So when did RAW jump the shark?

[Fox]

Possibly. Earth, Moon and Jupiter are all in synch, but I don't know about the last one.

[.44 Magdalene]

By removing Pluto's status as a planet, we have officially fucked wrestling.

[D Mac]

Originally Posted by St. Jimmy Still not as gay as football.

Also called "soccer"

[addy2hotty]

Hulk Hogan winning the Undisputed Title was the very moment that shark jumping occurred for me. It was downhill all the way from there.

[Jeritron]

Originally Posted by addy2hotty Hulk Hogan winning the Undisputed Title was the very moment that shark jumping occurred for me. It was downhill all the way from there.

Yea, that was terrible. But to me thats more like the Shark catching up and eating them. It had been jumped long before that.

[ddpBANG]

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126 Two words come to mind when I think about RAW jumping the shark... I DO!

[addy2hotty]

Originally Posted by jeritron5000 Yea, that was terrible. But to me thats more like the Shark catching up and eating them. It had been jumped long before that.

I actually enjoyed the Invasion angle. But there you go.

[Jeritron]

I thought the Invasion angle was overall bad, but thats a matter of opinion of course. I do see the things within it that were good. There was some great shit of course. Austin and Angle had some great matches. Rock and Booker T worked well together. And the Jericho/Rhyno fued was excellent. There's a lot about how it was executed that I wouldn't change but I do think theres a lot that should have been done better/differently. With that being said, I'd rather be watching the Invasion angle than whats on now.

[ct2k]

Raw always had plenty of stupid shit on it, like the 'evil' Undertaker trying to execute Austin ffs, that was beyond even Wrestling reality, especially during the Attitude era where the cartoonish element was suppoed to be dead. The Invasion angle wasn't jumping the shark though, it was just badly done in my opinion.

[Kane Knight]

That sums up Fox's argument, and the whole argument of the cyclical wrestling business, in a nutshell. Quite literally.

[addy2hotty]

Originally Posted by ct2k Raw always had plenty of stupid shit on it, like the 'evil' Undertaker trying to execute Austin ffs, that was beyond even Wrestling reality, especially during the Attitude era where the cartoonish element was suppoed to be dead. The Invasion angle wasn't jumping the shark though, it was just badly done in my opinion.

Say what you want, but I loved that stuff. Especially the black wedding etc.

[Savio]

Right to Censor is born and WWE tones it self down.

OR

HHH wins the WWE Title.

[Savio]

February 15, 1999	5.9
February 22, 1999	5.5
February 29, 1999	6.3
March 8, 1999	6.4
March 15, 1999	5.8
March 22, 1999	6.4
March 29, 1999	6.5
April 5, 1999	5.8
April 12, 1999	6.3
April 19, 1999	6.1
April 26, 1999	6.0
May 3, 1999	6.4
May 10, 1999	8.1
May 17, 1999	6.4
May 24, 1999	7.2
June 7, 1999	6.7
June 14, 1999	6.7
June 21, 1999	6.0
June 28, 1999	6.8
July 5, 1999	6.2
July 12, 1999	6.0
July 19, 1999	6.3
July 26, 1999	7.1
August 2, 1999	5.9
August 9, 1999	6.4
August 16, 1999	6.6
August 23, 1999	5.9
August 30, 1999	4.2
September 6, 1999	4.4
September 13, 1999	6.0
September 20, 1999	6.1
September 27, 1999	6.8
October 4, 1999	5.9
October 11, 1999	6.1
October 18, 1999	5.4
October 25, 1999	5.6
November 1, 1999	5.9
November 8, 1999	5.4
November 15, 1999	6.3
November 22, 1999	5.5
November 29, 1999	6.5
December 6, 1999	6.0
December 13, 1999	6.1
December 20, 1999	5.8
December 27, 1999	5.8
January 3, 2000	6.4
January 10, 2000	6.8
January 17, 2000	6.0
January 24, 2000	6.7
January 31, 2000	6.6
February 7, 2000	6.5
February 14, 2000	4.4
February 21, 2000	5.9
February 28, 2000	6.5
March 6, 2000	6.4
March 13, 2000	6.3
March 20, 2000	6.2
March 27, 2000	6.6
April 3, 2000	6.4
April 10, 2000	6.2
April 17, 2000	6.7
April 24, 2000	7.1
May 1, 2000	7.4
May 8, 2000	6.2
May 15, 2000	6.1
May 22, 2000	7.1
May 29, 2000	6.4
June 5, 2000	5.9
June 12, 2000	6.8
June 19, 2000	5.8
June 26, 2000	6.4
July 3, 2000	5.3
July 10, 2000	6.0
July 17, 2000	6.2
July 24, 2000	6.2
July 31, 2000	6.4
August 7, 2000	6.3
August 14, 2000	5.9
August 21, 2000	6.2
August 28, 2000	4.9
September 4, 2000	4.2
September 11, 2000	5.8
September 18, 2000	5.7
September 25, 2000	5.4
October 2, 2000	5.4
October 9, 2000	5.4
October 16, 2000	4.8
October 23, 2000	5.5
October 30, 2000	4.9
November 6, 2000	5.1
November 13, 2000	5.0
November 20, 2000	5.0
November 27, 2000	5.0
December 4, 2000	5.0
December 11, 2000	5.8
December 18, 2000	4.8
December 25, 2000	3.8
January 1, 2001	4.6
January 8, 2001	4.8
January 15, 2001	5.2
January 22, 2001	5.6
January 29, 2001	5.4
February 5, 2001	5.0
February 12, 2001	4.8
February 19, 2001	4.8
February 26, 2001	5.1

