Dave Meltzer comments on WWE's problems

[Black Lushus 0]

Then they did something wrong, perhaps Vince could learn from those mistakes and NOT kill Raw/Smackdown...even if they didn't go 3 hours for Raw, 4 hours a week is more than plenty to showcase those guys...as long as they cut down on the non-wrestling ( i know, that's a pipe dream)...

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

If Vince could learn from his mistakes, the XFL would never have happened.

[Guest Loss]

And if Vince learned from his mistakes, wrestling wouldn't be cyclical, because he'd learn his lesson about creating new stars when business is hot, not when it's down.

[Black Lushus 0]

what are you talking about, that was his mistake and he fixed it by closing it out after the first season...he wanted to try something, it failed...happens to everyone...and don't say "well what about the bodybuilding fed", it's two different things...now if he started the XFL again and failed, then we can call him stupid...

[Guest MikeSC]

If Vince could learn from his mistakes, the XFL would never have happened.

Not exactly fair. His WBF --- an idiotic idea that I still don't get how he planned on making money --- was viewed as being a "niche" sport. The XFL was football.

 

Honestly, if we was willing to work with the NFL, it would've done just fine. NFL could use a good minor league.

-=Mike

[Brett Favre 0]

People, without the brand split, there is almost NO chance of new guys reaching the top. You have HHH, UT, HBK, Angle, etc on top --- who in the hell will knock them off?

        -=Mike

That's something the WWE should know how to do by now. Each guy that you want to push to the top should face midcarders (Booker T, JBL, Rey, Flair, Christian)first, and eventually take their spot when they the midcarders are done, or they are ready. Each step to stardom shouldn't start by beating the HHH's and Angle. If the WWE can't do that right, well, they probably can't.

The WWE's problem is that HHH, UT, et al won't put people over. Actually, Hunter is INFINITELY more willing to put people over than UT.

 

The brand split doubles the chances of finding a break-out star.

 

Without the brand split, WWE would become WCW. A really big, talented mid-card with NO real chance of advancement. Too many of the WWE top draws have become absolutely impossible to deal with.

-=Mike

The thing is though, neither company tried pushing stars with a high talent of midcarders. For example, Young Star A takes on will never be a main eventer Rob Van Dam, or something like that. He can feud with those types of wrestlers before making the next step to the Benoits and Jerichos. Then to the HBKs and Angles. Then to the Takers and HHHs. Slowly while this happens, Young Star A takes RVD's spot, who retires, then Benoit's spot, then HBK's spot. Eventually becoming a main eventer. Instead of what we're getting today which is fighting the Mavens, then fighting the Takers. It's not believable.

[Guest Loss]

It would probably hurt the ratings, but help the buyrates if there were less marquee matches between name wrestlers on TV.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

It urkes me when Raw and Smackdown consistently use one or two full segments to show highlights from last week and/or a 5 minute dialogue session backstage. It sucks for the viewer at home who wanted to see a little action and especially for the one in the arena who has to feel like he paid $50 for a ticket to see the coming attractions. Pretty depressing.

 

At least WCW would fire up the B-roll during someone's entrance to get fans caught up on the current feud.

[Guest Loss]

A move they stole from Vince Russo, when he was doing CrashTV in 1999 in the WWF, actually.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

what are you talking about, that was his mistake and he fixed it by closing it out after the first season...he wanted to try something, it failed...happens to everyone...and don't say "well what about the bodybuilding fed", it's two different things...now if he started the XFL again and failed, then we can call him stupid...

My point is that every non-wrestling venture Vince has tried has failed. He knew that before the XFL and still went ahead with it. It'll be the same story with their proposed ventures into boxing, etc, that Shane talked about. Vince just cannot get it done outside of wrestling, but he just won't accept that. That is not learning anything.

 

Honestly, if we was willing to work with the NFL, it would've done just fine. NFL could use a good minor league.

 

That type of relationship would never have lasted, or worked, because it would require Vince to take on a subserviant role, and his ego would never allow that.

[Guest Loss]

Ok, I kinda think everyone needs to look at this either as a fan or as a promoter, but trying to do both at the same time is just going to end up accomplishing nothing. WWE has raised the bar far too high, and now the fans will never feel like they're getting enough, no matter how many big angles and great matches they're bombarded with. Slowing things down like they have has been a good thing, allowing the stories to take their time a little more. And squash matches are not supposed to be "entertaining", they're supposed to make you invest yourself in a character.

