Pro Wrestling Discussion Thread **Spoilers Possible**

[Atocep]

I've watched Randy Orton wrestle twice now as my son has watched Night of Champions and now Hell in a Cell.

I have to ask, does he know how to do anything other than the RKO?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I've watched Randy Orton wrestle twice now as my son has watched Night of Champions and now Hell in a Cell.

I have to ask, does he know how to do anything other than the RKO?

I think he actually regressed quite a bit from when he was on the way up during his first main even heel run (and first world title), and I'm not buying this main event face run he's doing now. I used to be a fan though.

[Flasch186]

I stopped watching wrestling 6-10 months ago.

[Neon_Chaos]

Yay! Cena lost. Not cleanly, but who the hell cares?

[Mota]

My question for WWE (and TNA) bookers is:
Why do you work there if you hate wrestling so much?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Yay! Cena lost. Not cleanly, but who the hell cares?

I tend to like heels (I'm a Shaemus fan for instance), but I do appreciate the work Cena does. I'm not sure how many guys in his position would be ok with looking as bad as he has at times with this Nexus storyline.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

My question for WWE (and TNA) bookers is:
Why do you work there if you hate wrestling so much?

In the two most successful eras for the WWF (peak of hulkamania, and the attitude era), the wrestling was horrible. I'm sure they're well aware of that. Though the wrestling now is way, way better than what it's been in almost all of the WWF's history (except maybe that 2002-2004 period, which of course, also resulted in a huge decline in business, and came at a time when the internet seemed to believe the product sucked even though you had Angle/Lesnar/Guerrero/Benoit/Edge ect having great matches every week).

It's kind of funny to watch WWE from maybe 2009 on youtube and half the comments are ("wow, this is when the WWE used to be good!"), when of course, everybody thought it sucked then too. Wrestling is kind of like SNL in that way. The past is always better. Even when the past involved repetitive 30-minute promos kicking off every RAW, and the Rock wrestling the same match every week.

[Mota]

I understand that the WWE isn't promoting a wrestling product per se, if I want that I'll watch Ring of Honor (which I enjoy tremendously).

As they are presenting an entertainment product to me I'm hoping that the storylines will make sense, there will be some buildup to big angles, and it will be entertaining. But instead they present a product that looks like it was written about 5 minutes before showtime, and lots of head-scratching moments:

1. NXT: Chance to present an innovative product, pulling back the curtain and showing us something we've never seen before. Instead it's obstacle courses, joke telling competitions, and other assorted things that do not show us why these guys are the future of the company. In fact the opposite happens, every wrestler is exposed and the announcers treat it as a joke.
2. Constant start/stop pushes for the young wrestlers. Evan Bourne is very over with the crowd. Why don't they let him get a push? They've hinted at it several times and invariably he goes back to enhancement work. Daniel Bryan is given the US Title, and then they feed him to Sheamus this Monday. Why put in this time trying to develop a wrestler and then make him look like an idiot? Either push him or fire him.

The problem is that with all these retiring veterans they haven't replaced them with wrestlers that have credibility. So now it's a very select list of top wrestlers and 90% of the roster that the fans don't accept. They had their chance a year ago before all these guys left, but their youth movement came too late and now there's very few veterans to help get over the next generation.

The viewership has also been severely damaged because of this abuse. PPV buyrates are down. TV viewership is very fragile and sensitive to what else is on TV. If the product was that great, Monday Night Football would be afraid to go up against Raw but it's the other way around, if there's anything else on people will switch the channel.

As a lifelong wrestling fan I will keep watching but I do feel personally insulted by this shoddy product and hope that they'll turn things around somehow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Happy 65th Birthday today to The American Dream Dusty Rhodes


Happy 61st Birthday today to Stan "The Lariat" Hansen

[Toddzilla]

Watching a Mid-Atlantic clip with a WWE brand at the bottom turns my stomach.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Watching a Mid-Atlantic clip with a WWE brand at the bottom turns my stomach.

