The W
Views: 97650533
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 2036
The W - Pro Wrestling - WWFs problem: no momentum
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(13636 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#1 Posted on
Never before has the WWF had so many main eventers
active at one time than now. But the problem is they
all are sitting idle.

Let's face it. Fans love monster heels and faces.
Just about all of the most popular characters were
like that. Hulk Hogan. Ultimate Warrior. nWo.
Sting. Goldberg. Austin/VKM.

Right now its as if they are afraid to give any one
WWF wrestler a monster push. Are they afraid to hurt
morale in "the back?" The result is that the fans
can't rally for or against anyone. They all look weak
and idle. Ratings just slowly drop.

The nWo is the first true monster group in a while
for the WWF. Not surprisingly it generates a world
of buzz. Typical WWF booking is to kill their heat
quickly by making them look weak to bring them more
in line with the rest of the top of the card.

That's horrible booking. Instead, a face wrestler
or group should elevate themselves to meet the new
threat. THAT'S more compelling. THAT would sell
tickets. Having the nWo getting beat down silly
right off the bat elevates NO-ONE, ruins the nWo's
credibility, and is generally a waste of the cash
they spent to sign them.

Unfortunately, that is the WWFs current style. DDP
and Booker T arrived in the WWF with a loud thud.
Not only did they get no momentum but they work the
midcard after being made to look very very weak.
HHH had his momentum slaughtered with the dumb Steph
angle and, of course, losing at the PPV. Now HHH
is back to being "just another main eventer ho hum".

If they screw the nWo up, they'll have convinced me
they have no idea what they are doing and I predict
they'll be out of business in 2 years.
Promote this thread!
Scorpio
Boudin rouge








Since: 18.2.02
From: Laurel, MD, USA

Since last post: 3774 days
Last activity: 3725 days
#2 Posted on
[This entry edited after thinking more about it for a few minutes.]

First off, I'm not a big fan of monster heels and monster faces. Having a top card guy squash a lower card guy is fine. But if no one is a threat to the monster, then most of his matches will be squashes, and when he eventually loses, the sussequent losses are uncredible.

Now, working with that, I have no problem with the top card faces uniting to take out the new (apparently) top card heels. However there aren't many top card faces left. My vote would have to go to Edge to be one of the ones to step up. Maybe have more of a united locker room to face the NWO, but then again we saw how well that worked with the Alliance.


(edited by Scorpio on 21.2.02 1342)
PMMJ
SeVen ™
Kishke








Since: 11.1.02
From: Japan

Since last post: 2360 days
Last activity: 2191 days
#3 Posted on
This is what Linda said during in interview today.

WWF Chief Wrestles With Doubt


In a candid interview with today's (Thursday) Wall Street Journal, Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, has said that she and her husband, WWF Chairman Vince McMahon, are "wrestling" with the issue: "Are we here for the long term or are we a fad?" Her concerns are being expressed at a time when WWF shares are trading at $13.28 a share, down from $25.25 on the first day of trading in 1999. (A year later, when analysts began wondering about the longterm prospects of the company, McMahon remarked: "Wall Street can kiss my a**.") Particularly worrisome to investors, the Journal indicated, has been a 28-percent drop in teenage viewers this year, following a 24-percent drop in 2001.






2002 Property of Eiko Inc.
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 87 days
Last activity: 1 min.
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
Having the nWo getting beat down silly
right off the bat elevates NO-ONE, ruins the nWo's
credibility, and is generally a waste of the cash
they spent to sign them.


When did this happen? I dont read spoilers, so if this is supposed to happen tonight, can we at least wait a LITTLE WHILE before we start hating on the WWF for making people look weak? I'm sorry, but one beatdown does not ruin ANYONE's credibility.

If this doesnt happen tonight, what the hell are you talking about? The WWF never *EVER* monster-pushes anyone just coming into (or returning to) the fed for a long period of time. They always get the quick push in the beginning, then they go through that "cooling-off" period where they get a chance prove themselves.

Yet for some reason, EVERYTIME the WWF does this, all sorts of haters come crawling out of the woodwork to cry and complain about who's push the WWF has prematurely stopped, who's getting unjustly buried, who the WWF had dropped the ball on, etc. I think the WWF's way of doing it makes more sense than just pushing a guy to the moon right off the bat for 6 months straight.

HHH had his momentum slaughtered with the dumb Steph
angle and, of course, losing at the PPV. Now HHH
is back to being "just another main eventer ho hum".


