So when did RAW jump the shark?

[.44 Magdalene]

It's one of the longest running shows on television (I think JR said it was THE longest running once, but I don't know how accurate that is)...and almost every long running show has a point at which it irreversably begins the roll downhill. There's an almost constant stream of bitching about the show from one department or another, but what do you think's the official point at which Raw "jumped the shark?"

[Xero]

I believe that RAW IS officially the longest running non-soap and non-news program, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, five words come to mind when I think about RAW jumping the shark...

I SCREWED YOUR BRAINS OUT!

[Fignuts]

SNL is prolly the longest.

Raw "jumped the shark" when austin turned heel imo.

[Xero]

Just checked out Wikipedia, and apparently tonight will bring SNL up to only 614 vs. RAW's 711 as of the last RAW.

Considering that SNL works on a more standard season-like schedule, it's not that hard to believe.

Of course, SNL beats out RAW by years, but RAW has SNL by almost 100 in episodes.

[Skippord]

Definatly Rosie vs Donald Trump

[ron the dial]

Katie Vick.

[Fox]

Wrestling will never "jump the shark." The business is cyclical. Television is not.

Take Happy Days for example (where the term "jump the shark" actually originated). The show was one of the most popular and highly rated shows on TV (high point), but after Fonzie jumped a fucking shark on his motorcycle, things just went downhill from there (Joanie, Chachi, ridiculous storylines, etc... the low point). It was then cancelled.

Wrestling has definitely had it's high points (the Monday Night Wars being the highest point it's ever been). Clearly, things today in the wrestling world are nowhere near that kind of high point, but WWE and RAW are not in an "irreversible downward trend." They are in a temporary decline.

But WWE, RAW and wrestling in general will rise again.

I just hope I'm still interested enough to pay attention.

[ron the dial]

Wrestling will never "jump the shark." The business is cyclical. Television is not.
This is not a question about the business. It's a question about RAW in particular.

[Fox]

K. Well RAW is part of the wrestling business. In fact, it's the STAPLE of the wrestling business as it stands today.

So yeah. It applies.

[ron the dial]

It's also a part of television. Which, as you aptly pointed out, has the ability to jump the shark.

[Fox]

WWE is not a TV Sitcom. It's not Happy Days. It's not BeWitched. It's not fucking Laguna Beach. It's Professional Wrestling, and it cannot be put into the same category as those shows. Those TV shows have a lifespan. Their lifespan is based on the longevity of their characters and storylines, their TV ratings, and the writers' ability to continue to create believable and entertaining episodes.

WWE has given us shit for YEARS. And they're not cancelled. They never will be, until McMahon either dies or pulls the plug on his own company (which will never happen either). Because as long as there is an audience for this white trash level of entertainment, people will tune in, no matter how shit it is (Rosie vs. Trump, K-Fed vs. Cena, Dink and Doink the Clowns, the fucking Repo Man, etc, etc), because the show ALWAYS goes on.

You really think if they had Chandler from friends get into a bar room brawl with, I dunno, for the sake of way-the-fuck-out-there idiocy, Carrot Top, and then they prolonged the storyline where Monica got mad at him and fell in love with Carrot Top, and then they plotted to kill Chandler, and then he made a triumphant return, revealed Carrot Top to be a mass murderer in South Africa, and wins Monica back.

That would end Friends' TV slot in a second. But RAW, and wrestling in general, can pull stupid shit like this all the time, and they will never die.

Because wrestling is NOT a TV Sitcom.

[D Mac]

It's a man's soap opera. :shifty:

[ron the dial]

First and foremost, I never claimed that RAW was comparable to a sitcom. I simply stated that it is on television.

Just because a show jumps the shark doesn't necessarily mean that it has to die. It just means that they've reached a level of ridiculousness that is hard to stomach. Sure, RAW has always had its fair share of shit, but it's usually been able to balance it with a fair amount of worthwhile programming.

Show me where that worthwhile programming is today. What do you honestly tune in for that gets you excited about WWE television? They are beyond the point that they even know what to do anymore besides rehash old shit that we've seen time and time again. And the new shit that we are offered is either beyond horrible, and at best just plain mediocre.

Yes, people continue to tune in and give RAW ratings. But ratings do not mean that the show is any good. Obviously most of us (myself included) watch, but that doesn't mean that they are doing a good job. It's habit to me at this point. Plus, I like to know what direction the STAPLE of the wrestling industry is steering us in.

And the business being cyclical has nothing to do with RAW getting any better. RAW getting better hinges upon getting writers that actually give a damn about the WRESTLING product that they are creating, and not about pushing as much merchandise as humanly possible.

[Skippord]

That makes it sound gay :(

[Skippord]

In response to Diesel

[ron the dial]

Also, the Fonz jumped the shark on water skis.

[ddpBANG]

And the fact that it's 2 half-naked men rolling around with eachother doesn't, Skip?