At least they keep all that stuff alive through the DVDs and 24/7 network. If it weren't for Vince, we'd be relying on mid-80s VHS tape transfers.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

A great worker, interviewer and worldwide phenomenon celebrates his birthday...and so does Dusty.

Steve Austin called and he wants his vest back...wait, what?

[Terps]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

It's 2010...why the hell is Paul Bearer on my TV?

Bearer coming back is one of the reasons I'll actually watch Smackdown now. Usually I just read the spoilers.

[Mota]

I like Undertaker, but this Undertaker vs. Kane feud has to be one of the lamest things ever. PLUS... it exposes the worst thing about the WWE, that you buy a PPV to watch a fight that doesn't resolve anything. This is their 3rd straight fight on a PPV and so far they've repeatedly told us that there's no need to buy their PPV because you can just get the next one. It's almost as bad as Cena vs. Orton in 2009.

How many buys would UFC 123 get if it was Lesnar vs. Velasquez 3 and it was the 3rd straight PPV that these guys fought?

[Neon_Chaos]

What's the over/under on a Cena heel turn tonight?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

I like Undertaker, but this Undertaker vs. Kane feud has to be one of the lamest things ever. PLUS... it exposes the worst thing about the WWE, that you buy a PPV to watch a fight that doesn't resolve anything. This is their 3rd straight fight on a PPV and so far they've repeatedly told us that there's no need to buy their PPV because you can just get the next one. It's almost as bad as Cena vs. Orton in 2009.

How many buys would UFC 123 get if it was Lesnar vs. Velasquez 3 and it was the 3rd straight PPV that these guys fought?

If they're going to do monthly PPVs, there's no way around this, otherwise they'd burn out every possible matchup in less than a year.

3 months isn't that long for a feud, really. In the old days you'd have year long or 18-month feuds - of course you wouldn't actually sell that match to a national audience every month as part of the feud, you'd tease it on TV and run it in house shows around your territory. No real equivalent for that today.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

What's the over/under on a Cena heel turn tonight?

They will never do a full on heel turn with him. Tease it yes, but no way in the PG version of WWE that no one watches anymore.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

version of WWE that, despite declining ratings, still managed to draw double the A18-49 audience of season finale of Mad Men

Fixed that for you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They will never do a full on heel turn with him. Tease it yes, but no way in the PG version of WWE that no one watches anymore.

PG exposes the WWE to a whole new generation of kids who will grow up, get bored of wrestling, and then get lured back by a combination of nostalgia, violence, and adult themes.

At least, I think that's the plan. It has definitely worked before. I'm sure long-time WWF fans were annoyed when the company went kid-friendly in the mid-80s (no more blood, no more texas death matches like you had in the early 80s), but it definitely worked out for them long term.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed that for you.

And gets slaughtered routinely by UFC in terms of PPV buys. Wait till the buyrate comes out for Bragging Rights, it's going to be laughable. You had an event where half the card wasn't even set till a few days before the show.

WWE should be doing much better than it does. It's unfortunately run by a guy who is past his prime and out of touch with his top demographics.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

PG exposes the WWE to a whole new generation of kids who will grow up, get bored of wrestling, and then get lured back by a combination of nostalgia, violence, and adult themes.

At least, I think that's the plan. It has definitely worked before.

I think the plan was to go PG until Linda's political career ended.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And gets slaughtered routinely by UFC in terms of PPV buys.

If that's what you meant, then say that. But that's a far cry from "nobody watches".

VKM damned near killed pro wrestling & I'm loathe to defend him in any way but the show is still a consistent top 20 in total viewers/HH, and even more consistently near the top of the adult demos.

It's unfortunately run by a guy who is past his prime and out of touch with his top demographics.

Wrestling's top demo is over 35 & under 12 at this point, has been for several years now. It's parents who still remember flashes of goodness & their kids. In between is too busy watching the steaming piles of crap on MTV to watch much else.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that's what you meant, then say that. But that's a far cry from "nobody watches".

