The NExt boom period maay be upon us.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Chavo There's also the distinct possibility that there won't be another boom period. Nothing lasts forever, take for example soccer in America in the 1970s - it was huge. There were huge names like Pele, Best and Cruyff, huge crowds and huge interest. However, within years it died, and took over 20 years to be resurrected as MLS and brought back as the poor, neglected cousin to the NBA, NHL and NFL. While I'm not saying that the WWE will die, but it might remain at its current level for the rest of its existence. However, there's also nothing to say that it won't go the way of WCW. Bischoff and Russo were convinced in 2000 that their fortunes were going to change, and all they needed to achieve this was an angle or a wrestler to catch on, and it never happened. Even scarier still is the fact, as KK wisely brought up, that a majority of the WWE's profits come from DVD and merchandise sales. This is a finite market and can, and will, eventually become saturated. The WWE can't rely on fans to continue buying their products to keep afloat, especially when their fanbase gets older and departs.

I think it's realistic to assume that it won't bounce back just because of the past. And while things could change, the current environment does not engender hope that there will be another boom. Sure, things could change, but there's no reason to predict, currently. Wrestling is currently a specialty market, and is making no real effort to step beyond that. Except for WWE, who's not doing it.

[Chavo Classic]

Personally, I think it needs to change it's entire direction. The last boom was in simplest terms, a movement from cartoon-style family wrestling to real-life risque television, and was something bigger than a single angle or wrestler catching on.

At the moment, the product is half way between the former cartoon style family show or the early 90s and the gritty show of the late 90s. It needs to leave that spectrum all together and head off on a new tangent. The guy who identifies what that tangent is, will be richer than all the Russos, Bischoffs and Heymans put together.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Chavo Personally, I think it needs to change it's entire direction. The last boom was in simplest terms, a movement from cartoon-style family wrestling to real-life risque television, and was something bigger than a single angle or wrestler catching on. At the moment, the product is half way between the former cartoon style family show or the early 90s and the gritty show of the late 90s. It needs to leave that spectrum all together and head off on a new tangent. The guy who identifies what that tangent is, will be richer than all the Russos, Bischoffs and Heymans put together.

It probably does, to be completely honest.

[Dorkchop]

TNA has the potential to put on some of the best wrestling matches you can ever see, but their booking is so fucked up I doubt it will ever happen. Every once in a while we're treated to a great match... but that usually ends in 3 run-ins and a roll up.

WWE is only great when there's competition. They were great in the 80s because they were competing with some great territories. They were great in the late 90s because they were competing with WCW. WWE has been for the most part ok since they bought out WCW because they don't have to try hard because there is no competition.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool No, there is no gap. It actaully is a little tight with the carpet. Plus, scruffy would scare them off. Scruffy is my girlfriend's dog and he barks at everthing.

That is also why I love the caulk.







































WAIT JUST A GOD DAMN MINUTE!!!

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 Thank God there's no water in my house for them to teleport into.

Dolphins breathe air, you silly wanker.

[Jeritron]

I think we'll know if and when the boom is upon us, and with confidence I can say it's not now.
Things are much better right now, as is usually the case around Mania time.

I do feel however the current product and direction it's taking is more than just a mania surge, and in a very good place overall. However, this doesn't indicate a boom period per se. Just better than average (or recent) wrestling product. I'll take it, since it's very good for a change, but as we know that can change very quickly in either direction. It can keep getting better, or fade out again.

[Kane Knight]

I wouldn't say it's in a "very good" place. I think the current state of wrestling is indicative of something that is mostly treading water.

We will see the signs when a boom period comes, though. It's a thing you can tell, and it usually starts with a singular moment, be it Hulkamania or Austin 3:16.

I gotta say, though, that the last boom period was a series of happy coincidences. Austin's character happened to catch on. Hogan "turning" and Hell, the Outsiders going over to WCW. DX catching on. The Rock. Hell, the Rock and Austin would be screwed nowadays, because they wouldn't be allowed to shine. The Outsiders wouldn't have the capacity to go to WCW and trash the titles. I'm not even sure spoiling Raw would make a difference right now. Noncompetition, rigid definition of character, ignoring the fans, these are poison.

