Raw ratings lowest since 1998...

[Guest Caliban]

Raw drew a 3.91 rating this week, I believe this is the lowest since 1998 (with no excuses like the Dog Show, etc).

 

WWE really is turning into WCW, what with Hogan, Flair and the nWo around and seemingly involved in all the top angles, the name change which people don't like but the WWE can't do anything about, injuries to top stars, the list goes on.

 

The WWE is in crisis, but all they need to do is look to 2000 for answers. No old guys. Austin was out injured. So what did they do? Build up new stars like Angle, Benoit and Jericho, and put on great show after great show.

[Guest El Satanico]

Hopefully the fact that Raws ratings are actually taking a noticable drop off instead of staying steady will finally open the eyes of WWeee. Vince is going to have to realize that something needs to change.

 

This will pretty much answer the will he or won't he about Hogan losing the belt Sunday.

 

I've been saying it for 3 weeks now but Bradshaw's push will not continue much longer. The live fans still haven't been cheering for him (not counting canada who cheer everyone). And now the TV audience is rejecting him. It'll have to stop soon.

[Guest]

I've been saying it for 3 weeks now but Bradshaw's push will not continue much longer. The live fans still haven't been cheering for him (not counting canada who cheer everyone). And now the TV audience is rejecting him. It'll have to stop soon.

God, I hope it does stop soon!

Maybe the squash he received in that handicap match is a sign of things to come.

 

People are saying that he is having a match with X-Pac at Judgement Day. If this is true & he jobs, you know it's gotta be the end of the road for that "Hoss" *shudder*...

[Guest dpac]

i agree that the bradshaw push was worthless, but they went at it all the wrong way.  he should totally not be affiliated with the apa, and i think he would of worked better as a stan hansen type of heel, instead of the goofy backwards baseball cap wearing tough texan

[Guest]

I also think Bradshaw's push could have worked if he got out of the APA Gimmick. Why couldn't they have had him go nwo? Even with the APA his services supposedly went to the highest bidder, so why couldn't the "owner" open up his deep pockets and hire Bradshaw... instead of the worthless Booker T thing. People want Booker to be a face. So much for Vince listening to the fans.

 

The only way I could see the Booker T thing paying off long-term is if he gets to run a GOOD program with Austin. (Which doesn't mean jobbing clean to Austin in under 7 minutes on a pay-per-view)

[Guest starvenger]

Insert your own joke about the ratings "dragging"...

[Guest godthedog]

ratings are just gonna keep dropping until they:

 

take the title off hogan,

 

liquidate the new world older,

 

and hire some new writers to get a fresh angle.  a COMPLETELY fresh angle, something that will take the company in another direction.  the nWo era is dead, raw needs to stop pretending like it isn't.  the attitude era is dead, smackdown needs to stop pretending like it isn't.  vince has all the damn talent in north america, he just needs to use it properly.  take a top-tier guy who can reinvent himself (like jericho or trips), job austin cleanly to him, build the company around him.

[Guest]

But Hogan is a blue chipper!

[Guest Raven_Effect01]

ratings are just gonna keep dropping until they:

 

take the title off hogan,

 

liquidate the new world older,

 

and hire some new writers to get a fresh angle.  a COMPLETELY fresh angle, something that will take the company in another direction.  the nWo era is dead, raw needs to stop pretending like it isn't.  the attitude era is dead, smackdown needs to stop pretending like it isn't.  vince has all the damn talent in north america, he just needs to use it properly.  take a top-tier guy who can reinvent himself (like jericho or trips), job austin cleanly to him, build the company around him.

A true sign of another wrestling promotion folding, unless they get better writers, build up new stars and stop making them win with heavy interference and have them win cleanly over a top star like Austin, HHH, Undertaker, or Hogan, write better reasons for feuds(don't forget the shampoo commercial which was silly for the Booker T/Edge feud), and showcase more WRESTLING.  Otherwise, WWE is about to lie next to WCW in the grave if Stephanie doesn't step down soon from the creative team.

[Guest]

RVD and Undertaker were both idle last night.  Why couldn't they have wrestled each other or other people?  Why not use two of your top names???