You dont actually believe that, do you? Last time I checked, HHH was going to WrestleMania to wrestle for the undisputed championship. Doesnt sound "ho-hum" to me. Besides, if we judged everyone based on their PPV win/loss records, they'd *ALL* be jobbers.



If you have REAL PLAYER, click here to listen to my *STREAMING* theme song~!
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#5 Posted on

Having the nWo getting beat down silly
right off the bat elevates NO-ONE, ruins the nWo's
credibility, and is generally a waste of the cash
they spent to sign them.



When did this happen? I dont read spoilers, so if this is
supposed to happen tonight, can we at least wait a LITTLE
WHILE before we start hating on the WWF for making people
look weak? I'm sorry, but one beatdown does not ruin
ANYONE's credibility.

If this doesnt happen tonight, what the hell are you
talking about? The WWF never *EVER* monster-pushes anyone
just coming into (or returning to) the fed for a long
period of time. They always get the quick push in the
beginning, then they go through that "cooling-off" period
where they get a chance prove themselves.



Buffs, DDPs and Booker T's "quick push" was down to
the midcard.

That's EXACTLY the reason WCW was killing WWF in the
ratings. WCW had monster faces and heels. Once the
Sting/nWo angle was over, it was more a question of
which fed was less pathetic. BOTH may still wind up
going under in my opinion.


Yet for some reason, EVERYTIME the WWF does this, all sorts
of haters come crawling out of the woodwork to cry and
complain about who's push the WWF has prematurely stopped,
who's getting unjustly buried, who the WWF had dropped the
ball on, etc. I think the WWF's way of doing it makes more
sense than just pushing a guy to the moon right off the bat
for 6 months straight.

To me it makes no sense at all because ratings prove
monster heels and faces sell more tickets.


HHH had his momentum slaughtered with the dumb Steph
angle and, of course, losing at the PPV. Now HHH
is back to being "just another main eventer ho hum".



You dont actually believe that, do you? Last time I
checked, HHH was going to WrestleMania to wrestle for the
undisputed championship. Doesnt sound "ho-hum" to me.
Besides, if we judged everyone based on their PPV win/loss
records, they'd *ALL* be jobbers.


Sure HHH is going to the WM main event. But he has no
momentum. He lost at the PPV. He temporarily sided
with Steph in the baby angle. All of that killed it.

And you're absolutely right. All of the WWF main
eventers feel rather like jobbers. They lose a LOT.
It makes it hard for the fans to get behind one of
them and to care. There's no compelling story with
any of them. They just win and lose and the belt
rotates around. Whee.

It would be similar to Sting making his first appearance
in the crow gimmick and getting beat down by people he
pointed a bat at. It just doesn't work. There's no
compelling story in that.

Being a monster heel or face DOESN'T equate to just
winning matches, either. It means not being shown to be
weak. You don't HAVE to put said wrestler in a match
at all to get that. Sting hardly wrestled at all. He
just postured, pointed bats, and repelled from the
rafters. But he never looked weak. A monster face!

I liked how they had Hogan sell a Rock Bottom then they
quickly moved to shore up Hogan's credibility with the
team beatdown of the Rock. That is ok. That maintains
a monster aura. What it says is Rock cannot just be
the typcial Rock to beat these men. He will have to
elevate his game somehow. They should come up with
something new for one or a group of the main eventers to
combat them.

(edited by Kokolums on 21.2.02 1226)
Yun
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Just outside Dudleyville

Since last post: 3155 days
Last activity: 3103 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by Scorpio
    [This entry edited after thinking more about it for a few minutes.]

    First off, I'm not a big fan of monster heels and monster faces. Having a top card guy squash a lower card guy is fine. But if no one is a threat to the monster, then most of his matches will be squashes, and when he eventually loses, the sussequent losses are uncredible.



That's why I defend the more frequent title changes. It makes for more dramatic TV to know that the champion could lose the title at any moment. In a worked sport a monster push means that there is no drama to any of the matches since only the stupes who think rasslin' is real will have any doubt as to who will win the match.

It's better to have parity in the main event and to a lesser extent in the mid/undercard as that adds a sense of doubt as to the winner of the match, and with that doubt comes drama which is what's really important when the sport is worked.





Everything's cool when you're Yun [point] Cheol [point] Su [point]
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#7 Posted on
Damn forum. Line wrap/no line wrap asdf trying
to get used to this one.