However, I'll say one thing. Whatever the next boom period is, if it ever comes, it'll not look like the Attitude Era. It will either be sheer dumb luck, or a major reformation. In the case of the former, we will see the change in advance, and it ain't on the horizon here. In the case of the latter, we'll know it when we see it, but this still ain't it.

The potential's always there; the series of random events that sparked the last one should indicate that. Kind of a worthless statement, because anything really can happen, no matter how hard Vince tries to stop it.

I really do think Vince McMahon is the biggest enemy to another boom period.

[The Optimist]

Kane Knight's totally right. I might have added "treading duck water", other than that spot on.

[Kane Knight]

I don't know the phrase "treading duck water." Any significant difference?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by DarthTedious Dolphins breathe air, you silly wanker.

Yeah, but their bodies have specifically evolved so they can stick to the water. Unless they suddenly turn into *gasp* apes, then we should have nothing to fear unless they appear in our pools when we are swimming alone.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight I don't know the phrase "treading duck water." Any significant difference?

It's got more shit in it?

[The Optimist]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 It's got more shit in it?

Bingo.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Chavo Personally, I think it needs to change it's entire direction. The last boom was in simplest terms, a movement from cartoon-style family wrestling to real-life risque television, and was something bigger than a single angle or wrestler catching on. At the moment, the product is half way between the former cartoon style family show or the early 90s and the gritty show of the late 90s. It needs to leave that spectrum all together and head off on a new tangent. The guy who identifies what that tangent is, will be richer than all the Russos, Bischoffs and Heymans put together.

I actually thought the WWE was heading in a great direction with Heyman's SmackDown! in 2002/2003. It had its own feel and style. On that show, you had amazing wrestlers getting the chance to be amazing wrestlers. The two biggest stars SmackDown! had at its disposal were Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar, two guys with amateur backgrounds.

This era under Heyman also brought us the first signs of real pushes for Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. Los Guerreros really got Eddie over. When he returned in 2002, he was originally on RAW, and was solid, but was in the mid-card, and still the same Eddie Guerrero that bored me in 2001 (with my limited knowledge of the guys abilities). Then he joined his nephew on SmackDown!, and they became Los Guerreros, and wow. I don't think anyone could deny that Eddie would have gotten his massive face push in 2004 if it weren't for getting so over with the "lying, cheating and stealing" thing.

Chris Benoit's defining moment came when Paul Heyman just put him in a match against Kurt Angle. He just let them wrestle, and after the match the fans really got on Benoit's side, and he would never be a heel again (until he murdered his family, there I made the joke so no one else does).

Wrestling never really "boomed" under Heyman's vision for SmackDown!, but I think I remember the ratings surpassing RAW a lot of the time. KK might remember, because I didn't care for ratings at the time (still don't, all I need to know is that they are a parody of what they once were), but I'm fairly certain SmackDown! was doing quite well for itself.

It just felt different. I remember it just being so colourful. I used to be really invested in SmackDown! with Heyman behind it. I actually used to consider John Cena vs. Matt Hardy a potential dream match: Thuganomics vs. Mattitude. What happened there?

But yeah, that time has come and gone, and it was never really a boom; just solid TV. I agree that it will be something completely different that will capture the imaginations of the fans, however.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Wrestling probably won't see any kind of boom until there's a wrestler on the big stage ( which right now is only the WWE) who is actually popular. Cena is aimed at kids, so the 14-25 and up crowd really isn't into him. People like Undertake are great for nostalgia, and older fans. HBK is awesome as a wrestler, but he's not "cool."

The boom was because you had people like Austin (and to an extent, the Rock) who transcended wrestling. THe NWO contributed to this greatly as well. You need people who teenagers will buy the merchandise ( and wear it, and not be embarassed.) The most worn wrestling merchandise I ever saw was the Austin 3:16, and the original NWO shirts. They were actually "cool" to a lot of people, when wrestling itself never was.

