Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
humanoid92

New Touring Schedule Proposal

Recommended Posts

One of the many topics of discussion to come out of the whole Benoit ordeal is the subject of the grueling schedule that wrestlers go through. Believe it or not, this issue crossed my mind before last week. In many ways, the wrestling business still subscribes to old-school philosophies. The WWE is outdated in much of their thinking. I think it's time to overhaul the touring schedule and drastically cut back on the number of dates each guy must wrestle. Remember, the WWE has already cut down significantly compared to the way they used to operate. Back in the 80's there were three house show circuits, frequent double shots. We've heard many guys say they were on the road 300 days per year, wrestled in 100 cities for 80 days in a row without a day off, etc. That stuff doesn't really happen anymore. But there's still a lot of room for improvement.

 

And just for the record, I don't think Benoit did what he did just because he was overworked. Like many, I think there were a ton of factors that contributed to it. But one thing the incident did was shed a little bit of light on how overworked most wrestlers are. My proposal to lighten the workload is as follows.

 

First off, I've always thought ECW was a joke of a brand anyway and contributes little or nothing to the company; frankly, I'm surprised such a poor concept has lasted as long as it has. So I'm just going to use Raw and Smackdown in my example. If they are really hell-bent on keeping ECW around, that could easily be implemented into the new system as well.

 

I think wrestling must have some sort of an off-season to let these guys recover. This has been said many times before but it's true. For the amount of punishment these guys take, it's ridiculous that there is never any downtime. I propose a two-month off season for both brands that occur at separate times. Say the Raw circuit's off-season will encompass June and July, and Smackdown's is during September and October. This is just an example, but that is what I'd do. This way, both rosters are in full swing from November-May, including the January-April Wrestlemania stretch that is usually the most important time of the wrestling year.

 

In addition to giving workers a much needed break, I honestly think that something like this would make it easier for the viewers to sustain interest in the product as well. Two hours per week, per show, week after week, year after year gets so monotonous. It takes a lot to keep up. I can only speak for myself, but that's part of what contributed to me not watching as frequently over the years, and I'll bet there are others who will agree. My scenario gives the shows breaks mostly during the summer months, when, let's be honest, not a whole lot of people watch television anyway.

 

As for how this would effect the PPV schedule, I think it would add interest to otherwise lackluster PPVs. Under my proposed schedule, Raw could have a major PPV at the end of May, which would be their season-finale of sorts, their last show for the next 8-10 weeks. They'd probably gain a lot of extra buys if everyone knew it was the culmination for everything and the show wouldn't return until the beginning of August. Similarly, Summerslam at the end of August would have a new dimension added to it, as it would simultaneously become the big return PPV for Raw as well as the big season-finale type PPV for Smackdown.

 

Surivor Series, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania remain joint-PPVs, and are held while both tours are active. The annual draft could be held in early November, right after Smackdown returns from their break. That way the roster shake-up would happen just in time for the big run toward the Rumble and Wrestlemania, and everyone would be relatively fresh, with the Smackdown guys having just come off a break, and the Raw guys only having been back a couple months since the end of their break.

 

The actual TV shows during the break could be a fresh change of pace if done correctly. They could kind of be like the old studio shows but with more of a new vibe to them. For eight weeks there are tons of ways to fill time. They can show best-of matches, take time to profile certain guys that might otherwise not get enough air-time, have sit-down interviews, show taped promos, do new interviews "live via-satellite", show vignettes to hype new wrestlers, analyze the end of the "previous season", look forward to what to expect in the upcoming "season", do a news segment with what's been going on in the company, involve the Divas with the show somehow (maybe they might actually prove useful for once on a studio-type show), keep tabs on the current happenings on the other show, and maybe even have weekly PTI/Around the Horn type segments (you know you'd like to see Lawler, Maria, Finkel, and Arn Anderson debating ridiculous topics a la Around the Horn). There are plenty of ways to fill the time and they could actually turn out to be better than a lot of the shows they turn out now, even without live matches. And in the week or so leading up to the "season premiers" for the new seasons, you could even send a few guys out to do press junkets and make the media rounds to generate interest like other shows do.

