To what extent is Vince responsible for making the WWE into what it is today?

**�bermensch** · 12-06-2006, 09:56 PM

And by what it is today, I'm not refering to (supposed) slumping product at the moment (or, the last five or so years, if you will), but rather, the company that is more or less the undisputed pro-wrestling hegemon in North America. I know that this is a topic that has probably been debated z to the infinity on here, I'm still curious what people think.

The post that sparked this topic:

"ECW just gets worse and worse, they shouldn't have had a PPV until they started getting two hours and a bigger roster, but that's Vince for ya. I swear Vince's reputation has been severely damaged by this, if it wasn't damaged by the failure of the XFL, ECW has done the job, no matter how much he blames Heyman. Vince is fucking full of bullshit, also he doesn't deserve to be as succesful as he has been with WWE, he just got lucky."
-TL (http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54996)

I have to respectfully disagree, for the most part. While it is true that Vince started out inheriting a company bigger than most promoters could ever hope to control, the AWA and NWA rivaled, or even surpassed the WWF in both influence and financial backing (to the best of my knowledge...if any "historians" can refute this, please do). The rise of the WWF clearly coincided with innovations introduced by Vince such as national television deals, entrance music, celeberty expose, more colorful characters and storylines with mainstrem appeal, increased emphasis on production values, more active merchendise sales, and a willingness to violate traditional territorial "boundaries." Again, to the best of my knowledge, these are all innovations that the NWA and AWA really didn't attempt.

On the flip side, I'm a little sketchy as to how the NWA was structured, but I'm pretty sure it was fairly decentralized, which may not have been very conducive to operating in a manner similar to the WWF. But the question must be asked, why not the AWA then? Even disregarding the AWA, is it not a feat to gain the mainstream popularity that the WWF had in the mid 1980s, even in a fairly uncompetitive national market?

How much credit do you attribute to Vince for building up the WWF? Why?

By the way, I think Vince is probably a total dick, and I think that if he took over a regional company now, he would run it into the ground pretty quickly. But this isn't about Vince being a dick, or Vince right now.

Also, I know it may be hard, since most people here probably learned most of their "insider" knowledge off pretty unreliable internet sources (myself included), but let's try to keep unsubstanciated claims to a minimum, or at least recognize them for what they are when grounding an argument in them.

**ChiefStubbs** · 12-06-2006, 10:01 PM

For back then, it's the wrestlers themselves that paved the way. Vince has totally taken control now.

**Londoner** · 12-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Edited- oops, you did mention me!

That's fine if you disagree, but he was just lucky to be a Mcmahon, that's the only reason he's succesful, because of the family he was born into. He was also lucky to have the talent around at the time that he had, everything just clicked with the attitude era, and now were seeing that luck has run out and were seeing how shit a businessman Vince really is. His problem is that he thinks he knows what people want, but the opposite of that is true.

**Kane Knight** · 12-06-2006, 10:12 PM

Vince very nearly killed it when he first got his hands on the company, and I wager if things had gone just slightly different, we'd not be here discussing wrestling at all.

**McLegend** · 12-06-2006, 10:12 PM

Vince is responsible for the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows.

**El Fangel** · 12-06-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legend

Vince is responsible for the RVD and Katey Vick

**Testicle** · 12-07-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legend

Vince is responsible for the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows.

exactly, he was partially responsible for their success, but he is now the reason for their failures

**ChiefStubbs** · 12-06-2006, 10:15 PM

Making us the fairweather fans of the WWE.

**Avenger** · 12-06-2006, 10:42 PM

Nah, Vince is okay in my book. RAW sucks now but what do you expect? Wrestling is fucked. As long as I get a few hours of it a week and at least 2 or 3 good PPVs a year now then I'm happy enough.

**�bermensch** · 12-06-2006, 11:02 PM

I agree Avenger...I kind of think that "sports entertainment" is inherently a business that has long dry spells, especially for a company that puts on three programs a week, plus PPVs, 52 weeks a year.

**El Fangel** · 12-06-2006, 11:10 PM

Now that I think of it

52 weeks x 2 shows @ 2 hours a piece = 208 hours
52 weeks x 1 show @ 1 hour = 52 hours
11 ppvs @ 3 hours = 33 hours
1 ppv @ 4 hours = 4 hours
-------------------------
= 297 hours of storyline, and angle to create

I think the writers and the creative team burnt out.

**ChiefStubbs** · 12-06-2006, 11:17 PM

I thought there were a total 14 PPVs?
And besides, you also have to think about all the time it takes to put spots together...

**�bermensch** · 12-06-2006, 11:24 PM

That doesn't include Heat, house shows, international programing, and occasional TV specials.

**El Fangel** · 12-06-2006, 11:43 PM

Yes, I was counting 1 per month, but there is sometimes too, and as Uber mentioned alot more hours to write for, Its a heavier workload now that there are 3 brands and 1 show each instead of 1 brand and 2 shows.