Yun said:

That's why I defend the more frequent title changes. It makes for more dramatic TV to know that the champion could lose the title at any moment. In a worked sport a monster push means that there is no drama to any of the matches since only the stupes who think rasslin' is real will have any doubt as to who will win the match.

It's better to have parity in the main event and to a lesser extent in the mid/undercard as that adds a sense of doubt as to the winner of the match, and with that doubt comes drama which is what's really important when the sport is worked.


That's surprising. I thought it was generally agreed monster characters are better for business. Every ratings spike seems to correlate with monster characters. The core fans might feel a little more like you do but to get the big ratings and draw the fringe bandwagon fans you need strong characters for them to bandwagon onto.

(edited by Kokolums on 21.2.02 1222)
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 87 days
Last activity: 1 min.
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
That's EXACTLY the reason WCW was killing WWF in the
ratings. WCW had monster faces and heels. Once the
Sting/nWo angle was over, it was more a question of
which fed was less pathetic. BOTH may still wind up
going under in my opinion.


I'm not sure it went down quite like that. I think it had less to do with monster faces and heels and more of a combination of (1)WCW had all of the WWF's established stars, (2)The wildly popular nWo angle, and (3)Bad booking/cartoon characters in the WWF at the time.

To me it makes no sense at all because ratings prove
monster heels and faces sell more tickets.


Again, I'm not sure the ratings you were talking about had to do with monster heels/faces. I think the ratings come from characters that fans can get behind or hate and putting them into good storylines. More of that later.

Sure HHH is going to the WM main event. But he has no
momentum. He lost at the PPV. He temporarily sided
with Steph in the baby angle. All of that killed it.


First of all, how can you say he lost all of his momentum at the PPV when the PPV was only 4 days ago and there has only been one TV show since then. Please give the WWF time to do what ever it is you want to hate on them for before you start hating on them for it. Second of all, didn't HHH win his #1 contender status back at RAW Monday, which was the very next night after he supposedly lost his momentum? Not to mention the fact that the WWF still has 3-4 weeks to pile up more momentum on him and his feud with Y2J before WrestleMania. I just think you're hating too soon. Third of all, I still dont see how the Steph/baby angle made HHH look weak. I think it was the final straw in separating HHH from Steph and turning him heel.

And you're absolutely right. All of the WWF main
eventers feel rather like jobbers. They lose a LOT.
It makes it hard for the fans to get behind one of
them and to care. There's no compelling story with
any of them. They just win and lose and the belt
rotates around. Whee.


I'm sorry, but the WWF main eventers DO NOT feel like jobbers. That's just crazy. Getting your ass whupped every once in awhile and losing matches now and then DOES NOT make you look weak. It makes you look human, vunerable. It gives fans a reason to want to see you kill whoever it was that whupped your ass in the first place (SEE Rock/nWo). Now if everytime I see you on TV you're getting your ass kicked time and time again, now that's a different story, but no WWF main eventers are going through that right now.

Being a monster heel or face DOESN'T equate to just
winning matches, either. It means not being shown to be
weak. You don't HAVE to put said wrestler in a match
at all to get that.


All of the examples you've given so far to support your point of the WWF making wrestlers look weak have involved losing matches. I personally dont think ANY of the currect WWF main eventers look weak at all.

(NOTE to Z: I'm sorry if this is getting to conversational.)



If you have REAL PLAYER, click here to listen to my *STREAMING* theme song~!

Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#9 Posted on
The WWF main eventers of this era most certainly DO
feel like jobbers relatively compared to other eras.
I dunno how you aren't seeing this.

Look, I'm frankly surprised people think parity works
in wrestling. I don't see any trend showing that
wrestlers that routinely are made to look bad are
massive draws and lead to ratings spikes. I'd like some
examples of that. Almost all of the biggest draws in
the business that I can think of were monsters.
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 87 days
Last activity: 1 min.
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
I don't see any trend showing that
wrestlers that routinely are made to look bad are
massive draws and lead to ratings spikes. I'd like some
examples of that. Almost all of the biggest draws in
the business that I can think of were monsters.


Remind me again what WWF main eventers are currently being made to look bad please. There is a HUUUGE difference between being made to look bad and losing matches. I think The Rock's popularity proves that. He loses matches all the time. He also gets beatdown pretty regularly too. Does any of that make him look weak? No. Again, it makes him look vunerable/human. Then fans can get behind him when he gets his revenge on whoever beat him down in the first place.

