Wrestling popularity is not a random cycle

**AdrianM** · 01-14-2007, 11:01 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

01-14-2007, 11:01 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