VKM damned near killed pro wrestling & I'm loathe to defend him in any way but the show is still a consistent top 20 in total viewers/HH, and even more consistently near the top of the adult demos.

But the trending is getting worse. PPV and TV ratings are down. The WWE is becoming less and less popular.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wrestling's top demo is over 35 & under 12 at this point, has been for several years now. It's parents who still remember flashes of goodness & their kids. In between is too busy watching the steaming piles of crap on MTV to watch much else.

That's my point. 18-34 should be a huge demographic for him. He's basically lost that demographic to UFC in a few short years. They know how to tap into it, he doesn't.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, the reasoning for the move to PG is more a giant merch and toy deal with Mattel, not Linda's campaign. So, don't expect a bra 'n' pantie battle royal followed up by a Cena/Orton bloody brawl two Monday's from now.

Yeah, that's true. I still think they've held back on a lot of storylines and other in-ring stuff because of her campaign. They've carefully avoided any storyline that would remotely become controversial.

The Nexus invasion was the closest they came to something that looked violent, and they fired a guy over it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's my point. 18-34 should be a huge demographic for him. He's basically lost that demographic to UFC in a few short years.

My point is that the UFC isn't who he lost the TV audience to, it's Teen Mom (I'm amazed by the presence of, well, pretty much any male numbers that most of these MTV shows get) and the like.

Once the TV audience went away, the PPV numbers were bound to follow.

[RainMaker]

If he's losing his audience to shows like Teen Mom, isn't that saying something about his product as well? Sorry, but if shows like that are taking away his audience, he's doing something wrong.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except Raw still gets almost the same numbers as it did during the boom.

Umm ... no.

Here's the ratings history, showing the peak in '99 & '00 with ratings steadily in the 6's and occasionally cracking 7. Even with the smaller TV universe a decade ago, that's still between 6m & 7m viewers, versus numbers in the 4m's now, with 5m back in February. In the past couple of years only the "Trump Takes Over" episode hit the old marks & that was their most watched episode in more than 7 years.

I'm not arguing for a minute that the audience is the same size, just that it's still sizable, since with the exception of the NFL no hit show posts the same kind of total audience numbers we used to associate with success. TV viewing is simply too fragmented for those high water marks to be the benchmark for success today.

There's actually a reasonable argument to be made that it was the marked erosion of the 12-18 viewers starting in 2001 that has led to some of the issues today. Those kids who stopped watching after 1999-2000 are now nearly the entire 20-29 block, they lack the persistent connection to pro wrestling that many of the older demographics have. That absence could very well account for their willingness to spend PPV dollars elsewhere.

[bulletsponge]

that ratings history doesnt show the last 2 years, which im sure has continued its downward spiral

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If he's losing his audience to shows like Teen Mom, isn't that saying something about his product as well? Sorry, but if shows like that are taking away his audience, he's doing something wrong.

I agree 100% with this statement. If the WWE product was that great, talk around TV ratings would be how WWE steals ratings from every other show, not the other way around. If every time Monday Night Football has a decent game it makes a 0.2-0.3 difference in the ratings that means hundreds of thousands of viewers that aren't loyal to the WWE product. They'll watch if nothing better is on. They're also definitely not buying the PPV product.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

If they're going to do monthly PPVs, there's no way around this, otherwise they'd burn out every possible matchup in less than a year.

3 months isn't that long for a feud, really. In the old days you'd have year long or 18-month feuds - of course you wouldn't actually sell that match to a national audience every month as part of the feud, you'd tease it on TV and run it in house shows around your territory. No real equivalent for that today.

