So, wrestling is cyclical... What's going to be the next "nWo"?

[Xero]

Got to thinking after reading the other thread. It's always been said that wrestling is cyclical. There are 3-5 years of 'good' followed by many years of shit. In the 80's it was Hogan and wrestling going mainstream (Mania, NBC, etc). In the mid-late 90's is was the nWo and a crank-up in Attitude.

So, the question is what's going to launch us into the next big era? An angle? A drastic change in the way things are booked (versus the past 10-12 years or so)? A combination? Will it be a new promotion taking the helm? WWE branching out properly (completely distinct brands)?

Discuss.

[Skippord]

*Cyclical

[Skippord]

Also CHRIS FUCKING SABIN

[Xero]

*Cyclical
That's what I said. :shifty:

[Pinnacle Charisma]

I dont know If wrestling will ever regain its popularity it once had during the 80's and late 90's. I think that the mcmahons views are too old fasioned to gain todays audience

[The Optimist]

I keep thinking that next new wave of wrestlers' sons and daughters will be amazing. We're about to hit that part of the cycle I think.

[Innovator]

Vince steps down

[Fox]

lol.

cynical.

[Xero]

Shut up, it's late. :(

[Fryza]

Probably when the WWE is forced to use the younger stars they've not built up, and allows more done by them (Benjamin, Haas, Carlito, Conway, Punk, etc etc).

Haven't really watched wrestling much, but I think the next big push will be when the "established" wrestlers are gone, and a new wave of wrestlers come in.

[Fox]

TNA and WWE need to go head to head, at least one night a week.

[Xero]

I would like to see Impact go up against ECW. They could potentially at least dent the ratings even now.

[Jeritron]

Well if the type of event you describe is to take place, the whole nature is its something we wouldn't predict or imagine, or whatever. So the bottom line is nobody has a FUCKING CLUE what will "save" wrestling, if anything. So personally its one of those things to just sit back and wait til it happens, but not hold my breath.

[ron the dial]

I don't know, or really care, what causes the next wave of great televised wrestling. I just want it to happen. I'm sick of having to turn to ROH for all of my wrestling needs.

Not that I'm sick of ROH. I just wish I could get more good wrestling for free.

[Fox]

Well if the type of event you describe is to take place, the whole nature is its something we wouldn't predict or imagine, or whatever. So the bottom line is nobody has a FUCKING CLUE what will "save" wrestling, if anything. So personally its one of those things to just sit back and wait til it happens, but not hold my breath.


We're hypothesizing, dick. It's part of the fun of being a human being. Thinking about shit.

[Jeritron]

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just giving my 2 cents. The question was whats gonna happen next, and I said "nobody has a FUCKING CLUE by its nature". I wasn't trying to come off as a dick or kill the discusion and I'm sorry if I did.

[addy2hotty]

You see, Wrestling is cyclical when it was about wrestling. Nowadays its all business, so like American Idol for example, the most marketable will triumph over the most talented every time.

Now on with the hypothesising.

I think that eventually, the brand split will end. Be it in a couple of years or whatever. Probably when TNA actually starts to really compete. The brand split really was the start fo the downturn for the WWE, it propelled wrestlers who weren't really ready or talented enough into positions of power.

This will create a feeling of evolution within the WWE, the bad will be weeded out and the best will remain.

A stable involving Carlito, Ken Kennedy, Chris Masters, Brian Kendrick and Paul London could be a decent draw in a reunited brand. They are all pretty young and all could do with the rub that a dominant stable would give them.

[KingofOldSchool]

You see, Wrestling is cyclical when it was about wrestling. Nowadays its all business, so like American Idol for example, the most marketable will triumph over the most talented every time.

Now on with the hypothesising.

I think that eventually, the brand split will end. Be it in a couple of years or whatever. Probably when TNA actually starts to really compete. The brand split really was the start fo the downturn for the WWE, it propelled wrestlers who weren't really ready or talented enough into positions of power.

This will create a feeling of evolution within the WWE, the bad will be weeded out and the best will remain.

A stable involving Carlito, Ken Kennedy, Chris Masters, Brian Kendrick and Paul London could be a decent draw in a reunited brand. They are all pretty young and all could do with the rub that a dominant stable would give them.

Two words: New Blood

[redoneja]

looks like we found the buzzword of the week in cyclical, lol

[Skippord]

Or cynical(sorry Xero)

[The One]

I think the answer is in more Kevin Nash. :shifty:

[Kane Knight]

I dont know If wrestling will ever regain its popularity it once had during the 80's and late 90's. I think that the mcmahons views are too old fasioned to gain todays audience

Well, this wouldn't be the first time people have thought that. On the other hand, getting 3s in ratings no longer means what it used to, so on top of dwindling numbers, they have increased standards to fight.

I think WWE will hold on for quite some time, but honestly think this is the beginning of a slow slide to failure. WWE isn't losing money, but you compare their rosters and operating costs, and it's clear even they're feeling the pinch.

If I'm wrong on this, I'll be glad. I've been watching WWE since I was like 6, and wrestling in general. I don't want to see wrestling off TV, and I don't even want to see WWE off my TV. I love wrestling, I'm just really tired of shitty wrestling. Instead of focusing on the wrestling, though, they've spread out to other venues, meaning that they're working on movies (Bad idea). Granted, the movies aren't failing, but they're not particularly succeeding, either. And remember, I thought the Marine was solid.

The problem is, Vince has never had his finger on the pulse, but he thinks he did and still does. Hogan more or less fell into his lap, Austin more or less fell into his lap, it was pure luck that his nWo knockoff outdid the original, and even Bischoff's own doing that fans switched over to Raw (Ironically, that's WWE's version of the story, evdiently. It's a bit more complex, but WWE's said on a couple occasions that, effecticely, the only way for them to come out on top is for the competition to shoot itself in the foot).

"Say, would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?"

Vince's attempts to be popular culture have quite frankly proven he doesn't get entertainment. Further, I postulate that the Attitude Era (and to an extent, the Hogan Era) only occurred because of things which are not allowed: A degree of spontanety, an excitement that left even smarks feeling like Joe Jobber could walk out with the title on a given night, despite the reality of the situation, high flying (I'm sorry, but there's no way the Cruisers would have been popular on either show as they are now, and the Hardyz wouldn't be much either), moves that made the fans legitimately go "Holy shit!" a degree of fan interactvity, etc.