**Pepsi Man** · 12-06-2006, 11:54 PM

There were always house shows, and while there may be more television hours to write for than ever before now, there are also more television writers than probably ever before now. I'm do think some people exaggerate how bad some shows are sometimes, but the writers being "burnt out" is not a good excuse in my eyes. I mean, if all of these writers had full time jobs, and this writing for the WWE was just something they did after work or whatever, then I could see it, but writing these shows is their fucking job.

**mike627** · 12-07-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man

There were always house shows, and while there may be more television hours to write for than ever before now, there are also more television writers than probably ever before now. I'm do think some people exaggerate how bad some shows are sometimes, but the writers being "burnt out" is not a good excuse in my eyes. I mean, if all of these writers had full time jobs, and this writing for the WWE was just something they did after work or whatever, then I could see it, but writing these shows is their fucking job.

Thing is that WWE seems to not want to hire anyone who wolud actually bring something different to the creative team.Look at what has happend to Heyman he's suspended for a PPV that as not of his making.

**Kane Knight** · 12-07-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike627

Thing is that WWE seems to not want to hire anyone who wolud actually bring something different to the creative team.Look at what has happend to Heyman he's suspended for a PPV that as not of his making.

That's not an issue of being burned out, that's an issue of having shitty writers.

**El Fangel** · 12-07-2006, 12:08 AM

Im not exactly saying burnt out, but out of ideas.

**Londoner** · 12-07-2006, 01:07 AM

Writers 'burnt out'? hahaahahaha wtf. Way to start making excuses. The fact is Vince has lost his mind and is hiring writers who know nothing about wrestling, that's why wrestling is shit, stop making excuses ffs. He could've let heyman have some creative control, a writer who knows how to book a wrestlng show and then i guarantee you wouldn't even be making excuses like 'writers being burnt out' or whatever else you can come up with.

**NeanderCarl** · 12-07-2006, 01:13 AM

I really think the creative team should be 50% TV/comedy writers (as the WWE seems to have no desire to get rid of them) and 50% wrestling BOOKERS.

If I was in charge, I would give them equal authority, so that the bookers can explain to the writers exactly what the wrestling business is attempting to achieve through feuds, angles etc. (ie. they're there to build characters, progress feuds, and ultimately MAKE MONEY, which the rubbish backstage skits we get now rarely do).

In turn, the writers can inject a dose of comedy where neccesary, a bit of well-scripted drama here or there (eg. The whole Kurt Angle/Steph/HHH triangle from a few years back).

The only decent TV writer to turn their hand to wrestling so far has been Chris Kreski, the head booker for WWE in 2000 (arguably the hottest year of WWE to date).

And just to keep things fresh, I would give this writing team a three month window to create seeds of feuds and characters, fully develop them and bring them to a head at a PPV. After three months, I would rotate the team. I would have an entirely different combination of 50% bookers/50% writers join the team and repeat the process.

During the three months of inactivity, the other creative team would be developing ideas in meetings, considering what they will be doing when they next get their "turn" so that by the time their turn arrives, everything is in place. And just to justify keeping them on the books during this time, I would let the "inactive" creative team book Heat/Velocity as a sideline.

The only thing getting in the way then would be injuries, departures and negative fan response, in which case the team can go back to the drawing board and focus on one or two specific weaknesses while their ongoing storylines continue without them worrying about it.

That way the creative team would only have to come up with six months of storylines per year, with another six months of thinking time and preperation.

And just to finish my essay, I want to say this: LET THE FUCKING WRESTLERS COME UP WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING INTERVIEWS. If a guy is shit on the mike, he'll be shit with or without a script. If a guy is fantastic on the mike, how will you ever know unless you let him create his own promos?

Working for WWE in 2006 is more like being an "athletic actor" than a wrestler. They write the promos, write the match, even fucking choreograph the entrances. It is like the equivelant of a manufactured pop band, compared to the "rock band" of 1998.

Remember Vince; 1997? You told the wrestlers to come up with more contemporary characters? You let them drop the cartoon gimmicks you had given them? You made that famous "shades of grey" speech and admitted privately that you no longer knew what the fans wanted? You let the likes of DX, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock develop through their own ideas, not yours? Remember what happened Vince? YOU BECAME A FUCKING BILLIONAIRRE. Time to do it again, methinks.

**Londoner** · 12-07-2006, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl

I really think the creative team should be 50% TV/comedy writers (as the WWE seems to have no desire to get rid of them) and 50% wrestling BOOKERS.

If I was in charge, I would give them equal authority, so that the bookers can explain to the writers exactly what the wrestling business is attempting to achieve through feuds, angles etc. (ie. they're there to build characters, progress feuds, and ultimately MAKE MONEY, which the rubbish backstage skits we get now rarely do).

