The W
Views: 98353582
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.8.14 0854
The W - Pro Wrestling - Twenty years ago...ten years ago.
This thread has 15 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.57
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1226 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
jwrestle
Lap cheong








Since: 4.4.03
From: Nitro WV

Since last post: 105 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.88
Yeah, I know... nice title for a thread but I figured it may be a good time for to start a nostalgia discussion. Also, I know it has the ECW logo for the thread avatar but I promise it'll be mentioned too.

Twenty years ago they heyday of the AWA was coming to a close as the WWE(F) suffocated Vern Gange out business. At that time what did it mean for the wrestling industry?

Ten years ago we saw the collapse of ECW in early 2001 & then about a month or so later the demise of WCW. What effects did it have?

Today, the WWE still exists with two brands but right now seems to be operating mainly as one with RAW Supershow also it's mid card isn't all that healthy.

TNA ( IMPACT Wrestling) Has been around quite a while now but seem to continue hitting stalling points.

ROH was the phoenix that rose from the ashes of original ECW promotional radius & now has national TV time & internet PPV.

Where is wrestling, ugh sports entertainment, going? Opinions & thoughts?



Goto http://facebook.com/indynet
Also: http://youtube.com/indywrestlersdotnet
***New Items added daily and weekly***

09.30.08 1st time W of the day. ( WTF the day I joined Twitter @jonfun )
24.05.09 2nd time W of the day.
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 417 days
Last activity: 417 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.98
    Originally posted by jwrestle


    Twenty years ago they heyday of the AWA was coming to a close as the WWE(F) suffocated Vern Gange out business. At that time what did it mean for the wrestling industry?







AWA actually died summer of '90 when the Team Challenge Series concluded. Company officially folded in early '91, but the end of the TCS was the end of the AWA.
Actually, it didn't mean much for the wrestling industry because the company was pretty much dead after Lawler returned the AWA belt following his dispute with Verne in early '89, and that was the AWA's last gasp.
In a way it actually helped wrestling that the AWA and World Class folded, because it provided Global Wrestling the time slot on ESPN. That imploded quickly, but it provided a brief potential spark.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 4 min.
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
Crap, I was ready to bust out some oldschool shit, but 20 years ago was only 92.

BigDaddyLoco got old.
shawnpatrick
Kishke








Since: 31.7.07
From: Leesville SC

Since last post: 827 days
Last activity: 709 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.82
I don't think it was WWF putting Verne Gagne out of business, it was Verne Gagne who put himself out of business. It's also kind of weird that WCW even in it's last weeks was drawing more then double what Impact draws today on Spike.

When I was a kid before cable TV, there was nothing like watching the saturday afternoon WWWF show, you would get nothing but squash matches or one interesting match with someone like Rick McGraw, Jose Gonzalez, or SD Jones. The cheap interviews with Vince McMahon for the local house shows. And always the same fat guy in the front row on the TV tapings, which I believe took place in Pennyslvania. When there was interaction between the heel and good guy, the heel would always give the hero a beat down on TV, and you had to go to the house shows to watch the hero get his revenge.

When we did get cable TV when I became a young adult, of course WTBS Channel 17 wrestling was a must see. undersized rings with Solie as the announcer and always these teenage girls you could hear chanting in the background.
graves9
Landjager








Since: 19.2.10
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
I don't know what the last Nitro drew, but I believe the next to last nitro drew 1.8 million viewers Vs the 1.6 viewers Impact regularly draws. It"s more viewers obviously, but not twice as much.
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 200 days
Last activity: 115 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I think the most fun I had watching wrestling was in 1992, with WCW Saturday Night on TBS. It started at 6:05pm and ran for two hours. The jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler. It was the first time I had seen Big Van Vader, Sting, Cactus Jack, and I had a lot of fun laying on my living room floor watching it.
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
    The jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler.


Dear God, yes. The Gambler was awesome. He would just walk out with a deck of cards, and casually throw one card away into the crowd at seemingly random intervals, as if this was somehow proof he gambled. I am smiling now just thinking about it.