[St. Jimmy]

And the fact that it's 2 half-naked men rolling around with eachother doesn't, Skip?

Still not as gay as football.

[Skippord]

And the fact that it's 2 half-naked men rolling around with eachother doesn't, Skip?
Which half?

[Xero]

Which half?
The gay half.

[The Optimist]

If I could kill ideas I would kill this thread to death.


But seriously.


The first entrant in the Kiss My Ass Club.

[Fignuts]

If the business is cyclical than this is the longest rotation ever. Been shit for years now.

[Xero]

I'm guessing we're in about 1992-1993 right now "good" wise.

[Fox]

Also, the Fonz jumped the shark on water skis.


My bad. :$

[Fox]

If the business is cyclical than this is the longest rotation ever. Been shit for years now.


Said some guy in 1995.

Then the nWo came along.

[Kane Knight]

SNL is prolly the longest.

Raw "jumped the shark" when austin turned heel imo.
I'd imagine the Tonight Show would be up there somewhere.

[Kane Knight]

K. Well RAW is part of the wrestling business. In fact, it's the STAPLE of the wrestling business as it stands today.

So yeah. It applies.

Right. I'd bring up something stupid like Nitro, and how wrestling television, like all television can go away, but I don't think it'd do any good. You'd see through this fallacy as detrimental to your argument and that would be the end of it.

[Fox]

Nitro and WCW were owned by a corporate media company. When Turner lost control, AOL/TW saw how much money WCW was losing and got rid of them.

McMahon owns WWE. He won't just take his company and trash it. It's his livelihood. And maybe, maybe if the ratings sunk so low, and the TV execs at USA decided RAW should not be aired on their station any longer, then they would disappear. But I'm sure they would show up on another station.

And besides, that won't happen anyways. Because people will ALWAYS like professional wrestling. There will alway be some place for it in America. We may hate this era, but to some little kids, John Cena is their Hulk Hogan. And those stupid little fucks will keep the WWE up and running.

Like I said before:

Because as long as there is an audience for this white trash level of entertainment, people will tune in, no matter how shit it is (Rosie vs. Trump, K-Fed vs. Cena, Dink and Doink the Clowns, the fucking Repo Man, etc, etc), because the show ALWAYS goes on.

[Fox]

I am part of this audience. I'll probably always watch pro wrestling. I can't fucking help myself.

[Fox]

Back on topic, if I had to answer... Stephanie McMahon as owner of ECW.

That was a bullshit move that pissed off a lot of people, and was the beginning of the end for the Invasion angle, and the downward trend of WWE TV.

[Xero]

The beginning of the end of the Invasion angle was Buff Bagwell main eventing.

[Jeritron]

Some of you may say this is a little far back and early in the shitstorm that was to come....but in my opinion Raw jumped the shark when Rikishi admitted to running over Stone Cold Steve Austin. Of course things progressively got worse, and there were much worse events before things got "bad".
But I believe this was the first straw of bad decisions beginning in late 2000, and brought about the end of the prestigious Attitude era. After this things just weren't the same.

[The Optimist]

The Invasion angle was the beginning of the end of the Invasion angle.


On that note. . .


Nevermind.


I was going to say something about the Invasion (Kurt) Angle, but I decided not to.

[Kane Knight]

Actually, you know, the whole "The business is cyclical" bit is nonsense, too. I mean, it works, so long as you ignore the factors behind why it was bad pre-Hogan, why it was bad pre-Attitude Era/Austin, and why it's bad now. It's a nice excuse, but really, it's just that. An excuse, with little intellectual content, and no real vailidity.

Sure, it's cyclical--When bad people make bad business decisions, the business will "slump" or hit a "down period." When good programming is put on, surprise!

That's really pointless though. It's not really cyclical in the way people make it out to be, where it'll come around by itself. No, people start watching again when something catches their attention. sorry, that's the way it works. It's also why the argument that there will always be wrestling, even outside the deliberate TV connotation (Which is not a guarantee), is utterly ridiculous. Lots of people have insisted things would never change. Betting on a permanent fixture, especially something that's already niche like wrestling, is like betting that the pop music you grew up on will still be dominant in 30 years. Time is fickle, and so are people. Wrestling evolved, and will either evolve or die. On TV, it doesn't matter how cyclical the business is, either. If ratings for Raw regularly sink to the 2.Xs, not an unfeasable thing, either, then no ammount of "Oh, but our business is cyclical! Give us another 5 years!" will save it. Vince has already found that he's lost leverage, which caused him to go back to USA, where they job to the dog shows, tennis, etc., and found his B-Show bumped to Friday nights. Wrestling is not invincible. It's only remained on TV because its ratings are still decent for cable (And even then, it's not longer near the stranglehold it used to have), which meant that nothing could stop it--As long as it delivered.

But only as long.