In turn, the writers can inject a dose of comedy where neccesary, a bit of well-scripted drama here or there (eg. The whole Kurt Angle/Steph/HHH triangle from a few years back).

The only decent TV writer to turn their hand to wrestling so far has been Chris Kreski, the head booker for WWE in 2000 (arguably the hottest year of WWE to date).

And just to keep things fresh, I would give this writing team a three month window to create seeds of feuds and characters, fully develop them and bring them to a head at a PPV. After three months, I would rotate the team. I would have an entirely different combination of 50% bookers/50% writers join the team and repeat the process.

During the three months of inactivity, the other creative team would be developing ideas in meetings, considering what they will be doing when they next get their "turn" so that by the time their turn arrives, everything is in place. And just to justify keeping them on the books during this time, I would let the "inactive" creative team book Heat/Velocity as a sideline.

The only thing getting in the way then would be injuries, departures and negative fan response, in which case the team can go back to the drawing board and focus on one or two specific weaknesses while their ongoing storylines continue without them worrying about it.

That way the creative team would only have to come up with six months of storylines per year, with another six months of thinking time and preperation.

And just to finish my essay, I want to say this: LET THE FUCKING WRESTLERS COME UP WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING INTERVIEWS. If a guy is shit on the mike, he'll be shit with or without a script. If a guy is fantastic on the mike, how will you ever know unless you let him create his own promos?

Working for WWE in 2006 is more like being an "athletic actor" than a wrestler. They write the promos, write the match, even fucking choreograph the entrances. It is like the equivelant of a manufactured pop band, compared to the "rock band" of 1998.

Remember Vince; 1997? You told the wrestlers to come up with more contemporary characters? You let them drop the cartoon gimmicks you had given them? You made that famous "shades of grey" speech and admitted privately that you no longer knew what the fans wanted? You let the likes of DX, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock develop through their own ideas, not yours? Remember what happened Vince? YOU BECAME A FUCKING BILLIONAIRRE. Time to do it again, methinks.

Nice post, but Vince would claim that 'you're stuck in the past'.

**NeanderCarl** · 12-07-2006, 01:16 AM

Oh, and in case you're wondering why "he only decent TV writer to turn their hand to wrestling so far", Chris Kreski, the man responsible for the awesomeness of 2000, stopped being the head booker of the WWE, it is of course because he was replaced by Stephanie McMahon, the woman who is booking WWE into the toilet.

Kreski sadly died a few years back at a young age, so they can't even turn to him again now. The "creative" situation is pretty dire in modern day WWE.

Vince should just be diplomatic, and "relocate" Stephanie's... uh... talents to another division ASAP.

**Pepsi Man** · 12-07-2006, 02:08 AM

I don't agree with the whole "three months to bring everything to a head" thing. It just wouldn't seem right seeing every single feud end every three months. Of course, it's not a whole lot better as is, with most feuds only lasting a month at a time, but still...

Other than that, pretty decent idea there, I think.

**addy2hotty** · 12-07-2006, 09:09 AM

In context, Vince as the controller of the WWF/E is completely responsible for where wrestling is today. He got a bit lucky with Hulk Hogan, who became mainstream and gave the company the lift that it needed. I'm sure, others can correct me if I'm wrong, but mid-80's to early 90's, it was cool to be a wrestling fan. I remember some film having Jesse Ventura and Gene Okerland in. Hogan had bit parts in various movies. Jesse Ventura himself had various roles, which if I'm honest was a lot more enjoyable than anything Hogan did.

With certain wrestlers crossing to mainstream, the WWE got lucky. Vince got lucky. But he certainly had the business nouce to take advantage of that luck.

WCW, as we know nearly finished Vince, but again, he got lucky with the popularity of Steve Austin. But once again, he took advantage of that - expanded his character into surround characters and changed the face of wrestling.

The death and subsequent buy-out of WCW may have appealed to Vince at the time, but I wonder if he feels if it was a poor decision in hindsight. Yes, he has the video library which makes a reasonable amount of money for him. But, as there is little to no competition for the WWE these days, at least, any credible competition, it makes what stuff they present open for all sorts of abuse, regardless of quality.

Vince thought Cena would be a cross-over star. A moderately successful, yet totally unrespected artist album was what, sadly, decided his mega-push. Back in the days of Austin & The Rock, the issue did not need to be forced. Wrestlers could become mainstream with TV appearances and their WWE performances alone, now, we are saturated with WWE movies starring wrestlers they are trying to 'make' popular to the level of previous stars.

Employing writers, and 'producers' with little to no knowledge of the history or mechanics of a wrestling show is again, a legacy of no competition. Can we really believe that Vince would have employed Nickolodeon writers if WCW was still around and at a reasonable level of popularity? The joke is, if VKM in TNA concentrated on that sort of thing in their promos, it would come across a lot more amusing.