(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 19.2.12 1631)


Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 614 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.80
I think the most fun I had watching wrestling was in 1992, with WCW Saturday Night on TBS. It started at 6:05pm and ran for two hours. The jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler. It was the first time I had seen Big Van Vader, Sting, Cactus Jack, and I had a lot of fun laying on my living room floor watching it.

How did we all end up on the living room floor watching wrestling?

As long as the WWE continues to rake in the dough, things will be fine. Other companies problems are partly because WWE is in a down cycle, but fend for yourself. And book a better product

ECW is (was) 2,000 maniacs from Philly and New York. That's what Vince says. Go with it

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 19.2.12 1941)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high





Scottyflamingo
Bratwurst








Since: 23.6.10
From: Auburn, AL

Since last post: 399 days
Last activity: 128 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.93
WCW had some great jobbers. State Patrol, Normal Smiley (who was so great they had to push him).

I was a total WWF Kool Aid drinking mark up until around 92. I had somehow stumbled upon the Clash Sting Vs Flair before that, but didn't put much effort into following the shows until then. Really sucks because I missed some great wrestling.

2002 was an awful time to be a fan. Even when Vince went national, you still had tons of promotions you could follow, but then it truly was a one man show. The brand extension failed at creating the illusion of competition. We can argue the merits of it giving midcard talent TV time, but Raw and Smackdown have never felt like two seperate entities.

Things look a bit better now though. WWE will at least deliver from Rumble to Mania each year. There's a chance TNA won't totally suck now that Russo's gone, and ROH has more exposure than it ever has.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 272 days
Last activity: 266 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56

Smiley actually had had quite a career by the time he was on WCW...including a stint as CMLL Heavyweight Champ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Smiley



Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
LostInUbe
Linguica








Since: 19.11.02
From: Ube, Japan

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
Twenty years ago we also had Smoky Mountain Wrestling which graduated it's share of future E guys. I remember the Apter mags were pretty high on SMW and it was always something I wanted to (but couldn't) watch.

So in 1992 you had groups like the GWF, SMW, ECW, the USWA and non-Watts version of the UWF kicking around on TV somewhere at sometime (thank you cable!). Less than five years later almost all were gone and anyone who was any good was probably plying their trade for the two big Ws.



(edited by LostInUbe on 20.2.12 1420)


http://lostinube.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/lostinube
shawnpatrick
Kishke








Since: 31.7.07
From: Leesville SC

Since last post: 827 days
Last activity: 709 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.82
    Originally posted by graves9
    I don't know what the last Nitro drew,


Their last show was a 2.1 rating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Monday_Night_Wars_Ratings.JPG

That's roughly double what Impact does (1.0/1.1)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Monday_Night_Wars_Ratings.JPG
graves9
Landjager








Since: 19.2.10
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 272 days
Last activity: 266 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56

    Originally posted by graves9
    Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers


That...doesn't seem quite right. 2.1 means that 2.1% of all TV equipped households were watching the show.

It still doesn't equate to a 2x number of households watching.



Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.19
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by graves9
      Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers


    That...doesn't seem quite right. 2.1 means that 2.1% of all TV equipped households were watching the show.

    It still doesn't equate to a 2x number of households watching.


http://whedonesque.com/​comments/​264

    for the 2001 - 2002 season, 105.5 million households were estimated to have televisions; each rating percentage point represents an estimated 1.055 million people. assuming that this season's estimated television households is about the same as last season's (and that Zap2it got the number right)


Emphasis mine.

A 2.1 rating 10 years ago would mean about 2.2 million households were watching that program. How many people were in those households? Who knows. But that is how Nielsen tracks viewership, by households.

graves9 is right on. About 10-12 years ago, it was almost a 1:1 ratio with ratings to millions of households.

(edited by Zeruel on 20.2.12 1242)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
Fuelly
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.59
I think that cable ratings are also more complicated than broadcast ratings. Nitro having a 2.1 rating meant that 2.1% of the households that had TNT were watching it; Impact's 1.2 rating means that 1.2% of the households that have Spike are watching it. It looks like currently TNT and Spike have the same number of subscribers, but I think cable subscriptions have grown to a significant degree in the last 10 years, so a 2.1 on TNT in 2001 is even closer in viewership to a 1.2 on Spike in 2012.