[Guest]

Heyman --> Solving the problem or not?

[Guest RetroRob215]

A true sign of another wrestling promotion folding...

Give me a break.  The WWE is still doing much better than they were from 1990-1997, so why would they fold now?

[Guest dreamer420]

Because for some reason some wrestling fans on this board would love it if the wwe went under.  I don't understand why though, because then they would have nothing to bitch and flame about all day long.

[Guest cabbageboy]

Man, the WWF is nowhere near as good as they were in like 1992 or 93.  If you watch some early Raw shows they are fabulous, despite the overall direction of the company not being that great (Yoko with the title).  Some of my favorite matches came out of the early 90s.  The mid 90s sucked however.

[Guest dreamer420]

plus the internet wasn't big in 92 and 93.  it made wrestling more fun.

[Guest]

Because for some reason some wrestling fans on this board would love it if the wwe went under.  I don't understand why though, because then they would have nothing to bitch and flame about all day long.

It's simple: Smarts have hated Vince and the WWE since Vince turned the WW(F) from a pseudo-sport which at least made it seem real and had shows that concetrated 90% on wrestling, into a circus with gimmicks, chracters, and more concetration on storylines then wrestling thereby ignoring the workrate. If you want proof, look at the attitude era and how smarts hated the storylines and how there weren't many good wrestlers but since Russo was running things, it didn't matter, he concetrated on storylines.

 

For workrate freaks or smarts, they want their WCW, Stampede Wrestling, Puresou, Lucha Libre, and NWA.

[Guest]

It would be nice if they decided to have the other nWo members accidentally cost Booker matches and be pissed at him for losing, thus eventually turning him face and moving to the ME spot. Don't see it happening though.

[Guest RetroRob215]

Man, the WWF is nowhere near as good as they were in like 1992 or 93.

I agree with you to a certain extent.  The wrestling and overall product was better in 92-93, but the company itself was in pretty bad shape.  By that I mean house show attendenace, PPV buys, TV ratings, merchandise sales, popularity, and profit were all down.  Whereas now, the WWE sells a ton of merchandise, still gets pretty good PPV buys, and the ratings are better than they were before 97.  The house shows are probably worse off now than they were then, but that isn't a HUGE deal.

[Guest]

If anything, the WWF will be able to live on it's merchandising for a goodly while, as it sorts itself out through this Hogan/McMahon the perv BULLSHIT. And that's all that needs fixing, is junking Hogan and setting McMahon's head right (which includes getting Steph the F off the writing committee). No firing of new Net foci of hatred, people hated for no good reason, like Austin or Trips.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

Give me a break.  The WWE is still doing much better than they were from 1990-1997, so why would they fold now?

That's not true at all. The WWF started to get in a rut in '91, but things didn't really start hurting until '93 at the earliest. Also, had things gone just a little bit differently, the WWF probably would have (or SHOULD have) gone out of business. What's stopping them now? Ratings are lower than ever, no one is drawing, and all the signs WCW showed before going out of business are more apparent than ever in the WWE. It baffels the mind how people can pretend that nothing is wrong. Bob Ryder and Mark Madden acted like nothing was wrong with WCW, and look where they are now.

 

Jesus people, wake up already.

[Guest]

And that's all that needs fixing, is junking Hogan and setting McMahon's head right (which includes getting Steph the F off the writing committee).

Hmmm, I like that.

 

I think I've come up with a new slogan for bigger, better brighter tomorrow:

 

WWE:  Get The Steph Out.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

For workrate freaks or smarts, they want their WCW, Stampede Wrestling, Puresou, Lucha Libre, and NWA.

Generalizations are a dangerous thing. Why would "workrate freaks" watch WCW? Was I missing all the **** matches taking place inbetween Golberg Vs. Meng and Lex Lugar Vs. Konnan? Where was the work-rate in Mike Sanders Vs. the Cat, anyway? WCW had bright spots, but it was doing the "shitty main event" stuff long before the WWF, and near the end of it's run, the amount of good wrestling was about on par with the money they were selling, and so on. Also, you failed to mention that after changing the WWF product to be completely centered around storylines, he went to WCW and did the same thing, accept it didn't even draw money.