 

Another thing I'd do is have Smackdown go live on Fridays (if not live, it could be taped every Friday a week in advance). I know they are hesitant to do the show live on Fridays. But this way, the Smackdown tour can be on the road Friday (TV) Saturday, Sunday (house shows and the occassional Sunday PPV) and the Raw tour can be on the road Saturday, Sunday (house shows and the occassional Sunday PPV) and Monday (TV). And if a Smackdown star has to appear on Raw or vice versa, you're just tacking one day onto either the beginning or end of their schedule. That's three days per week for each circuit. There are exceptions, like the international tours, but for that I propose this: each brand does one per year, and they alternate locations. For instance, in 2008 Raw goes to Europe, while Smackdown goes to Australia or Asia. In 2009, Smackdown goes to Europe and Raw goes to Asia. Raw's tour should be in April or May after Wrestlemania, as is tradition, and will be right before their well-deserved break. Smackdown's should come in November or December, right after their break.

 

The average guy will then have three shows per week to do. I suggest that the top guys that consistently appear on both shows and have the most demanding main event matches (Edge, Batista, Cena, Lashley, Taker, HHH, HBK, Booker, Mysterio, Benoit would have fit here, etc.) are given a reduced house show schedule. This is tricky, because they are the main draws, but if you rotate the schedule well enough, you can get by with giving each of them one week of house shows per month off (not all on the same week, of course). This will give them a rest so that once every four weeks their only responsibility is one TV show. That would mean once per month they go 10-11 days only having to do one TV show and nothing else. Of course, maybe this would also be a time better served to have them make the bulk of their personal appearances. Either way. The lower-tier guys should be entitled to some time off as well, but remember, the way the company is structured they're not the ones working 20 minute matches every night, having the toughest matches on the card, so they may not need such frequent breaks. The champion, and a guy like Cena that's the face of the company would have to be the exception to the rule. He probably wouldn't be able to take many (if any) house shows off, since he's the main draw. But that comes with the territory of being the main guy, kind of like the old days.

 

Under my proposal, guys like Edge, Benoit, Batista, etc. would do 4 TV's per month, 6 house shows per month, and I suppose 1 PPV per month for ten months per year. (with my new schedule I think 10 PPVs a month for the company would be a good total, but I guess that's a separate issue). There are the occasional extenuating circumstances like needing to appear on both TV shows or doing a longer house show run on an international tour, but that's it. Factor in one additional appearance on another TV show, and a personal appearance, and you've got about 12 dates you have to show up for per month, for 10 months. Basically, the MOST anyone would have to wrestle about 100 matches per year, which is still insane but a lot less than what has been expected in the past. The travel is still brutal, and 10 matches per month for 10 months in a row can still take a tremendous physical toll. But for the most part it cuts down on their time in the ring and is an improvement over what it's like now.

 

Now of course my proposal has problems and there are a lot of reasons why the WWE would be reluctant to go with something like it. First there's the issue of no Raw in the summertime. I'd be interested to see how house show business does in the summer compared to other times of the year. On one hand, that's when kids are out of school so maybe business increases. The other school of thought says everyone has better things to do in the summer anyway. Regardless, not having half of the total house show business around for four months out of the year would be a financial hit. As would the TV shows. They'd probably save money by doing the studio shows, but ultimately lose money without the attendance and live gates. And I don't know how the networks would feel about not having live shows (although every other show in the world goes into repeats so I can't imagine it would be that big of a deal). And forget about going down to 10 PPVs per year. That would be taking away tons of money.

 

Really, that's what it all comes down to: money. I know first and foremost it's a business and a lot of my suggestions simply aren't realistic with that goal in mind. But it's really a shame they can't do a better job of rotating their roster in and out so that they can provide everyone with a break fairly regularly. I'm not saying it would solve every problem. Guys would still get hurt and still have to do a ton of travelling. And the steroid/pain killer/drugs/alcohol epidemic would still be a separate issue that must be addressed. But I really feel that if they could find some way to lighten the workload, the travel, and the amount of abuse that these guys consistently put on their bodies, everyone involved would be a lot better off in the long run. There's got to be some way they can improve this aspect of the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the guys don't want breaks for the most part the less work the less money you make...if your downside isn't that high 2 months off is really bad for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will never be an off season because there's just too much money at stake. The wrestlers don't have a union either like most other professional sports, so it's just not ever going to happen.

