Where are the latest TEW Real World Updates?

[Genadi]

Most WWE fans like WWE, have barely heard of TNA and have never heard of ROH.

 

Fixed

[soxfan93]

Fair enough, Genadi haha.

 

And yeah, 2011 was WWE's second-most profitable year in history, so there goes that theory.

[djthefunkchris]

Most WWE fans love WWE, hate TNA, have barely heard of ROH, and that's it. Not knowing about Japan is the least of their problems.

 

Fixed

 

Fair enough, Genadi haha.

 

In all honesty, Most "casual" watchers (be honest, that's what your talking about) only know there is Raw, Smackdown, and TNA Impact. They know some of the wrestler's show up on different shows. What I mean is, I know people that watch it all, have no clue if it's TNA or WWE. Just know that's Sting over there, and that is John Cena over here, and that other guy is CM Punk and Kurt Angle is on this one.

 

They aren't concerned with any "TNA vs. WWE" things that might be going on (especially in internet forums, not as much here anymore).

 

As Genadi pointed out, casual wrestling fans don't "Hate" TNA, or ROH for that matter... They just don't watch them as much, with TNA it's about the show, very hard to get into, and with ROH it's about them only being on in a couple of states... no one can watch them because they are never on TV. Far as who owns the shows are concerned, to them it's just "wrestlin'" and as far as they are concerned it's all under one roof. Nothing makes them go... Naw, That's a TNA Show, They suck! They just know wrestling on Thursday night sucks, but they have some of my favorite wrestlers.

[juggaloninjalee]

You pretty much just nailed why wwe has been losing money for a long time now.

 

Where do you get your information from?

[drcat123]

Fair enough, Genadi haha.

 

And yeah, 2011 was WWE's second-most profitable year in history, so there goes that theory.

 

ok if that is true then explain why Vince mcmahon is no longer a billionaire

 

 

Where do you get your information from?

 

My answer is there^

[mikemelling]

ok if that is true then explain why Vince mcmahon is no longer a billionaire

 

Because the value of the WWE stock is lower... This does not mean the WWE is not making profit, it just means it's worth less... Which is the case with a lot of huge companies nowadays. Telefonica UK, the company I work for, has seen stock prices drop from 22 Euro a share in January 2008 to 13 Eurp a share in January 2012. We also made a profit of 5.4 billion euro in 2011. Someone who was a billionaire, who owned 1 billion euro worth of stock in 2008 would only own 590 million Euro worth of stock now.

 

Stock Value is not soley based on whether or not a company makes a profit and therefore, WWE is still making money, despite the fact that the value of shares has halved in the last 4 years. In fact, back in 1999 when Vince was calling himself a "billionaire" on TV, stock has dropped from the value of $30 a share down to $9.

 

Despite this, as you can see if you click on the nicely provided links above, WWE has continued to make a profit each year for the last five years.

[drcat123]

Because the value of the WWE stock is lower... This does not mean the WWE is not making profit, it just means it's worth less... Which is the case with a lot of huge companies nowadays. Telefonica UK, the company I work for, has seen stock prices drop from 22 Euro a share in January 2008 to 13 Eurp a share in January 2012. We also made a profit of 5.4 billion euro in 2011. Someone who was a billionaire, who owned 1 billion euro worth of stock in 2008 would only own 590 million Euro worth of stock now.

 

Stock Value is not soley based on whether or not a company makes a profit and therefore, WWE is still making money, despite the fact that the value of shares has halved in the last 4 years. In fact, back in 1999 when Vince was calling himself a "billionaire" on TV, stock has dropped from the value of $30 a share down to $9.

 

Despite this, as you can see if you click on the nicely provided links above, WWE has continued to make a profit each year for the last five years.

 

That was a well thought out answer . Good job

[sockpuppet]

Because the value of the WWE stock is lower... This does not mean the WWE is not making profit, it just means it's worth less... Which is the case with a lot of huge companies nowadays. Telefonica UK, the company I work for, has seen stock prices drop from 22 Euro a share in January 2008 to 13 Eurp a share in January 2012. We also made a profit of 5.4 billion euro in 2011. Someone who was a billionaire, who owned 1 billion euro worth of stock in 2008 would only own 590 million Euro worth of stock now.

 

Stock Value is not soley based on whether or not a company makes a profit and therefore, WWE is still making money, despite the fact that the value of shares has halved in the last 4 years. In fact, back in 1999 when Vince was calling himself a "billionaire" on TV, stock has dropped from the value of $30 a share down to $9.

