles are quite possibly reversed. Before the company falls in on itself like a giant fad with an NYSE listing.

[Guest Coffey]

Well, on the overexposure part, welcome to the club. I've been preaching about that for months now...of course so have a lot of other people. It's true though, that's why it keeps getting brought up. It's made even worse because the "B" shows come off as more "D" or "F" because nothing happens and no one watches them.

 

Love the part about the angles though. The lack of a Super Bowl comes from the overexposure, obviously. If everything wasn't so overexposed, the PPV's WOULD be a big deal again.

 

The non-wrestlers are a big problem. The non-wrestling T&A is a bigger problem. I don't know, there are a lot of problems. Of course, there is a lot of good too...which a lot of people overlook.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm not so sure less PPVs will help that much, especially in 2004.

 

All it's gona do is give you three months to build a match, which means instead of seeing the same tag match twice in a one feud, we'll see that same tag match six or seven times over the course of three months.

 

One point that I have to make though, is that, especially in cases of the world title, they HAVE to stop this "Insert two feuds into one tag match" bullshit build up.

 

Look at the Angle Eddie feud this year. It seems like everyone but me was chomping at the bit to see Angle/Chavo vs. Eddie and Rey.

 

Eddie and Angle are competing for the richest prize in the sport. They absolutely should not be mingling with and selling for the cruisers and other midcarders while feuding with each other. It brings the title down from the pedestal it should be on when people like Rey and Chavo are beating up the champion and number one contender.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Hmmm...

 

Anglesault, I agree with you to an extent about Rey/Chavo mixing with Eddy/Angle, but anyone with half a brain knew that the aforementioned Tag Team match wasn't going to occur, and at least mixing those feuds together, both containing Eddy and Chavo, thus making more sense, ended up getting more heat on Kurt for his turn, and pushed the Cruiserweight feud, without so much making them seem like something less for not linking.

[clean rob 0]

About the overexposure point, does anyone actually watch all the WWE programming available? I'd consider myself a pretty big fan, but I'd never watch Bottom Line or Afterburn unless I'd actually missed Raw or Smackdown for some reason. Velocity and Heat I catch if there's a particular match on I really want to see (e.g. Noble/London) but there's too much filler to get me to watch regularly.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that there's too many angles in wrestling per say, there's just too many bad, pointless angles. I have nothing but praise for angles like the Jericho-Trish-Christian stuff, but if the bookers can't think of something half decent for an angle, they should just go with the 'spirit of competition' thing.

 

I definitely think a month's break every year is a great idea. It would give both the viewers and wrestlers time to 'recharge', (in the case of the wretlers, this would hopefully mean a few less injuries and better morale), WM would feel more like the blowoff it's supposed to be, and any roster changes that WWE felt like implementing would feel more natural done in this period.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

When Bottom Line and Afterburn were being shown down here, I'd watch them, but only for their exclusives, because I never miss a Raw or SmackDown!.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

You may have the issue arise of guys not keeping in shape over an extended break like that, however. Some people tend to get lazy, especially during December and the holiday season, not to mention being indoors the whole time. I'm not saying time off is a bad idea, but it is a point to consider.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

What exactly are you talking about, Special Agent?

[AndrewTS 0]

Damn. I thought this was going to be an article Theodore Long wrote. Ah well.

 

About the overexposure point, does anyone actually watch all the WWE programming available? I'd consider myself a pretty big fan, but I'd never watch Bottom Line or Afterburn unless I'd actually missed Raw or Smackdown for some reason. Velocity and Heat I catch if there's a particular match on I really want to see (e.g. Noble/London) but there's too much filler to get me to watch regularly.

 

Bottom Line/Afterburn isn't original content, though, so why the hell watch it?

 

Velocity/Heat I'll watch only if there's something I'm interesting in seeing--which is next to never.

 

How would over-exposure be a problem when it's recently been revealed that very view viewers watch both Raw and Smackdown?

 

Having PPVs less often would be a nice solution, but as Anglesault said it would only work well if WWE had good writing, which they don't.

 

While I respect the performer for typically beind honest to fans, what did hiring Paul Bearer accomplish? What's he even doing here in this managerial role that couldn't be done by one of the "divas" they already have that have no wrestling talent, yet oddly are being booked in DUD-level "matches"? At least she would give more heat.