Honestly, I think if TNA ever got their shit together, they could kill WWE, as long as they didn't fuck it up. I really do imagine TNA, booked by Heyman, with fewer ego problems and hasbeens, could dominate WWE without any effort. WWE would more than likely attack their competition, through suits, contract wars, etc., And barring truely divine luck (Or perhaps infernal luck), WWE could find themselves sucking tailpipe in short order. Potentially. The reality is, I doubt any of this will happen, and I think wrestling will fester instead of removing the dead tissue.

[James Steele]

If Shane McMahon takes over the WWE, then wrestling will drastically improve.

[Kane Knight]

If Jesus takes over the WWE, then wrestling will drastically improve.

[Xero]

When Triple H takes over the WWE, then wrestling will officially job to him.

[NeanderCarl]

When Vince dies, any hope of WWE reclaiming former glories officially die with him.

[Rob]

Wrestling is NOT cyclical. Or if it is, how the fuck did WCW go out of business? Maybe they are getting ready for the next up part of the circle or something.

[Kane Knight]

Wrestling is NOT cyclical. Or if it is, how the fuck did WCW go out of business? Maybe they are getting ready for the next up part of the circle or something.

Tsk Tsk. Common sense and real-world examples? They're not going to like you at all.

[Rob]

Tsk Tsk. Common sense and real-world examples? They're not going to like you at all.

What else is new?

[Fox]

I covered the WCW thing in another thread.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think wrestling is cyclical in the sense that one generation loves it, but then they hate it because it becomes so fucking stupid. Then their kids love it because the staged violence appeals to them, and since their parents hate it, they love it.

I can see why the WWE tries to book for the younger generation. Do I agree with it? Fuck no. But I can understand it. As long as wrestling is hated by the general populus, it's going to find that younger base of "REBELS!!!11" that adore it just to stick it to their oldies. And even if it is just a phase, there is going to be some new kids who watch it. It's a shame, but I can honestly see the WWE surviving even if it flies on auto-pilot.

Anyway, with that little disclaimer out of the way, now onto my prediction of "the next big thing". As jeritron5000 said, it's probably going to come out of the blue, and we're not going to have any clue what it will be, but if I had to place bets on what will get people watching, here's what it would be:

The Youth Revolution

This flows with my idea of younger viewers watching, and it seems to be what the WWE is aiming for with their constant pushes of young guys (Randy Orton, John Cena, Chris Masters and Kenny Dykstra come to mind). It could also get smarter and older viewers watching if the right young guys were pushed.

There are a lot of young guys who have damn-near perfected the craft. Kenny Dyksta, CM Punk, Bryan Danielson, Harry Smith, Teddy Hart, Johnny Jeter, Paul Burchill, Idol Stevens, Paul London, Brian Kendrick, etc. I believe all of them are under 30 years of age. They are the guys the WWE can push to appeal to both demographics.

I am of the thought that Kenny Dykstra, CM Punk or Paul Burchill should end The Undertaker's WrestleMania streak. I would not object if Paul London, Brian Kendrick & Ashley Massaro joined up with Shawn Michaels to continue DX. Yes, it is a pipe-dream, and it is me whacking off the talent that is Paul London and Brian Kendrick, but if the WWE pushed them to mean something as a tag team, people will buy into them. Throw Shawn Michaels, Paul London & Brian Kendrick into a feud with Harry Smith, TJ Wilson and Teddy Hart, and you have yourself a fun, fun, fun, fun feud. When Triple H returns, have him upset that HBK continued on DX without him, and have him form an alliance with Kenny Dykstra and Idol Stevens, who share the same training under Killer Kowalski as Triple H.

I think the WWE is having their cake, but they can also eat it too. They have young talent who can appeal to the younger demographic, but they also have young talent who can wrestle. They love nostalgia, but they can actually produce it while helping the future (New Hart Foundation is an example).

I think the next wrestling boom, if it comes, will actually be because the politics fade away, and the WWE has its veterans put over the young, fresh talent.

[Rob]

I think wrestling is cyclical in the sense that one generation loves it, but then they hate it because it becomes so fucking stupid. Then their kids love it because the staged violence appeals to them, and since their parents hate it, they love it.

Right there is a problem. No new fans are watching wrestling. Kids aren't getting into wrestling now and there is no reason to. When we grew up, there were characters and personalities. You knew Hogan's, Sting's, Warrior's, etc would win all the time but the rest was pot luck. Now even my 8 year old nephew knows the business revolves around Triple-H and he doesn't even know why. That's how obvious their TV is. There is nothing to appeal to new fans. All the wrestlers look the same, talk the same and have the exact same matches with the exception of the few really good workers left - Benoit, Regal, Finlay, Guerrero, Edge, etc.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Right there is a problem. No new fans are watching wrestling. Kids aren't getting into wrestling now and there is no reason to. When we grew up, there were characters and personalities. You knew Hogan's, Sting's, Warrior's, etc would win all the time but the rest was pot luck. Now even my 8 year old nephew knows the business revolves around Triple-H and he doesn't even know why. That's how obvious their TV is. There is nothing to appeal to new fans. All the wrestlers look the same, talk the same and have the exact same matches with the exception of the few really good workers left - Benoit, Regal, Finlay, Guerrero, Edge, etc.

I see what you're saying, and you bring up a mighty fine point.

My little nephew loves it, though. He doesn't love SmackDown!, he much prefers RAW ("the only good thing about SmackDown! are the cruiserweights!"), but even he thought the Rosie vs. Donald segment was stupid.

The kids over here in Australia are pretty stupid. I get the feeling they're buying into the product. Red Rooster has been advertising WWE-based toys with their kids meals, I see a lot of kids wearing shirts, and my nephew is one of the "jocks" at his primary school, and all his friends watch it, so I'd say it's a trend over here.

