The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[PeterHilton]

Just because WWE is making cash doesn't make the product better than other wrestling promotions.

 

It means that the WWE has consistently produced a product that more people across a wider variety of audience types are interested in spending their money on for a longer period of time than any other promotion in history.

 

If that doesn't mean 'better' to you ..so be it.

 

But they are the most successful at doing the most important thing in their industry.

 

Everything else is totally subjective.

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that I enjoy everything the WWE does or that indy companies aren't entertaining, but it's sort of a joke to see net fans whine about how th WWe doesn't know what they're doing or how to develop talent when they're making so much f'n money in an industry where making money is really the only thing that counts.

[Bigpapa42]

It means that the WWE has consistently produced a product that more people across a wider variety of audience types are interested in spending their money on for a longer period of time than any other promotion in history.

 

If that doesn't mean 'better' to you ..so be it.

 

But they are the most successful at doing the most important thing in their industry.

 

Everything else is totally subjective.

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that I enjoy everything the WWE does or that indy companies aren't entertaining, but it's sort of a joke to see net fans whine about how th WWe doesn't know what they're doing or how to develop talent when they're making so much f'n money in an industry where making money is really the only thing that counts.

 

Isn't making money the primary goal of almost every industry?

 

I just cannot equate most popular to best. Sometimes it does, but there are so many factors. Look at the film industry - what are generally seen as the "best" films each year - the ones that do the most bank at the box office or the ones who earn the accolades and awards?

[The Final Countdown]

It means that the WWE has consistently produced a product that more people across a wider variety of audience types are interested in spending their money on for a longer period of time than any other promotion in history.

 

If that doesn't mean 'better' to you ..so be it.

 

But they are the most successful at doing the most important thing in their industry.

 

Everything else is totally subjective.

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that I enjoy everything the WWE does or that indy companies aren't entertaining, but it's sort of a joke to see net fans whine about how th WWe doesn't know what they're doing or how to develop talent when they're making so much f'n money in an industry where making money is really the only thing that counts.

OK, now we're on the same page. You are absolutely correct; WWE is the most successful promotion in the history of the industry. My own complaints with their product aside, they continue to make money year after year after year, so they clearly know what they're doing. And, like you said, everything beyond that is totally subjective.

[jwt13]

It means that the WWE has consistently produced a product that more people across a wider variety of audience types are interested in spending their money on for a longer period of time than any other promotion in history.

 

If that doesn't mean 'better' to you ..so be it.

 

But they are the most successful at doing the most important thing in their industry.

 

Everything else is totally subjective.

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that I enjoy everything the WWE does or that indy companies aren't entertaining, but it's sort of a joke to see net fans whine about how th WWe doesn't know what they're doing or how to develop talent when they're making so much f'n money in an industry where making money is really the only thing that counts.

 

But they are makeing money cuz of how long they have been around and while they are some what creative now a days if it was their 7th or 8th year they would be in red but the sucsfull times in WWF are what is carrying them with this garbge product they have now. BTW I hope they drop the guest host and put a GM in and that to me would make it so much better but they also have to drop the rated PG crap.

 

Edit: Plus their PPV buy rate are takeing a huge hit I saw Survivor Series droped 30% from the last years one this could be because of the product or econmy could be either one.

[masterded]

Isn't making money the primary goal of almost every industry?

 

I just cannot equate most popular to best. Sometimes it does, but there are so many factors. Look at the film industry - what are generally seen as the "best" films each year - the ones that do the most bank at the box office or the ones who earn the accolades and awards?

 

The problem is some people act as if best isn't an opinion but that it is a fact, and the only way it can be a fact is if you go by success. People just need to be more clear when they talk and accepting of apposing views.

[Bigpapa42]

The problem is some people act as if best isn't an opinion but that it is a fact, and the only way it can be a fact is if you go by success. People just need to be more clear when they talk and accepting of apposing views.

 

This. Yes. The idea of "best" is almost always subjective. Therein lies the problem, and people too often try to act as if it isn't.