 

I completely disagree. Bearer WAS instrumental in helping Taker get over in the first place, before he could talk well on his own. Bearer is rather unnecessary now, but at least one appearance was necessary for the return of the Dead Man gimmick. He could leave and not really hurt the gimmick much, but it helps the character, so why not?

 

Also, what's this garbage about the Divas giving more heat? Er, NO! Name me one wrestler that Torrie's gotten over by being a pair of tits at ringside for some guy she's been fucking? Has Stacy gotten Test over? Even with Jackie at ringside, Rico's virtually heatless.

 

It would be an interesting experiment to have a smart, sassy female heel be a manager--a real manager--and see if she could give her wrestler/team heat, but she would either have to not be a total knockout or she'd have to keep herself covered up. They almost had it with Sunny, but she was too damn hot to stick to being a valet and dressed too skimpily.

 

However, having a valet does not get a wrestler over. It just distracts from the wrestler himself. I've never heard a crowd chant "SHOW YOUR PUPPIES!" at Paul Bearer; they're watching Taker fuck the sorry sap in the ring up.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Yes, Paul Bearer's return was just to give The Dead Man some more hype and for a bit of nostalgia. That's it, really.

 

Divas in WWE haven't been taken seriously for a while, and I don't think that they will be for a while.

[Guest Anglesault]

It would be an interesting experiment to have a smart, sassy female heel be a manager--a real manager--and see if she could give her wrestler/team heat,

They gave it a go with Ivory and Storm, and it worked decently.

[AndrewTS 0]

 

It would be an interesting experiment to have a smart, sassy female heel be a manager--a real manager--and see if she could give her wrestler/team heat,

They gave it a go with Ivory and Storm, and it worked decently.

Somewhat, but Ivory was still in tight clothing and ass-shots were aplenty...

 

It was BEGGING for a slap.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Lance Storm and Ivory...

 

Two HIGHLY under-rated (mostly Storm) workers - yeah, I wouldn't mind that.

 

Anything has to be better than what Storm is doing right now, which is pretty much nothing. Pretty much.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Damn. I thought this was going to be an article Theodore Long wrote. Ah well.

Hey playa, if you think wrestlin' needs some changes then HOLLA... You know, this would actually be a very difficult way to write anything.

 

How would over-exposure be a problem when it's recently been revealed that very view viewers watch both Raw and Smackdown?

 

Because you lose that "gotta have the next one" feeling when the next one is only a few days away instead of a week or so.

 

Having PPVs less often would be a nice solution, but as Anglesault said it would only work well if WWE had good writing, which they don't.

 

But I'm not paying attention to the writing because, again, I believe in the end nobody really cares about that as much as they do the matches. And feuds can be fully done and finished on free TV if it leads to a more major PPV match down the line.

 

Nobody is doing that here, though. Instead, every damn contest over Ass Cream and spilled coffee has to be resolved on pay per view. Both #1 contenders for WrestleMania this year were determined on Pay Per View. I'll give them the Royal Rumble because it is kind of traditional now and there's little chance it'll disappear. But there was nothing in that Angle/Cena/Show match that couldn't have been done on SmackDown.

 

Bearer WAS instrumental in helping Taker get over in the first place, before he could talk well on his own.

 

Hm, okay. I've seen a number of shows from the Hogan days were Taker talks to Mean Gene and Bearer was just doing his interview show, but I'll take your word for it.

 

Also, what's this garbage about the Divas giving more heat?  Er, NO!  Name me one wrestler that Torrie's gotten over by being a pair of tits at ringside for some guy she's been fucking?

 

Name me a reason why a crowd won't react more to a pretty woman than a fat guy?

 

It would be an interesting experiment to have a smart, sassy female heel be a manager--a real manager

 

There you go, now you're thinkin'.

[AndrewTS 0]

Name me a reason why a crowd won't react more to a pretty woman than a fat guy?

 

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE WRESTLER SHE'S WITH! It puts the focus on the pair of tits rather than the wrestler, so valets do not get wrestlers over.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Talking about female managers made me think of the Chris Candido/Cactus Jack match on the Foley DVDs and Tammy Sytch or whatever her name is, was ringside cheering her man on, but we could still concentrate on the match, whereas in XPW she got involved in a catfight during the middle of a Shane Douglas/Vic Grimes/Chris Candido(he joined the match late) and it just took away from the match. It all depends on how someone is used. But we need to get away from the ex strippers they seem to be hiring, that much is certain.

