Dave Meltzer comments on WWE's problems

[JoeDirt 0]

Kreski booked for most of 2000. Steph took over just before Unforgiven 2000. Just before the love triangle storyline got fucked.

That's funny. I was just going to write how I thought the WWE was doing fine until sometime after Summerslam 2000 when they started to go downhill. I did like the 2001 Rumble, No Way Out 2001, and Wrestlemania 17, however. But after that everything went downhill. I didn't like the stuff leading into the Invasion angle, and obviously the Invasion angle itself was botched. I really hated 2002 and 2003 for the most part, though nearing the end of 2003 things picked up as Benoit and Guerrero got pushed, and generally the stuff leading into WM20 was decent. I don't really know. There just hasn't been anything in the Stephanie booking era that has made me say "wow". I don't expect it all the time, but once in four years would be nice.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

First off, ending the brand extension is not the way to go.

 

The ability to put on good matches (not nescessarily great matches) isn't lost yet.

 

But to have that ability thrown in with chaos in terms of storylines, lack of divisons and meaningless titles is nothing.

 

Going into 2005 the top four people that the WWE will be banking on in terms of guiding them through the new year and into the post-Mania portion are Randy Orton, HHH, Kurt Angle and The Undertaker.

 

Right now RAW has done little to nothing in terms of building Randy Orton's character, as I don't count his Legend Killer defeat of Flair to be anything because Benoit, Jericho, Edge and Michales have been doing it longer. He catches heel heat because a lot of guys at a wrestling show will simply and honestly boo a face if girls dig him. Orton wasn't over at his face turn and couldn't make the crossover succesfully which has lead to the sudden Austin-esque push he's been getting.

 

HHH will be HHH which thinking about makes me not want to even bother going into it.

 

Undertaker and Angle have formed a fairly solid political alliance which pretty much guarantees these two will be on top for a while now. Angle can still go at a decent pace and I see him taking the title off Booker T around The Rumble or sometime around them to set up the Taker program. But Angle is not invinceable and his injury history is well-documented.

 

Taker is in good shape for his age and has the ability to put on good matches with good workers simply because he's still over. But is WWE Champion Undertaker the best thing for Smackdown post-Mania? Probably not.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The only way Undi being WWE Champion would be good for Smackdown is if he has a short reign, dropping the title in a match where he puts over the new champion 100%, selling like crazy, getting in little offense, and putting him over clean in the middle of the ring in a near-squash like fashion.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

 

This creepy looking doll finds your comments amusing.

 

When was the last time Undertaker "made" somebody? Lesnar in '02 is the best I got.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

The only way Undi being WWE Champion would be good for Smackdown is if he has a short reign, dropping the title in a match where he puts over the new champion 100%, selling like crazy, getting in little offense, and putting him over clean in the middle of the ring in a near-squash like fashion.

We're talking about the Undertaker, right? When was the last time he was squashed?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I never said it would happen, just that it should happen.

[Promoter 0]

Sure 2000 brought about good matches, but the product was so stagnant that I quit watching the WWF altogether for some of it. The ratings may have been high, but that was due to momentum, history shows it takes a good year of dissatisfied fans before the ratings are significantly effected, which is why it took so long for raw to overtake nitro.

geniusMoment I think you speak for a lot of my friends with that post you made. In some ways it also pertains to me with the ups and downs since WM 15. I really think the "attitude" era campaign from 1997 and 1998 was contrasted with the "get it" campaign and that campaign kind of destroyed what was built with "attitude". Seriously, watch how things are presented in 1997 and 1998 compared to 1999 and 2000 and I can see how the momentum they had came to a crashing halt. They booked more smarkish in 1997 and 1998 and in 1999 and 2000 they went more action adventure. I think Vince did the same mistake in the 80's. He had Pro wrestling" as sport in 1985-1987 and had a lot of momentum. In 1988 and especially 1989 he changed the product to more Walt Disney and we know how things went after that.

 

In other words they get full of themselves and start doing things that did not get them to the dance. They stop listening to the market and the artificial sell outs and ratings from momentum blinded them to what would obviously have led to what we have today. The thing about 1999 and 2000 that slowed the downfall was the importing of wcw guys like Jericho, Big Show, and the Radicalz. I also agree about 2000 and the problems it did have. I know Trips gets a lot of praise for that year, but I think the wwe had no choice, but to push him the way they did. HHH was NOT over as a main eventer and they desperately needed one because Rock and Austin were not reliable at the time due to movies and injuries. Mick Foley was retiring. A lot of people say Hogan was in the right place at the right time, but I tend to think HHH was lucky to get that chance to do what he did. HHH was never a real draw, but it seems like he was in 2000 for the reasons I mentioned. He was also a fresh heel in the main event scene(Rock was the last heel year prior) at the time that broke tradition with a win over the babyface. HHH is using that leverage today to prove to Vince perhaps he is the mainstream star. The momentum Rock and Austin gave the wwe in 1998 and 1999 has disappeared and the problems are more glaring now without wcw to laugh at from the fans.

