Raw rating

[Guest rawmvp]

It doesn't matter, Fishysawa.

 

WWE is inherently a violent business. Violence and incessant physical altercations -- especially when it is an integral part of a show -- has an intrinsic inability to wholly appeal to children. Sure, there will be some children who watch it, but from a marketing standpoint, unless WWE starts appealing exclusively to little kids, they won't regain the prosperity that they enjoyed in the late 90's.

 

Not only that, but times have changed.

[Jericholic82 0]

who cares if the ratings are low? does it really affect us the fans? or are some just afraid to like wrestling when it isnt the "in" thing. WWE isn't goign anywhere cuz they are the only game in town (well untill TNA gets on a real time slot)

 

That being said, I personally dont get the MNF thing. The only time I watch it is if the Giants are playing. I dont watch football just for FBs sake unless its the playoffs.

 

But thats just me

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You've been here since 02 and can't understand why we talk about ratings?

[fisticuffs 0]

Can you tell us what happened with you and that girl...and then go away?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I haven't been here that long. Can someone let me in on this?

[bob_barron 0]

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...opic=43030&st=0

 

rawmvp torments me by not revealing what happened.

[Guest Fishyswa]

"WWE is inherently a violent business. Violence and incessant physical altercations -- especially when it is an integral part of a show -- has an intrinsic inability to wholly appeal to children."

 

Yeah, because it was Hulk Hogan's awesome color scheme that made me like him, not him beating people up. Violence is what grabs a kids attention, always has been always will be. If you want to make some case that it was all the beer that made Austin popular with kids and not the stunners, I'd love to hear it.

 

"Sure, there will be some children who watch it, but from a marketing standpoint, unless WWE starts appealing exclusively to little kids, they won't regain the prosperity that they enjoyed in the late 90's."

 

They've never tried to appeal to kids and yet always have. That won't be changing anytime soon.

 

"Not only that, but times have changed."

 

Times, sure, kids, no.

[bob_barron 0]

It doesn't matter, Fishysawa.

 

WWE is inherently a violent business. Violence and incessant physical altercations -- especially when it is an integral part of a show -- has an intrinsic inability to wholly appeal to children.  Sure, there will be some children who watch it, but from a marketing standpoint, unless WWE starts appealing exclusively to little kids, they won't regain the prosperity that they enjoyed in the late 90's.

 

Not only that, but times have changed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hook them young, hook them for life. Plus kids will buy the merch, get hooked on the angles and it will be a family show.

 

But acting like one RAW means Cena should get the hook makes you stupid.

[Guest rawmvp]

Most kids grow out of wrestling when they get to their teen years.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Cena has proven he could be over and somewhat entertaining (on Smackdown).  On Raw he is over and not entertaining.  I think the not entertaining part matters much more BTW.  He hasn't proven he could be anywhere close to "the man" or run with the ball yet.  Is he closer than anyone of being "the man"?  No, I would say Christian for instance is closer (if WWE actually pushed him) because he proved himself that he can be more entertaining.  Same with Carlito (more entertaining despite his "workrate" issues) and heel HBK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Waitasec - I like Christian & all, but the guy's been portrayed as a jobber since the final TLC match he was in. How can he be closer to being "the man"?

[Guest rawmvp]

"WWE is inherently a violent business. Violence and incessant physical altercations -- especially when it is an integral part of a show -- has an intrinsic inability to wholly appeal to children."

 

Yeah, because it was Hulk Hogan's awesome color scheme that made me like him, not him beating people up. Violence is what grabs a kids attention, always has been always will be. If you want to make some case that it was all the beer that made Austin popular with kids and not the stunners, I'd love to hear it.

 

"Sure, there will be some children who watch it, but from a marketing standpoint, unless WWE starts appealing exclusively to little kids, they won't regain the prosperity that they enjoyed in the late 90's."

 

They've never tried to appeal to kids and yet always have. That won't be changing anytime soon.

 

"Not only that, but times have changed."

 

Times, sure, kids, no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Most kids are into much tamer stuff than wrestling. Not only that, but most parents detest wrestling and wouldn't let their children near that stuff.

[bob_barron 0]

Most kids grow out of wrestling when they get to their teen years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's why it's better to hook them young so they will be fans for life, instead of when they are teens and it's a fad that will grow out of it.

 

But this low rating was not Cena's fault at all.

 

rawmvp: Knowledge of all families

[Guest Fishyswa]

Which is exactly why they're into it, rawmvp.

 

Were you ever a kid at some point in your life?