 

Despite this, as you can see if you click on the nicely provided links above, WWE has continued to make a profit each year for the last five years.

 

Couple that with the fact that since WWE is now publicly traded, after the cash infusion generated by the IPO, a percentage of their quarterly profits are paid out in dividends to the shareholders, thus less money for Vince despite the fact that the company is generating more revenue as a whole!

[Mkelm44]

Good point about the profit... I think a lot of fans get frustrated because the value of the wrestling isn't as good as it was (or we perceive it to be). A lot of us look back at the attitude era and remember it as pure gold and say now that things are stale and disappointing. While there may be some truth to that (you could argue that the Johnny Ace developmental system has failed to introduce new talent) and that Vince's booking is repetitive and overly vocal (we all want to yell JUST WRESTLE ALREADY at about half of the Raws) that doesn't mean that WWE isn't profitable. Reportedly Wrestlemania had almost half a million more buys than expected after all.

[drcat123]

Good point about the profit... I think a lot of fans get frustrated because the value of the wrestling isn't as good as it was (or we perceive it to be). A lot of us look back at the attitude era and remember it as pure gold and say now that things are stale and disappointing. While there may be some truth to that (you could argue that the Johnny Ace developmental system has failed to introduce new talent) and that Vince's booking is repetitive and overly vocal (we all want to yell JUST WRESTLE ALREADY at about half of the Raws) that doesn't mean that WWE isn't profitable. Reportedly Wrestlemania had almost half a million more buys than expected after all.

 

yeah the other half stole it . We all love the Internet .WWE is just crazy almost 100 bucks after the cable fees for one ppv . If WWE put buy by match it would be cool. Only match I even cared about was jericho vs punk. taker vs hhh for 3 time was just crappy to me. rock vs cena who really cares

 

As far as our wrestling better than today's wrestling . I could say one thing . Tag Teams enough said

[sockpuppet]

yeah the other half stole it . We all love the Internet .WWE is just crazy almost 100 bucks after the cable fees for one ppv . If WWE put buy by match it would be cool. Only match I even cared about was jericho vs punk. taker vs hhh for 3 time was just crappy to me. rock vs cena who really cares

 

As far as our wrestling better than today's wrestling . I could say one thing . Tag Teams enough said

 

Tag Teams! One of the many reasons I prefer Chikara & Shimmer.

[xphen0m]

^ ROH had a HOT tag division in 2010/most of 2011. Easily the best it had ever been in the company, with the American Wolves, All Night Express, The Briscoes (!!!!!!!), etc. But again, ROH in 2010 as a whole was pretty awesome stuff, especially El Generico vs. Kevin Steen.

 

A year later: The only main thing I didn't like in 2011 was Christopher Daniels being paired with Truth Martini. That was a terrible move, in my opinion.

[TEWChamp912]

What information? He just asked a question based on an interpretation of another post (an interpretation I could understand upon re-reading the post.)

 

Anyway, no announcement regarding a new TEW.

 

Thank you. Yes, just from what I read it seemed a new game was announced or something. Sorry for confusion.

[Genadi]

The Attitude Era or Monday Night Wars spoilt alot of things. PPV matches every week on RAW including TLC's, Cages and just about everything bar HIAC. Forget about being burnt out just the injuries alone forced WWE to take a step back and the people in power within the company have been upfront about that since the PG era started. The IWC is like a spoilt child sometimes... "Whaaa but we got those epic years of PPV matches on TV every week why not now! I don't care if grown men break their neck I want to be entertained dammit".

 

If you go off pure wrestling todays WWE is IMO a better product for that. They don't use chair shots and blading anywhere near as much and have made an obvious attempt at focusing more on pyschology.

 

I think hindsight can change alot of perceptions. I loved the Attitude Era but seeing nearly every top guy have their career cut short as a result of the product was enough that I completely understand and even appreciate what the E has tried to do. If only they'd consider an off season... but that's a whole other convo.

[drcat123]

The Attitude Era or Monday Night Wars spoilt alot of things. PPV matches every week on RAW including TLC's, Cages and just about everything bar HIAC. Forget about being burnt out just the injuries alone forced WWE to take a step back and the people in power within the company have been upfront about that since the PG era started. The IWC is like a spoilt child sometimes... "Whaaa but we got those epic years of PPV matches on TV every week why not now! I don't care if grown men break their neck I want to be entertained dammit".