On an unrelated note, my dad is the ultimate casual fan. He knows it is fake, wouldn't normally watch it if I didn't appreciate it, and he tends to laugh more than anything. Not at its crappiness, at the little things he notices. He laughed at Test because of the way he reacted when a fan touched him, he points out things like "you know they're not going to fight when they're wearing a watch", etc. He also hates John Cena, thinks Vince McMahon is a whackjob, loves the Big Show, hated Brock Lesnar, thought the Rosie vs. Donald segment was ridiculous, etc. I think one of the biggest mistakes the WWE can make is thinking that casual fans are going to jump through their hoops, rather than make their own decisions on what they like, and what they don't.

[Kane Knight]

I covered the WCW thing in another thread.

And nobody thought it was worth a shit there, either. :y:

I see what you're saying, and you bring up a mighty fine point.

My little nephew loves it, though. He doesn't love SmackDown!, he much prefers RAW ("the only good thing about SmackDown! are the cruiserweights!"), but even he thought the Rosie vs. Donald segment was stupid.

The kids over here in Australia are pretty stupid. I get the feeling they're buying into the product. Red Rooster has been advertising WWE-based toys with their kids meals, I see a lot of kids wearing shirts, and my nephew is one of the "jocks" at his primary school, and all his friends watch it, so I'd say it's a trend over here.

On an unrelated note, my dad is the ultimate casual fan. He knows it is fake, wouldn't normally watch it if I didn't appreciate it, and he tends to laugh more than anything. Not at its crappiness, at the little things he notices. He laughed at Test because of the way he reacted when a fan touched him, he points out things like "you know they're not going to fight when they're wearing a watch", etc. He also hates John Cena, thinks Vince McMahon is a whackjob, loves the Big Show, hated Brock Lesnar, thought the Rosie vs. Donald segment was ridiculous, etc. I think one of the biggest mistakes the WWE can make is thinking that casual fans are going to jump through their hoops, rather than make their own decisions on what they like, and what they don't.

Maybe WWE can move over to your neck of the woods. That is, if they're not too defensive that you called their sport fake. :p

It's not pulling in new viewers over here, that's for sure. There's an increase in kids, but the real question is, how much of an increase. People keep asserting that Cena and ocmpany are bringing in a load of new fans, but if that's true, it makes the exodus of the old fans even scarier.

Right there is a problem. No new fans are watching wrestling. Kids aren't getting into wrestling now and there is no reason to. When we grew up, there were characters and personalities. You knew Hogan's, Sting's, Warrior's, etc would win all the time but the rest was pot luck. Now even my 8 year old nephew knows the business revolves around Triple-H and he doesn't even know why. That's how obvious their TV is. There is nothing to appeal to new fans. All the wrestlers look the same, talk the same and have the exact same matches with the exception of the few really good workers left - Benoit, Regal, Finlay, Guerrero, Edge, etc.

I'd seriously fall out of my chair laughing if some kid went to Mania with a "Spoiler: Triple H wins" sign.

Seriously, though, my ex's 8 and 10 year old nephews are the same way. They're bored with Triple H and Cena (Though in the latter case, maybe because they're not wiggers).

I think it's pretty cleear though that it's not cyclical. By Alienoid's definition, almost all products are cyclical. The difference is, most products are able to offer something to new people on a regular basis, even in entertainment, without severe booms or busts. Wrestling is the bastard son of soap operas and carnivals, and neither are particularly tied to this problem. Wrestling seems to be the only industry that suffers like this without any external economic factors, and it magically only seems to affect the TV variety (Most companies would not survive these cycles, otherwise).

So many logical fallacies in this argument.

[Arnold HamNegger]

The "cyclical" thing I see that needs to happen is for a billionaire with unending pockets to buy a wrestling company, a viable TV time slot, hire someone bloodthirsty to run the company with the sole purpose of taking WWE head on.

There has to be a billionaire out there with a love for wrestling....doesn't there? WWE is like the Wall-Mart of professional wrestling. Mom and Pop shops can't survive. Someone has to end the monopoly.

[Rob]

What billionaire would want to piss away millions of dollars in a carny business?

There is a reason they are billionaires in the first place. THEY AREN'T FUCKING MARKS!


I don't give a shit how stupid people thought of the 1990 characters of wrestling. Legion of Doom, Earthquake, Tito Santana, The Rockers, Jake Roberts, Brutus Beefcake, etc, etc, They all drew in the kids. I like John Cena but he isn't drawing in a new audience. Nobody is because their characters are all too directed towards 18-35 year olds.

[Arnold HamNegger]

What billionaire would want to piss away millions of dollars in a carny business?

There is a reason they are billionaires in the first place. THEY AREN'T FUCKING MARKS!


I don't give a shit how stupid people thought of the 1990 characters of wrestling. Legion of Doom, Earthquake, Tito Santana, The Rockers, Jake Roberts, Brutus Beefcake, etc, etc, They all drew in the kids. I like John Cena but he isn't drawing in a new audience. Nobody is because their characters are all too directed towards 18-35 year olds.

Carny business????? That's ridiculous. Whether you think wrestling's a joke or not, there's a ton of money to be made out there, it has nothing to do with being a mark or not. Done the right way, a new company could make a shit load of money going head up with WWE. There's a market out there that is being untapped at the moment. A market WWE had at one time, but is now spending their money elsewhere. I would just think a love for wrestling would help the cause. Look at Mark Cuban. The guy obviously loves basketball and competition. A billionaire with the same qualities, but directed towards wrestling would help the cause IMO. Someone with a keen business sense, but a passion for the industry.

Wrestling doesn't need to die with the McMahon family. There has to be someone else out there.

[Rob]

You clearly don't know this business.

Only 2 people ever made any good money promoting pro wrestling - Vince McMahon and Ted Turner. And Turner had 3 good years before losing more money in the last 2 years than he ever made. So in short, he lost money overall.

If you think wrestling isn't a carny business then you are a fool.

If there is so much money to be made, why aren't people jumping on board? Why do these upstart companies last about 7 shows?

Want to talk about money marks? Panda Energy. You know the company that owns TNA? Yeah they lost money hand over fist on wrestling and still continue to do so. Where exactly is this money that is to be made?

[Kane Knight]

For that matter, why back a dying horse, when you can back MMA or something that's, you know, POPULAR?

Yeah, I'm sorry to offend you sissies with mention of that evil MMA stuff, but seriously, why would anyone, even someone who loves wrestling, want to piss away that kind of money?