 

Listen:

As someone who most people would probably consider a "smart", I'm not demanding the WWE to become entirely based around wrestling (not like all Lucha, Puro, NWA or Stampede is either) but when I can see them making the same decisions as a promotion that actually went out of business, I tend to think "hey, there could be something the matter here" and so on.

 

No one can say exactly what killed WCW, what decisions the WWF should have made (hindsight is 20/20 and all that) but frankly the product isn't enjoyable for me right now (seems like I'm not the only who feels that way), and it's not because of some innate hatred for Vince. I could do without the asinine pervert segments, but those aren't lossing the company nearly as much money as the retarded Hogan/Taker stuff, because that's actually expected get people to order the PPV and it's obviously not working judging by the ratings. Thus, I feel I have a right to complain, and complain I will.

[Guest caboose]

I know it's been run into the ground, but Vince has to realise that the wrestling industry is like a cycle.

Something BIG happens which the industry rides off for a few years, then the business drops off until something BIG happens again.

Hogan triggered the frist boom, then wrestling fell from grace.

Then a combination of the nWo and Austin kicked it off again, but for the last year or so, wrestling is falling again.

What Vince needs to realise is that he lucked out with Rocky.

The Rock's popularity kept up wrestling's popularity for another two years, but again the interest is dying.

Rather than telling me Brock Lesnar is 'the next big thing', Vince should organise the structure of his company so it doesn't almost go bust again like in 95-97.

Eventually the next big thing will show itself, and wrestling will prosper again.

[Guest Austin3164life]

The ratings are down because......Vince again is focusing A LOT on the big guys (Triple H, Undertaker, Big Show, Bradshaw, Hogan).  In 1996, he began to realize that maybe the smaller guys (Michaels, Hart, Austin) can actually carry a good show with great matches.  Once Angle, Jericho, and RVD get elevated, then we'll start to see some real changes.......

[Guest RickyChosyu]

I know it's been run into the ground, but Vince has to realise that the wrestling industry is like a cycle.

Something BIG happens which the industry rides off for a few years, then the business drops off until something BIG happens again.

Hogan triggered the frist boom, then wrestling fell from grace.

Then a combination of the nWo and Austin kicked it off again, but for the last year or so, wrestling is falling again.

What Vince needs to realise is that he lucked out with Rocky.

The Rock's popularity kept up wrestling's popularity for another two years, but again the interest is dying.

Rather than telling me Brock Lesnar is 'the next big thing', Vince should organise the structure of his company so it doesn't almost go bust again like in 95-97.

Eventually the next big thing will show itself, and wrestling will prosper again.

I don't buy this explanation. If wrestling has a cycle, then why did WCW go out of business? Is that part of the cycle? If wrestling has a cycle, then why did the WWF's business in the eighties and early ninties prosper for some eight years while the last profitable period the WWF had last around four? It just doesn't make sense.

 

If this theory is correct, Austin's miraculous rise to stardom in '96/'97, the screwing of Bret Hart, and the crippling of Shawn Michaels were all just part of a cycle, for if it wasn't for those key events happening, the WWF might never have come back. If anything, this theory is responsible for everyone overlooking the problems at hand and passing it off as some kind of sickness that hits every once in a while that turns the product to shit and makes everyone stop carring. Silly people.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

The ratings are down because......Vince again is focusing A LOT on the big guys (Triple H, Undertaker, Big Show, Bradshaw, Hogan).  In 1996, he began to realize that maybe the smaller guys (Michaels, Hart, Austin) can actually carry a good show with great matches.  Once Angle, Jericho, and RVD get elevated, then we'll start to see some real changes.......

Bret Hart won his first world title in '93, and HBK had been main-eventing since around that time period anyway. None of that stopped him from pushing Sid and Taker down the fans' throats until the couldn't take anymore, right?

[Guest RetroRob215]

It baffels the mind how people can pretend that nothing is wrong. Bob Ryder and Mark Madden acted like nothing was wrong with WCW, and look where they are now.