[PeterHilton]

Isn't making money the primary goal of almost every industry?

 

I just cannot equate most popular to best. Sometimes it does, but there are so many factors. Look at the film industry - what are generally seen as the "best" films each year - the ones that do the most bank at the box office or the ones who earn the accolades and awards?

 

Yes and no.

 

As I mentioned before, when you talk about music or literature or movies, artistic license and creativity and an ability to be unique were ALWAYS part of the process; there were always people in those fields who made conscious decisions to pick mainstream success over artistry.

 

But wrestling was born as a con job. It's a work. A sham. It was literally a way to take money from people by lying to them.

 

So when people say things like this:

 

But they are makeing money cuz of how long they have been around and while they are some what creative now a days if it was their 7th or 8th year they would be in red but the sucsfull times in WWF are what is carrying them with this garbge product they have now. BTW I hope they drop the guest host and put a GM in and that to me would make it so much better but they also have to drop the rated PG crap.

 

it makes me realize that the reason why people in the industry ignore net fans is because ..for the most part...they don't have one single iota of a clue as to what they're talking about.

[masterded]

What would people say WWE's Target audience is?

[Wrestling Century]

What would people say WWE's Target audience is?

 

Kids, Teenage Girls, and Families atm IMO. Remember guys, this is my OPINION , not a fact! Stop making arguments about facts and opinions! It drives me nuts! Can't we be in peace?

[James Casey]

It's an Internet forum. It's unlikely

 

I don't think there's a conscious effort to target teenage girls in terms of the action or characters (most likely there'd be a Twilight-esque chiselled cheekbone guy if there was). That said, it's obvious that a lot of young girls/women do fancy Cena, Kofi or whoever, so that's welcome.

 

But yeah: Kids and families, definitely. The young adult demographic is no longer a key one for them, I would say.

[Bigpapa42]

Yes and no.

 

As I mentioned before, when you talk about music or literature or movies, artistic license and creativity and an ability to be unique were ALWAYS part of the process; there were always people in those fields who made conscious decisions to pick mainstream success over artistry.

 

But wrestling was born as a con job. It's a work. A sham. It was literally a way to take money from people by lying to them.

 

To me, professional wrestling evolved out of legit wrestling. It evolved into a "con job" rather than was born as one. To me, that's not much different than most entertainment industries. Music, film, and even television may have been born out of art, but have predominantly evolved into money making machines.

[Wrestling Century]

But yeah: Kids and families, definitely. The young adult demographic is no longer a key one for them, I would say.

 

Quite honestly, that makes me sad. Especially since ten years ago they were pretty much the exact opposite IMO. Again, it is my opinion people! (I don't want to start another argument!)

[Stennick]

Peter Hilton you and me are on the EXACT same page. You get what I was saying and I think you are exactly right. Like I said before your version of the "best" may differ. You and ten friends may say the best is something no one has heard of. However when 10 million people vote for something else as the best thats called mainstream success which over powers and over shadows thus making what those ten million people consider the best the industry accepted "best".

 

But they are makeing money cuz of how long they have been around and while they are some what creative now a days if it was their 7th or 8th year they would be in red but the sucsfull times in WWF are what is carrying them with this garbge product they have now. BTW I hope they drop the guest host and put a GM in and that to me would make it so much better but they also have to drop the rated PG crap.

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you didn't do a single bit a research before you made that statement. You're saying that because of 98-01 the WWE is still in business today.

 

Total revenue for the WWE in 2008 was 520 million compared to 480 million in 2007.

 

I could go back farther but the fact is that its been said over and over again with things such as WWE studios, over seas tours and over seas television deals, merchandise, DVD sales from their massive library are nearly all profit.

 

The fact is the WWE is a very well oiled corporate machine and no matter how much the IWC continues to claim the end is near for Vince and his merry band of failed sitcom writers their turning a profit some companies would kill for in this economy. In 2003 they made 375 million in revenue and in 2003 they made 374 million in revenue.