 

Only a few will probably understand this, but the fanbase shouldn't strive to be entertained constantly. It's the difference between watching Law And Order because you're interested in the storyline and watching Jerry Springer to see pull-apart brawls.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It would probably hurt the ratings, but help the buyrates if there were less marquee matches between name wrestlers on TV.

I totally agree. Hogan/Andre the Giant drew huge because they never faced each other. Today they would've already had 20 matches on live tv before a big PPV encounter. Same thing with Hogan/Warrior and Hogan/Savage. HHH has depleted a roster to the point where he has to have stars imported in just about 2 years.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Only a few will probably understand this, but the fanbase shouldn't strive to be entertained constantly. It's the difference between watching Law And Order because you're interested in the storyline and watching Jerry Springer to see pull-apart brawls.

You can't have peaks without valleys.

 

To put things into a wrestling perspective, think of it like having an 8 match card, and having all of them ***** classics. By the third one, the crowd are going to be burned out, and it won't matter how good the rest of the card is, because the crowd will be too drained to cheer or clap or do anything.

[Guest Loss]

That's why the Godfather was perfect in the opening match position in 2000. He'd deliver a bad match, but pop the crowd huge and the rest of the night, the roster wouldn't have to kill themselves trying to top the opener.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm a solutions man, so here goes:

 

1) WWE, recognize that your writing is pure shit. THUS, schedule one hour of in-ring action. You HAVE the workers to make THAT work. Why put the focus on writing and promos when your writers are pure crap and few of your guy can cut a promo to save their lives?

 

2) Jesus, there is ZERO reason for Val to be a completely un-over jobber. No reason whatsoever. He's a damned good worker who can get over when given the opportunity. Have him simply become Sean Morley, ass-kicking Libertarian if you think Val Venis, porn star, won't work.

 

You have way too much too talent to have such a crappy tag division on both shows. Create random teams --- actually make them serve as teams for a long while --- and use them to make the tag belts something people might give a damn about. Take two people and make them a tag team, not "random tag challengers for the moment".

 

And, much as I love Benoit, there is no excuse for one man being able to defeat the World Tag Champs by submission, by himself.

 

3) Realize you're not far from having TNA's problem. Almost nobody is a big draw. HHH doesn't seem to draw people right now. Undertaker isn't drawing. Nobody is big enough, outside of maybe the Rock, to deserve to be treated as a sacred cow. Why are you even considering giving UT the belt on SD? Has he drawn a dime in years now? Why was the belt taken off of Benoit, since Orton clearly wasn't ready (which nobody thought he would be when given the strap) and now you have nobody to challenge Hunter.

 

4) Turf Jerry Lawler. Ross is hardly my fave, but Lawler is a miserable commentator.

-=Mike

[JoeDirt 0]

Judgment Day, a Smackdown show, is 5/22 in Minneapolis at Target Center. Bad Blood, a Raw show, is 6/12 in Detroit. Great American Bash, a Smackdown show, is 6/26 in Las Vegas, so that's three shows in seven weeks and I expect them to achieve a new bottom point at that time.

Wow, that's a lot of PPVs in a short time period.

 

And weird to see that Unforgiven will be Smackdown and No Mercy and Armageddon will be RAW next year.

[JoeDirt 0]

I also can't believe Meltzer suggested Orton and Shaq vs. HHH and Kobe. That's just funny for some reason.

[Guest Quik]

Y'know, I don't think there was a thing on there that hasn't been said on this board at least 5 times over.

 

You guys wanna start selling a newsletter? We could make a fortune.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I don't think anyone suggested that the WWE should sign Kobe and Shaq, and I don't think anyone called Randy Orton a great wrestler.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

People, without the brand split, there is almost NO chance of new guys reaching the top. You have HHH, UT, HBK, Angle, etc on top --- who in the hell will knock them off?

-=Mike

I remember when Angle was apart of the Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho category.

 

Undertaker and HBK are essentially part timers now. They are rarely on tv.

 

Triple H plays an important role as leader of Evolution.

 

Here's a tremendous example:

 

This Survivor Series match on the RAW side. Why the heck is Maven in the main event? He's never even come close to sniffing the main event, why is he suddenly doing it now? Its not exactly like the company has an influx of hot young stars looking to break out. If they had one brand, they could bring someone else from Smackdown (like Charlie Haas 9 who HAS been in the main event) to fill that spot. Putting Maven in that spot shows how thin they are right now.

 

Hastily turning Booker T face shows they didn't have anyone else to feed to JBL.