 

Jesus people, wake up already.

I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with the company.  Obviously there are problems, but the WWF is still more popular now than they from 1991-1997.  I don't care what anyone else thinks, that IS a fact.  

 

Merchandise revenue is still bringing in a ton of money because of the absurd prices the WWF charges.  I went to a house show last month, about 40% of all the people there had  bought a shirt.  One t-shirt costs $28, so if the WWF made quite bit of money that night.  The WWE is still bringing in more revenue than they were prior to the Austin 3:16 era.  Also, wrestling is still mainstream.  Even if the ratings are down, the WWE still has a ton of sponsorship deals.  The PPV buyrates are higher than they were prior to 1998/1999.  

 

So why exactly will the WWE by dying in the near future?

[Guest caboose]

What I'm saying is that just like all Sports teams and Businesses, thing are great for a while and then things gor wrong. Eventually something happens that returns the team or business to the top.

 

For Exa,ple Liverpool were the most dominant Club Football(soccer) team in the world during the eighties, off the back of three good managers and a small number of players who were truly brilliant. Going into the nineties, Liverpool faltered, and fell from the top(falling to the level of also-rans), the managers and players were constantly changed before they had a chance to prove their worth.

Now in the new millenium, on the back of a new generation of young players(Owen, Gerrard etc.) and a long term manager, Liverpool have climbed back into the top three and will continue to improve.

 

This is what will happen with the wwf and wrestling on the whole. It's not some kind of mystery explanation, it's just the nature of industry and popularity.

As for WCW, they hit it lucky once and the timing of theor demise was unfortunate, as they fell, the wwf rose.

When the wwf originally fell, WCW didn't really have a product that could kill the wwf.

[Guest RetroRob215]

I don't buy this explanation. If wrestling has a cycle, then why did WCW go out of business? Is that part of the cycle? If wrestling has a cycle, then why did the WWF's business in the eighties and early ninties prosper for some eight years while the last profitable period the WWF had last around four? It just doesn't make sense.

 

If this theory is correct, Austin's miraculous rise to stardom in '96/'97, the screwing of Bret Hart, and the crippling of Shawn Michaels were all just part of a cycle, for if it wasn't for those key events happening, the WWF might never have come back. If anything, this theory is responsible for everyone overlooking the problems at hand and passing it off as some kind of sickness that hits every once in a while that turns the product to shit and makes everyone stop carring. Silly people.

You are halfway right, the injuries and firings are not part of the cycle.

 

The cycle that he was talking about includes fan interest, overall popularity and fresh storylines and gimmicks.  Wrestling is just like every other fad.  It's gets really popular when the gimmicks are fresh and the storylines are innovative.  As time goes on the innovative storylines become the norm so people get sick of it and they find something else to watch.  Of course the hardcore fans stick around majority of the fans leave.  For a few years the company will go through many ideas until something finally sticks.  They will use this new gimmick and incorporate it into other facets of the show.  The mainstay fans will notice that the product is improving and will tell non-fans or old fans about it.  This new surge in popularity leads to another Golden Age where the booking is great and the characters are cool.  Rinse and Repeat...

 

The cycle doesn't have a set amount of time.  It just happens.  The same way bellbottoms, long hair, 70's rock, and even music have surges of popularity every few years, queitly lessen their impact on society and eventually come back.  That is the cycle.

[Guest goodhelmet]

OK, while the WWF may be doing better business than the early 90's (I don't even know if that's true but for arguments sake) the rules are different. One, they are accountable to the stockholders and when the stocks drop, the profits drops and the company loses money. They no longer have a working deal with USA. It's with mega-corp Viacom. If Viacom feels the ratings drop free-fall is detrimental to their profits, then they drop WWF programming, and as WCW will tell you, it will be hard as hell to find a tv timeslot. Hell, the WWF couldn't even get a decent timeslot when they bought WCW. So, don't think that the WWF can't go out of business. Enron wasn't supposed to go out of business. KMart wasn't supposed to go out of business. If Vince doesn't reinvent his product, he may be the former owner of the now-defunct WWE.