WWE alone will not take down wrestling (Though it might take down TV wrestling), but Indie Shows are not immune, either.

[Jeritron]

The beginning of the end of the Invasion angle was when WCWs biggest stars in the stable were Austin and Angle.

[The Optimist]

Some of you may say this is a little far back and early in the shitstorm that was to come....but in my opinion Raw jumped the shark when Rikishi admitted to running over Stone Cold Steve Austin. Of course things progressively got worse, and there were much worse events before things got "bad".
But I believe this was the first straw of bad decisions beginning in late 2000, and brought about the end of the prestigious Attitude era. After this things just weren't the same.That's a good one, too. But atleast back then they tried to do something that moved the audience. I really do admire the effort compared to now.

[Fox]

Actually wrestling is exactly 6 years cyclical. It has to do with the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, and Uranus' synchronization in the universe, and when it happens, a chemical is released in human beings' brains that makes them love pro wrestling.

A doctor told me.

[Jeritron]

Yes but can you admire that effort compared to say...the week before it? It was just stupid beyond stupid. Rikishi hits Austin and gets that push. While it could have easily been Tazz or Jericho, or whoever. It also marked the return of Austin, which for myself as an Austin mark wasn't a bad thing, but if you look at the way the business was moving...it wasn't good.

You now had Austin and Rock at equal popularity under one roof. You had Triple H almost at their level. Undertaker was back and fresh. And Kurt Angle, Benoit and Jericho were all ready to main event. The majority of their other big stars were still around and others were jumping ship to WWE like crazy.

It was the beginning of a time period where there was "too many chiefs and not enough indians" so to speak. And thats what caused people to get buried and things to shit the bed.

[Fox]

http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/zoidberg.jpg

That doctor.

[Xero]

Actually wrestling is exactly 6 years cyclical. It has to do with the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, and Uranus' synchronization in the universe, and when it happens, a chemical is released in human beings' brains that makes them love pro wrestling.

A doctor told me.
So I suppose we're going to get this chemically-induced hallucination this year?

[Fox]

Possibly. Earth, Moon and Jupiter are all in synch, but I don't know about the last one.

[.44 Magdalene]

By removing Pluto's status as a planet, we have officially fucked wrestling.

[D Mac]

Still not as gay as football.

Also called "soccer"

[addy2hotty]

Hulk Hogan winning the Undisputed Title was the very moment that shark jumping occurred for me. It was downhill all the way from there.

[Jeritron]

Hulk Hogan winning the Undisputed Title was the very moment that shark jumping occurred for me. It was downhill all the way from there.

Yea, that was terrible. But to me thats more like the Shark catching up and eating them. It had been jumped long before that.

[ddpBANG]

Two words come to mind when I think about RAW jumping the shark...

I DO!

[addy2hotty]

Yea, that was terrible. But to me thats more like the Shark catching up and eating them. It had been jumped long before that.

I actually enjoyed the Invasion angle. But there you go.

[Jeritron]

I thought the Invasion angle was overall bad, but thats a matter of opinion of course. I do see the things within it that were good. There was some great shit of course. Austin and Angle had some great matches. Rock and Booker T worked well together. And the Jericho/Rhyno fued was excellent. There's a lot about how it was executed that I wouldn't change but I do think theres a lot that should have been done better/differently. With that being said, I'd rather be watching the Invasion angle than whats on now.

[ct2k]

Raw always had plenty of stupid shit on it, like the 'evil' Undertaker trying to execute Austin ffs, that was beyond even Wrestling reality, especially during the Attitude era where the cartoonish element was suppoed to be dead. The Invasion angle wasn't jumping the shark though, it was just badly done in my opinion.

[Kane Knight]

That sums up Fox's argument, and the whole argument of the cyclical wrestling business, in a nutshell. Quite literally.

[addy2hotty]

Raw always had plenty of stupid shit on it, like the 'evil' Undertaker trying to execute Austin ffs, that was beyond even Wrestling reality, especially during the Attitude era where the cartoonish element was suppoed to be dead. The Invasion angle wasn't jumping the shark though, it was just badly done in my opinion.

Say what you want, but I loved that stuff. Especially the black wedding etc.

[Savio]

Right to Censor is born and WWE tones it self down.

OR

HHH wins the WWE Title.