[Savio]

March 5, 2001	4.5
March 12, 2001	4.9
March 19, 2001	4.6
March 26, 2001	4.7
April 2, 2001	5.7
April 9, 2001	5.4
April 16, 2001	5.1
April 23, 2001	5.1
April 30, 2001	5.0
May 7, 2001	4.6
May 14, 2001	4.5
May 21, 2001	4.2
May 28, 2001	4.2
June 4, 2001	4.3
June 11, 2001	4.1
June 18, 2001	4.2
June 25, 2001	4.7
July 2, 2001	4.6
July 9, 2001	4.7
July 16, 2001	5.0
July 23, 2001	5.4
July 30, 2001	5.7
August 6, 2001	5.4
August 13, 2001	5.2
August 20, 2001	5.2
August 27, 2001	4.8
September 3, 2001	4.6
September 10, 2001	4.6
September 17, 2001	4.8
September 24, 2001	4.5
October 1, 2001	4.4
October 8, 2001	4.5
October 15, 2001	4.1
October 22, 2001	3.9
October 29, 2001	4.1
November 5, 2001	3.9
November 12, 2001	4.1
November 19, 2001	4.8
November 26, 2001	4.4
December 3, 2001	4.2
December 10, 2001	4.7
December 17, 2001	4.0
December 24, 2001	3.2
December 31, 2001	2.4
January 7, 2002	4.9
January 14, 2002	4.4
January 21, 2002	4.6
January 28, 2002	4.5
February 4, 2002	4.5
February 11, 2002	4.4
February 18, 2002	4.7
February 25, 2002	4.7
March 4, 2002	4.5
March 11, 2002	4.5
March 18, 2002	5.3
March 25, 2002	5.4
April 1, 2002	4.8
April 8, 2002	4.8
April 15, 2002	4.8
April 22, 2002	4.8
April 29, 2002	4.4
May 6, 2002	4.6
May 13, 2002	3.9
May 20, 2002	3.7
May 27, 2002	3.7

June 3, 2002	4.1
June 10, 2002	4.2
June 17, 2002	3.9
June 24, 2002	3.7
July 1, 2002	3.6
July 8, 2002	3.7
July 15, 2002	3.8
July 22, 2002	4.3
July 29, 2002	3.7
August 5, 2002	3.7
August 12, 2002	3.9
August 19, 2002	4.0
August 26, 2002	3.9
September 2, 2002	3.6
September 9, 2002	3.4
September 16, 2002	3.4

[NeanderCarl]

Thing is, WWE is a wrestling company not a television production company. The main objective is to make money for themselves. They are coming off what I believe was their most profitable year to date (or second most profitable).

As long as WWE has enough presence on TV to make themselves a fortune, it really doesn't matter that much if they are doing 3.0s or 8.0s, from a company financial standpoint. The ratings have ceased to be a major issue since the Monday Night Wars ended.

And of course, strong ratings help with advertising and give WWE leverage in future deals. But the TV shows exist now to sell the WWE product more than anything, probably more so than at any previous point in its existance. It's PPV where the BIG focus lies, and WWE are still the Kings of PPV (despite MMA playing catch up very quickly).

[NeanderCarl]

What I'm saying is, as long as WWE can keep their ratings high enough not to see their shows get cancelled, then they will most likely be satisfied.