That's why ratings are still a helpful comparison, since the viewership that closes or widens the gap between Nitro and Impact is all due to factors outside of the control of Impact (population growth, growth in cable subscribers), rather than a positive sign of Impact's health and potential.



The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.

Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share.
Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share.
TripleG
Linguica








Since: 27.1.12
From: Queens ny

Since last post: 474 days
Last activity: 342 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.00
    Originally posted by hansen9j
    I think that cable ratings are also more complicated than broadcast ratings. Nitro having a 2.1 rating meant that 2.1% of the households that had TNT were watching it; Impact's 1.2 rating means that 1.2% of the households that have Spike are watching it. It looks like currently TNT and Spike have the same number of subscribers, but I think cable subscriptions have grown to a significant degree in the last 10 years, so a 2.1 on TNT in 2001 is even closer in viewership to a 1.2 on Spike in 2012.

    That's why ratings are still a helpful comparison, since the viewership that closes or widens the gap between Nitro and Impact is all due to factors outside of the control of Impact (population growth, growth in cable subscribers), rather than a positive sign of Impact's health and potential.
I don't believe that was the basis of the discussion between graves and Shawn. It was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false. Toss in the fact that there are more cable channels in 2012 than 2001. I do think the ratings are flawed a bit but it is what it is.

(edited by TripleG on 20.2.12 1331)

(edited by TripleG on 20.2.12 1332)
shawnpatrick
Kishke








Since: 31.7.07
From: Leesville SC

Since last post: 827 days
Last activity: 709 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.81
    Originally posted by TripleG
    It was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false.


It's not false as I did give stats to back up my claim. It's not 2 for 1 but the absolute lowest rated Nitro drew 2.0 million viewers. (the lowest rating). TNA draws about 1.5 million viewers... So while it's not 2 for 1, the fact is Nitro at it's worse outdraws TNA at it's best. In ratings share, it does break out to a 2 to 1 advantage. Also remember, Nitro AIRED twice, and those numbers are only for their 9pm show. Throw in the 11pm re-airing.

And also remember, Nitro actually sold tickets to their events and their PPV's even at the end, creamed Impact's PPV current ratings.

Spike would be thrilled to have the ratings of the lowest rated episode of Nitro. Now, the reason why Turner dropped wrestling is that TNT runs off a much higher budget (and much higher quality programming) then Spike, and having shows draw around 2.5 wasn't acceptable to their other programming.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.39
    Originally posted by shawnpatrick
    Now, the reason why Turner dropped wrestling is that TNT runs off a much higher budget (and much higher quality programming) then Spike, and having shows draw around 2.5 wasn't acceptable to their other programming.
That's totally untrue.



graves9
Landjager








Since: 19.2.10
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
    Originally posted by shawnpatrick
      Originally posted by TripleG
      It was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false.


    It's not false as I did give stats to back up my claim. It's not 2 for 1 but the absolute lowest rated Nitro drew 2.0 million viewers. (the lowest rating). TNA draws about 1.5 million viewers... So while it's not 2 for 1, the fact is Nitro at it's worse outdraws TNA at it's best. In ratings share, it does break out to a 2 to 1 advantage. Also remember, Nitro AIRED twice, and those numbers are only for their 9pm show. Throw in the 11pm re-airing.


I would suggest you read Zeruel's post. I have acknowledged that Nitro even at the end drew better ratings than Impact does now, but not twice the ratings and for some reason you're going back to that when that was proven not to be true. Nitro did not have a replay at 11 pm anymore after like 1999. WCW had issues selling tickets at the end of the line and pretty much gave away tickets for the most part. I think one part you're discounting is how WCW was struggling to get two million viewers at the end of the boom period of wrestling, while Impact draws 1.5-1.6 in the middle of a down period in wrestling. Should Impact be drawing a better rating after all the money they spend and all the so called stars they brought in? No question. But that's a separate issue for now.



(edited by graves9 on 21.2.12 0042)
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.57
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: RAW Supershow #979 2/20/12
Next thread: The Summer of Punk
Previous thread: WrestleMania NY|NJ
(1226 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Thanks! A T-shirt can't be far away. If you're going to a WWE event, don't forget your Mattitude sign! :)
The W - Pro Wrestling - Twenty years ago...ten years ago.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.434 seconds.