As someone has said, Vince is responsible for the highest of highs and lowest of lows. He's not in a position to get lucky at the moment as no wrestler has the ability to become mainstream enough for another 'boom' period for wrestling. There is no real creative direction due to the booking, and from what I can tell, since 2002, one wrestler has probably had too much input in the running of things.

ECW, its return was golden. So much potential came out of the original ONS, despite the fact that Raw & SD wrestlers were involved. It worked. And worked well. Booked well, despite the fact that there were no storylines save the Raw/SD involvement. Paul Heyman apparently had complete (to an extent) creative control over the show. I think that it was the best WWE PPV in many years, perhaps even since WM17, certainly since WM20. Fast forward one year to ONS2, and again, a pretty good PPV, not as good as the original, mainly due to involvement of Raw in matches, but RVD winning the day at the end, was probably the best moment for me since Eddie & Benoit closed WM20. Fast forward again, just a few months and what you have is the charred ashes of December to Dismember. Heyman, an on-screen talent, rather than writing the show. Vince telling everyone, from Heyman himself to Joey Styles that it's not 'WWE enough'. Heyman either quits, or is fired, many ECW wrestlers are rumoured to be following him. The title is on an overly green little voiced muscle man, not good enough for the title on Smackdown. Vince brought back ECW for the money, and now it's not meeting his vision for a show, he is changing it in his image. An angle a while back had Vince comparing himself to God. In a sense, I think he truely believes it. As a result, wrestling is stagnant. But like a TV series in the same state, it can't be given a break.

Vince is 100% responsible for the CURRENT state of wrestling. Had you asked me a few years back, I may have said different. What with ECW dying, Raw ratings sliding down, only SD holding anything of its own in the ratings. What with TNA desperate for exposure but TV channels not wanting to invest in wrestling products at this time. What with ECW on Sci-Fi. What with Stargate being cancelled because of it. What with poor storylines, no heroes to follow, all the current main champions being 'good guys'. What with top guys like Carlito getting buried while idiots like Lashley being 'extreme' enough to be a major champion. As Snitsky wouldn't say 'IT IS HIS FAULT'.

**Avenger** · 12-07-2006, 09:15 AM

I really think Stephanie is at the root of a lot of WWE's current problems.

There is one inherent difference between her and Vince is that she really let's personal differences affect the workplace.

Vince will fire someone who is difficult to work with, someone who is interfering with letting the show run smoothly, but the one thing I will say is that he gives guys a chance and forgets the past easily. Look at Bret and Stone Cold. However you might argue this was only for money but there is a long, long list of wrestlers that Vince has rehired and rehired (often only to be let down by the wrestler, Jannetty et al).

Stephanie, on the other hand, ruined SmackDown! by allowing her feud with Paul Heyman to come into the workplace. Heyman was no detriment to the booking process, he was the best thing WWE had going in the writing department, but Stephanie said he could no longer be part of her writing team. The only reason ever reported was 'she did not like him'.

Stephanie books this damn K-Fed CRAP and these goddamn celebrity storylines. She puts all her worth into one shitty guy from OVW who is obviously going to turn out to be a failure and she continues to push awful directions for the company which we, as wrestling fans, DO NOT WANT.

Vince and Triple H can be brilliant creative minds for the business at times, and I especially think it is a very good thing to have Haitch on the writing staff. But as long as Steph is Vince's daughter and Haitch's wife. Well, wrestling is going to suck.

**Gerard** · 12-07-2006, 10:50 AM

I think that the wwe is too full of yesmen who will kiss vince's ass nomatter what they really think of the storyline. They really need someone who will stand up and say if a storyline is bullshit or not.

**Avenger** · 12-07-2006, 11:42 AM

Heyman did stand up.

Just nobody listened to the guy after a while.

**Kane Knight** · 12-07-2006, 12:36 PM

Heyman stood up. And he was eaten.

**Stickman** · 12-07-2006, 01:16 PM

Vince has basically made wrestling what it is. Yeah, some wrestlers had something to say abuot that, but only a handful. Vince found potential in said wrestlers and they worked together, but in the end, it was Vince.

**Kane Knight** · 12-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Vince found potential.

**Xero** · 12-07-2006, 05:06 PM

Honestly, half of the big main eventers in the WWF/E (Hogan, Austin, Undertaker, etc) could have been portrayed by any muscle man, drunk Texan with an attitude or someone who looked like scary shit.

Vince made the WWE more than anyone else. And has hurt it the same as well.

**Avenger** · 12-07-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126

Honestly, half of the big main eventers in the WWF/E (Hogan, Austin, Undertaker, etc) could have been portrayed by any muscle man, drunk Texan with an attitude or someone who looked like scary shit.

Vince made the WWE more than anyone else. And has hurt it the same as well.

Maybe Hogan and Undertaker, but Steve Austin was a fantastic wrestler. He had huge potential from very early on in his career.

Bret Hart actually reccomended that Vince hire Austin from WCW.

