What was the point in HHH capturing the title?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead I agree once more. My argument is the show doesn't need to suck. The problem is it also doesn't need to be good. It is largely agreed that SNL isn't very good anymore. It's just not. It's a staple, a lot like WWE, a lot like Simpsons. It's a brand. Business wise, it's GREAT. They sling merch, they are in good standings with advertisers, with network. But when things are around too long they often lose the fire, edge and passion which made them awesome to begin with. I've made your point about a bajillion times. They don't NEED to change their formula, but all we're saying is dips in the ratings while not a big deal in the grand scheme (since you know, there is no competition) would suggest a deciline in the product. Not always, but often. And 3. some odd ratings just aren't that great. Walking Dead for instance, does a 7.0, what RAW used to do. There is NO REASON that RAW can't do that, other than it doesn't need to and the product just is not that good. And I love wrestling so I watch new wrestling sometimes (Like Royal Rumble) and in the case of the rumble I enjoyed it because I don't watch too much and all in all it was a decent show though I didn't really care about the Roman/HHH stuff that much... not to say it was poorly done by any means, just it means fuckall. More paint by the numbers corporate style inside the box booking. But it must be said WWE is more than capable of consistently being good, they just aren't. At it's height as a product, (I would equate this to the 1980s and 1998 and 2000-mid-way through 2001) everything intertwined and everything everyone did the most part (Barring your usual wrestling dreck that's par for the course) mattered. There was always a method to someone's madness. Characters developed. It was NOT a variety show. The attitude era while fondly remembered for some of the shittier stuff for whatever reason, had the backbone of intricate booking at its height. Survivor Series 1998 was masterful, HHH vs Cactus Jack at royal rumber 2000, masterful. At the same time, there was always dumb shit like Austin dropping HHH from a crane or buried alive matches. But the realness of the characters and their promos was able to break through a dimension where the audience gave leeway to some of the silliness. Now, guys go out there and they say their lines, do about a bajillion different moves and it doesn't mean anything. Because they aren't allowed to really develop. I feel terrible for Roman Reigns because he has been mis handled much like Diesel was in 1996. Diesel would have been hella easy to book if Vince could have pulled his head from his ass in that time, but he was stuck in the past, the same as he is with Roman Reigns. People liked Reigns initially because he was a badass and lit dudes up. Now they've made him a "sports entertainer" and he has to do all this stuff that makes no sense and doesn't seem organic. Mind you, he's a talented enough guy and has made SOME of it work, but jesus christ they literally push this guy out there every week and he's been booed probably 70% of the time (from what I can gather, as I do keep up with reports). As soon as Vince stuck his grubby little hands into Roman, there has been a disconnect. It's so obvious. Then you have guys like Cesaro, who with all his faults, has remained a crowd favourite through the effort he puts in and is made to look average at best, constantly. Now Cesaro isn't my choice for THE guy, but you're telling me with the same attention received by Reigns from Vince and the company, he wouldn't be at least equally as successful or moreso than Roman has been thus far? So you protect SOME guys who maybe aren't worth the protection because you've invested time in them, but other guys who are consistent should just be happy to be part of the team. I mean this is your usual corporate nonsense at the end of the day. But the pro wrestling I grew up with is dead and is now either Japanese which I don't connect with, ROH which is MEH, TNA which is don't get me started or the corporate brand of WWE. I love pro wrestling, and I will gripe about its state because I WANT to be able to watch it and it annoys me that I don't have much of an alternative. The group with the resources to produce something compelling every week, chooses to coast. My point of view is fair and not hard to understand. Your point of view is obtuse and down right insulting and irritating for the most part. You're totally free to your opinion, but we're free to tell you that you're borderline autistic.

Walking Dead is one of the few shows on TV I watch. The Walking Dead comparison is really not fair. Call me in 20 years if Walking Dead is still on cable, and they are still doing a 7.0. Not to mention Walking Dead has to write one hour of entertaining TV per week, for what? something like 16 weeks per year. That's 16 hours PER YEAR! WWE covers that much programming is less than 3 weeks. So its not exactly a fair comparison.

If you follow people's comments on Walking Dead on Twitter, it can be similar to what you read on sites like this about the WWE. Shows like this last for 5-6 years, and then they end, and people move on to something else. I would say similarly, sports entertainment had their run in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was the hot product, so you get casual fans. The problem with casual fans is they come and they go.