[Savio]

<table border="1" bordercolor="#808080" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="" width="280"><tbody><tr><td> February 15, 1999
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 22, 1999
</td> <td> 5.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 29, 1999
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 8, 1999
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 15, 1999
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 22, 1999
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 29, 1999
</td> <td> 6.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 5, 1999
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 12, 1999
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 19, 1999
</td> <td> 6.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 26, 1999
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 3, 1999
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 10, 1999
</td> <td> 8.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 17, 1999
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 24, 1999
</td> <td> 7.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 7, 1999
</td> <td> 6.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 14, 1999
</td> <td> 6.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 21, 1999
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 28, 1999
</td> <td> 6.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 5, 1999
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 12, 1999
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 19, 1999
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 26, 1999
</td> <td> 7.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 2, 1999
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 9, 1999
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 16, 1999
</td> <td> 6.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 23, 1999
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 30, 1999
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 6, 1999
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 13, 1999
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 20, 1999
</td> <td> 6.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 27, 1999
</td> <td> 6.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 4, 1999
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 11, 1999
</td> <td> 6.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 18, 1999
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 25, 1999
</td> <td> 5.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 1, 1999
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 8, 1999
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 15, 1999
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 22, 1999
</td> <td> 5.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 29, 1999
</td> <td> 6.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 6, 1999
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 13, 1999
</td> <td> 6.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 20, 1999
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 27, 1999
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 3, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 10, 2000
</td> <td> 6.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 17, 2000
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 24, 2000
</td> <td> 6.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 31, 2000
</td> <td> 6.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 7, 2000
</td> <td> 6.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 14, 2000
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 21, 2000
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 28, 2000
</td> <td> 6.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 6, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 13, 2000
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 20, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 27, 2000
</td> <td> 6.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 3, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 10, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 17, 2000
</td> <td> 6.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 24, 2000
</td> <td> 7.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 1, 2000
</td> <td> 7.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 8, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 15, 2000
</td> <td> 6.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 22, 2000
</td> <td> 7.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 29, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 5, 2000
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 12, 2000
</td> <td> 6.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 19, 2000
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 26, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 3, 2000
</td> <td> 5.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 10, 2000
</td> <td> 6.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 17, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 24, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 31, 2000
</td> <td> 6.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 7, 2000
</td> <td> 6.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 14, 2000
</td> <td> 5.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 21, 2000
</td> <td> 6.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 28, 2000
</td> <td> 4.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 4, 2000
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 11, 2000
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 18, 2000
</td> <td> 5.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 25, 2000
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 2, 2000
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 9, 2000
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 16, 2000
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 23, 2000
</td> <td> 5.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 30, 2000
</td> <td> 4.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 6, 2000
</td> <td> 5.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 13, 2000
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 20, 2000
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 27, 2000
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 4, 2000
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 11, 2000
</td> <td> 5.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 18, 2000
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 25, 2000
</td> <td> 3.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 1, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 8, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 15, 2001
</td> <td> 5.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 22, 2001
</td> <td> 5.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 29, 2001
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 5, 2001
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 12, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 19, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 26, 2001
</td> <td> 5.1
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Savio]

<table border="1" bordercolor="#808080" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="" width="280"><tbody><tr><td> March 5, 2001
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 12, 2001
</td> <td> 4.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 19, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 26, 2001
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 2, 2001
</td> <td> 5.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 9, 2001
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 16, 2001
</td> <td> 5.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 23, 2001
</td> <td> 5.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 30, 2001
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 7, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 14, 2001
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 21, 2001
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 28, 2001
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 4, 2001
</td> <td> 4.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 11, 2001
</td> <td> 4.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 18, 2001
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 25, 2001
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 2, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 9, 2001
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 16, 2001
</td> <td> 5.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 23, 2001
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 30, 2001
</td> <td> 5.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 6, 2001
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 13, 2001
</td> <td> 5.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 20, 2001
</td> <td> 5.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 27, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 3, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 10, 2001
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 17, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 24, 2001
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 1, 2001
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 8, 2001
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 15, 2001
</td> <td> 4.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 22, 2001
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> October 29, 2001
</td> <td> 4.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 5, 2001
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 12, 2001
</td> <td> 4.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 19, 2001
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> November 26, 2001
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 3, 2001
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 10, 2001
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 17, 2001
</td> <td> 4.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 24, 2001
</td> <td> 3.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> December 31, 2001
</td> <td> 2.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 7, 2002
</td> <td> 4.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 14, 2002
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 21, 2002
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> January 28, 2002
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 4, 2002
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 11, 2002
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 18, 2002
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> February 25, 2002
</td> <td> 4.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 4, 2002
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 11, 2002
</td> <td> 4.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 18, 2002
</td> <td> 5.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> March 25, 2002
</td> <td> 5.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 1, 2002
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 8, 2002
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 15, 2002
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 22, 2002
</td> <td> 4.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> April 29, 2002
</td> <td> 4.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 6, 2002
</td> <td> 4.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 13, 2002
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 20, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> May 27, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table border="1" bordercolor="#808080" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="" width="280"><tbody><tr><td> June 3, 2002
</td> <td> 4.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 10, 2002
</td> <td> 4.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 17, 2002
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> June 24, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 1, 2002
</td> <td> 3.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 8, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 15, 2002
</td> <td> 3.8
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 22, 2002
</td> <td> 4.3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> July 29, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 5, 2002
</td> <td> 3.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 12, 2002
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 19, 2002
</td> <td> 4.0
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> August 26, 2002
</td> <td> 3.9
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 2, 2002
</td> <td> 3.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 9, 2002
</td> <td> 3.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> September 16, 2002
</td> <td> 3.4
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[NeanderCarl]

Thing is, WWE is a wrestling company not a television production company. The main objective is to make money for themselves. They are coming off what I believe was their most profitable year to date (or second most profitable).

