|
No way its 25%. If it was there would be 1000 people posting on a place like this. Keep in mind, when I say IWC, In taking about the person who follows all the backstage news and reads dirt sheets.
I'll admit I didn't do the research you apparently did, but I feel like during the Attitude Era, I saw some combination of Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley in matches over a 3 year period. You have to remember that RAW in 1998 was drastically different, and was touching on material that was never done before. The result was strong TV ratings, but significantly hurt the image of the company long term. It's damage they are still to this day trying to reverse, and it's cost them big time revenue. The booking to me was not much different than it is today. I would be curious about how specifically you saw the booking as different. I remember a ton of pointless tag matches with top guys back then. All usually ended with a schmoze and a bunch of Stunners or Austin looking angrily at Vince.
You hit the nail on the head, the difference is the talent. The talent today wants success handed to them. The talent back then fought for what they thought was best. And the person in charge then was the same guy today. Why is it that Steve Austin fought his way out of midcard obscurity but a guy like Cesaro is happy being on TV and posting goofy pics backstage? On top of that, you had a plethora of hall of famers back then, I'm not sure we have that luxury today. It's like a pro sports team, you have some years with amazing talent, other years its mediocre.
You asked about MNF. Great question. Simple answer is WWE programming is more like a TV drama, you can catch up on it at any time. MNF needs to be consumed live. That's why rights fees for sports properties has gone up so much in the last 5 years or so. Live sports are You Tube and DVR proof. RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment. That said, there are not too many weekly storyline driven TV shows that have remained consistently at the top of the charts like WWE has.
|