[M-A-G]

There was but he didn't really know what the hell he was getting into. WCW anyone?

[Kane Knight]

Yes, it's a carnie business. Deal with it.

[Kane Knight]

There was but he didn't really know what the hell he was getting into. WCW anyone?

And do you think that he would have in the current environment?

[Rob]

Stupidity?

Wrestling fans are fucking idiots. Well at least 90%. No concept of the real world and how this relates. I love wrestling. Hate most of what I see now mind you but I can find good matches when I want them. I'm not ignorant enough to con myself out of thinking that the people in the big real world who are the money players (Wallstreet, TV execs, etc) think that wrestling isn't the bastard son of sports and entertainment.

Believe it or not, there were days when wrestling fans knew this not that long ago.

[M-A-G]

And do you think that he would have in the current environment?
After the AOL merger? F*ck no.

[Kane Knight]

After the AOL merger? F*ck no.

That's kind of the thing. Ted Turner was pre-Ted Turner.In a post-WCW world, after WCE was taken off the air, after Turner himself lost an assload of money in the business, after the entire WCW thing became a big yellow warning signal of the follies of pro wrestling support, I'm not even sure Turner would do it. Or even think about it. I think any billionaire with money would apply the two minutes of sense the smarktards seem unable to tap into and say, "fuck this."

[Arnold HamNegger]

You clearly don't know this business.

Only 2 people ever made any good money promoting pro wrestling - Vince McMahon and Ted Turner. And Turner had 3 good years before losing more money in the last 2 years than he ever made. So in short, he lost money overall.

So basically, what you are saying is wrestling will live and die with the McMahon's...end of story. It is foolish for anyone else to try and tap into the market that has made him a Billionaire? You bring up Ted Turner, yes he lost money...but at one point he was making money hand over fist. Did it last? No. Was it foolish for him to try...in your opinion..yes. I don't think so. The key words to my arguement are "done the right way." Do I know what that way is? No. Can someone look at what Ted Turner did with WCW and learn from his mistakes to maintain longevity. Possibly. Ratings were at an all time high during that era. They have dropped off significantly since the competition died. Simple math, you do the subtracting. That ='s where the money is to be made. Look at the revision of ECW. Ratings were 2+ points (maybe more) higher during the early weeks than where they stand now. That tells me that YES there is a market out there that is being ignored and they sparked their interest...but unfortunately couldn't keep it.



If there is so much money to be made, why aren't people jumping on board? Why do these upstart companies last about 7 shows?
Feel free to read my anology that WWE is the Wall-Mart of Wrestling. Smaller companies with limited bank rolls cannot survive. I can't open a grocery store next to Wall-Mart and expect to last longer than 7 days.

Want to talk about money marks? Panda Energy. You know the company that owns TNA? Yeah they lost money hand over fist on wrestling and still continue to do so. Where exactly is this money that is to be made?

Yeah, they are losing money...now. It took Ted Turner a while before he started to turn in a profit with WCW. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Do I have a crystal ball that tells the next 5 years for TNA? No. Am I glad there is an alternative, HELL YES. Do I want people to keep trying to start a company that rivals WWE? HELL YES.

WWE has had a stranglehold on the current product for so long, that it's a double edged sword. McMahon continues to be the only one that makes money, but in turn...the bullshit product he produces has also killed off interest that once existed in wrestling fans. Key words there are "continues to make money." Do I know for a fact that a rival company could rekindle the glory days of wrestling in the "Monday Night Wars?" No. But goddamnit, I would love to see someone make a go of it.

Maybe wresting will fade out one day, but I would like someone else try to keep it alive, rather than have McMahon be the sole person that decides to pull the plug. Bottom line IMO, wrestling thrives when McMahon isn't the only shark in the water. What I'm hoping for is another shark. You make it sound like it is "foolish" for anyone else to jump in the water. If that's the case, then wrestling is already dead.

[Arnold HamNegger]

Maybe this whole angle with Trump will lead to "The Don" buying ECW. :shifty:

[Rob]

So basically, what you are saying is wrestling will live and die with the McMahon's...end of story. It is foolish for anyone else to try and tap into the market that has made him a Billionaire? You bring up Ted Turner, yes he lost money...but at one point he was making money hand over fist. Did it last? No. Was it foolish for him to try...in your opinion..yes. I don't think so. The key words to my arguement are "done the right way." Do I know what that way is? No. Can someone look at what Ted Turner did with WCW and learn from his mistakes to maintain longevity. Possibly. Ratings were at an all time high during that era. They have dropped off significantly since the competition died. Simple math, you do the subtracting. That ='s where the money is to be made. Look at the revision of ECW. Ratings were 2+ points (maybe more) higher during the early weeks than where they stand now. That tells me that YES there is a market out there that is being ignored and they sparked their interest...but unfortunately couldn't keep it.

Where did I say it was foolish for Ted Turner to try and make money in wrestling? Never. This isn't 1987 though. 20 years on is a whole new ball game. The whole business has changed. Ratings don't mean shit either. Want proof? WCW Nitro was in the top 5 highest rated shows on cable in 2001 when it was cancelled. Having massive weekly audiences and not attracting those people to buy tickets or PPV's is like having no fans at all. Examples - Monday Night Raw does about 4 million viewers a week and their average PPV draws about 200,000 PPV buys. That is 5% of the Raw audience liking the product enough to buy their PPV based on it. UFC does 1 million viewers in the week leading up to their PPVs and their PPV buyrates are bigger and bigger. On the Hughes vs. Penn show alone, 700,000 people bought the show. That is 70% of their TV audience.

So 5% of WWE fans who watch their weekly TV buy PPV's and 70% of UFC's does the same and UFC has 3 million LESS viewers. What's more impressive? WWE having 95% of their audience thinking it's not good enough to spend money on PPV? Of course not. And I haven't even taken into account that Ortiz vs. Liddell II probably did over 1 million buys!



Feel free to read my anology that WWE is the Wall-Mart of Wrestling. Smaller companies with limited bank rolls cannot survive. I can't open a grocery store next to Wall-Mart and expect to last longer than 7 days.