Honestly, I see very few people who could garner that kind of response right now. In fact, the only person who really spring to mind (besides MAYBE a heel Cena) who could pull it off (and he'd need to work on his mic skills), but...... Homicide.

I'm not the biggest fan of the guy, but there's something raw about him, which most wrestlers lack nowadays. It'll never happen, but it'd be interesting. He has that average guy look, he doesn't give a fuck, he's an ass kicker, and he doesn't come off as fake.

I'm in no way saying Homicide could cause a boom. I'm just saying to have a boom, you need to have likable and exploitable figures, and he's one of the very few potential figures I see.

[Kane Knight]

Another thing I want to point out is that all the potential in the world means nothing if you don't act on it.

I made this analogy recently in the music forum, but I think it fits the scenario. In this post, I compare WWE to John Denver.

See, John Denver had some great studio musicians who worked with him on a regular basis. Some of these guys are brilliant musicians. The thing is, they're studio musicians. John Denver wants to sound like a certain way, they will. And as a result, John Denver sounds like crap.

Basically, WWE always has a ton of talented wrestlers on hand. TNA does, too. But as long as they've got them dressing up as Kangaroos or caught in dumb gimmicks, that's all there is to them. WWE and TNA, as such, are both much like John Denver. Denver could have the next Hendrix under him, and you'd never know it. WWE could have the next Austin or Rock, and it wouldn't show.

So when I say that we're not going to see another boom period with the current state of things, it's not a shot at the wrestlers. Wrestling's got a ton of good wrestlers--from a "smark" perspective.

...And the second the "smarks" are capable of creating a boom, we'll talk about what that means.

[GD]

TNA + Eric + Money= boom shakalaka.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Indifferent Clox All the new guys are steppin gup in WWE a new era approaches Tna is getting better and may actually eventually become competiition for WWE. Almost like wcw And ROH is similiar to ECW in that it's the distant third that many consider best.

I think the WWE certainly has the potential to ignite the next "boom period", but they've had this potential for years......and squandered it. Guys like RVD, Jericho, Orton, Guerrero, Benoit, Lesnar, Cena, Angle, and countless others were NOT maximized to their potential IMO.......not even close.

In my opinion, this was largely due to incompetent management, the "powers that be" not being on the same page, and the wrestlers themselves not rising to management's (unreasonable?) demands.

So in short - does the WWE have the potential to create another boom period? Yes. Based on the WWE's recent history, should feel we any reason whatsover to believe that this will happen? IMO - no.

[Mr. Nerfect]

That's an interesting point you make about Homicide, WWKD, and I agree. Just looking over the rosters, it's hard to find a wrestler that you could show to someone who had no clue who they were, and they could slip in "I'm a professional wrestler" without there being an extra chair placed between them and the person they were talking to.

One guy I'd like to throw out there, though, is MVP. The man has quite a story to him. He grew up in the ghetto, went to prison for something like nine years, and then became a wrestler. It's a very real and humble (that's one word for it) past, and I can see that adding an edge of "real" to the guy.

I actually see quite a lot of people out there with that kind of potential, and a lot of them would get funny stares from a lot of people here, as the list contains names like Ron Killings, CM Punk, Colt Cabana, Paul London and Brian Kendrick. No, I'm not trying to imply that they could lead a boom, but I think Punk seems comfortable enough with who he is to be charismatic enough to be a sensation. Killings for a similar reason to MVP. Colt Cabana is just hilarious, and seems like he could just be purely entertaining enough to wash away the "raaawwwr, I'm on steroids" association that goes with most wrestlers. Paul London & Brian Kendrick are both similar in that they seem to be different enough from your normal wrestlers. I honestly can't see why they can't be as big as The Hardy Boyz in a more nurturing environment.