[Guest fanofcoils]

Cena has proven he could be over and somewhat entertaining (on Smackdown).  On Raw he is over and not entertaining.  I think the not entertaining part matters much more BTW.  He hasn't proven he could be anywhere close to "the man" or run with the ball yet.  Is he closer than anyone of being "the man"?  No, I would say Christian for instance is closer (if WWE actually pushed him) because he proved himself that he can be more entertaining.  Same with Carlito (more entertaining despite his "workrate" issues) and heel HBK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Waitasec - I like Christian & all, but the guy's been portrayed as a jobber since the final TLC match he was in. How can he be closer to being "the man"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I said if WWE actually pushed him.

[Guest Fishyswa]

Christian doesn't have the look, or the abundance of skill on the stick to be "the man".

 

People forget, as good as Rock was on the mic, if he didn't have his look, he wouldn't be the The Rock. So for Christian to be "the man" he would not only have to be better than the Rock, but pretty far beyond.

[Guest rawmvp]

This whole "hook them for life" philosophy is BS. Most kids grow out of wrestling by the time they're 13. Teens grow out of wrestling by the time they go off to college.

 

Now, somewhere in all of that is people like you and I who have an unmitigated, undeterred passion for wrestling. But believe me, people like you and I are not the norm. Lifelong wrestling fans are very rare, constitute the minority, and most often than not, turn out to be smarks. And if you believe WWE, smarks AKA the hardcore fans aren't worth pandering to.

[Guest rawmvp]

I never said it was Cena's fault. He's just not good enough to sustain or increase the viewership. Lots of that blame doesn't go to Cena either; it goes to Vince for tempering the character that galvanized the audience in 2003. For instance, when was the last time we saw Cena rap?

[bob_barron 0]

First RAW he was on.

 

The rapping was midcard and had grown stale. I'm glad he stopped it.

[Guest Fishyswa]

" And if you believe WWE, smarks AKA the hardcore fans aren't worth pandering to."

 

Dude, WWE.com is practically a new site, the Ross Report was brought back because of DEMAND, and Matt Hardy, unless this was a work from go, was given his job back just to pander to "smarks".

 

You really seem pretty out of touch with what's happening at the moment.

[Guest rawmvp]

The rapping set him apart. Without it, he's just another Rock/Stone Cold knockoff.

[Guest Brian]

How about they just abort RAW as a whole, since the whole show pulled that rating?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im so glad I got my tivo..the ability to record 2 shows (RAW and Prison Break in HD) while I watch the football game makes things a lot easier.

[Guest rawmvp]

You're telling me, that on that episode of RAW, when Lita and Edge had their fake wedding and Matt Hardy's music blared over the speakers, the crowd eruption could be attributed to smarks? Come on. Perhaps some of the smarks got the chants going (but if you believe that markish fat girls frequent Hardy's website, which I do, then it's not implausible to say that the marks had a lot to do with it), but it was the marks who herded together and brought him back.

 

The Ross Report is all bullshit, and contains the same rhetoric we heard back in 2002...like "I'd like to see the cruiserweights being given a more prominent role..blah blah blah" Or, "How about those Oklahoma Sooners?" Or "Chris Masters is the next superstar, bah gawd." Same bullshit, different year.

 

What about WWE doing away with "Confidential" or deciding to avoid all smarkish allusions in their future DVD's? Sure doesn't seem like WWE covets the smarks aka hardcore fans aka lifelong fans.

[CBright7831 0]

What game was playing the night RAW beat MNF in the ratings?

[Guest rawmvp]

Oh, and assuming that smarks had a lot to do with bringing Matt Hardy back, what does WWE do?

 

They bury him. Big Time.

 

Nice to know they care what we think; in fact, they become irate when we go against their precious, scheduled plans. For instance, Meltzer said this recently on the WrestlingClassics board, "Houston and Toronto are where they can make the most money live, but they don't want Toronto for Mania because the crowd will steal the show from them."

 

Toronto is always a guaranteed sellout, and was single-handily responsible for making WM 18 and SS 04 fun shows, but that's how WWE shows their appreciation for anyone (smart fans) who even tries to send a message to Vince about his product.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Not all lifelong fans are smarks...

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I don't know what's worse: any of Cena's raps post-WM XX, or this new interview style where he screams so loud and so fast that you can't understand what he's saying (the faux "bass" he adds to his voice is bad enough), and the cameraman shaking the camera for "effect", which only causes nausea. There's a reason he didn't get mic time for the last 3 weeks of the Jericho feud.

[Guest rawmvp]

Unless you don't have access to a computer, you pretty much are.

 

Even Bill Freakin Simmons has become a smark, after being a fan for so long. It's practically inevitable.