Read my posts. Panda Energy are a massive company with probably more cash reserves than WWE and they have never made a penny with TNA. They don't even charge fans to watch their PPV's live! They are making huge losses. And this is the number 2 company! They had to do what they did just to get a TV spot. TV executives don't want wrestling on their networks because it attracts the worst advertisers and the lowest ad rates. FACT. Ask who you want but it's a bonafide fact. Even WWE took a massive decrease in payments from USA once Spike TV dumped them.

As for the Wall-Mart vs. grocery store thing. It's not the same thing. If TNA offered an actually alternative to WWE, maybe they'd stand a chance. But they don't. It's all WWE rejects and most casual fans think it's another WWE brand. That's if they have even heard of it.


Yeah, they are losing money...now. It took Ted Turner a while before he started to turn in a profit with WCW. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Do I have a crystal ball that tells the next 5 years for TNA? No. Am I glad there is an alternative, HELL YES. Do I want people to keep trying to start a company that rivals WWE? HELL YES.

WWE has had a stranglehold on the current product for so long, that it's a double edged sword. McMahon continues to be the only one that makes money, but in turn...the bullshit product he produces has also killed off interest that once existed in wrestling fans. Key words there are "continues to make money." Do I know for a fact that a rival company could rekindle the glory days of wrestling in the "Monday Night Wars?" No. But goddamnit, I would love to see someone make a go of it.

Maybe wresting will fade out one day, but I would like someone else try to keep it alive, rather than have McMahon be the sole person that decides to pull the plug. Bottom line IMO, wrestling thrives when McMahon isn't the only shark in the water. What I'm hoping for is another shark. You make it sound like it is "foolish" for anyone else to jump in the water. If that's the case, then wrestling is already dead.

Wrestling won't die. It might lose national TV but there is far too big of a fanbase to kill it off completely. This isn't roller derby. The internet itself fucking survives off wrestling and porn. That too is a fact. No other genre of sites as a whole generates as much interest as pro wrestling and porn.

I make it sound foolish for anyone to try and run wrestling? Right now in 2007, yes it's fucking insane. There isn't enough talent available. TNA can work if they radically change their product, start charging people to come to shows and stop copying WWE. Vince Russo is a clown and no company is ever going to make money when he is in charge. FACT. TNA might last 5 years if they bin him and that is purely because Spike TV see this as their own baby now and want to make it a success just to spite WWE.

[Kane Knight]

So basically, what you are saying is wrestling will live and die with the McMahon's...end of story. It is foolish for anyone else to try and tap into the market that has made him a Billionaire?

You know 50 Cent? Get Rich or Die Trying?

Vicne Got Rich. The rest'll die trying.

[Arnold HamNegger]

Where did I say it was foolish for Ted Turner to try and make money in wrestling? Never. This isn't 1987 though. 20 years on is a whole new ball game. The whole business has changed. Ratings don't mean shit either. Want proof? WCW Nitro was in the top 5 highest rated shows on cable in 2001 when it was cancelled. Having massive weekly audiences and not attracting those people to buy tickets or PPV's is like having no fans at all.

True. It also didn't help that WCW gave away free tickets to Nitro.

Examples - Monday Night Raw does about 4 million viewers a week and their average PPV draws about 200,000 PPV buys. That is 5% of the Raw audience liking the product enough to buy their PPV based on it.

That right there is one hell of a statistic. Sad is a better word actually. Maybe if people quit buying their products and force them to earn their money of strictly PPV's, they'd be forced to...oh I don't know...IMPROVE THE PRODUCT.

UFC does 1 million viewers in the week leading up to their PPVs and their PPV buyrates are bigger and bigger. On the Hughes vs. Penn show alone, 700,000 people bought the show. That is 70% of their TV audience.

So 5% of WWE fans who watch their weekly TV buy PPV's and 70% of UFC's does the same and UFC has 3 million LESS viewers. What's more impressive? WWE having 95% of their audience thinking it's not good enough to spend money on PPV? Of course not. And I haven't even taken into account that Ortiz vs. Liddell II probably did over 1 million buys!

So if the right wrestling company comes along and offers a product that also intrests UFC fans (who, more than likely were probably wrestling fans too who "out grew" WWE to begin with), who's to say they won't spend money on both? It's all about the product offered and there will always be a demand for unscripted violence with unpredictable outcomes. UFC happens to be thriving, ironically...in an era where there is NO unpredictability in wrestling at all. UFC thriving doesn't force WWE to change it's product or even worry about them, despite the impressive figures you have shown. Why? Because WWE still has it's core wrestling audience, buying PPV's or not, that make Vince McMahon money. Someone, sometime needs to threaten that lively hood for WWE. When will the right time be? Who's to say? As much as I enjoy UFC, I don't want to wait til (IF) it dies down for someone to think the time is right to challenge WWE. Someone needs to take it's viewers away. If people aren't watching WWE, they aren't buying the products. This isn't possible without competition.


As for the Wall-Mart vs. grocery store thing. It's not the same thing. If TNA offered an actually alternative to WWE, maybe they'd stand a chance. But they don't. It's all WWE rejects and most casual fans think it's another WWE brand. That's if they have even heard of it.

Well, TNA is as close as anyone out there...unfortunately. The problem is internal with what they consider a decent product. In their mind, it seems they believe they are already "THE ALTERNATIVE." You can't brainwash fans into believing it, just because you put the lable on. Bottom line is, the product speaks for itself. TNA won't catch up with WWE until they shut their mouth and quit seeming like a WWE disregarded "jizz sock" of bitter, rejected talent. DESPITE all TNA's flaws, this hasn't stopped wrestling fans at paying WWE events from chanting "T-N-A's" initials. That just seems to SCREAM that wrestling fans want another alternative to WWE. You say the time isn't right. "In 2007 it's fucking insane." Well if not now, when? How long do wrestling fans have to suffer an inferior product, just because there's no competition to WWE? I'm not saying I know "how" to compete, I'm just saying in my mind, the heigth of when I thought wrestling was at it's highest quality of product was when there was 2 (3 counting ECW) major companies involved. That, in my mind means that at least "2 major companines" need to get involved again to raise the quality of wrestling that we have out there today. This is all just my opinion, thought that was the point of the thread.


TNA can work if they radically change their product, start charging people to come to shows and stop copying WWE. Vince Russo is a clown and no company is ever going to make money when he is in charge. FACT.