Not saying that they could lead booms, but I could see each of these guys being somewhat successful and having their own cult of fans if wrestling were a more popular form of entertainment.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Heyman I think the WWE certainly has the potential to ignite the next "boom period", but they've had this potential for years......and squandered it. Guys like RVD, Jericho, Orton, Guerrero, Benoit, Lesnar, Cena, Angle, and countless others were NOT maximized to their potential IMO.......not even close. In my opinion, this was largely due to incompetent management, the "powers that be" not being on the same page, and the wrestlers themselves not rising to management's (unreasonable?) demands. So in short - does the WWE have the potential to create another boom period? Yes. Based on the WWE's recent history, should feel we any reason whatsover to believe that this will happen? IMO - no.

This is another relevant point. Not only did the WWE miss the boat with pushing people (most recently the list includes Matt Hardy and Christian), and TNA is not too much better (Eric Young was damn hot for a while), but they kept a lot of their top guys where they were for too long. They didn't really bow out, and establish the next generation of main eventers.

Take Edge for example. To me, he doesn't feel like as big a deal as he should be. The man has had four World Title reigns, which should statistically put him above Mick Foley and Attitude era Shawn Michaels. He doesn't feel that way, though. Edge was pushed to the top because the company finally said "OK, now you're a main eventer."

Stone Cold Steve Austin's last match was against The Rock, who was part-time himself at that point. No one really passed out in the Million Dollar Dream, did they?

That's why Triple H was pretty much dominant during the early days of the brand split (and really still is, to this day). The WWE has no really major stars from the Attitude era, and realised they had none created. They created Brock Lesnar, who actually felt like a star, and they built up John Cena quite well, although they went a bit wonky at the end with him, but apart from that, they had lost Austin and The Rock. Triple H was arguably the third man behind them.

They really need to use Triple H to make some established stars, rather than protect him, though. He seems to be doing that now with Jeff Hardy. They also teased that for a while with Shelton Benjamin, who also got a verbal rub from Stone Cold Steve Austin, but they didn't follow up correctly.

A lot of Attitude era main eventers left without really passing the torch. The WWE should make sure that the few they have left (Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker and to a lesser extent, Kane), really pass the torch to someone. Someone needs to end The Undertaker's streak, someone needs to finally out-wit Shawn Michaels, and someone needs to out-strategise The Game. No, it won't single-handedly save the WWE, but it would actually help main event talent look established when these older guys aren't around anymore.

The WWE also needs to follow hot leads. Matt Hardy and Christian were both very hot in 2005. Instead, they had Matt return, kiss Vince's ass, and get knocked out in a few minutes against Edge at Summerslam. Both men even got shafted off to SmackDown!, instead of being kept on RAW.

Unestablished guys can have great feuds that catch on with the fans, don't get me wrong, but that's usually in the mid-card. For example, MVP and Matt Hardy have had a splendid little feud over the United States Championship. You put the World Heavyweight Title on MVP, though, and as great as it would be, a lot of the magic would be lost. Neither MVP nor Matt Hardy is established as a main eventer. You need to have some A guys turn B guys into A guys, but what the WWE tends to often do with their main eventers these days, is just say "OK, now you're an A guy."

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 This is another relevant point. Not only did the WWE miss the boat with pushing people (most recently the list includes Matt Hardy and Christian), and TNA is not too much better (Eric Young was damn hot for a while), but they kept a lot of their top guys where they were for too long. They didn't really bow out, and establish the next generation of main eventers.

On the one hand, it's a tough call, and it's hard to piss off your money makers. On the other, there are a lot of reasons to pull old stars and make new ones. One of the most obvious isn't even popularity, but longevity. The company's fucked if Tripe H gets injured, because he's made half the roster look bad. And frequent injuries for champions, to boot.

Take Edge for example. To me, he doesn't feel like as big a deal as he should be. The man has had four World Title reigns, which should statistically put him above Mick Foley and Attitude era Shawn Michaels. He doesn't feel that way, though. Edge was pushed to the top because the company finally said "OK, now you're a main eventer."

Or rather, "I like you, so I'm going to make you go places."

It was the same thing they did with JBL, an JBL was a horrible champion from a business perspective. And Hell, without Eddie to carry him, that would have been godawful itself. JBL's great on the mic, but can't wrestle for shit, and really didn't get people to fork over money (The most important part of a seuccessful champion).