The only massive draws I can think of who got that way by being unbeatable are Hulk Hogan in the 80's and Goldberg:

They killed any last chance of Goldberg's heat when he lost the WCW title to Kevin Nash(?) because his whole gimmick was based on the fact that he couldnt lose. After that was done, he didnt have much else to go on, nor was WCW capable of giving him anything else to work with.

With Hulk Hogan, his "I will beat everyone every single time no matter what" run got old after awhile. Yes, it lasted a long while, but times have changed. I dont think people wanna see one guy just mow over everyone every single time anymore.

Besides all that, I've been holding back my judgement on the WWF until I see how they handle the nWo (after more than just one show and one PPV, of course) and what they do after/during the split. I think it's too hasty to say too much about their current direction until then.



If you have REAL PLAYER, click here to listen to my *STREAMING* theme song~!
dMp
Banger








Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#11 Posted on
Foley..
When he became a drawing name he was no where near a monster..
In fact he was the JOBBING guy that you wanted to see get some pay back..
He lost momentum a week before RR2000 by getting his ass handed to him..
He regained it by changing his name and the storyline being interesting.
In no way did he get any monster face run to build Cactus Jack up..

And perhaps they feel like jobbers compared to other eras but is that a bad thing?
Wasn't the bad thing about the 80s that HOgan didnt job no matter what, that there were 4-5 guys and 30 jobbers patting themselves on the back for lasting longer than a minute?

Rock loses all the time but he is the biggest monster face they have if i listen to the crowd.
Austin might be nearest to what you call a monster as he is often shown as the uber-guy who shrugs it off and whoops your ass for a bit longer.

Perhaps..the business changed? In the old days we didnt have backstage skits that showed wrestlers being human. In that same way it makes sense for a guy like H to actually have trouble with a guy like TAKA who comes out flying (both matter of speech and really).
I don't think the ratings went down because of that a few years ago? Wasn't this during the peak?



"...And I use that to fuck them some place fairly uncomfortable."
"What, like the back of a volkswagen ?"
-Mallrats
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#12 Posted on
Here is a list of monster faces and heels:

80s Hogan
80s Warrior
90s nWo
90s nWo Hogan
"Crow" Sting
Goldberg
DX
Austin during Austin/McMahon feud

Where would you fit Foley among these groups? I just
don't see Foley as ever having the star power these did.

And even if he does belong there, wouldn't he clearly
be the exception? Isn't the clear trend that monster
characters keep wrestling going? We've tried a top tier
filled with weaker characters for 2 years. There is
no way you can tell me its working. Ratings have been
declining.

It would be one thing if that list of the most popular
wrestlers ever were all weaker characters. But they
are monsters.

Its simple. Find common aspects of different wrestling
booms, learn from them, and take advantage. Why would
you buck the trend to model after something that is the
exception?

What evidence do you have to suggest fans no longer want
monsters? I see no evidence. That statement seems to
be pure opinion. It may be the opinion that drives the
WWF straight out of business.

Another poster offered the Rock as proof that you can
lose and be popular. Careful, that is not what I said.
Wrestling is in a HUGE decline. Rock is NOT stopping
that. He's popular among the few fans that haven't left.
But a lot HAVE left.

I'm NOT judging the nWo angle to be screwed up YET.
I'd like to see you point out where I ever said that.
I proposed that the typical WWF booking would be to
kill the nWo's heat ASAP. I said it is a bad booking
style.
mskj
Summer sausage








Since: 10.1.02
From: Tennessee

Since last post: 877 days
Last activity: 636 days
#13 Posted on
"Another poster offered the Rock as proof that you can
lose and be popular. Careful, that is not what I said.
Wrestling is in a HUGE decline. Rock is NOT stopping
that. He's popular among the few fans that haven't left.
But a lot HAVE left."

The few fans that haven't left? HUGE decline? Come on. RAW has never in it's time on TNN scored higher than a 5.7 rating. Last week it pulled a 4.7 rating. I don't know the exact numbers but 4.7 equal somewhere between four and five million homes tuned in. More than a few. I'll agree that there is some decline, but it isn't huge. The decline happened after Wrestlemania X-7, because Rock was making a movie and HHH and Benoit got hurt. Since then ratings for both shows have been staying steady. Tough Enough was a success. They still sell places out. Here is how i look at this. The Invasion failed, Angles face turn failed, Austins heel run failed. Through all of that, rating have never gone below 4 and now are swinging back towards 5. Does anyone think this is a sign of the WWF's staying power instead of a sign that when the nWo fails they will be out of business in two years? I do.