As long as WWE has enough presence on TV to make themselves a fortune, it really doesn't matter that much if they are doing 3.0s or 8.0s, from a company financial standpoint. The ratings have ceased to be a major issue since the Monday Night Wars ended.

And of course, strong ratings help with advertising and give WWE leverage in future deals. But the TV shows exist now to sell the WWE product more than anything, probably more so than at any previous point in its existance. It's PPV where the BIG focus lies, and WWE are still the Kings of PPV (despite MMA playing catch up very quickly).

[NeanderCarl]

What I'm saying is, as long as WWE can keep their ratings high enough not to see their shows get cancelled, then they will most likely be satisfied.

[NeanderCarl]

Put it this way, if WWE were a brand of car, and RAW was a commercial for one of their models, who cares how many people see the commercial when the car sells like hot cakes, no matter what.

But if they stopped showing that commercial, then the sales would take a tumble, and nobody wants that to happen. So they pay just enough to keep the commercial on a loop, maybe update it with a new one once every couple of years, just to keep those cars out on the road.

[Kane Knight]

Wow. Not even sure where to begin with that...

Though I think you're forgetting just what has to be done to make it such a profitable year, and how it really seems to be a stopgap measure.

And that, while the metaphor is there, the car will likely sell well, but when you compare the two, WWE is more tied to their "commercials" than most products.

I'm not sure it's selling like hotcakes, either. They're touring Vermont. Even pre-Attitude Era, they never spent this much time in Vermont. Yo could drive down to Whoostah or Boston or over to Manchester, but Vermont was off limits because the arenas werent big enough. Not anymore. Fewer seats at shows (and they have been touring smaller venues still last I checked) means less merchandise sold, less revenue, and less of a chance of good buyrates at PPVs.

On another note, WWE's ratings are low enough that they have felt the effects. They're not exactly going to get kicked off TV, but they're not exactly endearing themselves to sponsors and the like.

[NeanderCarl]

Well we all moan and bitch about how bad the TV shows have been, but there is no pressing incentive for WWE to hugely improve them. They are two hour long advertisements for PPVs and house shows, nothing more.

Until TNA, UFC or some other comparable company decides to challenge WWE in a head-to-head slot, we are unlikely to see things change. Raw, ECW and Smackdown are action infomercials.

[NeanderCarl]

Plus, regarding Vermont: WWE didn't have two, or sometimes even three, touring brands in the pre-Attitude era... with more available shows, they will tour venues they would have neglected in the past because they will burn out the regular towns by playing there too often.

The WWF of the mid/late 80s also had 'B' Shows and sometimes 'C' Shows, which would play in high school gyms and small concert halls, and this was during the Hogan boom.

[Fox]

According to Savior's chart, WWE's ratings started going down right around the end of July 2000.

Right around the time Stephanie and Triple H hooked up, on screen and off, and Hunter would begin his near 6 year reign on top.

[Jeritron]

There is no way to link the decline of ratings to Triple H in 2000, its just not fair. The companys popularity and buyrates were still way up there and at times at their highest. The problem came after the purchase of WCW and the decline of quality in 2001.

Triple H's impact on things as a champion in 1999 weren't negative...in 2002 or 2003, now thats a different story.

[Kane Knight]

Well we all moan and bitch about how bad the TV shows have been, but there is no pressing incentive for WWE to hugely improve them. They are two hour long advertisements for PPVs and house shows, nothing more.

Until TNA, UFC or some other comparable company decides to challenge WWE in a head-to-head slot, we are unlikely to see things change. Raw, ECW and Smackdown are action infomercials.

...Yes...As long as you ignore the fact that their veiwership has radically declined over the past year alone, and that effects sponsors (Which keep them in business), it affects where your "commercial" is shown, and it affects how many people buy your product when the PPV comes around. The last one being inconvenient to you, I'm sure. Mostly because it's contrary to your argument that the commercial doesn't matter (Which is wrong).

Plus, regarding Vermont: WWE didn't have two, or sometimes even three, touring brands in the pre-Attitude era... with more available shows, they will tour venues they would have neglected in the past because they will burn out the regular towns by playing there too often.

The WWF of the mid/late 80s also had 'B' Shows and sometimes 'C' Shows, which would play in high school gyms and small concert halls, and this was during the Hogan boom.

Man oh man, I tell ya, they didn't have two brands, but they had a healthy house show roster, both pre- and during attitude era. They didn't tour here then, even with house shows.