 

They really don't have enough viable stars to make this thing work. People skip all of the house shows, tv tapings, and even PPVs for this reason.

[Promoter 0]

Okay, since my namesake is promoter I'll try to chime in here......and will dissect what I believe Meltzer is completely blind to.

 

First the tv shows and the ratings not being what it was in 1999 which a lot of critics always allude to. Let's look at WHY the ratings were through the roof in 1999 without looking at it from a creative standpoint which is always subjective. Monday Night Raw use to go head to head with Nitro and that was the only show that was an A show for the wwe. Fans use to be able to get hyped up about seeing monday night raw. Sunday Night Heat use to be the show that set up angles for monday night raw and it gathered strong ratings and a strong lead in for ppv shows. This forumla was the best forumla for the company that garnered super buy rates in early 1999 as well as super ratings. The wwe still had the lesser shows like "wwf superstars" that use to be sunday night heat of its day. Saturday Night's Main Event use to be the equivalent of monday night raw in the 80's. Again, a big angle would happen on SNME and wwf superstars would be the lead in show for the ppv card. There were always two shows that built up to the ppv shows in both eras. The overexposure of the product came with the addition of smackdown. The early days of smackdown gave away a lot of hot stuff that would have been given to ppv shows. Smackdown came on the air in August 1999 and by the summer of 2000 the wwf was at a peak where things started to slide with the love triangle and the whodunit? angle with Austin. Just like Thunder adding Smackdown was overexposure. As Meltzer stated some within the company saw the troubles ahead because of this. The ratings and interest started to dwindle after only a year of smackdown on the air. The formula used in 1998 and early 1999 was gone as you did not have to watch the ppv shows since raw and smackdown were forced to give ppv quality entertainment weekly. The tv shows started to become more important.

 

The decline of the new formula was stalled because of the jumps of Benoit and company and the wwf increasing the talent and waulity of matches in 2000. I wonder how things would have went if they did not get those guys in that year in the fashion they did. There might have been more "cute writing" to cover up the weakness of the midcard. I think the wwf even knew that a decline was on its way which is why they turned Austin heel in 2001 and probably one of the many reasons to purchase wcw. The problem really started to snowball when the wwf was still promoting things like there was a monday night war by rushing the angles like wcw's invasion and Austin's heel turn. However, it is wise to take note that maybe just maybe the timing was wrong as Austin turned heel at a time where fans really had nothing to cheer for with wcw's downfall and Rock leaving for hollywood. I think that year the wwe did too many mistakes and rushed things such as wcw's arrival in storylines. If you really look at everything in that year that was the year creative completely screwed up beyond repair.

 

Austin's heel turn was a brilliant move imo(although the creative part could have been stronger), but he was not used in that role to make a new superstar babyface. He should have been used like Andre The Giant in 1987. Austin was on his last legs at the time and everyone knew it, but yet they did not book him for that one big downfall and comeuppance. They also screwed up the highly anticipated Rock/Austin rematch from WM 17. I think rushing the wcw stuff and having Rock face off with Booker did a lot of damage. Booker the champion of the competition comes in to get humilated by Rock and Rock does not get revenge for what Austin and Vince did to him at Mania 17. The nonsense booking took over for good there. Austin should have been used to elevate guys like Jericho, Benoit, Booker T, etc since he was in a heel position as champion. Triple H again was bad timing as I think that was the true time he could have taken advantage of being a super face. I think the night after Mania the fans were asking for it, but he stayed heel and since then the fans don't trust Hunter in a face role. You just can't trust his character. The Rock could have also springboarded into greater stuff if he was not wrapped up with hollywood in an Austin feud for the summer. Just to tie things up the wwe had Austin and Rock singing together killing off the heat from WM 17 where I believe the peak of interest was at its best since WM 15.

 

The booking in 2001 and 2002 has caused all the problems of today and the overexposure from fall 1999 to fall 2000 has caused guys like Val Venis to be pigeonholed as guys who are not worthy of superstar status. The reason all of this went forward without detection or more like worry is that the business was hot from the comeback in 1998. I mean there is a bunch of stuff such as HHH's return and how they booked his feud with Jericho. Instead of making it mean something just as Austin/Rock the company played it more along the lines of "sports entertainment" than pro wrestling in that there were comedy skits and hollywood aspects. The problem with this is that the guys who got over such as Triple H, Rock, and Austin were already seen as legit pro wrestlers because how they were booked in 1998 and 1999. When guys like Jericho and Angle got to the top they were booked like jokes and jokes don't draw. Benoit was kind of getting over this year because he's kind of old school and not a comedy act. His problem is that he was pigeonholed from his days in 2000-2002 when he did have a lot of heat coming from wcw.