About the Rock. His popularity was at it's highest, and ratings were also very high, when he was chasing HHH for the belt every night. He was no monster. He would always lose the singles match against HHH, but he would get tag team victories and such to keep the fans thinking he would do it one day. And they (or at least I) tuned in for the day it would happen. I don't know how you could dispute this.



Updating Ohio State's basketball record could get to be a chore. Just remember, Michigan sucks.
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#14 Posted on

About the Rock. His popularity was at it's highest, and ratings were also very high, when he was chasing HHH for the belt every night. He was no monster. He would always lose the singles match against HHH, but he would get tag team victories and such to keep the fans thinking he would do it one day. And they (or at least I) tuned in for the day it would happen. I don't know how you could dispute this.


At a peak on 7/26/99 Austin was champ and had just
defended against the Undertaker/corporate ministry.
It was pure Austin/McMahon.

On 5/1/2000 the ratings tagged an 8.1 in hour 2.
The Rock had just beaten HHH (monster heel, whoodda
thunk it! Bah, its an aberration, monster heels nor
faces draw much at all!) for the world title.

Since HHH stopped being a monster heel, ratings have
been in decline.

The last overall 6+: 8/21/00
The last overall 5.5+: 7/30/01
The last overall 5+: 8/20/01

Ratings 12/31/01: 2.4

Holiday business is slow, but that was the
lowest rating since 10/27/97.
Tom Dean
Bockwurst








Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3215 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
I think the issue you're identifying is not properly described as "the main eventers aren't strong enough, there are no monsters anymore". Rather, I think the issue is "there are four guys [Austin, Angle, Rock, HHH] who are clearly presented as far superior to anyone else, and are also presented as approximately equal to each other." That's the real issue IMO... that's why it seems to you that the stories end up not progressing and the belts just randomly rotate. Relative to everyone else in the fed, those four guys ARE monsters. But relative to each other, they're not... and each of them always seems to find the other three in his way.

Is it a fair criticism? I think it is, in a lot of ways. I agree with the point being made elsewhere on the board that Jericho is currently an upper midcarder with the gimmick of "undisputed champion". And the nWo, well, too early to tell there how strong they'll be presented. Everyone else in the fed is clearly not being presented as someone who can beat one of those Big 4 for anything significant.

But, you do have to realize what would happen if you made a new main eventer every few months. After five years, you'd have like 20 main eventers, which is untenable. The WWF is in business for the long term. Obviously, all of those four guys are great... none of them NEED to be replaced. So I can see why they are not in a tremendous hurry to get other people up there. But, sometimes you get bored of the same four people, even if they are great.

I would push people up the ladder a little quicker than they do, but as long as the people on the top are doing their job well, I don't think it can be done all that much quicker.



C'MON BABY!
Yun
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Just outside Dudleyville

Since last post: 3155 days
Last activity: 3103 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by Kokolums
    Damn forum. Line wrap/no line wrap asdf trying
    to get used to this one.



    Yun said:

    That's why I defend the more frequent title changes. It makes for more dramatic TV to know that the champion could lose the title at any moment. In a worked sport a monster push means that there is no drama to any of the matches since only the stupes who think rasslin' is real will have any doubt as to who will win the match.

    It's better to have parity in the main event and to a lesser extent in the mid/undercard as that adds a sense of doubt as to the winner of the match, and with that doubt comes drama which is what's really important when the sport is worked.


    That's surprising. I thought it was generally agreed monster characters are better for business. Every ratings spike seems to correlate with monster characters. The core fans might feel a little more like you do but to get the big ratings and draw the fringe bandwagon fans you need strong characters for them to bandwagon onto.

    (edited by Kokolums on 21.2.02 1222)



First off, how can it be "generally agreed on" when nobody agrees with you?

That said what is generally agreed on, even among many casual fans, is that the Hulkamania era, while a success at the time, was, in retrospect, the low point in wrestling. The unbeatable monster that was Hogan was nothing more than indisputable proof that wrestling is fake... the man had no talent and no athletic ability but still won every match, using the same technique each time and nobody caught on. All this did was emphasize the fakeness of the sport and turn people off. That's why the casual fans turned to WCW, because the WWF had turned into a joke, a cartoon.

You need look no further than the most recent consistently low point in ratings... The InVasion Angle. Heel Austin was built up as an unbeatable monster. He whooped up on everyone who came near, he held the title for most of the year. The absences of The Rock and HHH only served to make him look more monstrous. This did not bring in the viewers. In fact the ratings dropped to below 4.0 for the first time in who knows how long.