To me, the fact that not only has RAW specifically been on for 20+ years (an amazing feat accomplished by very few episodic shows), they have produced literally thousands of hours of content (another feat that puts them in even more rarefied air), but they have managed to do that while still consistently being #1 or near #1 on cable every single week. So guys like you will say "oh they SHOULD be doing a 7", but really you have no fucking clue how amazing their run has been, and how difficult it is to create product week after week that continues to appeal to as many people as WWE TV does.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Walking Dead is one of the few shows on TV I watch. The Walking Dead comparison is really not fair. Call me in 20 years if Walking Dead is still on cable, and they are still doing a 7.0. Not to mention Walking Dead has to write one hour of entertaining TV per week, for what? something like 16 weeks per year. That's 16 hours PER YEAR! WWE covers that much programming is less than 3 weeks. So its not exactly a fair comparison. If you follow people's comments on Walking Dead on Twitter, it can be similar to what you read on sites like this about the WWE. Shows like this last for 5-6 years, and then they end, and people move on to something else. I would say similarly, sports entertainment had their run in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was the hot product, so you get casual fans. The problem with casual fans is they come and they go. To me, the fact that not only has RAW specifically been on for 20+ years (an amazing feat accomplished by very few episodic shows), they have produced literally thousands of hours of content (another feat that puts them in even more rarefied air), but they have managed to do that while still consistently being #1 or near #1 on cable every single week. So guys like you will say "oh they SHOULD be doing a 7", but really you have no fucking clue how amazing their run has been, and how difficult it is to create product week after week that continues to appeal to as many people as WWE TV does.

7 is astronomical, but I was overstepping to make a point. Taking into account some of the valid points you have made, (because you actually took the time to make some sense here) I think all in all ratings in the low mid 4s even creeping in high mid 4s would indicate the product operating at full potential.

Wrestling is just not as hot as it was. Wrestlemania is big but that's it. Maybe rumble and summerslam as well. There has always been down periods but then there was an up period to even it out. We are all waiting for wrestling as a whole to really come back with some weight, and the neat and tidy corporate inside the box while indicative of a nicely run brand and commodity does not speak for wrestling and the integrity of the brand.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead 7 is astronomical, but I was overstepping to make a point. Taking into account some of the valid points you have made, (because you actually took the time to make some sense here) I think all in all ratings in the low mid 4s even creeping in high mid 4s would indicate the product operating at full potential. Wrestling is just not as hot as it was. Wrestlemania is big but that's it. Maybe rumble and summerslam as well. There has always been down periods but then there was an up period to even it out. We are all waiting for wrestling as a whole to really come back with some weight, and the neat and tidy corporate inside the box while indicative of a nicely run brand and commodity does not speak for wrestling and the integrity of the brand.

Yeah but you're just making that "low mid 4" number up. There's no evidence to suggest that is what the WWE optimal point is. As I've been saying here for weeks, you have to look at the competition. Nobody other MNF is doing the kind of viewership numbers that RAW does. So as much as you can say "it should be this or that", at the end of the day being #1 counts for a lot.

I'm personally not waiting for anything with sports entertainment. I like the product as is. Do I love every segment? Nope. But I didnt love a lot of segments back when you felt WWE was at their peak. Especially when I look back. Quite frankly I am borderline embarrassed that I supported the product the way it was. Women were treated like whores, the boys were risking life and limb to one up each other, and the antics on screen were cringe worthy at many points in the run. This was evident by the lack of money WWE was able to generate in TV rights fees even though their ratings were as you mentioned through the roof. At least now I am not ashamed to turn on WWE programming. Dalemay not be enjoying the product - hopefully you are avoiding the show at all costs. But for people like me, I think the product is light years ahead of where it was.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Yeah but you're just making that "low mid 4" number up. There's no evidence to suggest that is what the WWE optimal point is. As I've been saying here for weeks, you have to look at the competition. Nobody other MNF is doing the kind of viewership numbers that RAW does. So as much as you can say "it should be this or that", at the end of the day being #1 counts for a lot. I'm personally not waiting for anything with sports entertainment. I like the product as is. Do I love every segment? Nope. But I didnt love a lot of segments back when you felt WWE was at their peak. Especially when I look back. Quite frankly I am borderline embarrassed that I supported the product the way it was. Women were treated like whores, the boys were risking life and limb to one up each other, and the antics on screen were cringe worthy at many points in the run. This was evident by the lack of money WWE was able to generate in TV rights fees even though their ratings were as you mentioned through the roof. At least now I am not ashamed to turn on WWE programming. Dalemay not be enjoying the product - hopefully you are avoiding the show at all costs. But for people like me, I think the product is light years ahead of where it was.

4.0 is obviously a decent mark to gauge by. It's not rocket science.

But you're just spouting nonsense again so we are done here.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead 4.0 is obviously a decent mark to gauge by. It's not rocket science. But you're just spouting nonsense again so we are done here.

You are the reason kids get participation medals in schools.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You are the reason kids get participation medals in schools.

Man, I participate the best out of anyone. I deserve my medal.