 

To say that their still making money off of the attitude years is just a off the wall statement with zero research or fact to back it up. Pay per view buys may be down and he may not be making what he was making in 1998 but guess what no company is making what they made in 1998.

 

I won't even bother going into you saying that the WWE is making money because of how long they have been around. Sure logetivity has its advantages. Your recognized as your industries brand in a lot of cases. HOWEVER at the same time 100 year old companies go out of business every year or are severely downsized. I did enough research.

 

Ok I lied I just googled "big companies going out of business". It turns out Sprint/Nextel isn't going out of business but is veering towards bankruptcy. They are set to lose 4.4 million customers this year. Spring has been around in one form or another since 1898 and they have been around in mostly their current form since 1978. Thats about the time Vince took over the WWF in the early eighties and his family had been owning the wrestling business for the early part of the 1900's. So you see just because you have been around for a 100 years doesn't mean that people just automatically buy your product. If anything they become disenchanted and move onto the next thing rather quickly.

 

Macy's, yes the parade, the department store. Macy's was founded in 1858, its generally regarded as the top department store in the country and one of the innovators of the concept. That being said they have 2.4 billion in maturing debt over the next five years.

 

Goodyear tires, this is a company that should be ecnomy proof right? I mean after all you always need tires and I don't know about you but Goodyear is the brand I think of when I think of tires....goodyear blimp anyone?

 

All of these companies are 100 plus years old, most of them are recognized as the top brand in the company in their industry and yet their all facing bankrupcy. So you see just because you've been doing something for nearly 100 years doesn't mean that your promised to always be doing it. So not only were your "The WWE is only making money because of the attitude years" wrong, but the "The WWE is only around because its always been around and so people are used to it" argument fails as well.

[MrCanada]

what did I start...

 

Haha. I think the two sides of the coin have both been stated. Deciding what site you are on is all thats left.

 

Either heads) You have to, have to, have to, admit a connection between measurable facts and figures being the ultimate sign of what is "best" whether it agrees with your personal opinion or not.

 

or tails) Your opinion is all that maters, in which case, local wrestler Harvest Grayson is the best wrestler in the world and anyone who argues otherwise is a goshdarn idiot.

[Wrestling Century]

Who is this Harvest Grayson that you keep mentioning?

[MrCanada]

I read it online and think its the best name of all time, so when ever referring to an imaginary person for effect, I now use that name.\

 

EDIT: ANOTER RELEASE!

 

According to Pwinsider.com, WWE released developmental talent Sweet Papi Sanchez yesterday. Sanchez previously worked in Puerto Rico as Black Pain.

[jwt13]

Yes and no.

 

As I mentioned before, when you talk about music or literature or movies, artistic license and creativity and an ability to be unique were ALWAYS part of the process; there were always people in those fields who made conscious decisions to pick mainstream success over artistry.

 

But wrestling was born as a con job. It's a work. A sham. It was literally a way to take money from people by lying to them.

 

So when people say things like this:

 

 

 

it makes me realize that the reason why people in the industry ignore net fans is because ..for the most part...they don't have one single iota of a clue as to what they're talking about.

 

Can you please tell me how I have no idea what I'm talking about because you just saying that isn't really meaning nothing show how you think i dont no what im talking about what i said is how i feel about wwe and is why i currently dont watch it because of lack of good things on the show. So please tell me what you meant with me not knowing what im talking about.

[MrCanada]

Can you please tell me how I have no idea what I'm talking about because you just saying that isn't really meaning nothing show how you think i dont no what im talking about what i said is how i feel about wwe and is why i currently dont watch it because of lack of good things on the show. So please tell me what you meant with me not knowing what im talking about.