[NeanderCarl]

Put it this way, if WWE were a brand of car, and RAW was a commercial for one of their models, who cares how many people see the commercial when the car sells like hot cakes, no matter what.

But if they stopped showing that commercial, then the sales would take a tumble, and nobody wants that to happen. So they pay just enough to keep the commercial on a loop, maybe update it with a new one once every couple of years, just to keep those cars out on the road.

[Kane Knight]

Wow. Not even sure where to begin with that...

Though I think you're forgetting just what has to be done to make it such a profitable year, and how it really seems to be a stopgap measure.

And that, while the metaphor is there, the car will likely sell well, but when you compare the two, WWE is more tied to their "commercials" than most products.

I'm not sure it's selling like hotcakes, either. They're touring Vermont. Even pre-Attitude Era, they never spent this much time in Vermont. Yo could drive down to Whoostah or Boston or over to Manchester, but Vermont was off limits because the arenas werent big enough. Not anymore. Fewer seats at shows (and they have been touring smaller venues still last I checked) means less merchandise sold, less revenue, and less of a chance of good buyrates at PPVs.

On another note, WWE's ratings are low enough that they have felt the effects. They're not exactly going to get kicked off TV, but they're not exactly endearing themselves to sponsors and the like.

[NeanderCarl]

Well we all moan and bitch about how bad the TV shows have been, but there is no pressing incentive for WWE to hugely improve them. They are two hour long advertisements for PPVs and house shows, nothing more.

Until TNA, UFC or some other comparable company decides to challenge WWE in a head-to-head slot, we are unlikely to see things change. Raw, ECW and Smackdown are action infomercials.

[NeanderCarl]

Plus, regarding Vermont: WWE didn't have two, or sometimes even three, touring brands in the pre-Attitude era... with more available shows, they will tour venues they would have neglected in the past because they will burn out the regular towns by playing there too often.

The WWF of the mid/late 80s also had 'B' Shows and sometimes 'C' Shows, which would play in high school gyms and small concert halls, and this was during the Hogan boom.

[Fox]

According to Savior's chart, WWE's ratings started going down right around the end of July 2000.

Right around the time Stephanie and Triple H hooked up, on screen and off, and Hunter would begin his near 6 year reign on top.

[Jeritron]

There is no way to link the decline of ratings to Triple H in 2000, its just not fair. The companys popularity and buyrates were still way up there and at times at their highest. The problem came after the purchase of WCW and the decline of quality in 2001.

Triple H's impact on things as a champion in 1999 weren't negative...in 2002 or 2003, now thats a different story.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl Well we all moan and bitch about how bad the TV shows have been, but there is no pressing incentive for WWE to hugely improve them. They are two hour long advertisements for PPVs and house shows, nothing more. Until TNA, UFC or some other comparable company decides to challenge WWE in a head-to-head slot, we are unlikely to see things change. Raw, ECW and Smackdown are action infomercials.

...Yes...As long as you ignore the fact that their veiwership has radically declined over the past year alone, and that effects sponsors (Which keep them in business), it affects where your "commercial" is shown, and it affects how many people buy your product when the PPV comes around. The last one being inconvenient to you, I'm sure. Mostly because it's contrary to your argument that the commercial doesn't matter (Which is wrong).

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl Plus, regarding Vermont: WWE didn't have two, or sometimes even three, touring brands in the pre-Attitude era... with more available shows, they will tour venues they would have neglected in the past because they will burn out the regular towns by playing there too often. The WWF of the mid/late 80s also had 'B' Shows and sometimes 'C' Shows, which would play in high school gyms and small concert halls, and this was during the Hogan boom.

Man oh man, I tell ya, they didn't have two brands, but they had a healthy house show roster, both pre- and during attitude era. They didn't tour here then, even with house shows.

Meanwhile, this argument is rather moot, as it ignores that the size of their televised venues has gone down, too.

They don't have to shrink their over all venue size so as not to "burn out." There are plenty of larger venues, and more are being built. There are more large venues in more diverse areas than the Attitude Era, why don't they tour them? Oh right, attendence is down, seat revenues are down, etc.

I'd also point out the number of Supershows, which actually limits the extra capacity by putting all the brands in one place at one time (to save money, which goes back to my argument), and the fact that ECW still doesn't have a real house show schedule (It last what...2 months? 3?), so even saying "sometimes" they have 3 is a bit of a joke. They have Tuseday Night Heat, which tours with Smackdown, tapes with Smackdown, and has no distinguishable house show planning las I checked. Anyway, I'd say all that, but I think my point stands without it.