 

Anyway, here's a post from James Beard on WrestlingClassics expounding upon why guys like Cena or even Batista won't have any lasting impact like their predecessors did. It's a great read:

 

"To carry Gery's point a little further, Hogan and Flair spent their championship years under different philosophies.....Ric became champion during the territory days when it was traditional to have long term heel champions. A babyface might hold a title for a short time, but typically the belts were worn by heels....Flair's job was also much different in that he was required, as most champions of that time were, to go from promotion to promotion and make the top guy in that territory (or whomever they were wrestling) look good, even when they were losing to him or not quite winning in some cases....So, winning was not the point, it was drawing fans in various arenas and making the NWA and himself as much money as possible.....Wins were secondary if not almost totally unimportant....I remember Al Perez telling me once that since he'd won the WCCW title, he hadn't won a match...That's the way it worked.

 

Hogan's reign in WWF, on the other hand, was based on his meeting the challenge of various opponents and coming out on top so that his popularity and, in turn, marketing level was maintained....Different jobs for two different champions....You simply can't compare these two guys without understanding those different approaches to the business....

 

And Matt, you are exactly right that most guys in the territory days reached their primes in their 30's and even some in their 40's simply because it takes a number of years to develop and become truly efficient and fluid as a professional wrestler...for most.....The guys these days, unfortunately, will never get to progress in the way it was once common and they'll not have the experienced talent to teach them and work with them while they learn. It's gone and nothing is going to change that in my opinion....

 

We may as well get used to the idea that most guys will have relatively short careers in the wrestling business and very few will have the traits necessary to become the kind of long term icons in the business that Hogan, Austin, Flair, etc. have been simply because they'll never have the time or necessary skilled influences that's needed to develop those traits....It's just gone and I don't see how it can come back anytime soon....

 

For today and the farseeable future, wrestlers will come in and burn out relativley quickly, leaving little or nothing of substance behind other than a quick moment of fame...just like the cheap little pops they get on today's TV, they will be bland, meaningless pop stars for a short time and most folks won't remember them shortly after they're gone from sight.....In 5-10-15 years, you aren't going to have guys longing for the good old days of wrestling back in 2005 like some of us think of the business as it was even as little as 10 years ago...."

[Guest Brian]

Unless you don't have access to a computer, you pretty much are.

 

Even Bill Freakin Simmons has become a smark, after being a fan for so long. It's practically inevitable.

 

Anyway, here's post from James Beard on WrestlingClassics expounding upon why guys like Cena or even Batista won't have any lasting impact like their predecessors did. It's a great read:

 

"To carry Gery's point a little further, Hogan and Flair spent their championship years under different philosophies.....Ric became champion during the territory days when it was traditional to have long term heel champions. A babyface might hold a title for a short time, but typically the belts were worn by heels....Flair's job was also much different in that he was required, as most champions of that time were, to go from promotion to promotion and make the top guy in that territory (or whomever they were wrestling) look good, even when they were losing to him or not quite winning in some cases....So, winning was not the point, it was drawing fans in various arenas and making the NWA and himself as much money as possible.....Wins were secondary if not almost totally unimportant....I remember Al Perez telling me once that since he'd won the WCCW title, he hadn't won a match...That's the way it worked.

 

Hogan's reign in WWF, on the other hand, was based on his meeting the challenge of various opponents and coming out on top so that his popularity and, in turn, marketing level was maintained....Different jobs for two different champions....You simply can't compare these two guys without understanding those different approaches to the business....

 

And Matt, you are exactly right that most guys in the territory days reached their primes in their 30's and even some in their 40's simply because it takes a number of years to develop and become truly efficient and fluid as a professional wrestler...for most.....The guys these days, unfortunately, will never get to progress in the way it was once common and they'll not have the experienced talent to teach them and work with them while they learn. It's gone and nothing is going to change that in my opinion....

 

We may as well get used to the idea that most guys will have relatively short careers in the wrestling business and very few will have the traits necessary to become the kind of long term icons in the business that Hogan, Austin, Flair, etc. have been simply because they'll never have the time or necessary skilled influences that's needed to develop those traits....It's just gone and I don't see how it can come back anytime soon....

 

For today and the farseeable future, wrestlers will come in and burn out relativley quickly, leaving little or nothing of substance behind other than a quick moment of fame...just like the cheap little pops they get on today's TV, they will be bland, meaningless pop stars for a short time and most folks won't remember them shortly after they're gone from sight.....In 5-10-15 years, you aren't going to have guys longing for the good old days of wrestling back in 2005 like some of us think of the business as it was even as little as 10 years ago...."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rebuttal: Rock, Austin

[Guest rawmvp]

Austin languished for 8 years before he made it big, and Rock, well, being a third-generation wrestler and growing up in the business will make up for a lot, including not being an in-ring competitor for very long...as opposed to someone else who will need many years in the business before he finally "gets it."

[justcoz 0]

It's ironic that people are pointing to John Cena "not being over" as the reason for RAW losing ratings to MNF when pretty much every NFL game that I watched on Sunday had at least one player doing the 'you can't see me' hand motion whenever they made a tackle, sack or big run.