 

Because you are one person. Its one thing to state your opinion. Everyone is entitled to it. I'm not a huge WWE fan right now and most of what I watch is stuff I read about that I find interesting on the internet after RAW or whatever airs. However that said, and stemming from the "popular v. better" arguement, one person's view of 'better' means nothing! Mine doesnt. Yours doenst. Because what you believe to be 'better' isnt 'popular'. Thats why the WWE will never appease the internet. ROH appeases the internet. How successful are they? Are they better to you? Maybe. But the millions of people who pay money into the WWE machine think they are better. So more people (because they are popular) watch WWE, and because of that MORE people would say they are better. Therefore, WWE = better. Whether that is your opinion or not. (thats how the "free" world of democracy works)

 

This isnt forcing anyone to say "yeah! In my opinion, they are better!" its about self realization that you (and me) arnt that special. And sometimes you just have to admit "I'm the minority, to a lot of people I guess I'm wrong, but I'm happy with who I am. But in the long and short of it, I can see and understand why WWE must be viewed as better to more people."

 

EDIT:

Its just like you are voting in an election. If your side loses, you understand that means MORE people think the other side makes better points, or has the better interest of whatever at hand. So you bite your tongue and say "Okay. Lets see how they do it." You still have your guy on the sidelines with some power via voting within a senate or what have you. Just as in wrestling you have wrestling on the side you can watch. But you have to bite your tongue and go. Yea, WWE won, that means they are more popular, and therefore better. Or you can be one of those people yelling at town hall meetings.

[jwt13]

Because you are one person. Its one thing to state your opinion. Everyone is entitled to it. I'm not a huge WWE fan right now and most of what I watch is stuff I read about that I find interesting on the internet after RAW or whatever airs. However that said, and stemming from the "popular v. better" arguement, one person's view of 'better' means nothing! Mine doesnt. Yours doenst. Because what you believe to be 'better' isnt 'popular'. Thats why the WWE will never appease the internet. ROH appeases the internet. How successful are they? Are they better to you? Maybe. But the millions of people who pay money into the WWE machine think they are better. So more people (because they are popular) watch WWE, and because of that MORE people would say they are better. Therefore, WWE = better. Whether that is your opinion or not. (thats how the "free" world of democracy works)

 

This isnt forcing anyone to say "yeah! In my opinion, they are better!" its about self realization that you (and me) arnt that special. And sometimes you just have to admit "I'm the minority, to a lot of people I guess I'm wrong, but I'm happy with who I am. But in the long and short of it, I can see and understand why WWE must be viewed as better to more people."

 

EDIT:

Its just like you are voting in an election. If your side loses, you understand that means MORE people think the other side makes better points, or has the better interest of whatever at hand. So you bite your tongue and say "Okay. Lets see how they do it." You still have your guy on the sidelines with some power via voting within a senate or what have you. Just as in wrestling you have wrestling on the side you can watch. But you have to bite your tongue and go. Yea, WWE won, that means they are more popular, and therefore better. Or you can be one of those people yelling at town hall meetings.

 

And I understand that and touched on it in the post before that guy said i didnt know what I was talking about I understand your points and agree but I would rether someone tell me why they dont agree with something I say or said the someone say stright up you know nothing of what your talking about but agian I understand what your saying completly.

[Stennick]

Because you are one person. Its one thing to state your opinion. Everyone is entitled to it. I'm not a huge WWE fan right now and most of what I watch is stuff I read about that I find interesting on the internet after RAW or whatever airs. However that said, and stemming from the "popular v. better" arguement, one person's view of 'better' means nothing! Mine doesnt. Yours doenst. Because what you believe to be 'better' isnt 'popular'. Thats why the WWE will never appease the internet. ROH appeases the internet. How successful are they? Are they better to you? Maybe. But the millions of people who pay money into the WWE machine think they are better. So more people (because they are popular) watch WWE, and because of that MORE people would say they are better. Therefore, WWE = better. Whether that is your opinion or not. (thats how the "free" world of democracy works)

 

This isnt forcing anyone to say "yeah! In my opinion, they are better!" its about self realization that you (and me) arnt that special. And sometimes you just have to admit "I'm the minority, to a lot of people I guess I'm wrong, but I'm happy with who I am. But in the long and short of it, I can see and understand why WWE must be viewed as better to more people."