Edge got booed as a face, and almost no reaction as a heel. If he didn't bang Lita, he'd probably still be getting a minimal reaction. Maybe they don't know what to do with him, but they were pushing him whether we liked it or not, and that's a poor model for making someone a main eventer.

So while I can catch what you're saying about needing stars to make stars, there's another piece of the puzzle.

That's why Triple H was pretty much dominant during the early days of the brand split (and really still is, to this day). The WWE has no really major stars from the Attitude era, and realised they had none created. They created Brock Lesnar, who actually felt like a star, and they built up John Cena quite well, although they went a bit wonky at the end with him, but apart from that, they had lost Austin and The Rock. Triple H was arguably the third man behind them.

If nothing else, he WAS a de facto third man.

A lot of Attitude era main eventers left without really passing the torch. The WWE should make sure that the few they have left (Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker and to a lesser extent, Kane), really pass the torch to someone. Someone needs to end The Undertaker's streak, someone needs to finally out-wit Shawn Michaels, and someone needs to out-strategise The Game. No, it won't single-handedly save the WWE, but it would actually help main event talent look established when these older guys aren't around anymore.

My biggest worry is that they end up doing this for a quick fix. You know, Cena ending Taker's streak, and whatnot. Trips has already put him over, and it seems like they'll come up with other ways to make him look epic as he falters.

The WWE also needs to follow hot leads. Matt Hardy and Christian were both very hot in 2005. Instead, they had Matt return, kiss Vince's ass, and get knocked out in a few minutes against Edge at Summerslam. Both men even got shafted off to SmackDown!, instead of being kept on RAW.

You'd think Vince would have run with them JUST because they were legitimately over. You know, for the novelty alone, if nothing else.

Unestablished guys can have great feuds that catch on with the fans, don't get me wrong, but that's usually in the mid-card. For example, MVP and Matt Hardy have had a splendid little feud over the United States Championship. You put the World Heavyweight Title on MVP, though, and as great as it would be, a lot of the magic would be lost. Neither MVP nor Matt Hardy is established as a main eventer. You need to have some A guys turn B guys into A guys, but what the WWE tends to often do with their main eventers these days, is just say "OK, now you're an A guy."

Or they could try not pushing people for the sake of not pushing them. MVP might one day actually get up there on his own merits, but if they just push him when they decide he's a good guy, or he's "paid his dues," then there's a problem.

[Mr. Nerfect]

That's very true what you said, KK. Idealistically, you push guys that have the fans invested in them enough to support the direction. I mean, as much as I enjoyed Snitsky as a comedic act at times, no one is taking him seriously as the WWE currently has him packaged. Even if he ended The Undertaker's streak and was the guy to retire Ric Flair, I doubt people would care.

Part of me thinks that the WWE has forgotten how to push someone. Jeff Hardy is getting a really effective push at the moment (I'm almost angry that his push has been so good, actually, considering I personally don't think Hardy deserves it in respect to other performers), and Batista's road to WrestleMania in 2005 was great. Before then, it would have been just pulling the trigger with Chris Benoit and letting him win the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania.

And it really pisses me off that Vince didn't run with Matt Hardy and Christian. As you said, just for the novelty. If it didn't catch on, it's not like it'd be a failure on scale with the XFL, and if it succeeded, then Vince would have had two potential money makers on his hands. Sometimes I think that Vince hates money.

[Kane Knight]

I'd laugh my ass off if Snitsky did Headline a Mania or become champion, though. It'd suck, but...

I think with both Matt and Christian, it was sour grapes. Christian was outpopping the Golden Boy on a regular basis (Not exactly the greatest achievement, given people had already started to turn on Cena, but that had to piss Vince off), and I think a lot of the reaction to that was anger.

Matt was hired back because the fans were essentially ruining segments, and Vince did the absolute minimum to appease the fans then jobbed him out. I think these were both pretty big "fuck yours," though I think the primary issue wasn't so much getting even with someone as it was lashing out in general because he doesn't like being wrong.