That is something we totally agree on my man. :y:


I don't have all the answers, I'm just throwing my 2 cents into what might be a possible (albeit, far fetched) solution. Just seems to me, that a wrestling world dominated by Vince McMahon is a terrible place to be. Competition is long overdue.

[Kane Knight]

Ratings aren't totally unimportant. They're not the end-all, but they do matter.

Buyrated, on the other hand, can make or break a promotion more readily than anything, and I don't believe they've been up of late. I don't have the figures, though. I don't care enough to argue figures. I'm honestly hoping TV ratings go down enough to shake up Cable's interest in wrestling, because it will make a difference. WWE's reaction to both ratings and buyrates has been worse shite than before. Unless the network which airs their programming, which advertises their PPVs starts losing interest, unless the very thing that allows him to shill his garbage to people is in jeopardy, he will continue a shit product with marginal buyrates.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Maybe I'm completely retarded, but I think this WSX shit has a chance of catching on. If it lasts a few seasons that is. It's accessible, it's produced like a TV show, which means anyone can watch every episode. It's got some pretty popular bands playing for them, and it's on MTV. Believe it or not, there are drones who will watch anything MTV tells them to.

I like the whole story they have going, where they don't pretend they're big names, or that they're competition to the WWE. They are the "best kept secrets" of professional wrestling, they unsigned wrestlers, and they're going to do crazy shit to get their name out there.

I don't see it crushing the WWE, or anything, but I can see it being more in-tune with audiences than the current McMahon product.

Another company I'd like to see have a shot at the big time, is CHIKARA. Seriously. They don't take themselves too seriously, hence there isn't that insulting voice in the back of a potential viewers head screaming "this is bullshit!". How can anyone take THE BEAR~! or ShareCropper seriously? There is some pretty awesome wrestling in their shows as well.

I think ROH has a chance, too, because even though it is the same staged stuff, it actually feels like it rewards athletic ability and skill.

I'm not saying I expect WSX, ROH and CHIKARA to become huge, so don't take it like that, I'm just saying that as a non-wrestling fan, I'd probably find them more interesting, and less insulting, to watch.

[Kane Knight]

Anything has a chance to catch on. But even MTV seems to have had problems pushing it.

I would pay for RoH, but I'm not sure Joe Sixtooth would.

Chikara...Can't comment. You may be right. I'm guessing on all counts, natch.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Anything has a chance to catch on. But even MTV seems to have had problems pushing it.

I would pay for RoH, but I'm not sure Joe Sixtooth would.

Chikara...Can't comment. You may be right. I'm guessing on all counts, natch.

I think ROH is kind of like the substance that you can only appreciate if you know the style. It's like an independant film but a mainstream filmmaker.

I think ROH would be able to succeed if wrestling became mainstream, again. Fuck, part of the pipe-dreamist in me wants to see Vince McMahon or Panda Energy purchase ROH, yet keep it seperate. Just lend talent and money so they can reach a larger audience, whilst keeping the identity pretty much separate.

Kind of like Coca Cola and Sprite, or just what the WWE did with the original ECW back in the day.

[Kane Knight]

I doubt we'll see that happen. Vince abhors competition these days, and seems to like to hire from outside wrestling anyway.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I this WSX MIGHT have a chance at doing some good. It's simple, it's flashy, and it's "fun." A lot of people don't want to watch wristlocks and body slams, but if they watch what MTV is putting out, they're going to see moves that look cool, new, and exciting. It's something different, and while it's nowhere near a purists idea of what wrestling should be, it might just be different enough to reel in some people who would otherwise never watch a wrestling show.

[ron the dial]

Fuck, part of the pipe-dreamist in me wants to see Vince McMahon or Panda Energy purchase ROH, yet keep it seperate. Just lend talent and money so they can reach a larger audience, whilst keeping the identity pretty much separate.
No fucking way. ROH needs to stay a separate entity all together, with no ties to Vince or Panda. Ugh. This idea disgusts me so much that it hurts. Besides, TNA and ROH already share a decent amount of talent. And as much as some of the guys from WWE could potentially mesh well in ROH, it is by no means necessary. ROH will reach a larger audience if and when they are ready to. They're doing a fine job a building themselves from scratch, and I'd like it to continue that way.

[.44 Magdalene]

For the record, I fucking love Chikara.

[Jeritron]

"At some point, I stopped worrying about being the next Shawn Michaels and concentrated on being the first Chris Jericho" - words of excellence that apply to this scenario too

[Rob]

Oh and just in relation to the free Nitro tickets comment - WWF has given away tickets too. Only about half the people at the 1997 Royal Rumble paid for a ticket for a start. Monday Night Raw has also been papered over years.

[Arnold HamNegger]

You know, I was thinking of something last night. I believe Rob mentioned that there isn't enough talent for 2 companies right now. I agree with that to a certain extent, but more so there isn't really any "Big Names" out there to draw attention if one shifted from WWE to a new company. Back in the day, WWF/E wasn't worried about competing with what WCW was doing. They were focused on making "new" stars and added tremendous depth too it's product. WCW was more focused on it's ratings, but relied on the already established "big" names to carry it's product. That's what frustrated so many of the underused talent at WCW, such as Jericho, Eddie, Rey, Benoit, etc. and made them decide to jump ship...which was one of it's factors that lead to it's ultimate demise.

Now, WWE's product has NO DEPTH because it refuses to push anyone new or develop new stars. They seem content with making there money on Cena & DX merchandise. There really hasn't been a threat to WWE as far as an alternative goes for jumping ship. They have been able to use and abuse whatever talent they deem necessary, because where else are they gonna go?

What WWE has done IMO..whether purposely or not...has been a smart, defensive business move (albeit bad for the fans). The only ones that would really shake up their company and the wrestling world if they went to TNA are Cena, HBK and HHH. Arguably, those are the only true "Big" names in wrestling today. Part of the "monopoly" aspect of WWE that is so bad is that they have had the power to MAKE OR BREAK whatever talent they so choose. Having 3 brands and spreading out talent also aids with holding talent back. Let's face it, stars are really only born on RAW. You could argue the likes of CM Punk, but how much more over and popular would he be with a solid mid card push and feud on Raw compared to the slow death that is ECW. Hell, you could be champ of of Smackdown and ECW...if noone's watching, who cares?