**Xero** · 12-07-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avenger

Maybe Hogan and Undertaker, but Steve Austin was a fantastic wrestler. He had huge potential from very early on in his career.

Bret Hart actually reccomended that Vince hire Austin from WCW.

I completely agree. Except, once Austin got into the 3:16 Rattlesnake gimmick, he was primarily a brawler. Really anyone who fits that description (with the right amount of charisma, of course) could have pulled the gimmick off.

**Avenger** · 12-07-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126

I completely agree. Except, once Austin got into the 3:16 Rattlesnake gimmick, he was primarily a brawler. Really anyone who fits that description (with the right amount of charisma, of course) could have pulled the gimmick off.

Yeah true. But even though WWE toned him down wrestling-wise he still gave us more memorable matches than Cena and Batista have combined in their entire careers and they're wrestling to the best of their abilities.

**Kane Knight** · 12-07-2006, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126

I completely agree. Except, once Austin got into the 3:16 Rattlesnake gimmick, he was primarily a brawler. Really anyone who fits that description (with the right amount of charisma, of course) could have pulled the gimmick off.

But the Charisma thing is a rather huge element. Not anyone could pull it off; not even a tenth of the wrestlers who could ffit the description could come close to pulling it off.

Even Hogan, who I hate, has this sick level of charisma. He's got that rock star thing going. I'm not saying he's irreplacable, but the same could be said for Vince.

**LoDownM** · 12-07-2006, 05:28 PM

WOW WOW WOW, Hold on, ECW got Stargate cancled? BASTARDS

**Kane Knight** · 12-07-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoDownM

WOW WOW WOW, Hold on, ECW got Stargate cancled? BASTARDS

No, it didn't.

What got Stargate Cancelled was the Sci Fi network. There was no "This show for that show," no "You have to get rid of Stargate or we take our lackluster ratings elsewhere!" IT was a business decision to take off the air.

**LoDownM** · 12-07-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

No, it didn't.

What got Stargate Cancelled was the Sci Fi network. There was no "This show for that show," no "You have to get rid of Stargate or we take our lackluster ratings elsewhere!" IT was a business decision to take off the air.

I'm still outraged, I liked Stargate

**addy2hotty** · 12-08-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

No, it didn't.

What got Stargate Cancelled was the Sci Fi network. There was no "This show for that show," no "You have to get rid of Stargate or we take our lackluster ratings elsewhere!" IT was a business decision to take off the air.

Yeah that was more of a joke on the coincedence of it, and how lots of SG-1 fans pin ECW as the reason for its cancellation over on another board I hover around.

There are DVD movies to come though LoDown.

**Kane Knight** · 12-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by addy2hotty

Yeah that was more of a joke on the coincedence of it, and how lots of SG-1 fans pin ECW as the reason for its cancellation over on another board I hover around.

There are DVD movies to come though LoDown.

Honestly, people who think that aren't paying enough attention. Or maybe they're fucking stupid. Stargate SG-1 has two upcoming movies, a spinoff planned (It just won't be the Stargate everyone knows), and one spinnoff still on the air.

In other words, there's still going to be like 2 hours of stargate tuff on TV every week, so I don't see how anyone could blame ECW. Sci Fi doesn't want to pay for new episodes, when the actors are asking so much. In other words, ECW didn't kill Stargate, cheap ass executives killed stargate

12-06-2006, 09:56 PM	#1
�bermensch Member Posts: 325	To what extent is Vince responsible for making the WWE into what it is today? And by what it is today, I'm not refering to (supposed) slumping product at the moment (or, the last five or so years, if you will), but rather, the company that is more or less the undisputed pro-wrestling hegemon in North America. I know that this is a topic that has probably been debated z to the infinity on here, I'm still curious what people think. The post that sparked this topic: "ECW just gets worse and worse, they shouldn't have had a PPV until they started getting two hours and a bigger roster, but that's Vince for ya. I swear Vince's reputation has been severely damaged by this, if it wasn't damaged by the failure of the XFL, ECW has done the job, no matter how much he blames Heyman. Vince is fucking full of bullshit, also he doesn't deserve to be as succesful as he has been with WWE, he just got lucky." -TL (http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54996) I have to respectfully disagree, for the most part. While it is true that Vince started out inheriting a company bigger than most promoters could ever hope to control, the AWA and NWA rivaled, or even surpassed the WWF in both influence and financial backing (to the best of my knowledge...if any "historians" can refute this, please do). The rise of the WWF clearly coincided with innovations introduced by Vince such as national television deals, entrance music, celeberty expose, more colorful characters and storylines with mainstrem appeal, increased emphasis on production values, more active merchendise sales, and a willingness to violate traditional territorial "boundaries." Again, to the best of my knowledge, these are all innovations that the NWA and AWA really didn't attempt. On the flip side, I'm a little sketchy as to how the NWA was structured, but I'm pretty sure it was fairly decentralized, which may not have been very conducive to operating in a manner similar to the WWF. But the question must be asked, why not the AWA then? Even disregarding the AWA, is it not a feat to gain the mainstream popularity that the WWF had in the mid 1980s, even in a fairly uncompetitive national market? How much credit do you attribute to Vince for building up the WWF? Why? By the way, I think Vince is probably a total dick, and I think that if he took over a regional company now, he would run it into the ground pretty quickly. But this isn't about Vince being a dick, or Vince right now. Also, I know it may be hard, since most people here probably learned most of their "insider" knowledge off pretty unreliable internet sources (myself included), but let's try to keep unsubstanciated claims to a minimum, or at least recognize them for what they are when grounding an argument in them.