[AndrewTS 0]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying--Tammy could draw heel heat and get some heat on to the wrestlers she managed, but if she's dressed in hot pants and a tube top, strutting around the ring, it's likely no one is going to bepaying attention to the Smoking Gunns match in the ring?

 

However, Tammy could pull it off and make it work, but generally valets don't work because the wrestler is just kinda there instead of the valet helping the wrestler get heat.

 

That's part of why no one gave a damn about the Bashams--because the WWE themselves built everything around Shaniqua (their matches licking balls didn't help, of course).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE WRESTLER SHE'S WITH! It puts the focus on the pair of tits rather than the wrestler, so valets do not get wrestlers over.

By this logic, Ric Flair should have been the most un-over guy in the NWA.

[Guest Loss]

This was an excellent post and I thought I'd add my thoughts in as well.

 

Everyone's had their say on how to fix the WWE. Now damnit, it's my turn.

 

Overexposure:

 

Let's take a look at how many hours of wrestling programming there is in a week from the WWE, assuming your markets get all their programming:

 

Pay Per View (3 hours)

Raw (2 hours)

SmackDown (2 hours)

Sunday Night Heat (1 hour)

Velocity (1 hour)

Confidential (1 hour)

AfterBurn (30 minutes)

BottomLine (30 minutes)

 

So the average cable/satellite customer gets 7-8 hours of WWE programming delivered to them each week, week in, week out, all year long. As much as 11 if that person buys a pay per view. That's simply way too much, and annihilates people's interest by flooding the market.

 

I do agree that oversaturation is a problem, but I don't think it's contributed at all to the decline of wrestling. When WCW was on national television, we were getting an extra three hours for Nitro and two hours for Thunder and two hours for Saturday night and one hour per weekend for Worldwide. So the market was even more oversaturated at that point, and wrestling was bigger than it had ever been in 1998-1999.

 

If the product is good, typically, wrestling fans are insanely loyal to it. They'll find it no matter which day of the week it is and what time it comes on at night. Also, a good wrestling product tends to whet the appetites of its viewership -- in the words of Paul Heyman, you never leave an audience satisfied, you leave them wanting more. If the current WWE product was strong enough to support all of this programming, I don't think oversaturation would be an issue at all. And for all the strides they've made over the last few months and for all the effort put into creating new stars and changing the style, the television product is still not strong enough to support all of this television time.

 

Back in early 1999, you only had Raw. When I was a mark, when Tuesday or Wednesday came around, life was hell, because I was like a drug addict begging for another fix of Raw is War.

 

This is true. I think, because things have been in the crapper for so long, we've been trained to be 'let down' to a certain extent, even when things aren't even that bad. It's the same philosophy of popping for certain spots or thinking a match is over when certain moves are applied. Because we've been trained to be disappointed with the end result, it's very easy to forget just how addictive wrestling can be when it's at its best. The money promoters can make off of a loyal fanbase who are treated with respect is endless, to a point where I don't know that most promoters totally grasp how big the business could be. Even saying that, I'm not sure I do.

 

These days, even though I'm more cynical, the things I treasure from markdom are coming and going (i.e. Mick Foley, heel Rock run in 2003, etc) and I often forget that Raw is on until 15-30 minutes after it starts. "Oh, crap. Damn, guess I'll watch it. Really don't want to stop what I'm doing, though.")

 

A mark is a wrestling fan. I don't understand the use of the word 'markdom'. Did you think wrestling was real in 1999 when the Undertaker was putting Stephanie McMahon above the ring on a Prince symbol? You're still a mark, just as I am, with the only difference being that we're more educated. This is an attitude I don't fully understand -- knowing more about something shouldn't lessen one's enjoyment of it. It should increase it, because we appreciate all the hard work that goes into delivering the final product.

 

This is kind of a sidebar to your post, but that's why I get angry when I read 'news' from the major sites regarding issues that will never make a difference to the fan. If the news doesn't matter to us, it's not news and thus shouldn't be reported. Why should we care if the Smackdown wrestlers weren't told about the RAW lotto in advance? It doesn't affect us. Other news items, though, like the plans (or lack thereof) for Matt Hardy, the rumors surrounding the next big PPV or other such items do directly affect us, at least as viewers.

 

While there's a certain responsibility of the reporters, there's also a certain responsibility implied from the readership to disseminate what's important from what's not.