WWE makes money on only a few superstars. If it had pushed say 5-6 more wrestlers into "Big" names, that would have more impact if those wrestlers were to jump ship one day to the inevitable competition.

Kind of a conspiracy theory I guess, now that I read it again. But, somewhere along the line I'd like to see the cyclical pattern of TNA creating new stars. Expand to 2 hours, develop characters and story lines for people to care about. Give depth to it's product and keep people hooked for 2 hours straight and give them a reason to tune in next week. As a fan, that would hook me rather than trying to keep up with the "Adrenaline Rush" that is Impact! TNA's product is also as thin, even more so than WWE. Weird situation I guess, because as TNA you'd like to develop new stars (putting Joe over Angle for example), but I guess you have to show that you aren't going to just bury talent from WWE if they come to your company. Not much motivation to leave WWE in that case. God, I guess that basically spells out that this whole "viable" competition thing could take a long time to happen. Kind of like a dog chasing his tail.

Fuck, I don't know. Makes my head hurt trying to figure this shit out. Just ironic that the biggest names to date that defected to TNA are Christian/Angle and WWE threw them to lesser brands to die shortly before it happened. Did WWE have a feeling they would defect or did they defect BECAUSE of this? Kind of like asking what came first, the Gobbledygooker or the egg?

[Jeritron]

Now, WWE's product has NO DEPTH because it refuses to push anyone new or develop new stars. They seem content with making there money on Cena & DX merchandise. There really hasn't been a threat to WWE as far as an alternative goes for jumping ship. They have been able to use and abuse whatever talent they deem necessary, because where else are they gonna go?



But WCW was on a whole other level of relying off premade stars. They didn't let anyone get a break. Say what you will about WWE, but they still make stars. Maybe not properly, maybe not good ones, but they still do nonetheless. Cena is overpushed, but he's fairly new. Kennedy and such are new faces. WCW didn't make anyone new.
The only reason WWE isn't doing what they did in the late 90s is because they don't have to. The only reason Austin, Rock, Triple H, Foley and others got to GIANT heights was out of neccesity. There was no Hogans or Savages to be had, so they made new ones. As bad as WWE has been as of late with new stars and pushing talent, its nowhere near WCW so lets be fair.

[Rob]

But WCW was on a whole other level of relying off premade stars. They didn't let anyone get a break. Say what you will about WWE, but they still make stars. Maybe not properly, maybe not good ones, but they still do nonetheless. Cena is overpushed, but he's fairly new. Kennedy and such are new faces. WCW didn't make anyone new.
The only reason WWE isn't doing what they did in the late 90s is because they don't have to. The only reason Austin, Rock, Triple H, Foley and others got to GIANT heights was out of neccesity. There was no Hogans or Savages to be had, so they made new ones. As bad as WWE has been as of late with new stars and pushing talent, its nowhere near WCW so lets be fair.

What stars? Cena. That's it. Edge still isn't a star but he got himself over regardless. Kennedy isn't even a fucking mid carder. Nobody buys him on top. Lashley is pants. Batista hasn't been the same since his injuries. Booker T is only comedy.

They have had chances over the years to make headline marquee stars in Chris Jericho, Bill Goldberg, Chris Benoit, Rob Van Dam, Edge, Rey Misterio, Eddie Guerrero and Kane and they blew it. Even Big Show should have been a bigger star. Kurt Angle is proving his drawing power in TNA right now with nobody buying the shows he headlines. The only guy who has to take any blame for his lack of push is Rob Van Dam but even then, he should have been pushed to the moon on at least 2 ocassions prior to his drug possesion charge.

[Jeritron]

Nonetheless, those guys were all stars. Even if they haven't made any Austin/Hogan/Rock stars, they still have made stars. Guys have gotten breaks, please. New guys who've main evented and been champion in the past few years, WAY more than WCW at its height.
As badly as RVD, Booker T, Jericho, Benoit, Rey Mysterio and Edge might not have been pushed or reached the heights you or I wanted, but they were made stars and given the title nonetheless. They blew it with Eddie Guerrero? I think not. He died for christ sakes, and he was a drawing champion and star, much better than being a misused cruiserweight. Same goes for Rey. Edge is as big a star in the business these days as half of the WCW roster was in the attitude era. Kane's an example of a star who's flame can't be put out, he is still liked even though hes never been at top and probably never would have been. Benoit and RVD are great wrestlers but they could only be brought so far, it took a while for them to get their day but they got it, and they were all allowed to be stars with the company before main eventing.

To say those guys weren't stars is a lie, they were before they got their breaks and they all got their "break" and won world titles. Maybe things didn't work out as well as they could have but it still happened. They were midcarders in WCW. Big Show was made a bigger star too. Jericho, although misused in the late years was a HUGE star when he came over and he'll be the first to say it, all things aside. Goldberg? The Rock jobbed to him and he took the title off Triple H, what else did you want he was already a star before.

And just because Cena, Lashley and Batista aren't very special doesn't mean they're not stars. They're given all they can be given, so its reflective only of them and the company/business at the time. WWE sucks right now but please don't call it WCW.

[Jeritron]

I mean, all main eventing and titles aside, WWE has always allowed the midcard to be more star studded than WCW did as well. Maybe not right now, but think about it. Eddie, Rey, Jericho, Benoit and RVD among others were all allowed to be bigger stars in the WWE midcard than they were down south period. They've allowed for supporting characters, look at guys like Edge and Jeff Hardy.

I'll be the first to say that after the WCW folded, WWF/E missed the boat on a whole generation of talent as the "torch carriers". That they failed to make a guy like Jericho into the next big thing, and that they didn't focus on the next wave. But they still made them stars, they still allowed them to succeed to some degree and they were never as bad as WCW.

New WCW champions at its height: Bill Goldberg
In its decline: Booker T, Steiner, Jarret, Arquette

New champions in WWE since end of Monday Night Wars:
Kurt Angle
Chris Jericho
Brock Lesnar
Eddie Guerrero
JBL
John Cena
Edge
RVD
Batista
Randy Orton
Chris Benoit
Booker T
Rey Mysterio

[Kane Knight]

Most of those guys were someone else's stars or just weren't.