12-06-2006, 10:01 PM	#2
ChiefStubbs More carbs & half the fat Posts: 268	For back then, it's the wrestlers themselves that paved the way. Vince has totally taken control now.

12-06-2006, 10:10 PM	#3
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	Edited- oops, you did mention me! That's fine if you disagree, but he was just lucky to be a Mcmahon, that's the only reason he's succesful, because of the family he was born into. He was also lucky to have the talent around at the time that he had, everything just clicked with the attitude era, and now were seeing that luck has run out and were seeing how shit a businessman Vince really is. His problem is that he thinks he knows what people want, but the opposite of that is true.

12-06-2006, 10:12 PM	#4
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Vince very nearly killed it when he first got his hands on the company, and I wager if things had gone just slightly different, we'd not be here discussing wrestling at all.

12-06-2006, 10:12 PM	#5
McLegend Temporary Posts: 15,603	Vince is responsible for the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows.

12-06-2006, 10:15 PM	#8
ChiefStubbs More carbs & half the fat Posts: 268	Making us the fairweather fans of the WWE.

12-06-2006, 10:42 PM	#9
Avenger est. 1884 Posts: 11,488	Nah, Vince is okay in my book. RAW sucks now but what do you expect? Wrestling is fucked. As long as I get a few hours of it a week and at least 2 or 3 good PPVs a year now then I'm happy enough.

12-06-2006, 11:02 PM	#10
�bermensch Member Posts: 325	I agree Avenger...I kind of think that "sports entertainment" is inherently a business that has long dry spells, especially for a company that puts on three programs a week, plus PPVs, 52 weeks a year.

12-06-2006, 11:10 PM	#11
El Fangel ELF ANGEL Posts: 39,476	Now that I think of it 52 weeks x 2 shows @ 2 hours a piece = 208 hours 52 weeks x 1 show @ 1 hour = 52 hours 11 ppvs @ 3 hours = 33 hours 1 ppv @ 4 hours = 4 hours ------------------------- = 297 hours of storyline, and angle to create I think the writers and the creative team burnt out.

12-06-2006, 11:17 PM	#12
ChiefStubbs More carbs & half the fat Posts: 268	I thought there were a total 14 PPVs? And besides, you also have to think about all the time it takes to put spots together...

12-06-2006, 11:24 PM	#13
�bermensch Member Posts: 325	That doesn't include Heat, house shows, international programing, and occasional TV specials.

12-06-2006, 11:43 PM	#14
El Fangel ELF ANGEL Posts: 39,476	Yes, I was counting 1 per month, but there is sometimes too, and as Uber mentioned alot more hours to write for, Its a heavier workload now that there are 3 brands and 1 show each instead of 1 brand and 2 shows.

12-06-2006, 11:54 PM	#15
Pepsi Man Posts: 15,983	There were always house shows, and while there may be more television hours to write for than ever before now, there are also more television writers than probably ever before now. I'm do think some people exaggerate how bad some shows are sometimes, but the writers being "burnt out" is not a good excuse in my eyes. I mean, if all of these writers had full time jobs, and this writing for the WWE was just something they did after work or whatever, then I could see it, but writing these shows is their fucking job.

12-07-2006, 12:08 AM	#18
El Fangel ELF ANGEL Posts: 39,476	Im not exactly saying burnt out, but out of ideas.

12-07-2006, 01:07 AM	#19
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	Writers 'burnt out'? hahaahahaha wtf. Way to start making excuses. The fact is Vince has lost his mind and is hiring writers who know nothing about wrestling, that's why wrestling is shit, stop making excuses ffs. He could've let heyman have some creative control, a writer who knows how to book a wrestlng show and then i guarantee you wouldn't even be making excuses like 'writers being burnt out' or whatever else you can come up with.