 

If you go off pure wrestling todays WWE is IMO a better product for that. They don't use chair shots and blading anywhere near as much and have made an obvious attempt at focusing more on pyschology.

 

I think hindsight can change alot of perceptions. I loved the Attitude Era but seeing nearly every top guy have their career cut short as a result of the product was enough that I completely understand and even appreciate what the E has tried to do. If only they'd consider an off season... but that's a whole other convo.

 

WWE a better product now? Ok lets take last monday's raw . over a 2 hr show . There was about 30 mins of wrestling period . This is why WWF was better than WWE. Besides WWF never even came close to ECW stuff .

[Genadi]

WWE a better product now? Ok lets take last monday's raw . over a 2 hr show . There was about 30 mins of wrestling period . This is why WWF was better than WWE. Besides WWF never even came close to ECW stuff .

 

A better product for pure wrestling yes definitely. WWF Attitude Era had bra & panty matches, hardcore garbage can slugfests, mindless chairshots to the point they were no sold frequently and either tables ladders and chairs involved in a match weekly. Now TLC matches have their own PPV, chairshots are once again regarded as a "big hit", the Women's division has tried to take steps at becoming more about match quality than eye candy and succeeded. The wrestling quality on a week to week basis and especially PPV's over the past few years is better... IMO.

 

FTR as far as actual wrestling time on WWE programming...

These are the RAW's following Mania in the peak of the Attitude Era...

* 1998 (20 minutes of wrestling) http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2007

* 1999: (28 minutes of wrestling) http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2006

 

 

They may not carry anywhere near as much heat, momentum or popularity but guys like Punk & Danielson main eventing weekly IMO produces better wrestling quality than Austin & The Rock. I loved watching both those guys and I know many will disagree but I think WWE has improved since then as far as in ring work goes.

 

I'm not sure what you mean with the ECW comment.

[juggaloninjalee]

The Attitude Era or Monday Night Wars spoilt alot of things. PPV matches every week on RAW including TLC's, Cages and just about everything bar HIAC. Forget about being burnt out just the injuries alone forced WWE to take a step back and the people in power within the company have been upfront about that since the PG era started. The IWC is like a spoilt child sometimes... "Whaaa but we got those epic years of PPV matches on TV every week why not now! I don't care if grown men break their neck I want to be entertained dammit".

 

If you go off pure wrestling todays WWE is IMO a better product for that. They don't use chair shots and blading anywhere near as much and have made an obvious attempt at focusing more on pyschology.

 

I think hindsight can change alot of perceptions. I loved the Attitude Era but seeing nearly every top guy have their career cut short as a result of the product was enough that I completely understand and even appreciate what the E has tried to do. If only they'd consider an off season... but that's a whole other convo.

 

You are spot on with your point.

 

 

 

WWE a better product now? Ok lets take last monday's raw . over a 2 hr show . There was about 30 mins of wrestling period . This is why WWF was better than WWE. Besides WWF never even came close to ECW stuff .

 

WWF had long angles that dominated shows too. Look at those old Ministry angles. 10 minute brawls backstage to end a show. The amount of wrestling back then to now is probably comparable.

 

 

 

A better product for pure wrestling yes definitely. WWF Attitude Era had bra & panty matches, hardcore garbage can slugfests, mindless chairshots to the point they were no sold frequently and either tables ladders and chairs involved in a match weekly. Now TLC matches have their own PPV, chairshots are once again regarded as a "big hit", the Women's division has tried to take steps at becoming more about match quality than eye candy and succeeded. The wrestling quality on a week to week basis and especially PPV's over the past few years is better... IMO.

 

FTR as far as actual wrestling time on WWE programming...

These are the RAW's following Mania in the peak of the Attitude Era...

* 1998 (20 minutes of wrestling) http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2007

* 1999: (28 minutes of wrestling) http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2006

 

 

They may not carry anywhere near as much heat, momentum or popularity but guys like Punk & Danielson main eventing weekly IMO produces better wrestling quality than Austin & The Rock. I loved watching both those guys and I know many will disagree but I think WWE has improved since then as far as in ring work goes.

 

I'm not sure what you mean with the ECW comment.

 

I think he was trying to say ECW was the best product or something from an in ring perspective. I am not sure because ECW was never the best at anything except hiding guys flaws on their roster.