 

Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wrestlers don't have a union either like most other professional sports, so it's just not ever going to happen.

 

This is probably the biggest problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial post is long enough as it is so I didn't include everything, but the general thinking is that under the new 10 month system the financial system would have to change as well. They have to go to a system that is more about downside guarantees rather than how frequently you wrestle. Right now they operate with a 12 month schedule. If they only operate with a 10 month schedule, everyone would be operating within that same schedule. It's not like other guys would be passing you up on the payscale if you're not wrestling as much because everyone would be wrestling less. Besides, the guys I talked about doing fewer house shows are the veterans/elite guys that do have huge downsides and are generally already taken care of financially.

 

It may take a complete overhaul on the financial structure of the WWE, but guys really should be paid a certain amount annually regardless of injury. If a baseball player spends two months on the DL, he still gets his whole annual salary. He doesn't have to worry about rushing back from a strained ligament after a week and risking throwing his arm out just so he continues to get paid. I know it's apples and oranges, and it's not a real sport, and there'll never be a union, and then you'll have people taking advantage of the system like in WCW, but once you're under WWE contract, there's got to be a happy medium where a guy doesn't have to wrestle 250 days a year just to feel like that's the only way he can make decent money. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, and I'm not saying Vince is going to be willing, but something has to be done to take better care of these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they'll never do that because to much guarenteed money to guys not working enough is what killed WCW.......And I just noticced you mentioned that....

 

Wrestlers have to much of a fear of losing thier spots to accept just not being around for a couple months. Especially younger guys trying to establish themselves........or a guy like Cena who right now they seriously can't afford to not have for 2 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Wrestlers don't have it rough today? When compared to the 'golden days' they might have it easier, though that is debatable, but to suggest that wrestlers don't have it rough today is complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll always be a rough business when you make it to that level, there's really no changing that no matter what model you go to unless you want the company to lose money.

 

I mean the only feasable idea I could see is a rotating schedule that gives some guys extra house show days off but they consider house show business important to the bottom line........it's difficult to find any middle ground with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Wrestlers don't have it rough today? When compared to the 'golden days' they might have it easier, though that is debatable, but to suggest that wrestlers don't have it rough today is complete nonsense.

 

Ok, you're right, what I meant was comparatively things are much less difficult today then they were in the past. Matches are shorter, less physically demanding, and overall just not as rough as they were back in the olden days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

 

I'm well aware of this and I agree with you to an extent. The travel back then was certainly much worse, and they did generally wrestle longer matches. I just looked at Cawthon's site for the hell of it and found out that in 1992 alone Bret Hart wrestled some 230-250 matches. And that was only 1992; not exactly the real old days. It was insane and it is better now.

 

Yet, I'm not sure the health risks are any better these days. Look at how much wrestling has changed just over the past ten years. We might not see any 60 minute matches anymore, but we routinely see all sorts of chairshots, highspots, ladder dives, table spots, etc. With stuff like ladder matches, Hell in a Cell, hardcore matches, and the worst offender, TLC matches, guys today may take worse punishment than ever before. Upper midcarders in Flair's day may have wrestled eight 20 minute matches every week, and maybe the guys today wrestle three or four ten-fifteen minute matches. But think about the type of matches they do these days. It's constant action. Flying top rope headbutts and multiple german suplexes take place routinely in every match. There are no more jobber matches or squashes, or ten minute restholds. Just look at all the major neck surgeries over the last few years: Edge, Lita, Benoit, Austin, etc. That was no coincidence. These guys are getting abused.

 

I believe the newer style is to blame as much as anything and that must be toned down as well. But the idea that these guys today don't get hurt just as badly, if not worse than the guys in the past, just because they're not on the road for 300 days per year doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Wrestlers don't have it rough today? When compared to the 'golden days' they might have it easier, though that is debatable, but to suggest that wrestlers don't have it rough today is complete nonsense.