I absolutely love the El Generico / Kevin Steen feud in Ring of Honor. That feud will end pretty much exactly at a full year. But they didn't fight at every PPV or house show. There were multiple steps along the way. Steve Corino and Colt Cabana were involved, there were a lot of confrontations by Steen before any physical contact happened, the bookers really built up the desire to make you see Generico beat up Steen. Their first match was in June, nearly 6 months after Steen turned on him. 3 months later at the next PPV in September it's a double dog collar tag team match. Their final match will be at Final Battle 2010 where either El Generico loses his mask or Kevin Steen leaves Ring of Honor. I would PAY to see that. And I will.

In the WWE "universe" their way of extending a feud is just to have cheesy non-finishes until the final match and even then it may not be clean. To ask you to pay $54.99 and watch a stupid run-in DQ finish is really lame. To ask you to pay $54.99 3 weeks later to watch the exact same matchup is even lamer. They've conditioned the viewer to not care about the matches because they don't mean anything. So is it any wonder that the viewers stopped buying the PPV's? At least in the past the Monday Night matchups were entirely disposable but they tried to make the PPV matches mean something.

I'm still a WWE fan, but I haven't been buying PPV's for a while now because of the high prices and the fact that I didn't feel I was getting my money's worth when you could get 5 hours a week of similar programming on TV for free. I'd love to start watching PPV live again but they need to figure out how to make the matches feel important before the wallet opens up once more.

[Atocep]

Wasn't there only 2 weeks between Hell in a Cell and the PPV before it? I don't see how you can expect to put up big PPV numbers with the short turnaround on them. There's just not enough time to promote the event and build up excitement.

[RainMaker]

I think they had 3 PPVs in 7 weeks.

[Mota]

I think with that type of turnaround they had to be promoting PPV with completely different crews. There's the John Cena PPV and then there's the Randy Orton PPV. That way they could spend more then 2 weeks building up the matchups. By the time you even knew who was fighting, they were already moving on to the next PPV.

[molson]

I'm kind of enjoying the product but I'm watching pretty casually, certainly not buying any PPVs.

Cena being forced to join Nexus is one of those things that is always threatened in match stipulations, but never seems to actually happen. Here, they're actually trying it, and I think the storyline is a little too complicated for the under-12 fans, they're not sure who to root for. It's interesting, and anybody who complains that the WWE doesn't "build stars" definitely hasn't watched the product the last 12 months (or I'd argue, pretty much ever, except for the middle of the attitude erea, the only time there was really a "glass ceiling"). I think Wade Barrett and Sheamus were living in Florida with roomates and eating tuna fish to get by less than a year and a half ago. Now they're main eventers, and pretty effective ones. Barret, in particular, is getting a ton of meaningful ring/mic time and he's developed a real WWE main-eventer-esque ease with moving storylines along in his promos.

And heel Michael Cole is hillarious. If you ever need to kill some time check out any episode of NXT season 3. The entire thing is just Cole complaining about how stupid the show and the concept is. I don't know why he's obsessed with only certain heels like the Miz, and hates only certain faces like Daniel Bryant, but he has one of the more random announcer characters ever. And whenever Matt Striker is around, you're guaranteed at least several obscure mid-80s wrestling references (He recently compared the Layla/Michelle McCool aliance to Rockin' Robin/Velvet Mcintyre.) I'm quite positive the last Velvet Mcintyre reference on WWF TV was in 1986.

There's been some new, interesting stuff in the last 6 months or so. I got really tired of every RAW ending with a stand off/walk-away between the two main eventers headlining the next PPV ("next week, they'll have to TEAM UP - can they co-exist!"), but at least they're trying some different things at the moment. And while the PPV schedule is a little much, I think creatively it works better than having 12 PPV exactly 1 month apart - the latter just leads to insanely repetitive booking. I think creatively 50 PPVs a year scattered around would work better than 12 evenly spaced.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Cena being forced to join Nexus is one of those things that is always threatened in match stipulations, but never seems to actually happen. Here, they're actually trying it, and I think the storyline is a little too complicated for the under-12 fans, they're not sure who to root for.

