Wrestling popularity is not a random cycle

**AdrianM** · 01-14-2007, 10:01 AM

Ok, here's my point. ok, wrestling may work in cycles of popularity or unpopularity, but i get the feeling some people just think that wrestling is purely cyclical, and the rises and troughs in the industry are based on nothing.

The cycles are due to the product being produced. As far as i am aware, wrestling wasn't that huge in the late 1970's to early 80's (at least by late 80's standards). It got big in the mid 80's due to Hogan, savage, ted debiasse and a strong undercard (bam bam, big bossman, tito santana etc...).

It dropped off in the early 90's due to hogan and others leaving and the new breed coming throught.

It got big again in the mid 90's due to the NWO, then even bigger with austin, the rock etc...

ok,basically, my point is that wrestling may work in cycles, but the cycles don't just happen. The cycles occur due to how well the business is producing stars.

curious if people agree with me

**Xero** · 01-14-2007, 10:26 AM

Well duh.

USUALLY the cycle will hit when a majority of the older talents and/or their gimmicks are long gone and others begin to shine.

**ct2k** · 01-14-2007, 10:34 AM

Personally I stopped watching back in 2002 for two main reasons, I hated the way the ECW and WCW had pretty much been squashed with the exception of a few like Benoit. And I also couldn't watch Raw, Smackdown or most of the PPV's because I never had Sky TV.

Oh and Hulk Hogan?

Fuck him, fuck McMahon and fuck anybody else who thinks old galutes like him are entertaining beyond the 'OMG HOGAN LOL LEGDROP' level

**ct2k** · 01-14-2007, 10:36 AM

Shoulda said, WCW and ECW both collapsing clearly had a serious effect on the quality of WWE programming subsequently, they no longer had to try and there was no longer a real alternative for most fans.

*edit* I know all of what I've said is obvious stuff but I dunno, I felt like ranting, I loved this shit once upon a time

**Kane Knight** · 01-14-2007, 11:01 AM

It's not just about the old stars departing and the new ones needing to establish. It's also about business decisions.

But yes, thank you for applying the common sense that so few seem to have been able to utilise in my way too many years on this website.

01-14-2007, 10:01 AM	#1
AdrianM aka Aussie_Skier Posts: 526	Wrestling popularity is not a random cycle Ok, here's my point. ok, wrestling may work in cycles of popularity or unpopularity, but i get the feeling some people just think that wrestling is purely cyclical, and the rises and troughs in the industry are based on nothing. The cycles are due to the product being produced. As far as i am aware, wrestling wasn't that huge in the late 1970's to early 80's (at least by late 80's standards). It got big in the mid 80's due to Hogan, savage, ted debiasse and a strong undercard (bam bam, big bossman, tito santana etc...). It dropped off in the early 90's due to hogan and others leaving and the new breed coming throught. It got big again in the mid 90's due to the NWO, then even bigger with austin, the rock etc... ok,basically, my point is that wrestling may work in cycles, but the cycles don't just happen. The cycles occur due to how well the business is producing stars. curious if people agree with me

01-14-2007, 10:26 AM	#2
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	Well duh. USUALLY the cycle will hit when a majority of the older talents and/or their gimmicks are long gone and others begin to shine.

01-14-2007, 10:34 AM	#3
ct2k Triple A Posts: 48,551	Personally I stopped watching back in 2002 for two main reasons, I hated the way the ECW and WCW had pretty much been squashed with the exception of a few like Benoit. And I also couldn't watch Raw, Smackdown or most of the PPV's because I never had Sky TV. Oh and Hulk Hogan? Fuck him, fuck McMahon and fuck anybody else who thinks old galutes like him are entertaining beyond the 'OMG HOGAN LOL LEGDROP' level

01-14-2007, 10:36 AM	#4
ct2k Triple A Posts: 48,551	Shoulda said, WCW and ECW both collapsing clearly had a serious effect on the quality of WWE programming subsequently, they no longer had to try and there was no longer a real alternative for most fans. edit I know all of what I've said is obvious stuff but I dunno, I felt like ranting, I loved this shit once upon a time

01-14-2007, 11:01 AM	#5
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	It's not just about the old stars departing and the new ones needing to establish. It's also about business decisions. But yes, thank you for applying the common sense that so few seem to have been able to utilise in my way too many years on this website.