 

Then you got the brand extension and the original purpose of this was to create new stars. It was also a neccessity with all the talent that came over from the wcw acquisition. It was needed to give all the star power equal time. You had guys like Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Austin, HHH, the nWo, under the umbrella. Historically, having all these stars under one roof creates a problem and the brand extension fixed this problem by giving these men their time to shine as the big stars by being on separate brands. Right now the brand extenstion really serves no purpose as there isn't a plethora of big name stars that Vince needs to cater to. It is kind of an excuse that they need two shows to give time to create new stars. I talked above how they made new stars in 1998 and 1999 under a different system that had also worked in the 80's. They could use the two shows and alternate the stars accordingly without limiting matches and storylines. The good thing is that they can keep the stars away from each other that they don't want fighting. Okay, going off the sunday night heat-raw-ppv model the wwe can use perhaps raw as the flagship show(which they still promote) with the big title matches and have smackdown be sort of like sunday night heat circa 1999. I agree that they should unify the titles and go back to what was used all along, but Vince would have to put down the law and have certain guys job that need to job and cut down on all the politicking done by guys like UT.

 

What to do with the current b-shows? You have them become worlds of their own. This is where Vince can mold the lower and newer talent by having them get over, so when he plucks them away from the shows they will be somewhat credible and over. It's a sort of system that existed for Vince Mcmahon in the last boom eras where he would steal ideas and talent from ecw/wcw and pluck them into his company. They would get over and Vince would know their strengths and weaknesses and bring them on the "A" and "B" shows of raw and smackdown. This would help with fan perception as well and stop stuff like Maven jobbing on Heat last month and then all of a sudden appear as a main eventer this month(although it could have something to do with Tough Enough on smackdown). That's it for now as I don't want this to be too long winded

[UZI Suicide 0]

All these solutions are ridiculous, picking apart all these things the WWE needs to do.

 

Look, the fact is, they need one thing, and that's a big megastar. They need a Hogan/Austin/Rock. During the boom periods, everything but the main event storylines usually always sucked. I mean, put the mid-card shit that the WWE was throwing out back during Austin's run on TV and they might draw in the low 2's. The WWE just needs to find that one guy to bring wrestling back into another boom period.

 

Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.

[Guest MikeSC]

All these solutions are ridiculous, picking apart all these things the WWE needs to do.

 

Look, the fact is, they need one thing, and that's a big megastar. They need a Hogan/Austin/Rock. During the boom periods, everything but the main event storylines usually always sucked. I mean, put the mid-card shit that the WWE was throwing out back during Austin's run on TV and they might draw in the low 2's. The WWE just needs to find that one guy to bring wrestling back into another boom period.

 

Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.

I disagree. Kreski actually had decent storylines on several levels.

 

WWE DESPERATELY needs somebody to actually storyboard their storylines, since they seem to have a problem with being horribly inconsistent.

-=Mike

[Promoter 0]

I agree the wwe does need the one mega-superstar that the mainstream loves. I agree that the company did have holes during both boom periods. The thing is this. The wwe in those two boom periods were basically simple to follow and that was the whole point I was trying to make. They are trying to be too cute right now. Look at it from the time they started all of the hollywood stunts and "out there angles" post SummerSlam 2000. They had the big name stars such as Goldberg and the nWo and look how that turned out. It's more than simply having a guy to pull in the big numbers. If it was all that simple the wwe would have had the same format in 1998 to get Austin over as it did in the 80's to get Hogan over(it could be argued Hogan and Austin got the wwf over). The style and presentation are obviously different.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I disagree. Kreski actually had decent storylines on several levels.

 

WWE DESPERATELY needs somebody to actually storyboard their storylines, since they seem to have a problem with being horribly inconsistent.

-=Mike

Not to mention that his storylines weren't hard to believe. IIRC, most of his storylines had to do with the guys working in the same company, and in the same building. Nothing like Voodoo Booker T or anything like that. We all recognize that these guys work together, that they have locker rooms. The best thing is to play the personalities against each other. It's not hard.

[iliketurtles 0]

...Backlash is in Manchester? Nice. I'm there.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

I dont think ending the brand extension will automatically solve their problems, in a lot of ways it might make things worse.