Jeff doesn't deserve his push, I don't think, but at this point, I think it's kind of a "what fucking choice do we have?" Sort of thing. I mean, Matt and Christian were both over at the time, but each was over while others were getting cheered. Compared to almost everyone else right now, though, Jeff's getting monster pops because the crowd's almost universally dead otherwise. The problem is, they're banking on a guy with a shitty rep having cleaned up his act, and that might be as bad an idea as putting the title on someone who's getting no reaction.

But again, from WWE's point of view, they may not see it as much of a choice.

Of course, they could have avoided this by not waving their assholes at the fans for so long, but who knows?

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by DeZi MunDa TNA + Eric + Money= boom shakalaka.

The idea that Eric Bischoff is some kind of magical force of wrestling, and that everything he touches turns to gold, is the biggest pile of shit that keeps getting flung at me over and over and over again. Bischoff can't save a company. If he could, he'd have saved WCW. But the fact is that the man had like three good ideas: hire as much top WWF talent as possible, form the nWo, and heap as much shit on McMahonland as we can. It worked for a while because it was new and refreshing, but at the end of the day WWF programming was more desirable to fans. Bischoff couldn't have made WCW what it was without Hogan, Hall, Nash, and the rest of the WWF talent he pilfered. What's ge going to do today? Lure top WWE talent away? They've gotten enough WWE castoffs that they can't do anything with, and I doubt your Cena, Batista, or Edge is going to make tons of WWE fans change the channel. MAYBE if WWE and TNA had simultaneous Monday night programming, some real competition would ensue, but I doubt it. Mostly because WWE and TNA can both be called crap right now, but if so, then TNA is a steaming, fly-covered pile of crap in the middle of a field, whereas WWE looks like a carefully collected, sealed, and stored stool sample in a lab. Which leads me to this:

I really do think Vince McMahon is the biggest enemy to another boom period.

And it's not because he's a jerkass, or because he wants the product to fail. It's because he is far too set in his ways, and is very unlikely to rehash his style of presenting his product. And not only that, look at the people who are booking WWE and TNA today, for the most part it's the same names, faces, and ideas as we had ten years ago. The next "boom" period, when it comes, will come because of new ideas, thought up by new bookers and creative leaders, and will be presented to a new generation of potential fans. It won't be done by the old names using and rehashing the old ideas. Imagine for a moment: Bischoff is named creative God of TNA and given all the money he wants... what's he going to do? Hire away all of WWE's top talent and use them to form a mega-stable that attempts to "take over" TNA? Tell me you can't already hear the legions of fans complaining that it's just another rehash.

[Kane Knight]

To be fair, new ideas can come from old people. Bischoff is not all he's chalked up to be, and neither is Paul Heyman. And I'll put the odds against any revolution coming with them at the head.

In fact, it's the same nostalgia/quick fix mentality that drives the IWC, which is probably short sighted and damaging, but....

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight To be fair, new ideas can come from old people.

Absolutely, but the odds are against a steady stream of new ideas coming from that source.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by DarthTedious Absolutely, but the odds are against a steady stream of new ideas coming from that source.

Unfortunately for all involved, Vince isn't looking to expand his ideas. He's hired a bunch of people who write to what entertains him, and as time goes on, that's more and more out of step with what entertains the viewing public.

What's worse is that TNA's management seems to be okay with not being even remotely competitive.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I thought Eric was referring to Eric Young.

Seriously, though, there is so much wrong with TNA that even a smark could fix it. It doesn't take a genius to realise that TNA should be charging admission for at least their PPVs, and cutting the older talent on their roster that really doesn't serve a purpose (The Voodoo Kin Mafia, Rick Steiner, and probably even Scott Steiner).

TNA's getting their highest ratings for their fucking women's division! This is probably because it's the only real thing they offer that viewers cannot get from the WWE. When they treated the X-Division Championship and Tag Team Championship as equal belts to the World Heavyweight Championship, it made the company look different. I don't think it would make them competition, but if they just altered their focus a little bit, and made each Championship worth contending for, ratings would increase a little. At least to the point where it actually looks like they've grown with the move to two hours.