I read the recap from the PPV & my reaction was that the latest Cena match ending wasn't one I'd seen done quite that way in a while & I didn't see a problem with it. It's obviously something that you can't use but once in a blue moon, but that's what they've done & I think it's fine.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

The problem is they still put the top 2-3 guys over the entire roster any time they want. Cena can still beat 6 tag teams all by himself. Randy Orton has been moved up to that level to fill the shoes of HHH/Shawn. Sheamus has been all over the place in the typical schizophrenic, start and stop, wasted push that gets cancelled after 6 months. You still have the 2nd tier belt holders destroyed by the top guys so that it takes at least a year to build them back up most of the time.

The Cena bit at the PPV was extremely predictable. There were legitimate options but there was no way WWE would think outside the box at all. On the rare occasion where WWE does something other than the same old tired tricks they immediately reverse course and undo any good they might have done.

The glass ceiling is still firmly in place. Guys getting the best reactions are almost always held down, at least until there's an open spot AND the guy Vince tries to push down everyone's throat completely flops. It is a truly horrendous product at this point.

IF WWE gets out of the current funk it won't be until a legitimate 2nd contender shows sustained growth causing an Attitude Era type of restructuring or until Vince turns the reigns over to someone else and then only if the new person fixes the obvious problems.

You have to do start-stop with guys otherwise they peak and there's nowhere to go but down. And it's not like Cena's been around 20 years, it's a little early to put him out to pasture. So what they do instead is keep him away for the world title scene for months at time.

Who are the guys with the best reactions that are getting held down? Kingston had some brushes with the main event, but if you put him up there permantly now, then what? Is he a guy that's going to carry the company for years? If not, you burn him out to fast, there's no more "rise to the top" momentum and he's basically wasted. Same with Evan Bourne. It's exciting when he gets an upset win or a mini-alliance with a main-event face, but if you put him up in the main event permanantly, again, you lose that "on the way up" momentum and he has to be either a Cena/Ortan like star or he'll fade away.

You really only have one "rise to the main event" run for any guy, even though I think people want to see it for every midcarder on the roster, immediately. But that would just burn out your roster. And then who's the midcarders - Cena and Orton? I think people forget how over those guys are and how big their own "runs to the top" were. (Both guys were beloved on the internet until they made it to the top). If even they have trouble staying exciting for people a few years past their initial main event runs, there's no way a guy like Evan Bourne is going to stay fresh for 10 years on top.

A company needs main eventer, midcarders, and a steady stream of young guys seeming to be on the verge of making that jump. In 1998, you didn't really have that in either. Now, plenty of guys make that jump in the WWE - possibly too many. How many new main eventers/world champions have made the jump in the last 2-3 years? At least a dozen. How many would make people happy. Fifty?

And it's not like there's been mass retirements in the main event scene. There's been a few, but those have mostly been older guys who have been winding down for a while. (Rock/Austin haven't been regular main eventers for a LONG time, maybe 10 years now and at least two wrestling "eras" ago.) The real thing that's helped elevate more guys to the main event is the brand extension. People hate it, and it's probably outlived its usefulness now, but it definitely did its job. If you told people 5 years ago that CM Punk would be a multiple time world champion in the WWE, people wouldn't believe it because "Vince only pushes his own guys", "there's a glass ceiling", etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Cena doesn't have to be able to beat up a dozen people every night, survive 23 gunshot wounds and show no ill effects the next night, and still do the exact same schtick burying all but 1 or 2 guys "on his level" to stay where he is.

It seems like right now he's getting dominated by a pack of rookies.

[molson]

"There's no reason for a guy like Daniel Bryan to get the US belt and get destroyed by Sheamus the next night in 90 seconds."

Sure there is. Sheamus gained a lot more than Bryan lost. They wanted to keep him a main event guy even though he just lost the title. It was a critical time for him and he needed a big push. They certainly could have gone a different way and had Bryan steamroll Sheamus on his way to the main event, but Bryan really doesn't need that yet to be interesting, and all the building they did with Sheamus would have been out the window. They could have had an ordinary, predictable match, and did the "Bryan hung tough with the Irish monster" angle, but Bryan did that about 3 times already with other main eventers. I think that's really beneath him now. Sheamus was pissed off and he squashed a red-hot face clean. You don't see that very often.