[Jeritron]

Well if you're gonna gauge it by Austin/Hogan/Rock status, then no--there hasn't been new stars. But those guys above certainly turned into stars, or bigger ones in the WWE, when they weren't used elsewhere. Thats like saying Hogan isn't Vince's star, he was Verne Gagne, which is true to some degree but come on. They've had a lot of guys like Jericho, Eddie or Rey or Booker who've been big stars but never reached the peak, for whatever reason (bad booking, misuse--a whole other debate)

But nonetheless they made stars. A guy like Edge certainly is a star. He's not a star in the sense that hes selling out arenas on his own. But he was a star with E&C, and has gone on to be a bigger one on his own. Since the show hasn't reached new heights these stars haven't reached them either.

It's because theres been a lot of supporting stars and potential major players (within the business), but a Austin or Hogan hasn't brought the company to a level where they are bigger. A guy like Triple H, or even Mankind were never THE TOP GUY in the business to make everyone elses stage bigger. They just looked better because of the time they were in, which doesn't take anything from them.

[Kane Knight]

Howabout we just gague it by status within WWE, for one?
Or maybe we actually have some level definition of star which involves, you know, not just being a top guy in a ratings quagmire?

Kurt Angle You start with a good example. No complaints there.
Chris Jericho Jericho didn't exactly experience a huge climb within WWE compared to WCW.
Brock Lesnar Was he ever really a star? Everyone seemed to hate him even as a face.
Eddie Guerrero Becoming champion made him a star, or what's the argument here?
JBL Considering he wasn't even a drawing champion, I don't know what I need to say here.
John Cena Pretty much the only real example in the last 5 years-ish.
Edge Just because his name says "Superstar..."
RVD You mean the guy who was the hottest shit on the planet when he ENTERED WWF/E? Stupid, stupid example because he was already established in other promotions, and walked into the company as part of the "star power" of another brand. *quickly scans your list for Goldberg, Sting, or Flair*
Batista If you severely lower the standards of what a "star" is, Edge, Orton and Batista are stars. The problem is, you're lowering it to the point where getting some reaction at some point or being on top at some point automatically makes you a star, and that devalues the concept to the point of no meaning.
Randy Orton As above. Orton and Edge may become stars, but I'm having trouble viewing them as such.
Chris Benoit You mean that guy who was huge in WCW and ECW?
Booker T You mean the guy who was RVD-Level coming into the company, who they neglected to push, but was already a stgar in his own right?
Rey Mysterio You mean that other guy who was "huge" in WCW and ECW?

[Kane Knight]

By the way, I never really said or indicated you needed to be Rock/Austin level. My comment was they were either someone else's stars or they simply weren't. Which I covered in depth in my previous post, but I felt like making a deparate comment now. The fact that JBL, someone who was a star MAYBE in WWE's mind, but not commercially so, and RVD, who isn't really WWE's doing....Well, it's just laughable.

[Jeritron]

yea they were huge in their companies....
You're right about RVD, but Jericho and Booker T among others became much bigger stars under the WWE banner. Jericho was given shit in WCW. Benoit was over in WCW but the problem is they never really pounced on him as a star of any sort until right when he was set to leave, but it was too little to late in his eyes.

[Kane Knight]

Benoit wasn't particularly a star in WWE. They gave him a placeholder title reign. If you're going to make arguments as to why "over" doesn't equal star in its own right, you're shooting half your list in the foot anyway. Van Dam and Booker were HUGE coming into InVasion, not because WWE made them so, but because they were already huge. WWE depushed them, and really, I'm hardpressed to see the "stars" they've become as even close to what they were before WWE got their hands on them.

[Jeritron]

My point was moresoe that the WWE has made and allowed for stars moresoe than WCW did. I'm not going to sit here and say that JBL or Batista are huge stars because their not, neither in my eyes yours or the majority of people. Nonetheless what I'm trying to get at is they were new stars on some level and the list of guys enhanced, utilized, or created far surpasses that of the bygone dubya c dubya. I was aiming more at an earlier post likening current WWE to the old WCW.

When you said they were already stars, or not really stars I merely questioned your definition of what a star really was because I thought you were setting the bar too high.

[Rob]

yea they were huge in their companies....
You're right about RVD, but Jericho and Booker T among others became much bigger stars under the WWE banner. Jericho was given shit in WCW. Benoit was over in WCW but the problem is they never really pounced on him as a star of any sort until right when he was set to leave, but it was too little to late in his eyes.

If you think WWE did a good job making stars out of Booker T, RVD and Chris Jericho then you are insane my friend.

[Jeritron]

omg, read my posts. I said I'd be the first to say that they weren't all they could be. you know this, look at my goddamn name. I go on record all the time about talking about how they missed the boat on a lot of these guys and didn't make them into what they could, including in this thread.
But all things aside I recognize the fact that they were still given something. I mean come on, I'm the biggest Jericho mark going but the guy had a great career and was given great freedom and success. FAR surpassing what he got in WCW. All he could have been? Not in my mind. I think he could have been the company. But still.

So before you call me insane, read what I said. I can maintain one truth while still giving the opposing side credit for something else.

[Kane Knight]

My point was moresoe that the WWE has made and allowed for stars moresoe than WCW did.

I don't even know how you can get that from your argument.

[Rob]

omg, read my posts. I said I'd be the first to say that they weren't all they could be. you know this, look at my goddamn name. I go on record all the time about talking about how they missed the boat on a lot of these guys and didn't make them into what they could, including in this thread.
But all things aside I recognize the fact that they were still given something. I mean come on, I'm the biggest Jericho mark going but the guy had a great career and was given great freedom and success. FAR surpassing what he got in WCW. All he could have been? Not in my mind. I think he could have been the company. But still.

So before you call me insane, read what I said. I can maintain one truth while still giving the opposing side credit for something else.

I read your posts. And I think your idea of a star is majorly different from mine.

[Jeritron]

with my 1,001st post, I say...let it be.

[M-A-G]

Can we agree that the WWE simply presented more opportunity than WCW?

[Kane Knight]

Did it?

WWE is apparently so horrible that one loss equals the burial of a wrestler.