Though I would like to point out that the artificial roster split still doesn't leave them with enough people to reliably do a Royal Rumble, let alone tour as aggressively as they once did. They've been forced to cut back on their wrestlers to make sure they keep making profit.

[Kane Knight]

Triple H's time on top is ALL a factor, Jeritron.

[Kane Knight]

Correction: They've almost always had one show a year up near Montpelier. Though that wasn't guaranteed, and sometimes we'd see none.

In the last few years, Vermont has seen a lot of house shows, because we're suddenly well within their capacity.

[Jeritron]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Triple H's time on top is ALL a factor, Jeritron.

Yes, but not all equally negative. It's revisionist bashing to say that him as a champion in 99 was a downfall for the company. I will be the first to say his dominance and stroke after his return in 2002 was a dark period, and bad for the product. But that should have no bearing on my opinion of him or his quality as the champion in 1999.

[NeanderCarl]

Nah business was still solid in 2000 with Triple H on top for a lot of the year, although it is hard to tell just how much of that drawing power can be attributed to The Rock and later The Undertaker.

[jindrak]

The jumping of the shark happened when Hogan became Undisputed champion in 2002.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by jeritron5000 Yes, but not all equally negative. It's revisionist bashing to say that him as a champion in 99 was a downfall for the company. I will be the first to say his dominance and stroke after his return in 2002 was a dark period, and bad for the product. But that should have no bearing on my opinion of him or his quality as the champion in 1999.

Did anyone actually say that, though?

The fact is, that whether or not Trips at the top started good, this was a process which installed him in a position to hurt wrestling.

[Savio]

I did. I did not view him as a maineventer back when he beat foley for the title. and that was the same time wrestling became uncool up here.

[BobBitchen]

When Stone Cold quit wrestling.

[NeanderCarl]

Well, no-one really bought Trips as champion at first in 1999, but must have stayed tuned for the other guys (Rock, Big Show, Mankind).

Triple H needs to quit knocking Foley, because it was Foley who put HHH over as a genuine main eventer in 2000.

[NeanderCarl]

And it was Triple H's selfishness that cost him his fine reputation in 2002.

[Jeritron]

When did he knock foley? I wasn't aware of this, and if he did I'd be suprised/upset.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl Well, no-one really bought Trips as champion at first in 1999, but must have stayed tuned for the other guys (Rock, Big Show, Mankind). Triple H needs to quit knocking Foley, because it was Foley who put HHH over as a genuine main eventer in 2000.

Word.

[Batsu]

Originally Posted by jeritron5000 Some of you may say this is a little far back and early in the shitstorm that was to come....but in my opinion Raw jumped the shark when Rikishi admitted to running over Stone Cold Steve Austin. Of course things progressively got worse, and there were much worse events before things got "bad". But I believe this was the first straw of bad decisions beginning in late 2000, and brought about the end of the prestigious Attitude era. After this things just weren't the same.

I agree... that should have been HHH or Billy Gunn right off the bat.

That was the start of nonsensical "shock" booking on WWE TV (though that whole Austin-McMahon feud also had a lot of CRAP -- they couldn't keep anyone but Stone Cold consistent).

[St. Jimmy]

[St. Jimmy]

Oh, we're just talking RAW and not WWE in total? OH SHIT.

Well in that case

[Jeritron]

Originally Posted by Batsu I agree... that should have been HHH or Billy Gunn right off the bat. That was the start of nonsensical "shock" booking on WWE TV (though that whole Austin-McMahon feud also had a lot of CRAP -- they couldn't keep anyone but Stone Cold consistent).

Yes, those would have been completely logical explanations. But with all the talent they had, they could have pulled off a better shocker than that. Benoit, Jericho and Tazz weren't doing much, and they were all ready for the ME. Benoit was in WCW at the time so it would have been a bit of a stretch, but would have worked better. Jericho would have worked great if they were willing to turn him heel that early with the reactions he was getting as a face. But in my mind the best choice would have been Tazz. What more of a thug thing to do than run the top guy down in a car the week before your debut vignettes started running.

Or what about Kurt Angle? He had just won the title, he was a huge heel, and he had debuted on the night Austin was hit. Well we got Rikishi, and it was the first of many blown storylines and talent pushing oppurtunities that began to plauge them throughout the next few years.

[Kane Knight]

The Tazzzzzz bit would rock.