 

Now that I've totally gone off subject, back to the matter at hand. What would remind you that RAW is on? Is it going to take more advertising? Does the week-to-week booking need to be more episodic ending with major cliffhangers? Or will a great show just inspire you to watch the next week?

 

I don't even know that a great show will inspire me to watch the next week, and it all goes back to the Heyman philosophy of whetting an appetite instead of satisfying it.

 

I remember the buzz over the 'new Nitro' in 2000 and after watching the show, I thought it was great and was excited about the product. But, the following week, I was far more interested in Jericho getting a phantom title win over HHH than seeing what was going on next, because for all the good they put into that show, they left me no reason to keep watching, because there was too much satisfaction in one night. It's a careful, dangerous balance -- how do you keep fans happy without making them so happy that they've had their perfect ending and want to leave on a high note? I worried about that a little with Benoit and Eddy getting their moment in the sun at the end of 'Mania, and coming on to the boards, I found some of those fears were justified, and it's probably an even bigger deal with a fanbase that has been trained to be let down over the past few years. They're afraid to get too optimistic about the product for fear of playing the fool.

 

This is counterproductive for WWE. The amount of programming ought to be cut by about 50% and PPVs reduced to a more respectable number, such as 5 a year.

 

It's just not practical. Just for them to retain status quo, they'd have to double their current buyrates to keep a strong profit going. To actually show an increase in business, they'd have to do astronomical numbers, meaning buyrates would have to start clocking in around 3.0 or so before the workers and the company started reaping the benefits. The business structure is dependent on PPVs at this point, and decreasing them isn't an option unfortunately.

 

I think the current PPV cycle is great, actually, at least on paper. You have two months to build to every show on each brand, but unfortunately, too much of the time, they use one month to just go in circles and then spend three weeks hyping the show.

 

I've always been a firm proponent in knowing the full lineup for the next show as far in advance as possible. After Unforgiven, for example, they treaded water with Shawn Michaels and Batista alternately challenging Goldberg, but they could have been using all that time to build toward Survivor Series. Nothing that happened in October, save for the opening sparks of the Jericho/Trish relationship is playing itself out in any way at this point.

 

Way too much dependance on angles

 

The other problem for the company is that they fail to deliver what fans would expect of any recreational sport, fixed or not. I mentioned this in another thread, but I was reading through a Best Of collection of The Onion's parody news reporting, and one issue's Local News had a story titled "Cage Match Settles Nothing." The report was a bunch of imaginary fans offended and shocked that a cage match was booked in a way that nobody won and both competitors still claimed to be better than the other.

 

At this point, the WWE is complimenting angles with matches instead of complimenting matches with angles. You may like brawling, technical mat wrestling, high-flyers, or guys who bump themselves up like crazy, but chances are you don't watch pro wrestling for the interviews, promos, or alternative uses of ATVs and Monster Trucks.

 

There is definitely too much prop usage in the current booking. I wish WWE would present themselves more like a sport and less like a form of entertainment, simply because they make things easier on themselves over the long haul. We shouldn't be watching for 'storylines' or 'wrestling', we should be watching because we find enjoyment in the product and want to follow the struggles of our favorites and see them win in the end. I think categorizing wrestling into interviews, promos, wrestling, brawls and what have you is a little strange. It's at that point that the wrestlers become the puppets instead of the puppeteers, which has been the case for several years now.

 

I think you may have downplayed the importance of the interview. A great interview should not make us laugh or entertain us, but should make us want to see a match. Rock, for all the hype he gets, has never done a promo that made me want to see a match he was going to have, save a few. Jericho, on the other hand, last year did that promo with Shawn the week before Wrestlemania XIX that had me wanting to see the match. Calling them 'sketches', as WWE has, annoys me because the whole point is that everything done should be building to something eventually happening in the ring.

 

It's a mindset. We have been trained otherwise, but the promoters would ultimately make things easier on themselves if we were trained not to watch wrestling to be entertained, but watched wrestling in the hopes that our favorite characters would see justice. It's the difference between watching Mania hoping Benoit will win and watching a TLC match to see what kind of bumps they're going to deliver.

 

No crappy match has ever been salvaged as watchable because of it's buildup, but there has been many decent matches ruined by crappy buildup.

 

I definitely have to disagree here. Hogan/Rock, Hogan/Goldberg, Hogan/Sting and most other Hogan matches have been watchable because of the heat surrounding the build, even if the matches have sucked.