Yes, monsters draw in bandwagon fans, but as the "Hulkamania" era shows, it annoys the core audience. And once wrestling ceases to be popular, ceases to be a "fad" if you will, it's the core fans whose opinions really matter.

BTW before anyone tries to call me on "contradicting" my previous anti-smark sentiments, bear in mind that "core fans" includes both smarks and marks. I never claimed that the WWF should ignore the opinions of smarks, just that booking solely for smarks is commercial suicide.



Everything's cool when you're Yun [point] Cheol [point] Su [point]
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4443 days
Last activity: 4432 days
#17 Posted on

You need look no further than the most recent consistently low point in ratings... The InVasion Angle. Heel Austin was built up as an unbeatable monster. He whooped up on everyone who came near, he held the title for most of the year. The absences of The Rock and HHH only served to make him look more monstrous. This did not bring in the viewers. In fact the ratings dropped to below 4.0 for the first time in who knows how long.


I said wrestling booms all have coincided with monster characters. I didn't say monster characters *guaranteed* a wrestling boom. That's two different statements. Trying to bring up an example of a monster character that didn't draw isn't really arguing against my point.


Yes, monsters draw in bandwagon fans, but as the "Hulkamania" era shows, it annoys the core audience. And once wrestling ceases to be popular, ceases to be a "fad" if you will, it's the core fans whose opinions really matter.


I'm not convinced the Hulkamania era showed that. There could be any number of reasons why the 80s boom faded. I'm more interested in what was done right and trying to extract that than nitpick booms and find everything that was wrong with them.
mskj
Summer sausage








Since: 10.1.02
From: Tennessee

Since last post: 877 days
Last activity: 636 days
#18 Posted on
"Ratings 12/31/01: 2.4

Holiday business is slow, but that was the
lowest rating since 10/27/97."

That was the best of Raw show. It doesn't really qualify.
They showed (i think) ten matches that had already been seen.

"On 5/1/2000 the ratings tagged an 8.1 in hour 2.
The Rock had just beaten HHH (monster heel, whoodda
thunk it! Bah, its an aberration, monster heels nor
faces draw much at all!) for the world title"

HHH was not a monster heel. Rock beat him many times during the run, just never in a championship match. I am not sure, but i'd bet that none (not even one) of HHH title defenses against Rock had a clean ending. He was not an unbeatable monster.



Updating Ohio State's basketball record could get to be a chore. Just remember, Michigan sucks.
shea
Bockwurst








Since: 1.2.02
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 3909 days
Last activity: 3795 days
#19 Posted on
Good points on both sides (ease up, Kokolums -- we're having a discussion, not a bar fight)

Fact is, these peaks and valleys of popularity are tied to business cycles more than anything. The country's in a recession right now, and has been for over a year. It's not a coincidence that ratings and PPV buyrates are down for a marginal activity like "sports entertainment".

Business is off for everyone, and I don't care how many monster heels/faces you build up, things won't improve until the economy gets healthy again.

Nice theory, though.
SmoovyG
Haggis








Since: 9.1.02
From: LA

Since last post: 4202 days
Last activity: 4027 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by Yun

      That's why I defend the more frequent title changes. It makes for more dramatic TV to know that the champion could lose the title at any moment. In a worked sport a monster push means that there is no drama to any of the matches since only the stupes who think rasslin' is real will have any doubt as to who will win the match.

      It's better to have parity in the main event and to a lesser extent in the mid/undercard as that adds a sense of doubt as to the winner of the match, and with that doubt comes drama which is what's really important when the sport is worked.




    I couldn't agree with this more. I always loked at the frequent title changes as increasing the value of the belt and the wrestlers rather than decreasing it. It's all about the chase, and the more people that want the WWF title (or any other title, for that matter) at any given time, the more value it's perceived as having. At least, that's how I've always looked at it.



    Steve Gerding
    --------------------
    4-Color Review: The Comic Book Site for Comic Book READERS
    http://4colorreview.com
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: The newest version of Harlem Heat
Next thread: Crowd signs: when did they start?
Previous thread: The "Michael Cole SUCKS" Thread
(13636 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
BACKED! I can see them doing a heel gimick with him but I really don't want to see a positive lifestyle choice being cast in a negative light. I'm looking forward to seeing him wrestling and may see if I can find some of his matches online.
- JohnHayduke, ECW on Sci-Fi #4 7-04-06 (2006)
The W - Pro Wrestling - WWFs problem: no momentumRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.719 seconds.