|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 10:25:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 11:34:09 GMT -5
So, we had the 1980s pro wrestling boom (rock 'n' wrestling) for the WWF. Sticking solely with the WWF, I guess their next boom was the Attitude Era and Stone Cold's shenanigans. Has there been a boom since, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 12:08:19 GMT -5
So, we had the 1980s pro wrestling boom (rock 'n' wrestling) for the WWF. Sticking solely with the WWF, I guess their next boom was the Attitude Era and Stone Cold's shenanigans. Has there been a boom since, in your opinion? From 2005 on, I wasn't into WWE because its sucks and watching TNA Impact, Lucha Underground, and Ring of Honor instead. I tried Global Force Wrestling and that's a real downer to me. Jeff Jarrett ran that and I think its a bunch of baloney and not worthy of my time. Looking forward to AEW ... All Elite Wrestling this October on TNT. For a BOOM ... it was a more a whimper to me ever since 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2019 14:41:04 GMT -5
So, we had the 1980s pro wrestling boom (rock 'n' wrestling) for the WWF. Sticking solely with the WWF, I guess their next boom was the Attitude Era and Stone Cold's shenanigans. Has there been a boom since, in your opinion? Not really, as WWE's attendance at live shows, other than PPVs is pretty dismal and the other "major" promotions can't even fill arenas for PPVs. Lucha Underground is a tv promotion, not a touring one, as was (mostly) TNA/Impact. Ring of Honor puts on shows; but indie size crowds. All-Elite Wrestling hasn't existed long enough and done anything to capture a mainstream audience to launch another boom. A "boom" means outsiders are tuning in, not just regulars, that live shows are hot tickets. The WWE manages this with Wrestlemania, which has morphed into a multi-day event, and some PPVs. other than that, their revenue comes from merchandising, foreign tours, and selling their network (and the numbers on it are up for debate). The 80s boom had mainstream attention, with Hollywood knocking and average people talking about Hulk Hogan or flashing the Four Horseman hand sign. Like any fad, though, the mainstream moves on. You can argue when it ended; but, between 87 and 89 are the likely points. The next book came in 97, with the hot NWO angle, and the rise of Austin, Rock and Foley, in the WWF. ECW was a cult thing that rode alongside, briefly, before self destructing. With the loss of WCW, the WWF became the only gae left and a stale one, at that. The mainstream left and hasn't come back. No one else has arisen, because no one else is offering something different, that appeals to a wider audience. Lucha Underground is offering good tv; but, that's all it is. TNA offered bad booking, broken down ex-WWF performers, bad business decisions and young guys who didn't get paid much, who moved to the WWF to be buried, for more money (or Japan). Ring of Honor had better wrestling, but, management was another story and Cornette has spoken of his headaches with them, when he was trying to book the thing. Billy Corrigan owns the NWA name, which means nothing and hasn't since the mid-80s. It's not a promotion, just a trademark. AEW will need to do something groundbreaking and capture the imagination of a wider audience before it is just another TNA or ROH. There was another boom, in the 90s; but, it was MMA, not pro wrestling. A lot of wrestling fans switched over for the real thing, instead of badly scripted comedy and cookie cutter matches. Even that fad cooled, as rivals like XFC, Pride, Strikeforce, WEC, disappeared or were bought out by the UFC. Another boom is possible; but, it requires someone with a unique vision and world class presentation, that offers an alternative to the WWE, not an imitation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 16:07:43 GMT -5
So, we had the 1980s pro wrestling boom (rock 'n' wrestling) for the WWF. Sticking solely with the WWF, I guess their next boom was the Attitude Era and Stone Cold's shenanigans. Has there been a boom since, in your opinion? Less is more. When WM was 3 hours long, and not a multi-day event, I preferred it. Now you need to have toilet breaks during WrestleMania, which is now around 22 hours long - and that's just the pre-show event. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 16:47:04 GMT -5
The WWE manages this with Wrestlemania, which has morphed into a multi-day event, and some PPVs. other than that, their revenue comes from merchandising, foreign tours, and selling their network (and the numbers on it are up for debate). Less is more. When WM was 3 hours long, and not a multi-day event, I preferred it. Now you need to have toilet breaks during WrestleMania, which is now around 22 hours long - and that's just the pre-show event. I'm from the Greater Seattle Area and I attended WrestleMania XIX and I got from a friend of mine from Boeing a deluxe 24 hour pass that my ticket allowed me to attend pre-event festivals and meet wrestlers and all that. I even attended a brunch in Safeco Field eight hours before the event and had a great time enjoying myself. After WrestleMania XIX over my friends declined a post event drinking event and none of us wanted to do that because we don't like to drink and drive home. It was a two days thing and it was an experience that we never forget. Saw Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Triple H, Booker T, Dudley Boyz, Trish Stratus, Kurt Angle, and Brock Lesnar. Got autographs of the names in bold. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2019 18:27:07 GMT -5
The WWE manages this with Wrestlemania, which has morphed into a multi-day event, and some PPVs. other than that, their revenue comes from merchandising, foreign tours, and selling their network (and the numbers on it are up for debate). Less is more. When WM was 3 hours long, and not a multi-day event, I preferred it. Now you need to have toilet breaks during WrestleMania, which is now around 22 hours long - and that's just the pre-show event. Well, from a live event perspective, that helped turn it into something that will draw a massive crowd for their biggest show, no matter what. That's really what Vince has always been after, that the WWE is the star of the show, not any single wrestler. In that, it is like Marvel, where the Marvel brand was what Stan was selling, not jack Kirby or Steve Ditko. Vince likes having a Hogan or an Austin or a Shawn michaels, as long as they are drawing; but, he prefers that everyone talk about the WWE brand, which is why he still thinks he can manufacture the top guys because he puts them in that slot, rather than the guys prove they have the star power and they run with it. Every time they tried to manufacture a star it failed. The crowd will always pick the star. mcMahon tried to make it Lex Luger and the crowd said "No." he tried with Kevin nash and got the same result. He tried with Roman Reins, Seth Rollins, etc, etc. the crowd said Hogan, the crowd said Austin, the crowd said Bret & Shawn, Austin, Rock, Foley, Angle and Cena. The closest they have come to a manufactured star is undertaker; but, Mark Calaway already had the tools and presence, as proven from his start in Dallas & Memphis, to his days in WCW, where people really took notice of him, to the WWF. people bought him immediately; but, they didn't buy the gimmick, at first, until he kept playing it and his charisma sold the gimmick (aided by Percy Pringle, as Paul Bearer). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 18:32:56 GMT -5
That is true.