 

*snip*

 

They need to stop running 6-12 angles at a time and simply focus on a few. Unfortunately, splitting the programming between two leagues has actually ADDED to the number of angles, promos, interviews, ambushes, or scenes of someone wrecking a guitar/motorcycle/lowrider/limo/mink coat/whatever.

 

Now is the time for squash matches to come back. Again, it's investing in characters versus investing in a show's quality.

 

"Watch RAW! Tonight, we have HHH, Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit, Goldberg and Randy Orton all in action, and we'll hear from Chris Jericho and Christian!"

 

That's the right philosophy. Here's the wrong one:

 

"What will Benoit do tonight? What will HHH have to say? How does Shawn Michaels feel about being left out? Tune into RAW to find out!"

 

When every show is 'explosive', it's hard to get excited about an explosive show.

 

Many, many people are now being increasingly employed to contribute nothing but to provide extraneous crap to a match. While I respect the performer for typically beind honest to fans, what did hiring Paul Bearer accomplish? What's he even doing here in this managerial role that couldn't be done by one of the "divas" they already have that have no wrestling talent, yet oddly are being booked in DUD-level "matches"? At least she would give more heat. That begs the question, is Bearer somehow giving the Undertaker any heat in the first place? The character seems over enough that no manager is really required.

 

It was done for nostalgia, just as 'Taker's return to the darkside was done for nostalgia. He's costing the company money and will make them none; therefore, bringing him back was a bad decision. I'd agree with you here.

 

Nobody is watching in hopes of seeing crappy matches that serve no purpose but to shill a PPV. Nobody is watching for authority figures, managers, or for head shaving. If we had less PPVs, they could spend more time putting good matches on TV and more time promoting a PPV in a slower, more logical fashion.

 

The head shaving should not be criticized. The heel got what she deserved in the end. It's one of the few angles in recent times that has had a truly satisfying payoff. It's not about being extraneous, it's about making a promise and actually coming through on it.

 

Heck, in the early era (think 60s/70s here), you tuned in on any particular evening and only got one long match by guys who know typically knew what they were doing. A couple 30-45 minute matches in a week, especially if you're going to keep both Raw and Smackdown, would not hurt the viewership at all.

 

I think that's too long for TV. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the length of matches at this point. It's how they're worked that could still stand to improve. The main problem I have is that instead of running a long main event every week, sometimes, the midcarders should get that time. The fact that, for better or worse, RVD and Booker got that time against the Dudleyz shows that they're thinking like that, or at least they were for a week.

 

Lack of a blowoff, World Series/Super Bowl/Whatever event

 

And no, don't give me WrestleMania. It is no longer a special event. This became no more evident to me than the night after WrestleMania XX, which had been hyped up all year as some sort of even of monstrous proportions.

 

As my father watched HHH act like a baby and throw water bottles around, he mentioned that even though he generally doesn't watch wrestling beyond the occasional T&A event, if they had some sort of blowoff event that he'd watch it. I mentioned they had one just last night, and he responded, "No, that's not right. This guy is out here throwing a fit and yelling about how he's going to get the title back and it's only been, what, twenty-four hours?"

 

Wrestling has no off seasons. Are you suggesting that they start doing them? There are limits on wrestling that don't exist in other sports or entertainment mediums, simply because it's a year-round venture. HHH not appearing on RAW at all may have been nice, but I can't fault him for showing up when he sold the Crossface with his arm in a sling and got his ass kicked all night.

 

And then it hits me. I don't care about football, but I watch the NFL. I don't care about hockey, but I imagine I'd watch the final game for the Stanley Cup if I knew it was on. I don't really enjoy baseball that much, but like any warm-blooded human with a heart, I enjoy seeing the Yankees go down in flames at the crucial moment.

 

This show never stops, it just keeps going. And rarely is there any finality, at the expense of the storyline that the pilots steering the ship are concerned are so very important.

 

*nods*

 

If you had a fed start in January, and then go on until November, and move it towards a big blowoff PPV in November where people go over their opponents clean and everything is resolved, and then go totally off-air until next January, you'd have several things.

 

You'd provide viewers time to stop and recharge their batteries.

You'd provide the talent with the chance to do the same thing (and don't tell me the constant shows and moving around hasn't been effecting match quality.)

And most importantly, you'd have a reliable program with appeal to "outsiders" who are curious to see how it all ends.