[Hive]

I think what he meant was that in terms of dangerous chair shots and blading, WWF - in spite of using both a lot back then - never came close to being as bloody and hardcore as ECW.

 

Will the winning interpretor get a prize?

[drcat123]

I think what he meant was that in terms of dangerous chair shots and blading, WWF - in spite of using both a lot back then - never came close to being as bloody and hardcore as ECW.

 

Will the winning interpretor get a prize?

 

Thank you I don't know how anybody misunderstood that comment.

 

Ok I will end it with this

 

we had wcw, wwf, ecw as top 3

 

now we have wwe, tna, and roh as top 3

 

I would say hand down as in terms of almost everything. WWF beats WWE. You could argue this point for sure . I think the next 2 are clear .

 

I would say WCW will destroy TNA. TNA today is nothing more than WCW if the NWO never came about in WCW.

 

Now ECW to ROH. I would like ECW was more of it's own thing than ROH is today. Really the only way you can compare them is by the lucadors to ROH. Which based on what we know now . I was say ECW wins because eddie, benoit, mysterio, jericho , etc. They all became main eventers . Of course if ROH had it's elite stars still today. I would say ROH wins in every way.

[juggaloninjalee]

Thank you I don't know how anybody misunderstood that comment.

 

Ok I will end it with this

 

we had wcw, wwf, ecw as top 3

 

now we have wwe, tna, and roh as top 3

 

I would say hand down as in terms of almost everything. WWF beats WWE. You could argue this point for sure . I think the next 2 are clear .

 

I would say WCW will destroy TNA. TNA today is nothing more than WCW if the NWO never came about in WCW.

 

Now ECW to ROH. I would like ECW was more of it's own thing than ROH is today. Really the only way you can compare them is by the lucadors to ROH. Which based on what we know now . I was say ECW wins because eddie, benoit, mysterio, jericho , etc. They all became main eventers . Of course if ROH had it's elite stars still today. I would say ROH wins in every way.

 

Ok I am going to ask why you think WWF beats WWE in every way?

 

The WWF was almost out of business at one point. Even to the point they wanted Bret Hart to leave and go to WCW because they couldn't justify paying his contract. Before saying Attitude WWF was better than WWE today I'd suggest going back and watching a few months straight of that era WWF because it can be surprising.

 

Late WCW (the final year) was not better than TNA is now I'd say. They were probably about even to what TNA is now. I'd probably give TNA a slight small edge in quality but WCW a slight edge in popularity.

 

ECW compared to ROH... They aren't comparable. ECW tried to expand too quickly and it failed because of that. ECW would still be alive today if they didn't try to grow as quick as they did I think. ROH isn't anything compared to what ECW was it's last few years. So I say ECW was better but not in quality. ECW did at times have amazing wrestlers (Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Taka Michinoku, and others). They also had crap wrestlers Balls Mahoney, Axl and Ian Rotten, Sal E Graziano, Supreme, New Jack, and others. ECW had great characters though and that is what made them good.

 

So a lot of these opinions depend on what you mean by promotion A is better than promotion B.

[drcat123]

Ok I am going to ask why you think WWF beats WWE in every way?

 

The WWF was almost out of business at one point. Even to the point they wanted Bret Hart to leave and go to WCW because they couldn't justify paying his contract. Before saying Attitude WWF was better than WWE today I'd suggest going back and watching a few months straight of that era WWF because it can be surprising.

 

Late WCW (the final year) was not better than TNA is now I'd say. They were probably about even to what TNA is now. I'd probably give TNA a slight small edge in quality but WCW a slight edge in popularity.

 

ECW compared to ROH... They aren't comparable. ECW tried to expand too quickly and it failed because of that. ECW would still be alive today if they didn't try to grow as quick as they did I think. ROH isn't anything compared to what ECW was it's last few years. So I say ECW was better but not in quality. ECW did at times have amazing wrestlers (Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Taka Michinoku, and others). They also had crap wrestlers Balls Mahoney, Axl and Ian Rotten, Sal E Graziano, Supreme, New Jack, and others. ECW had great characters though and that is what made them good.

 

So a lot of these opinions depend on what you mean by promotion A is better than promotion B.

 

And that is your opinion

 

I do like how you singled out the last year of wcw. Funny comparing a whole fed to the worst year of another fed . Oh yeah If you want to watch tapes then go back to NWA-TNA . It was far better than anything that TNA has now. First of all where did you get that crap about bret hart. Everybody knows the screwjob angle . Second Vince would not want his best worker at the time to leave for any reason. Third Look at the rating and compare . WWF was far better. WWE is doing WCW ratings after WWF beat them now. Only time they get a boost is where they push the envelope.