 

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. And the initial end to the split and subsequent angle that went with it, would likely bump business artificially.

 

So you could get a year or so where the WWE would stick with the status quo and prevent another crop of stars from ever getting to that top level in the fans' eyes.

 

If we were guaranteed that the end of the split would mean, HHH, Taker, Angle and HBK all had to pick a new guy, and totally put them over in the right way, then I would say ending the split would be good. But otherwise, I think its just treading water.

 

The biggest problem I see with wrestling is that we've hit the edge of a cliff. When I grew up watching wrestling (in the early 80s) you rarely got to see the top stars at all, and seeing them wrestle one another was a major event (generally SNME or PPVs). The PPV business was new, and people seen all of them as a huge deal. The lack of top stars on TV lead people to seek out house shows in order to see those stars.

 

We all know where the business has went since then, to where we're at a point where PPVs and TV seem almost the same. I dont need to order a PPV to see a great wrestling match and there are plenty of big angles shot on TV. So why buy the PPVs?

 

You could say they should go back the other way, have more squash matches on TV, save stuff for PPV, but I dont think this is the type of thing you can go backwards on.

 

Overall I just see the biggest problem being that we've seen too much. Wrestling in the 80s was drastically different from the 70s, and as a result it got people talking. The wrestling in the mid 90s was totally different from that of the 80s, in a sense the product grew up with the audience. But what is that drastic change they could make with the product to get people talking again? I cant think of anything, and in all my travels on the internet(s), I haven't read one thing that I think would speak to anyone outside the hardcore fanbase.

 

Hopefully someone comes up with something, because I fear for wrestling's future if they cant/dont.

[geniusMoment 0]

Personally, the last time I really enjoyed WWF/E was the raw before Mania 15. I had loved the product from October of 96 until then, so its not like I am someone who hates the WWF/E no matter what.

Mania 15 was a bad show, I never thought it would, for all intents and purposes, signal the end of enjoying the WWF/E for me.

Since that time we had the stupid rehashed Corporate Ministry, the boring Austin-Vince story and the elevation of HHH. I really hated the product during the summer and fall of 99, Russo was losing his touch. In fact, the only moment that stands out as a great "wrestling moment" during the summer of 99 was the debut of Jericho, of course he was immediatly shuffled down into the mid-card.

Russo leaving was a shock, however that shock did not translate into excitement, instead we got the boring return of a hobbled mankind and the horrible British Bulldog featured prominently on exceedingly dull shows. I actually liked the Russo led WCW approach in the late fall of 99 better than the crap like Bossman-Show, Show as champ or Test fighting DX, those things were beyond horrible.

 

When Foley turned I thought it was extremely well done, and had high hopes the product was getting out of its funk, the radicals, taz and Angle also showed promise. The problem is, while Foley and HHH delivered everyone else on the roster stayed put. Sure 2000 brought about good matches, but the product was so stagnant that I quit watching the WWF altogether for some of it. What exciting angles did the WWF produce during this period? People were matched off like Angle-Taker for throwing milk on a bike and Jericho-HHH for no real reason. Then there was the never ending, no payoff, love triangle. Talk about crap, at least I had ECW then. 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.

 

Austin's return was a mess, they basically ruined it with that stupid angle culminating in that dumbass forklift car crash. Austin was then led to face Rock at Mania, the match drew because of past history, but the angle leading up to the match, which corner debra would be in sucked. Almost immediatly following mania the ratings began to fall, signalling the fans had been dissatisfied for some time, a ratings drop like that is not the result of one or two bad months.

 

Then we had the mess that was the invasion. Talk about crap. Somehow the WWF mangaed to screw up the single greatest opportunity ever, or was it? WCW was basically a dead brand when they bought it. In order for the angle to work WWF would have needed to have kept WCW seperate for months as a shane led show, not ever mentioned again after that final nitro. They should have used that timeslot to build WCW back into a powerhouse, then if they wanted to do the invasion do it. Anyway, there were way too many guys on the show, no one had any time to develop a character in depth, and the product was an abomination.

 

Since the invasion in has been the same crap, with basically the same names on top. It has taken 5 years but I no longer watch WWE, and probably will never again as I do not see any changes ever occuring no matter what. Its sad, its just too damn bad that the monday night wars are over. I just wonder what would have happened if Kellner had let WCW stay on Turner, as Bischoff would have been owner.

[JoeDirt 0]

What time period did Kreski book for? When did Steph take over?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

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