Meanwhile, this argument is rather moot, as it ignores that the size of their televised venues has gone down, too.

They don't have to shrink their over all venue size so as not to "burn out." There are plenty of larger venues, and more are being built. There are more large venues in more diverse areas than the Attitude Era, why don't they tour them? Oh right, attendence is down, seat revenues are down, etc.

I'd also point out the number of Supershows, which actually limits the extra capacity by putting all the brands in one place at one time (to save money, which goes back to my argument), and the fact that ECW still doesn't have a real house show schedule (It last what...2 months? 3?), so even saying "sometimes" they have 3 is a bit of a joke. They have Tuseday Night Heat, which tours with Smackdown, tapes with Smackdown, and has no distinguishable house show planning las I checked. Anyway, I'd say all that, but I think my point stands without it.

Though I would like to point out that the artificial roster split still doesn't leave them with enough people to reliably do a Royal Rumble, let alone tour as aggressively as they once did. They've been forced to cut back on their wrestlers to make sure they keep making profit.

[Kane Knight]

Triple H's time on top is ALL a factor, Jeritron.

[Kane Knight]

Correction: They've almost always had one show a year up near Montpelier. Though that wasn't guaranteed, and sometimes we'd see none.

In the last few years, Vermont has seen a lot of house shows, because we're suddenly well within their capacity.

[Jeritron]

Triple H's time on top is ALL a factor, Jeritron.


Yes, but not all equally negative. It's revisionist bashing to say that him as a champion in 99 was a downfall for the company. I will be the first to say his dominance and stroke after his return in 2002 was a dark period, and bad for the product. But that should have no bearing on my opinion of him or his quality as the champion in 1999.

[NeanderCarl]

Nah business was still solid in 2000 with Triple H on top for a lot of the year, although it is hard to tell just how much of that drawing power can be attributed to The Rock and later The Undertaker.

[jindrak]

The jumping of the shark happened when Hogan became Undisputed champion in 2002.

[Kane Knight]

Yes, but not all equally negative. It's revisionist bashing to say that him as a champion in 99 was a downfall for the company. I will be the first to say his dominance and stroke after his return in 2002 was a dark period, and bad for the product. But that should have no bearing on my opinion of him or his quality as the champion in 1999.

Did anyone actually say that, though?

The fact is, that whether or not Trips at the top started good, this was a process which installed him in a position to hurt wrestling.

[Savio]

I did. I did not view him as a maineventer back when he beat foley for the title. and that was the same time wrestling became uncool up here.

[BobBitchen]

When Stone Cold quit wrestling.

[NeanderCarl]

Well, no-one really bought Trips as champion at first in 1999, but must have stayed tuned for the other guys (Rock, Big Show, Mankind).

Triple H needs to quit knocking Foley, because it was Foley who put HHH over as a genuine main eventer in 2000.

[NeanderCarl]

And it was Triple H's selfishness that cost him his fine reputation in 2002.

[Jeritron]

When did he knock foley? I wasn't aware of this, and if he did I'd be suprised/upset.

[Kane Knight]

Well, no-one really bought Trips as champion at first in 1999, but must have stayed tuned for the other guys (Rock, Big Show, Mankind).

Triple H needs to quit knocking Foley, because it was Foley who put HHH over as a genuine main eventer in 2000.

Word.

[Batsu]

Some of you may say this is a little far back and early in the shitstorm that was to come....but in my opinion Raw jumped the shark when Rikishi admitted to running over Stone Cold Steve Austin. Of course things progressively got worse, and there were much worse events before things got "bad".
But I believe this was the first straw of bad decisions beginning in late 2000, and brought about the end of the prestigious Attitude era. After this things just weren't the same.

I agree... that should have been HHH or Billy Gunn right off the bat.

That was the start of nonsensical "shock" booking on WWE TV (though that whole Austin-McMahon feud also had a lot of CRAP -- they couldn't keep anyone but Stone Cold consistent).

[St. Jimmy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/WWEwm21cena.jpg

[St. Jimmy]

Oh, we're just talking RAW and not WWE in total? OH SHIT.

Well in that case

http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling2/payperviews/wweworldchampionship/ortonwweworldchamp01.jpg

[Jeritron]

I agree... that should have been HHH or Billy Gunn right off the bat.

That was the start of nonsensical "shock" booking on WWE TV (though that whole Austin-McMahon feud also had a lot of CRAP -- they couldn't keep anyone but Stone Cold consistent).

Yes, those would have been completely logical explanations. But with all the talent they had, they could have pulled off a better shocker than that. Benoit, Jericho and Tazz weren't doing much, and they were all ready for the ME. Benoit was in WCW at the time so it would have been a bit of a stretch, but would have worked better. Jericho would have worked great if they were willing to turn him heel that early with the reactions he was getting as a face. But in my mind the best choice would have been Tazz. What more of a thug thing to do than run the top guy down in a car the week before your debut vignettes started running.