12-07-2006, 01:13 AM	#20
NeanderCarl That's Not My Name Posts: 9,086	I really think the creative team should be 50% TV/comedy writers (as the WWE seems to have no desire to get rid of them) and 50% wrestling BOOKERS. If I was in charge, I would give them equal authority, so that the bookers can explain to the writers exactly what the wrestling business is attempting to achieve through feuds, angles etc. (ie. they're there to build characters, progress feuds, and ultimately MAKE MONEY, which the rubbish backstage skits we get now rarely do). In turn, the writers can inject a dose of comedy where neccesary, a bit of well-scripted drama here or there (eg. The whole Kurt Angle/Steph/HHH triangle from a few years back). The only decent TV writer to turn their hand to wrestling so far has been Chris Kreski, the head booker for WWE in 2000 (arguably the hottest year of WWE to date). And just to keep things fresh, I would give this writing team a three month window to create seeds of feuds and characters, fully develop them and bring them to a head at a PPV. After three months, I would rotate the team. I would have an entirely different combination of 50% bookers/50% writers join the team and repeat the process. During the three months of inactivity, the other creative team would be developing ideas in meetings, considering what they will be doing when they next get their "turn" so that by the time their turn arrives, everything is in place. And just to justify keeping them on the books during this time, I would let the "inactive" creative team book Heat/Velocity as a sideline. The only thing getting in the way then would be injuries, departures and negative fan response, in which case the team can go back to the drawing board and focus on one or two specific weaknesses while their ongoing storylines continue without them worrying about it. That way the creative team would only have to come up with six months of storylines per year, with another six months of thinking time and preperation. And just to finish my essay, I want to say this: LET THE FUCKING WRESTLERS COME UP WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING INTERVIEWS. If a guy is shit on the mike, he'll be shit with or without a script. If a guy is fantastic on the mike, how will you ever know unless you let him create his own promos? Working for WWE in 2006 is more like being an "athletic actor" than a wrestler. They write the promos, write the match, even fucking choreograph the entrances. It is like the equivelant of a manufactured pop band, compared to the "rock band" of 1998. Remember Vince; 1997? You told the wrestlers to come up with more contemporary characters? You let them drop the cartoon gimmicks you had given them? You made that famous "shades of grey" speech and admitted privately that you no longer knew what the fans wanted? You let the likes of DX, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock develop through their own ideas, not yours? Remember what happened Vince? YOU BECAME A FUCKING BILLIONAIRRE. Time to do it again, methinks.

12-07-2006, 01:16 AM	#22
NeanderCarl That's Not My Name Posts: 9,086	Oh, and in case you're wondering why "he only decent TV writer to turn their hand to wrestling so far", Chris Kreski, the man responsible for the awesomeness of 2000, stopped being the head booker of the WWE, it is of course because he was replaced by Stephanie McMahon, the woman who is booking WWE into the toilet. Kreski sadly died a few years back at a young age, so they can't even turn to him again now. The "creative" situation is pretty dire in modern day WWE. Vince should just be diplomatic, and "relocate" Stephanie's... uh... talents to another division ASAP.

12-07-2006, 02:08 AM	#23
Pepsi Man Posts: 15,983	I don't agree with the whole "three months to bring everything to a head" thing. It just wouldn't seem right seeing every single feud end every three months. Of course, it's not a whole lot better as is, with most feuds only lasting a month at a time, but still... Other than that, pretty decent idea there, I think.