 

EDIT:

Its just like you are voting in an election. If your side loses, you understand that means MORE people think the other side makes better points, or has the better interest of whatever at hand. So you bite your tongue and say "Okay. Lets see how they do it." You still have your guy on the sidelines with some power via voting within a senate or what have you. Just as in wrestling you have wrestling on the side you can watch. But you have to bite your tongue and go. Yea, WWE won, that means they are more popular, and therefore better. Or you can be one of those people yelling at town hall meetings.

 

This is exactly right. It doesn't matter what I, Mr. Canada, or yourself perceive to be the "best" at anything. It matters when the majority of like minded individuals all decide. If this were not the case how would we ever decide who is a "better" person to be the president. In 2004 more people said George Bush was still the better person to run the country. I was one of the ones that did not feel this way however I had to accept that there was nothing I could do about it and the masses had decided that Bush was the better man even if my own opinion was different it didn't matter.

[The Final Countdown]

This is getting very repetitive; nothing new is really being said. So I'm going to attempt to change the subject.

 

For those that watch Smackdown regularly: why would The Undertaker "attack" Rey Mysterio? Is there some storyline reason for that, or did it just come out of nowhere? It seems rather odd to have him screw over the likes of Rey without a valid reason.

[Bigpapa42]

For those that watch Smackdown regularly: why would The Undertaker "attack" Rey Mysterio? Is there some storyline reason for that, or did it just come out of nowhere? It seems rather odd to have him screw over the likes of Rey without a valid reason.

 

Rey is trying to get a shot at Undertaker's belt, just like Batista is. That's enough reason, I think.

 

As for Sweet Papi Sanchez getting released, I don't think its a huge loss from what I saw of his work in FCW. He did seem to get a decent reaction from the fans, but it could have also been because he handed out candy on his way to the ring.

[MrCanada]

Rey is trying to get a shot at Undertaker's belt, just like Batista is. That's enough reason, I think.

 

As for Sweet Papi Sanchez getting released, I don't think its a huge loss from what I saw of his work in FCW. He did seem to get a decent reaction from the fans, but it could have also been because he handed out candy on his way to the ring.

 

I might mist Papi. His black pain character, or even the Sweet Papi character (go a bit more Godfather with it), would fit in perfectly in 2000. But its 2009. I'm sure he'll end up making a find living still though, as he is a big name in Puerto Rico and seeing him in Japan or TNA isnt the strangest thing.

 

Its funny that this time of year is the year a lot of unknown, but decent, talent becomes available for TNA, and its sad that they already have such a bogged down roster. How good would Gabriel be in the British Invasion? Boot out Terry. (wrong thread I know)

[Bigpapa42]

I might mist Papi. His black pain character, or even the Sweet Papi character (go a bit more Godfather with it), would fit in perfectly in 2000. But its 2009. I'm sure he'll end up making a find living still though, as he is a big name in Puerto Rico and seeing him in Japan or TNA isnt the strangest thing.

 

Its funny that this time of year is the year a lot of unknown, but decent, talent becomes available for TNA, and its sad that they already have such a bogged down roster. How good would Gabriel be in the British Invasion? Boot out Terry. (wrong thread I know)

 

Guys the size of Papi are always going to have some value, so long as they aren't Khali-bad in the ring. He wasn't. I just don't remember anything overly encouraging about him in FCW. I've watched all the FCW shows from mid-summer through into the early winter, and I don't really recall anything about any of his matches, good or bad. Just kinda average, but big...

 

That was actually the first thing I thought about when I read Gabriel got released. It was the "wonder if TNA could do something with him?", which was immediately followed by the "TNA is way overloaded already" logic...

[Hyde Hill]

Its funny that this time of year is the year a lot of unknown, but decent, talent becomes available for TNA, and its sad that they already have such a bogged down roster. How good would Gabriel be in the British Invasion? Boot out Terry. (wrong thread I know)

 

He is not bad anymore for a guy his size. Good? Far from it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_4jAsoXm4

 

I would still fire him and have Desmond lead them though.