 

You'd also have to have a company that was pulling in a larger profit the rest of the year to cover the dormant two months. You'd also have to depend on a fanbase with notoriously short attention spans remembering that the product is back. In wrestling, just as with anything else, they have to strike while the iron is hot. I think if Benoit won the title at Mania and we didn't see him again until May, it'd hurt his momentum, along with that of the company.

 

What's currently happening:

 

Instead, Vince McMahon is choosing to increase the amount of PPVs again, run a string of bullshit matches on last week's SmackDown, and spend an hour with "matches" that involve people like Stacy Kiebler or are a complete abomination such as Lesnar-Goldberg.

 

Lesnar/Goldberg had appeal on paper; I can't fault him for promoting the match. Had word not gotten out about Brock's departure and if Goldberg was staying, the match probably would have had super heat and been at least watchable.

 

As the old adage goes, the marquee says wrestling. There's no laws that say that wrestling can't adapt to a slower, less-crazy, less-oversaturated method.

 

Is this the vision you want for the company as a fan? Or is this what you think they should do as a business? I'm not sure I totally follow.

 

Especially since one company effectively *IS* pro wrestling for the forseeable future. Instead, the company is going full-tilt ahead for short-term gains, which will kill it in the long term. And nothing can be done unless Vince either retires, falls victim in a particularly nasty accident, or wakes up.

 

Seeing Benoit and Eddy triumph at Wrestlemania tells me that he's at least trying to listen now. Otherwise, we would have had HHH and Angle go over because it'd be 'safer', thus less of a risk.

 

People tend to think that the only people who care pure and simple about wrestling regardless of kayfabe and angles are the hardcore fans. And that the casual fans are the ones who want a constant soap opera that feeds on itself.

 

I think it's about time someone consider these roles are quite possibly reversed.

 

Definitely. The casual fan has FAR more patience than the hardcore fan, who typically wants instant gratification booked his way or he's not happy. Typically.

 

Before the company falls in on itself like a giant fad with an NYSE listing.

 

Which hasn't happened. Business has picked up lately. The Mania buyrate will be telling as well. It's too early to call the latest changes a failure, but there are small signs of it being a success there already.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I agree that there are too many PPV's, and we have WCW to thank for that. I would love to see each show only get 4 a year. None of this sharing PPV's. I can't see Smackdown, so their matches end up being bathroom breaks most of the time. (Exception for Eddie Guerrero, just because I'm glad a short guy has the title.)

 

I do think that the current female valets do nothing but show off their T&A and do no good for the matches. Remember how a heel would get over just by joining the "Heenan family?" Let's see Stacy, Jackie, Torrie, Sable, or Shaniqua do that.

 

Paul Bearer did actually add to the UT's return because it reminded us that this isn't the American BadAss anymore. Imagine if there was no Paul Bearer, they would have had to change more about the character to make us even believe there was a change. And he was instrumental in getting 'Taker over initially, otherwise they would have left him with Brother Love.

 

Yes there is too much crappy WWE programming. I think that Heat, and Velocity would be worthwhile if they actually served a purpose, but they basically warm up the crowds for RAW and Smackdown. It's not like they serve a real purpose.

 

As for the angles, yes they suck. I do agree that Christian-Trish-Jericho is the only decent storyline to come along lately, thanks to Evolution getting involved in the Foley-Orton angle. After seeing the videos for the angles at WMXX, I did realize that they were actually fairly long in execution, as Foley-Orton and Trish-CLB-Y2J actually took up most of a year. Kudos to them for doing something right

[AndrewTS 0]

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE WRESTLER SHE'S WITH!  It puts the focus on the pair of tits rather than the wrestler, so valets do not get wrestlers over.

By this logic, Ric Flair should have been the most un-over guy in the NWA.

NWA portrayed his valets as the real stars? NWA gave Flair no mic time to get his character over? Flair wasn't over until they gave him valets?

 

Maybe I didn't clarify my points exactly, but you're not making valid comparisons here.

[Guest Brian]

PPV revenue is keeping the company in the black at this point.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE WRESTLER SHE'S WITH!  It puts the focus on the pair of tits rather than the wrestler, so valets do not get wrestlers over.

By this logic, Ric Flair should have been the most un-over guy in the NWA.

NWA portrayed his valets as the real stars? NWA gave Flair no mic time to get his character over? Flair wasn't over until they gave him valets?

 

Maybe I didn't clarify my points exactly, but you're not making valid comparisons here.

Sure. You said that putting a woman with a wrestler winds up making the fans care only about the women, and not pay attention to anything the wrestler is doing or saying.