 

Ok, you're right, what I meant was comparatively things are much less difficult today then they were in the past. Matches are shorter, less physically demanding, and overall just not as rough as they were back in the olden days.

Go watch the final scene of Wrestling with Shadows, where Stu Hart can barely walk up the hill, and then think about the fact that he didn't take a single bump off a ladder or go through any tables during his career. If Jeff Hardy makes it to 80, you think he'll be better off physically than Stu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrestlers have to much of a fear of losing thier spots to accept just not being around for a couple months. Especially younger guys trying to establish themselves........or a guy like Cena who right now they seriously can't afford to not have for 2 months.

 

See, but that's the thing. I'm not saying guys should volunteer or be held out for two months while other people take their spots. What I suggested is that NOBODY is going to be around for those two months. It's a break that is ordered by the company for everyone. There's no risk of them losing their spots during a company-scheduled annual off-season. That's like saying that Eli Manning is in danger of losing his job just because it's the off season. No he's not. There aren't games going on where his backup is proving himself while Eli is sitting out. There are no games being played, period. Because it's the off-season.

 

The Cena thing is a good point, which I believe I mentioned in the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Wrestlers don't have it rough today? When compared to the 'golden days' they might have it easier, though that is debatable, but to suggest that wrestlers don't have it rough today is complete nonsense.

 

Ok, you're right, what I meant was comparatively things are much less difficult today then they were in the past. Matches are shorter, less physically demanding, and overall just not as rough as they were back in the olden days.

Go watch the final scene of Wrestling with Shadows, where Stu Hart can barely walk up the hill, and then think about the fact that he didn't take a single bump off a ladder or go through any tables during his career. If Jeff Hardy makes it to 80, you think he'll be better off physically than Stu?

 

True, but arguably guys like Jeff Hardy are far from the norm, and ladder matches occur infrequently at best. Will Jeff Hardy be better off physically then Stu Hart at 80? Probably not. Will Batista or John Cena? More then likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of having everyone off for a couple of months at a time, why not rotate groups of guys in and out for four or five months at time with a month break in between? That way, you'd always have house shows and Raw/Smackdown/ECW tapings, but not everyone would be on the road constantly. And you'd also have a turnover of talent on top, keeping things relatively fresh, as one group of guys leaves and another returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's wrestlers though, even if they were told they wouldn't lose their spot they'd feel they were.....paranoia about spots is rampant in wrestling.

 

As far as "new style" if you see what alot of indy guys are doing or just what's going on in TNA. The WWE is actually safer than they are banning alot of higher risk moves. They are probably about as safe as you can ask a promotion today to be.

 

People bitch about the "repressive WWE style" that doesn't allow anything that is actually alot safer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of having everyone off for a couple of months at a time, why not rotate groups of guys in and out for four or five months at time with a month break in between? That way, you'd always have house shows and Raw/Smackdown/ECW tapings, but not everyone would be on the road constantly. And you'd also have a turnover of talent on top, keeping things relatively fresh, as one group of guys leaves and another returns.

 

I bet they'd tell you they don't have enough top guys to do this........if you were to rotate Edge off Smackdown or Cena off Raw they'd go into a full on panic about what to do. Part of this is their own fault of not making any new guys and a bit of a refusal to do it but I'm not sure how many fans would buy Randy Orton world champ till Cena comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in Flair's day all the wrestlers worked schedules that were twice as grueling in matches that were 10x more intense. Guys would be on the road 300+ days a year sometimes wrestling 2 shows per day in some instances working 30+ minute matches each show, so the idea that wrestlers today have it rough is complete nonsense.

Wrestlers don't have it rough today? When compared to the 'golden days' they might have it easier, though that is debatable, but to suggest that wrestlers don't have it rough today is complete nonsense.

 

Ok, you're right, what I meant was comparatively things are much less difficult today then they were in the past. Matches are shorter, less physically demanding, and overall just not as rough as they were back in the olden days.