[juggaloninjalee]

And that is your opinion

 

I do like how you singled out the last year of wcw. Funny comparing a whole fed to the worst year of another fed . Oh yeah If you want to watch tapes then go back to NWA-TNA . It was far better than anything that TNA has now. First of all where did you get that crap about bret hart. Everybody knows the screwjob angle . Second Vince would not want his best worker at the time to leave for any reason. Third Look at the rating and compare . WWF was far better. WWE is doing WCW ratings after WWF beat them now. Only time they get a boost is where they push the envelope.

 

In response to Bret go watch the Wrestling with Shadows documentary. Bret had resigned with WWE

 

From Wikipedia

Although Hart was signed to a 20-year contract back in 1996, the WWF was in a rough financial position by late 1997 and could not afford the contract. Although Hart was arguably the biggest wrestler in the world during the mid-1990s,[9] McMahon also felt that the value of his character was beginning to wane,[116] but wished for Hart to remain with the WWF and discuss the contract and the character's future. Nonetheless, McMahon gave Hart his blessing to talk to World Championship Wrestling (WCW) about possibly taking a second look at their original offer to him.[117] Hart subsequently signed a three-year contract with WCW. His final match with the WWF would be a title match against his real life rival Shawn Michaels at Survivor Series in Montreal. Hart did not want to end his WWF career with a loss to Michaels in his home country; McMahon agreed to Hart's idea of forfeiting the championship the next night on Raw or losing it a few weeks later.

 

That then led to the screw job and why Bret was so pissed.

 

Obviously I won't be comparing WCW at its peak to TNA at any time because obviously a company that was making millions a year was better than a company that doesn't make much money at all. The only true comparison you can make about the 2 is the final year of WCW being about equal to TNA.

 

As for ratings I don't think it is a fair comparison based on ratings because people watch wrestling thru internet and stuff too. It's like comparing record sales now to record sales 15 years ago. People download stuff illegally now and that wasn't as common back then.

 

With that said I do think more people watched wrestling during the Attitude but it was considered cool then. It was mainstream during the Attitude era. If you mention wrestling now people are like oh yeah that was cool when I was a kid blah blah blah...

[drcat123]

In response to Bret go watch the Wrestling with Shadows documentary. Bret had resigned with WWE

 

 

 

That then led to the screw job and why Bret was so pissed.

 

Obviously I won't be comparing WCW at its peak to TNA at any time because obviously a company that was making millions a year was better than a company that doesn't make much money at all. The only true comparison you can make about the 2 is the final year of WCW being about equal to TNA.

 

As for ratings I don't think it is a fair comparison based on ratings because people watch wrestling thru internet and stuff too. It's like comparing record sales now to record sales 15 years ago. People download stuff illegally now and that wasn't as common back then.

 

With that said I do think more people watched wrestling during the Attitude but it was considered cool then. It was mainstream during the Attitude era. If you mention wrestling now people are like oh yeah that was cool when I was a kid blah blah blah...

 

 

Ok maybe we can agree on this thing

 

WCW had the NWO stuff

WWF had the Attitude

ECW was Extreme

 

Today it is not that cut and dry . I think that really hurts the market. The fact WWE has no major threat doesn't help anything either.

[djthefunkchris]

Ok maybe we can agree on this thing

 

WCW had the NWO stuff

WWF had the Attitude

ECW was Extreme

 

Today it is not that cut and dry . I think that really hurts the market. The fact WWE has no major threat doesn't help anything either.

 

That's where they missed out in my opinion..... The brand split I believe was supposed to represent competition between the two brands, instead of what they have now... Part of the over-all WWE. I believe they meant them to "sort of" act like two entire different companies at first. I can still remember all the complaints they were getting because Undertaker wasn't on Raw, or Cena wasn't on Smackdown, etc. so they ended up giving (at least the live crowd) the show more variety in it's talent.

 

IF they could have made that work, we might be seeing two different things from the same company, instead of basically the same stuff on both.

[shamelessposer]

drcat123's only contribution to the community is an unusable, broken down glob of stolen data. He spent five years boycotting TEW due to a lack of a "view numbers" feature. As far as I can tell, his issue was that he and the alphabet are in a blood feud. Why are you still trying to argue with him?