 

2002 is a very telling year. Honestly take HBK and the nWo returns from the wwe and what was there for the wwe to really pull in interest if everything in the booking stayed the same? The booking and writing philosophy of 1999 and post SummerSlam 2000(although I did start to hate some things prior to that event) started to haunt them. I swear the action adventure/hollywood crap is what brought the wwe down more than anything else. When the nWo and even HBK returned the fans were interested. It's what they did that turned people away. The same with the acquisition of wcw. They are cutting wrestlers, but I also think they should cut some of those damn people on creative too including his daughter.

[Black Lushus 0]

*sigh* the thing is folks, Vince ain't gonna change for us, so why gripe all day over it...what he's doing is right, in his mind and if it still makes more than enough money, he will not change it...best thing we can all do is stop watching/going....that ain't gonna happen...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

*sigh* the thing is folks, Vince ain't gonna change for us, so why gripe all day over it...what he's doing is right, in his mind and if it still makes more than enough money, he will not change it...best thing we can all do is stop watching/going....that ain't gonna happen...

Is this a bannable offense?

 

I noticed a dramatic change in storylines around Survivor Series 2000-time, I didn't even read on the internet at the time that Steph was in charge and it was obvious some dumbass was.

[bob_barron 0]

I remember they didn't announce a single match for Survivor Series till like a week before the show.

 

And then for Armageddon they just hedged their bets and did a Hell in a Cell for no reason.

 

They also ran Regal v. Holly two months in a row- I don't think anyone even realised that

[Promoter 0]

Actually, I think the wwe has been trying to change, but it's half assed or done stupid. I mean they have lost a multitude of fans and not just the hardcores who are left. They have been trying with stuff like Benoit and Eddie as champion. They have brought back the old school Taker. There was increased work-rate in matches. They brought back the nWo. They brought back Flair and Hogan. They have been doing things, but I honestly think they have lost how to execute things to keep fans stayed tune or its pure politics backstage that is screwing things up. Then there are things they think fans want which is obvious not wanted such as death in wrestling like Paul Bearer where they had to do damage control. JR once said that the company is not connecting with the audience like it once did and that is the bottom line. The core business is NOT doing gangbusters in the U.S. Hell, the internet is nowhere as hot or big as it was during the boom era. People have stopped caring. It's just that the audience of wrestling is so big that there is still enough fans to keep it going in bad times. That is how it survived 10 years ago. I truly believe most fans who complain about things don't do it purposely. It's just they want to believe things can get better because it has happened before. I think the wwe is trying with things like the WM XX phone polls to see why people have stopped caring and even asking Patterson to give his insight why raw is struggling a few weeks back. The thing is you are right about Vince probably believing what he is doing is right. The problem is that I don't think Vince is THAT concerned with the money aspect as before because he has a public company. 1996 and 1997 was a different beast with his family's business and life on the line fighting for the entertainment audience. I mean having Triple H as champion since his return from injury in 2002 and having his daughter as head of creative can't be making him money like he was before and if it was all about the money he would have demoted them already.

[Precious Roy 0]

If you kill the split, all the top guys will continue to be top guy; HHH, Taker, HBK, Angle, etc. The main difference at that point would be they would all have a bunch of new match-ups that would seem fresh.

 

Well, it would probably shake down like that due to WWE politics, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

If you have all of the top guys pre-existing and established during the brand extension experiment (HHH, Angle, Undertaker, HBK, Benoit, Eddie, Jericho, Orton, JBL, Batista, Edge, Booker T, Cena at the moment) you can't possibly have them all at the top at the same time, so you do what both WCW and WWF failed to do coming out of the boom, USE THEM TO MAKE NEW STARS! You only need two guys at the top at any given time, say HHH and Cena is the top feud du jour for arguments sake, it allows you to run programs such as Angle v. Benjamin, HBK v. Haas, Undertaker v. Batista, Jericho v. Carlito Colon etc. etc. Programs like that are the only way to elevate guys to the next level, and right now the ratio of established talent to on the cusp talent doesn't allow for that to happen, the brand split just doesn't offer enough depth to recover from the mistakes that have been made.

[David Blazenwing 0]

The only way WWE is EVER going to get back over with the fans is to bring the F back.

 

Seriously... how many people would mark out if a live RAW came on the air adorned with the scratch WWF logo?

[strummer 0]

Kreski booked for most of 2000. Steph took over just before Unforgiven 2000. Just before the love triangle storyline got fucked.

Stephanie joined the writing team in Sept. 2000 as just another member but had complete control starting at Survivor Series 2000

[jester 0]

The only way Undi being WWE Champion would be good for Smackdown is if he has a short reign, dropping the title in a match where he puts over the new champion 100%, selling like crazy, getting in little offense, and putting him over clean in the middle of the ring in a near-squash like fashion.

"I'm not feeling it."