And you know, although I say less is more, and I feel fewer PPVs would be better, I was a guy back in the day who wished we had more PPVs. Four never seemed enough. I mean, think of the PPV-calibre matches we never got to see on PPV. We never got to see Hulk Hogan VS Ric Flair on a WWF card. Perhaps if monthly PPVs had been around then, we could have seen Hogan VS Flair prior to WM VIII or in between This Tuesday in Texas and the Royal Rumble.
Of course, back in the day, monthly PPVs could have led to repetition, e.g. monthly PPVs in, say, 1991 would probably have featured a lot of Hogan/Sgt. Slaughter main events after WM VII.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 18:33:53 GMT -5
Question: if Roddy Piper, bless him, was alive today, and "Piper's Pit" was on the air, what WWE star would you like to see on the show?
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2019 18:41:28 GMT -5
That is true. And you know, although I say less is more, and I feel fewer PPVs would be better, I was a guy back in the day who wished we had more PPVs. Four never seemed enough. I mean, think of the PPV-calibre matches we never got to see on PPV. We never got to see Hulk Hogan VS Ric Flair on a WWF card. Perhaps if monthly PPVs had been around then, we could have seen Hogan VS Flair prior to WM VIII or in between This Tuesday in Texas and the Royal Rumble. Of course, back in the day, monthly PPVs could have led to repetition, e.g. monthly PPVs in, say, 1991 would probably have featured a lot of Hogan/Sgt. Slaughter main events after WM VII. I preferred the quarterly schedule. It allowed more time to build angles and make the event mean more. It made it special, whereas monthly PPVs mean little more than the weekly tv show. Same thing with title changes. If the title constantly changes hands, it doesn't mean much. Also, wrestlers should carry the belt like it is their most prized possession. It's the storyline reason they are there, if the booking is worth anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 3:29:38 GMT -5
Yes, those things do matter.
Even in a quasi-sport like wrestling, the belt should be presented as prestigious. And fewer title changes are better. I mean, when the WCW Title kept changing hands under Russo's watch, well there were days where I struggled to name the champion (easy enough with Russo, who held it for two days!). It just becomes something unimportant.
I'm also a believer in a champion losing his belt only by either being pinned/made to submit or being stripped of it as part of a storyline. Arquette pinning Bischoff in a tag team match, with a stipulation that whoever pinned someone would win the belt, was one of many nails in WCW's coffin.
I suppose I enjoy triple threat matches because three participants means plenty of action and little-to-no dead spots. But deep down, being able to win the belt without pinning the champion seems wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 4:14:59 GMT -5
But deep down, being able to win the belt without pinning the champion seems wrong. In all the years that I watched Professional Wrestling and no matter what organization it is ... I don't like Triple Threat Matches involving the Champion and two top contenders for the belt and whomever wins and no matter what is wrong and unethical (its scripted, and I hate these matches anyway) to see the Champion gets stripped no matter what. That's why I hate Vince Russo in WCW period and that's one of many reasons that led to WCW going out of business. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 16:55:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 18:35:11 GMT -5
He was a tremendous skilled wrestler, one of the best grapplers around, intelligent in the ring, and a promoter dream wherever he goes. Great NWA Champion and a true pioneer in Professional Wrestling. 6' 1" and 253 pounds, rock solid, strong as an ox, and feared by everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 18:45:28 GMT -5
Although I only started watching US wrestling in the late 80s, and saw Harley Race towards the end of his career, it was wrestlers like him that allowed me to suspend disbelief. Deep down, you know it's a facade just like you know the magician isn't really producing a bird out of nowhere, but when you can suspend disbelief, well it comes down to those who deliver that for you. Harley Race delivered it for m.
|
|