 

So, with this logic, Ric Flair should be really un-over. I mean, there's some classic promos where he goes to the ring with six or seven girls. This is an era where the audience was even more dominantly male, so not a single pair of ears would be listening to a damn thing he says, right?

 

NOW you sound like there's a right and wrong way to go about using women as escorts, that the Flair stuff was done right and how it's currently being done is wrong. And there I'll agree with you.

[SuperJerk 0]

About the overexposure point, does anyone actually watch all the WWE programming available? I'd consider myself a pretty big fan, but I'd never watch Bottom Line or Afterburn unless I'd actually missed Raw or Smackdown for some reason. Velocity and Heat I catch if there's a particular match on I really want to see (e.g. Noble/London) but there's too much filler to get me to watch regularly.

Good point.

[Guest Anglesault]

Jobber, an already over Flair isn't gonna have his heat killed by the women, but by that same token, a heatless Test isn't gonna get over with Stacy in his corner.

 

Divas can add to heat, but they cannot create it.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

the WWE is killing itself because alot of the guys the WWE are banking on only care about themselves and not bettering the company.

 

Brock only cared about himself.

HHH only cares about himself.

Taker only cares about himself -- it's very evident at this point

HBK only cares about himself and his friends.

 

Only recently have others started getting some air... Jericho, Angle, Eddie, Benoit...those guys care about the business (though Angle kinda cares about his health a bit more at this point, which is fine), but those are the guys that worked for YEARS to get to where they are now, and didn't get shoved in the spotlight through friendships and politics. Austin seems to only care about himself as well.

 

These are the guys that hold the company in their hands. Brock leaving was a HUGE hit to Vince, and it's his fault. Austin leaving was a huge hit. HHH's injury in 2001 was a huge hit too.

 

Those things shouldn't be such big deals. Sure, they are main eventers...but they are big deals because there is basically NOBODY that can go immediately into those spots. There are a few, I'll admit...but not as many as they need to keep things fresh.

 

Vince is also seriously hurting himself by having bias toward his own creations. The Invasion was complete shit for this reason. Nobody was seen as a threat except "ECW", and they aligned with "WCW" and it turned into a clusterfuck. Vince had the chance to make every fans dream come true...and he brings it to us as a Buff Bagwell match.

 

Vince needs to look at those ECW and WCW guys. He has started too...but the guys he has pushed are ones that jumped, not ones that came over in the buy out. He has many wrestlers that, with a nice storyline, could take back spots in the uppercard. RVD, Booker T, Jericho, hell...even RHYNO could make a decent contender even just to put someone else over, because he has the look and could get over as a believable challenger if they just let him. I mean, would it hurt them that bad to push the guy on the fact that he was the final ECW champion?

 

the WWE is dredging OVW for talent when they have a HUGE roster already that is full of guys that could use those kinds of pushes to get themselves over again. Shit, Lance Storm was over huge during the super pro-Canada angle in WCW.

 

Another thing would be "the WWE style" ...something that boggles my mind. I know that they have problems with people getting injured and all of that...but when you bring in a guy like RVD, who is basically uninjurable, and say 'you gotta calm down!' and he has to drastically alter his style, it hurts him all over.

 

Same thing goes for the cruiserweights. These guys made a living bouncing around all over the place like pinballs and while there were some injuries, there wasn't enough that other promotors were saying "stop that! slow down! use more punches!" That division has TONS of potential and it's being completely wasted. Alot of the potential was shown on Smackdown this week with Rey vs. Eddie...even though Eddie isn't a cruiserweight, he can hang with Rey and it showed as the crowd was loving every second of the match.

 

Last but not least... The God Push. I'm not talking about a Goldberg or Lesnar type push, because hopefully Vince has learned his lesson there...but i'm talking about those kind of pushes where no matter WHAT the fans do (or don't do), Vince seems to keep pushing them harder and harder and more and more. I still say that Randy Orton has potential...but until he starts to really show that he deserves his spot, it should go to someone else. That IC title could be used to get a Lance Storm or an A-Train or even a Sean O Haire over.

 

Right now, that title means NOTHING. Randy acts as though he wants to keep it, but other than that it's basically a piece of jewelry that he wears and nothing more. He needs to treat that IC title like HBK did before WMX, going as far as to FAKE a title reign to say "Yes, that belt means THAT much to me" or guys like Rock who fought hard to keep it week in and week out and held it as though it was the top of the mountain to them.