Go watch the final scene of Wrestling with Shadows, where Stu Hart can barely walk up the hill, and then think about the fact that he didn't take a single bump off a ladder or go through any tables during his career. If Jeff Hardy makes it to 80, you think he'll be better off physically than Stu?

 

True, but arguably guys like Jeff Hardy are far from the norm, and ladder matches occur infrequently at best. Will Jeff Hardy be better off physically then Stu Hart at 80? Probably not. Will Batista or John Cena? More then likely.

The style today is far more physically demanding than it used to be in 80s and has been for almost a decade. Even guys who don't go through tables are getting major neck surgery. Take a look at the injury list involving guys who were working their asses of during the boom period. It's filled with wrestlers who rarely, if ever, went near the top of a ladder let alone came off of one. And we're not even taking into account the drug problems that are going to come out down the road for the modern day guys like they have done for guys in the 80s who have been dropping dead over the years. You really think when it comes time for the 90s guys to fall, as if they haven't already, it's going to be any better than the 80s guys dying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but arguably guys like Jeff Hardy are far from the norm, and ladder matches occur infrequently at best. Will Jeff Hardy be better off physically then Stu Hart at 80? Probably not. Will Batista or John Cena? More then likely.

 

Batista will be lucky to make it to 60 with all the juice in his system. His saving grace might just be all his muscle tears giving him time off to recuperate from the general beating one takes from a normal wrestling workload.

 

Cena I would be inclined to agree stands a chance of making it out alright. The key is he peaked young enough and is likely to make so much money from merch sales that he can retire before major damage is done. The increased money factor thanks to merchandising and better marketing is a benefit I'm sure Stu Hart and most, if not all, pre-Hogan wrestlers didn't have.

 

Anyway, onto the main point of this thread...

 

The example I always like to bring out for workload discussion is WWE vs. NOAH. NOAH is basically an extension of pre-2000 AJ, so the long term consequences should still be similar. In Japan, you seldom have guys die from wrestling-related factors, and nowhere near the frequecy of the US. NOAH and AJ guys worked a style that was infinitely more dangerous than WWE on a match-by-match basis. Stiffer strikes, more head drops, longer matches... Just about everything that could make a wrestling match more taxing on the body. However, not only do you not see the death total getting close to WWE, but the injuries are substantially lower as well. The two key differences are the month-on-month-off approach and no rampant steroid use.

 

The "WWE style" does nothing to prevent long-term damage to wrestlers. You can only take so many back bumps before they start to catch up to you. Doing them non-stop for year isn't healthy no matter how you slice it. You seldom see a head drop suplex in WWE, but look at the number of guys having neck surgery compared to Japan. Overall rest is infinitely more important than "safe" moves.

 

The brand split era makes the solution so easy. Raw one month, SD the next. 2 tv shows and 2 house shows a week, culminating with a ppv. Big ppvs can be co-branded. The only problem is that you'd have to convince the bean-counters in WWE to still pay the wrestlers what they get now, though they would be working less shows. Other than that, it seems like the economic side would still be feasible with 2 tv shows, and a decent number of house shows. Yeah, it would cut into WWE's bottom line some, but it's not as bad as going into complete hibernation for a couple months. You still get constant ad revenue, exposure for top guys, and 4 shows a week all year to bring in money. I doubt Vince would ever go for anything that would cost him money, but this seems like a reasonable solution, especially from a wrestler health perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above post. There is Raw and there is Smackdown and they should be working every other month.

 

Now as for the Cena comment. The truth is, no one retires from wrestling. Everyone just dies. It doesn't matter if you saved your money or not. Wrestlers wrestle past their prime for: money, sense of fame, and/or they can't do nothing. Look at Hogan. That guy is a millionaire and he wrestled in front of 2,000 people in the Fed Ex Forum. He shouldn't be wrestling any more. Cena will probably wrestle forever also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy I can't help but admire the Rock when you think about all this...

 

Can you believe that he was only a full time performer for about 6 years...