Or what about Kurt Angle? He had just won the title, he was a huge heel, and he had debuted on the night Austin was hit. Well we got Rikishi, and it was the first of many blown storylines and talent pushing oppurtunities that began to plauge them throughout the next few years.

[Kane Knight]

The Tazzzzzz bit would rock.

[Batsu]

Yes, those would have been completely logical explanations. But with all the talent they had, they could have pulled off a better shocker than that. Benoit, Jericho and Tazz weren't doing much, and they were all ready for the ME. Benoit was in WCW at the time so it would have been a bit of a stretch, but would have worked better. Jericho would have worked great if they were willing to turn him heel that early with the reactions he was getting as a face. But in my mind the best choice would have been Tazz. What more of a thug thing to do than run the top guy down in a car the week before your debut vignettes started running.

Or what about Kurt Angle? He had just won the title, he was a huge heel, and he had debuted on the night Austin was hit. Well we got Rikishi, and it was the first of many blown storylines and talent pushing oppurtunities that began to plauge them throughout the next few years.

Yeah. Anyone but Rikishi.

He kind of had a cooler "look" as a heel, but no one bought it, not even Rikishi. The fans didn't want to boo Rikishi -- and the cheap "I did it for my people" rationale really turned a lot of people off.

If it had been The Rock, even... that would have been awesome -- they could even have gotten the Wrestlemania X-7 heat started early.

Rock is one of those few that you could easily turn heel...and he had a history with Stone Cold as a heel, anyway.

[Jeritron]

Yes, they could have teased out Austins return and the investigation longer. And had it all come back to the Rock, just in time for Wrestlemania. It would have worked for all the same reasons Rikishi "did it", only Rock did it to directly benefit himself rather than someone else doing it for him.

[Destor]

It was a fad, ratings peaked and then they slowly started going away. That trend is still going on. And it will continue until another boom hits or it dies. Save a few jumps here and there. It never jumped the shark, it was like Pac-Man, at some point people had gotten their fill.

[Xero]

I don't think people "got their fill" with Pac-Man. They just found something new and improved.

[Destor]

Nah like right after Pac-Man fever people thought video-games were dead. No one was into them. It wasn't for a year or two down the road that video games got new life.

[Kane Knight]

...Which, incidentally, had as much to do with the mistakes of video game companies as it did with the public's interest.

The moral of this story, children?

Sometimes people lose interst. More often than not, there's a reason behind it.

[St. Jimmy]

http://media.newtimes.com/id/44113/0
I'd fucking fuck it.

[Xero]

Why does the ghost look like a penis?

[Rokuro]

http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/zoidberg.jpg

That doctor.

You just won this thread.

[Jeritron]

I was thinking about something...a theory as to why things "fell apart"

At the beginning of the monday night wars, the business was relatively unchanged over the years. By todays standards, it was slow moving. Once the compettition heated up, so did the business. Things sped up. It was no longer as slow moving as before, it became a weekly soap opera. One of the things about this was to trump the compettition.

Normally, we had a few champions a year if that. In the year 1999, 7 seperate men held the WWF championship, and it changed hands much more than that. A year later in 2000, only 4 men were champions and for much longer periods of time. Why was this? because the WCW was dropping faster than a prom dress, the WWF had won and the compettition was all but over.
This wasn't neccesarily a bad thing. The speed would have gotten out of hand, but the fast paced unpredictable environment was what made things so entertaining, and once the compettition ended it came to a screeching hault.

In 2000, things began to slow down drastically and become tamer. And the trait continued through the years. Couple that with the influx of talent and you have two opposite things tugging on the success from seperate ends. Less momentum, more weight. Things naturally froze up.
Slowing the business down may have been a neccesary thing, but it caused things to get less interesting. Nobody wants to ride a roller coaster on slow after they just rode it on top speed right before. Just a theory.

[NeanderCarl]

http://media.newtimes.com/id/44113/0
Why does the ghost look like a penis?

Man, you need to go see a doctor about your penis. I mean, as soon as possible.

[Anybody Thrilla]

In order to say that Raw jumped the shark, I think you'd have to believe that there's no hope that it will become good again one day. That being said, Raw has not jumped the shark in my eyes. Sure a lot of fucking retarded things have happened, but I think that it's salvagable.

[owenbrown]

Interesting to notice that...

1) 1 week after HHH won the WWF title the 1st time the ratings dropped 1.7 points the next week, gained .2 point the following week but jumped back up to 6's the 3 weeks that Vinnie Mac won the title(9/14/99, the Raw on 9/13 was a 6.0), the week he VACATED the championship(9/20 [6.1]) and the night following Unforgiven '99 (9/27 [6.8].