"You don't have to necessarily move someone to the top of the card and then bury them. You could have someone go on a good run for 2-3 months, win a few matches they aren't expected to, and then drop those same matches while still being competitive. Instead Vince seems to think there has to be a gigantic gulf between the top guys and their challengers."

Didn't Evan Bourne have that very push - beating Jack Swagger clean right after Swagger had been world champion, getting into a Hell in the Cell World Title match, etc? Brian Kendrick even got that push before that - he was even a "transitional world champion" in one of those scramble matches. Swagger by the way, is an example of pushing a guy too soon. He's main evented, been world champion, now what? They're trying to avoid that mistake with Sheamus and trying to keep him relevant.

"The only positive over the last few months has been Nexus and that has still been paint by the numbers."

I've never seen this Nexus storyline before. When was the last "rookie main event stable" in the WWE? What numbers are they painting? The whole Daniel Bryan storyline, from his start to now, has also been completely original. I too would love to see even more unpredictability, upsets, etc, but I just hugely disagree that you're seeing any less of that now that the WWE has had at any other time. I see way more of it now than ever. What periods of prior WWE history had more midcarders interacting with main eventers, and unpredictability? The attitude era had Austin refusing to work with any of but like 3 guys. That era was hugely financial successful because they tapped into teens and young adults who grew up on Hulkamania and gave them a new, exciting, violent, product, but creatively, it was awful.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

On what planet? He lost a fluke match that caused him to deal with some unique circumstances. He still dominates everyone other than Orton in the ring to the point that they look like amateurs comparatively. His push is the worst aspects of the first Hogan run without the drawing power. It's a shame too as he's a decent worker.

Somehow it's hard to imagine Austin or the Rock or Hogan or the Undertaker involved in a months-long storyline where a bunch of rookies are pushing them around. Austin and Rock were never allowed to look bad, and never allowed to interact with anyone beneath them (except if they're totally burying them). Cena's a completely different character who does lose a lot and does get beat up even more.

Somebody on some other message board made a list of Cena losses, breaking it down into clean, semi-clean, and non-clean. It's a shockingly high number when you compare it to WWE main event faces of the past.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile I just chuckle at the suggestions harkening back to "The Attitude Era" as though it were a good thing. AFAIC that's easily the lowest point of professional wrestling since the comic book era, and rendered the WWF completely unwatchable to me for large stretches. The audience that remains is either too old to be amused by C-grade softcore porn & dick jokes or too young to be remotely appropriate for them.

It was the existence of competition that pushed the companies & made things interesting at times, not the steaming piles of garbage masquerading as "creative" that VKM pushed at the lowest common denominators.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The audience that remains is either too old to be amused by C-grade softcore porn & dick jokes or too young to be remotely appropriate for them.

Which is why the PG rating, and the re-education of fans that babyfaces sometimes lose and every match doesn't have to end in a guy being beat to a bloody pulp is probably a good thing.

But it's true too that at the end of the day, pro wrestling is still kind of a fad thing. Maybe an enduring fad, but it's still always going to be victim to other trends in society and entertainment, whether that UFC or anything else. The attitude era was an profitable aberration, otherwise, I think current WWE is pretty much as popular as they ever can hope to get.

[molson]

Another example of how uniquely Cena is booked - when he was first forced to join Nexus, Barrett made him chose a tag team partner for the night. He though about it and picked Michal Tarver.

Replace Cena with Austin there. When Barrett asks Austin to choose a partner, he'd just stunner everyone, flip them off, and leave. Rock would just humorously insult them all for 20 minutes and somehow get out of it without picking anyone. Rock and Austin wouldn't be allowed to even play this game with Nexus. Cena is involved, at Nexus's level, on everything in the entire storyline.