 

The same thing needs to happen to the US Title...as right now it just seems to be worthless with John Cena, even though it isn't at all. Eddie worked hard to bring some worth to it, only for it all to go away in two months courtesy of the Big Show and the writing staff who never had him defend it except against jobbers and shit.

 

Look at how much the Women's Title means now, as Molly went so far as to risk having her head shaved to get it back. You'll never see Randy Orton do anything like that.

 

Same for the CW Title, as Chavo is doing EVERYTHING HE CAN to keep it, even going as far as to lie, cheat, and steal in the uber-heel sense to make sure nobody else gets there hands on it. When he finally loses it, even to Rey...it'll mean more than it did before Chavo had it.

 

Eddie and Benoit took their title wins to HEART...sitting in the ring with tears running down their faces...showing just how much it meant to them. Those belts don't really need to be put over, but every little bit helps. Those kinds of celebrations rarely happen. Angle winning during the Invasion, Mankind beating the Rock, HBK after the Ironman...those little things made that belt seem so much more because these guys showed real emotion. They didn't just grab the belt and run saying "ha ha, mine now" like he's a three year old that just ripped a toy from another kid's hands and ran away, only for the other kid to just turn around and grab something else (which is a good analogy to how some storylines are written...for example - any of HHH's opponents last year that just kinda dropped out of sight after losing their title shot - Kane, Steiner, Booker, etc)

 

So, so many problems...and I don't think Vince has the mentality to fix any of them.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I don't think it's so much too many shows, it's just that half the shows are irrelevant. Velocity and Heat are completely misused. The UFC would KILL for each of these timeslots on the stations and would make MUCH better use of it. When you look at it in that perspective, the "what would another company do with that time", then Velocity and Heat become a lot more interesting. I don't think the ECW revival idea is the greatest one, but if it made better use of the TV time the WWE has, then I'm for it.

 

The WWE is very inefficient and sloppy; both in terms of how they treat their product and the product itself. The misuse of TV time, for example. There are so many pointless skits or matches that could be used developing something else. I don't get the feeling that there are people putting real effort in crafting storylines. Right now, I like "clever" shows. Smartly written ones. I want well-developed storylines with a lil twist and more complex characters. I want, what Vince McMahon called back in 97, a more "sophisticated" product. And I don't mean more swearing and boobies, cause that was only sophisticated to 8 year olds.

 

I don't think it's the time for squash matches to come back. I think matches should mean more, actually. I don't want to see Val Venis vs. Rene Dupree, nor do I want to see Rico vs. anyone. I'm not saying totally eliminate squash matches, hell PRIDE does them frequently to build up a new star (Bob Sapp, for example). It's about using them effectively. Everyone knows that a guy like Val Venis or Rico will lose, so actually SQUASH them and discard them. If they're too afraid to do that, then don't squash them. Trying to find the middle ground where the jobber gets in his offense and heat spot all-the-while the fans know he's going to lose in the end doesn't help the jobber and hurts the guy trying to get over. Too many of these, however, sorta kills the effect.

[JJMc 0]

Kind of a moot point by now, but After Burn and Bottom Line are an hour each last I checked, not 30 minutes as originally stated. -Jim

[SamoaRowe 0]

At my peak of being a mark, I watched all of the WWE shows.

 

That means I would watch Raw, Smackdown, Heat, Livewire, Superstars, Jakked, and the PPVs when I could. Not only would I never get bored with them, but I would be anxious for them. I just enjoyed it so much that I couldn't wait just to see more.

 

 

Now I watch Raw and Smackdown if I"m home for it and the PPVs if it works out. I watch Velocity if there is a good match announced and I watch Heat if I'm watching tv and it's on.

 

How times have changed.

[AndrewTS 0]

Jobber, an already over Flair isn't gonna have his heat killed by the women, but by that same token, a heatless Test isn't gonna get over with Stacy in his corner.

 

Divas can add to heat, but they cannot create it.

Plus, Flair's women were lucky to get names. Maybe they'd be involved in angles, but it was all to put Flair over.

 

In the current WWE, the valets have their own theme music, wear less, get matches, get photo shoots, get the camera focused on them constantly during the wrestler's matches, become the CENTRAL FOCUS of angles, and sometimes they end up pinning the wrestler they were a valet to.

 

And no, no valet is going to get Billy Gunn, Test, et cetra over.