2) In the weeks around the time HHH lost the title and regained from the Big Show and lost it to The Rock the ratings were between 4.4(2/14/00) and 6.8(1/10/00) with a 6.4 the night HHH won it back on 1/3 and peaked the week after Jericho's title win that "never happened" on 4/24(7.1, 6.7 on 4/17 when Jericho almost won the title) and 7.4 the night The Rock won the title for his 4th time.

3) Ratings started falling afterwards with only one 7(7.1, 5/22) before the big ratings freefall began on 8/28(4.9, 6.2 on 8/21) the night following Summerslam.

4) Ratings haven't reached higher than 5.8 on 9/11 and 12/11/00 and reached a low of 2.4 on New Year's '01.

5) The last time ratings reached 5's was when WCW/ECW lost the ratings war and during the month of the WCW/ECW vs. WWF PPV Invasion.

Sorry to pull an Alienoid on you guys(with apologies for using Alienoid's style of making points) but about the time WWF won the Monday Night Wars was when RAW jumped the shark.

[NeanderCarl]

WWE have fucked up by having two of their three brands distinguishable only by the name of their show.

Back in the day when the likes of WWF Superstars and WWF Prime Time Wrestling were looking tired, they got updated or replaced with fresh shows, which is how Monday Night Raw and the live weekly concept came to be in the first place.

After nearly 15 years, I would suggest that WWE can Monday Night Raw and come up with a new show with a new name and a slightly adjusted format, even if the basic concept is the same; that of live wrestling every Monday night. But the main problem is Raw is no longer just a TV show, but it is a whole brand. They have painted themselves into a corner because the strength of the Raw TV show is now at the mercy of the strength of the Raw roster... which seems common sense I know, but with a format change or a slight twist here or there, a new WWE show each Monday night could have enough novelty or, dare I say, be creative enough in it's new approach that the name value of the wrestlers take a back seat to the brand value of the show.

As an example I would cite WrestleMania, which usually sells out year after year in seconds without a match even announced. The same has happened for this year's show, and it looks to be the biggest WWE crowd since SummerSlam 92 in Wembley. All this, and the closest we had to a card at the time was the RUMOURED Hogan vs Big Show match, which was certain to be the pits anyway.

What I'm saying is the brand value of "WrestleMania" is worth more than any wrestler on the card. A new show, pushed as a "can't miss" television experience, and with several fresh and appealing aspects, could have a similar response to that which the original Monday Night Raw achieved back in 1993. The Raw name and style is tired, overexposed and, frankly, past its sell-by-date.

Of course, you could still call the brands Raw and SmackDown whilst giving the TV shows an overhaul. "WWE RAW presents Monday Night Carnage" or "WWE SmackDown presents Friday Night Fury". Something like that.

Ladies and gentlemen, NeanderCarl has once again talked himself into confusion and lost his point. Hmmm. I think you kinda get what I'm trying to say. Right?

[owenbrown]

I was thinking about something...a theory as to why things "fell apart"

At the beginning of the monday night wars, the business was relatively unchanged over the years. By todays standards, it was slow moving. Once the compettition heated up, so did the business. Things sped up. It was no longer as slow moving as before, it became a weekly soap opera. One of the things about this was to trump the compettition.

Normally, we had a few champions a year if that. In the year 1999, 7 seperate men held the WWF championship, and it changed hands much more than that. A year later in 2000, only 4 men were champions and for much longer periods of time. Why was this? because the WCW was dropping faster than a prom dress, the WWF had won and the compettition was all but over.
This wasn't neccesarily a bad thing. The speed would have gotten out of hand, but the fast paced unpredictable environment was what made things so entertaining, and once the compettition ended it came to a screeching hault.

In 2000, things began to slow down drastically and become tamer. And the trait continued through the years. Couple that with the influx of talent and you have two opposite things tugging on the success from seperate ends. Less momentum, more weight. Things naturally froze up.
Slowing the business down may have been a neccesary thing, but it caused things to get less interesting. Nobody wants to ride a roller coaster on slow after they just rode it on top speed right before. Just a theory.

In 2000, While WWF only had 4 World Champs(Big Show, HHH, The Rock, Kurt Angle)... WCW(in what was their final full year in business) had 12 different champions(13 if you count Hogan's "win" at BatB, with Russo's worked "shoot promo" following)(including 2 non-wrestlers in Vince Russo and David Arquette)(Bret Hart(vacated on 1/15 due to his career-ending injury)Benoit, Sid, Nash, Jarrett, DDP, Arquette, Flair, Booker T, Vince Russo, and Scott Steiner)

[owenbrown]

RAW and Smackdown! both need major overhauls. Particularly RAW.

[Xero]

Man, you need to go see a doctor about your penis. I mean, as soon as possible.
Already did.

Not good, man. Not good. :'(

[NeanderCarl]

How can it be? Your dick has a face.

And arms!