 

His entire Pro Wrestling career is like 7 years if you count his short returns

 

Truely lightning in a bottle if you think about it...I don't think he ever had a

 

major injury or anything...Hell he gets hurt more making movies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think you'd have a really hard time convincing the WWE to change a business model that has turned a profit for them for years on end......

 

Asking them to cut back shows, make less money and pay wrestlers for working less doesn't sound like something they'd be very willing to do.

 

I believe they could rotate guys in and out but that would require them hiring more wrestlers....and there are still a select few guys that I don't think they can afford to take off TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An off-season makes no sense, and would be too difficult to implement given they have TV obligations. It'd make more sense to use a Japanese touring model, where they run shows for ~4 weeks and then get 2 weeks off. They could still run TV every week, but house shows could be done in that model. That way, wrestlers in each brand would be working once a week during the off-weeks, which is at least better than working 3-4 days every week. The repercussions of such a move would be extremely positive. It's obviously better for the wrestlers health to be working less dates, but also, steroids could be cracked down on due to guys having more time to naturally maintain a good build, and it would also cut back on the need for painkillers to get through the schedule. I really doubt any sort of schedule cut back will happen though, because it will be taking money out of McMahon's pockets, and he'd almost certainly pass that on to the wrestlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best situation I could think of to cut back on the number of dates is to go back to the old model of taping a months worth of programming at a time. I'm sure numerous people in WWE would disagree with the idea, but the ratings have shown that despite the fact that there would be no way to prevent spoilers from leaking out, taped shows do not do significantly less ratings then live ones. They have aired Smackdown live a handful of times, and I actually think a few times it actually did lower ratings, so increasing your tapings wouldn't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could stand to cut back on the house shows. They could probably ditch single brand house shows and just to combine them into super shows which would probably increase attendence at the shows anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truely lightning in a bottle if you think about it...I don't think he ever had a major injury or anything...Hell he gets hurt more making movies...

He had a back injury in '97, he had to take some time off, when he came back is when he turned heel and joined the Nation of Domination.

 

Today's wrestling style is MUCH more gruelling and painful than in previous decades. Go watch a tape of wrestling from the 60s or 70s. Yes, the matches were longer, but they were a lot slower and lower impact. Most wrestlers take more bumps in a single night now than the previous generation did in an entire week. Bumps are pretty much the leading factor in wrestlers' bodies deteriorating.

 

It's nice to fantasize about a lighter schedule, but unless the WWE is FORCED into doing it, it's never gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The schedule isn't the problem. The guys aren't aching constantly due to the amount of shows - it's the style that everyone now are trained to wrestle.

 

The first step is reconditioning the crowd to accept that more is less. Big bumps used to be big bumps for a reasons, both in the literal and the psychological sense. I bring this point up everytime that we hear a post about the schedule, but Lance Storm wrote an article on his website a good while back about it. The big flaw in the plan was that while Lance did take an extended period of time off (in 2001, I believe) his body couldn't be reconditioned to rest It ached like crazy because it wasn't subjected to the dozens of back bumps he'd take every night.

 

The second step is whether you want to admit a steroid problem or not, you need Vince to change his stance on how the top wrestlers are pushed. It's enough that these guys have to work 200+ dates a year in addition to all of the media appearances, but they are expected to keep up a Herculean physique because Vince prides himself on both "larger than life" characters and bodies. Just because people pay to see these bodies, doesn't mean that they wouldn't pay for the un-doctored stuff. Guys will make it regardless of what they look like - if they don't have the mind, talent or "it" factor to succeed in the business, than their body shouldn't be their one saving grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they could stand to cut back on the house shows. They could probably ditch single brand house shows and just to combine them into super shows which would probably increase attendence at the shows anyway.

 

if the house shows weren't good money makers they wouldn't do them, like for example when they stopped the ECW brand shows. house shows have low overhead and I'm sure suvionour sales are good. anyways houseshows are also were younger performers can perfect themselves in front of an audiance and of course working these shows means more money for the wrestlers.

 

anyways they work 4 days on 3 days off 50 weeks a year. thats 200 dates tops. these people KNOW what they are in for when they choose this profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×