12-07-2006, 09:09 AM	#24
addy2hotty yes. yes. yes. Posts: 2,753	In context, Vince as the controller of the WWF/E is completely responsible for where wrestling is today. He got a bit lucky with Hulk Hogan, who became mainstream and gave the company the lift that it needed. I'm sure, others can correct me if I'm wrong, but mid-80's to early 90's, it was cool to be a wrestling fan. I remember some film having Jesse Ventura and Gene Okerland in. Hogan had bit parts in various movies. Jesse Ventura himself had various roles, which if I'm honest was a lot more enjoyable than anything Hogan did. With certain wrestlers crossing to mainstream, the WWE got lucky. Vince got lucky. But he certainly had the business nouce to take advantage of that luck. WCW, as we know nearly finished Vince, but again, he got lucky with the popularity of Steve Austin. But once again, he took advantage of that - expanded his character into surround characters and changed the face of wrestling. The death and subsequent buy-out of WCW may have appealed to Vince at the time, but I wonder if he feels if it was a poor decision in hindsight. Yes, he has the video library which makes a reasonable amount of money for him. But, as there is little to no competition for the WWE these days, at least, any credible competition, it makes what stuff they present open for all sorts of abuse, regardless of quality. Vince thought Cena would be a cross-over star. A moderately successful, yet totally unrespected artist album was what, sadly, decided his mega-push. Back in the days of Austin & The Rock, the issue did not need to be forced. Wrestlers could become mainstream with TV appearances and their WWE performances alone, now, we are saturated with WWE movies starring wrestlers they are trying to 'make' popular to the level of previous stars. Employing writers, and 'producers' with little to no knowledge of the history or mechanics of a wrestling show is again, a legacy of no competition. Can we really believe that Vince would have employed Nickolodeon writers if WCW was still around and at a reasonable level of popularity? The joke is, if VKM in TNA concentrated on that sort of thing in their promos, it would come across a lot more amusing. As someone has said, Vince is responsible for the highest of highs and lowest of lows. He's not in a position to get lucky at the moment as no wrestler has the ability to become mainstream enough for another 'boom' period for wrestling. There is no real creative direction due to the booking, and from what I can tell, since 2002, one wrestler has probably had too much input in the running of things. ECW, its return was golden. So much potential came out of the original ONS, despite the fact that Raw & SD wrestlers were involved. It worked. And worked well. Booked well, despite the fact that there were no storylines save the Raw/SD involvement. Paul Heyman apparently had complete (to an extent) creative control over the show. I think that it was the best WWE PPV in many years, perhaps even since WM17, certainly since WM20. Fast forward one year to ONS2, and again, a pretty good PPV, not as good as the original, mainly due to involvement of Raw in matches, but RVD winning the day at the end, was probably the best moment for me since Eddie & Benoit closed WM20. Fast forward again, just a few months and what you have is the charred ashes of December to Dismember. Heyman, an on-screen talent, rather than writing the show. Vince telling everyone, from Heyman himself to Joey Styles that it's not 'WWE enough'. Heyman either quits, or is fired, many ECW wrestlers are rumoured to be following him. The title is on an overly green little voiced muscle man, not good enough for the title on Smackdown. Vince brought back ECW for the money, and now it's not meeting his vision for a show, he is changing it in his image. An angle a while back had Vince comparing himself to God. In a sense, I think he truely believes it. As a result, wrestling is stagnant. But like a TV series in the same state, it can't be given a break. Vince is 100% responsible for the CURRENT state of wrestling. Had you asked me a few years back, I may have said different. What with ECW dying, Raw ratings sliding down, only SD holding anything of its own in the ratings. What with TNA desperate for exposure but TV channels not wanting to invest in wrestling products at this time. What with ECW on Sci-Fi. What with Stargate being cancelled because of it. What with poor storylines, no heroes to follow, all the current main champions being 'good guys'. What with top guys like Carlito getting buried while idiots like Lashley being 'extreme' enough to be a major champion. As Snitsky wouldn't say 'IT IS HIS FAULT'.

12-07-2006, 09:15 AM	#25
Avenger est. 1884 Posts: 11,488	I really think Stephanie is at the root of a lot of WWE's current problems. There is one inherent difference between her and Vince is that she really let's personal differences affect the workplace. Vince will fire someone who is difficult to work with, someone who is interfering with letting the show run smoothly, but the one thing I will say is that he gives guys a chance and forgets the past easily. Look at Bret and Stone Cold. However you might argue this was only for money but there is a long, long list of wrestlers that Vince has rehired and rehired (often only to be let down by the wrestler, Jannetty et al). Stephanie, on the other hand, ruined SmackDown! by allowing her feud with Paul Heyman to come into the workplace. Heyman was no detriment to the booking process, he was the best thing WWE had going in the writing department, but Stephanie said he could no longer be part of her writing team. The only reason ever reported was 'she did not like him'. Stephanie books this damn K-Fed CRAP and these goddamn celebrity storylines. She puts all her worth into one shitty guy from OVW who is obviously going to turn out to be a failure and she continues to push awful directions for the company which we, as wrestling fans, DO NOT WANT. Vince and Triple H can be brilliant creative minds for the business at times, and I especially think it is a very good thing to have Haitch on the writing staff. But as long as Steph is Vince's daughter and Haitch's wife. Well, wrestling is going to suck.

12-07-2006, 10:50 AM	#26
Gerard Tongue my Fartbox Posts: 5,363	I think that the wwe is too full of yesmen who will kiss vince's ass nomatter what they really think of the storyline. They really need someone who will stand up and say if a storyline is bullshit or not.

12-07-2006, 11:42 AM	#27
Avenger est. 1884 Posts: 11,488	Heyman did stand up. Just nobody listened to the guy after a while.

12-07-2006, 12:36 PM	#28
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Heyman stood up. And he was eaten.

12-07-2006, 01:16 PM	#29
Stickman Stickman Posts: 15,119	Vince has basically made wrestling what it is. Yeah, some wrestlers had something to say abuot that, but only a handful. Vince found potential in said wrestlers and they worked together, but in the end, it was Vince.

12-07-2006, 04:44 PM	#30
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Vince found potential.

12-07-2006, 05:06 PM	#31
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	Honestly, half of the big main eventers in the WWF/E (Hogan, Austin, Undertaker, etc) could have been portrayed by any muscle man, drunk Texan with an attitude or someone who looked like scary shit. Vince made the WWE more than anyone else. And has hurt it the same as well.

12-07-2006, 05:28 PM	#36
LoDownM Retired Prolly. Posts: 11,296	WOW WOW WOW, Hold on, ECW got Stargate cancled? BASTARDS