WWE vs the IWC

[AfRoMaN36]

Ooooh, Yes. I shall go their. We shall debate, and their WILL be bloodshed. Todays discussion is on the king of professional wrestling. The number 1 promotion in the buissness... vs the group of fans who are often seen bashing their product. My question is... Why is the IWC so hard on the WWE? I will side with the WWE here. I will side with the big guys because I truly find it unfair that many of the IWC seem to hold everything the WWE does and watches them with a magnifying glass. They seem to pick apart at their product so much, yet... ratings are up and they are still on top. I saw Raw yesterday..... it was bad. Very bad. Triple H was injured and dX seems finished unless HBK comes out with new members next week (probable) On top of that Rosie vs Trump made me hurl. So, for the first time in a long time, I decide to go to pwinsider. I knew it was bad and I wanted to see the IWC's side of things to see if they agreed. of course, they agreed. Not only that... but they destroyed them. They made it seem as if the product has been horrible as of late and that just isnt true. They insulted Vince on never doing what the fans want. Yeah, so lets ignore the fact that Rey Jr, RVD, Booker T and Benoit all held gold just recently. (Benoit 2 years ago but meh) And I go to see what Dave Sherer says. I like Dave and I respect his opinion alot. But even he torches it. Even having the nerve to say "If anyone else injures themselves... would the WWE make a promo for them?" This of course suggests that HHH's weddign ring had to do with him getting the promo.... nit the fact that he injured the other quad, is a main eventer and continued wrestling. No.... its because he is a mcmahon... sad. Dont confuse me for a mark. I hated Raw yesterday, but they cant all be hits. TNA has had far worse shows and are accused of being WWE wannabes on a nightly basis, but apparently BG james and Monty Sopp beats dX in their eyes. I do like TNA, but have recently gotten turned off with their recent product (meaning MORE than one bad show) And of course, if you dont like the current product... dont watch. Sports entertain,ment is just one genre of wrestling and you can always watch another to fill your need. But if you say TNA is the alternative then youre just picking something of the same genre over the inventors of it. Of course, this is my opinion. I do in fact get your point, but I would like you WWE haters to further evaluate your hatred. IMO I dont get why you guys hate it but keep watching. I think the attitude era was the height of wrestling but back then we were all like 7-13 years old. (most of us here atleast) And at that age.... we liked everything. They struck out also. (The Boss man and Big shows dad angle... anyone?) While ECW bmbed also at times but had such a strangle hold on a loyal audience... they didnt care. While WWE attracts more casual fans.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;181730]My question is... Why is the IWC so hard on the WWE? I will side with the WWE here. I will side with the big guys because I truly find it unfair that many of the IWC seem to hold everything the WWE does and watches them with a magnifying glass. They seem to pick apart at their product so much, yet... ratings are up and they are still on top.[/QUOTE] Umm, you can't be serious asking this question, can you? Microsoft creates some of the buggiest software on the face of the planet. Windows XP shipped with 6.8 MILLION known bugs and a whole host of vulnerabilities. But, they're still on top. Wow, wonder why that is? Face the facts, you don't have to be the best to be #1. You don't even have to be GOOD to be #1. At this point, WWE will remain #1 until it implodes simply because of the barrier of entry for wrestling promotions. The ol' catch-22: without TV, you can't gain a significant audience but without a significant audience, you can't get on TV. The problem is, as TNA is learning, you need a decent sized block of TV time or else your product can't maintain any level of cohesiveness. TNA's 1 hour is not enough to do anything worth mentioning and without at least a second hour, iMPACT will still be the jumble of disjointed half done storylines it is now. [QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;181730]And of course, if you dont like the current product... dont watch. Sports entertain,ment is just one genre of wrestling and you can always watch another to fill your need. But if you say TNA is the alternative then youre just picking something of the same genre over the inventors of it.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no. TNA wasn't Sports Entertainment when I started watching them. They were the definition of 'cutting edge'. But at some point, some idiot in the braintrust (haha oxymoron) decided to fight fire with turpentine so this is what it's come to. For the record, I have grown to despise the word 'casual' and equate it to 'dumbing down' or 'stupid-proofing'. When it's used in gaming terms, it's often the excuse for stalling progress ("We can't do those cutting edge graphics because the casual gamers won't be able to play the game with their 3-5 year old computers unless they turn down the settings!") or removing challenge ("That has to be tweaked. The casual players won't like it like that."). Casual fans, while a large bloc collectively, are afflicted with ADD. Their attention spans are measurable in nanoseconds, figuratively speaking. Casual fans are like those people who only care about futbol/soccer come World Cup time. Wouldn't it SUCK if teams and leagues only played games in the months leading up to World Cup? That's my main beef with WWE. Worker styles are leashed so you rarely get to see what their people can REALLY do. Piledrivers are banned because apparently, their workers are incapable of performing them safely. Meanwhile, Homicide, Petey Williams, and Cheerleader Melissa (among many others) use these kinds of moves with regularity and let's not even get into top rope moves like the shooting star press. So every match with one of their performers has the same handful of spots showing up because using or creating new spots is apparently forbidden. That's boring to me, but the "casual fans" eat it up so that's the way it is. What's particularly odd to me is the fact that I know probably 30 WWE fans personally and they don't buy merchandise, they won't buy a ticket to most events (even MSG/Nassau Coliseum/Continental Airlines Arena events), and they get their DVDs from Netflix (thus, never buying them). They'll watch RAW, ECW, and Smackdown religiously but they'll never come out of pocket for anything. Personally, that's not the kind of fan I would look to foster and appease but what do I know?

[AfRoMaN36]

but how can the WWE have sucha big budget or have a big tv deal when they cant do a thing right? Microsoft makes errors and bugs but the fact is they mustve done something right. but because they are the big dog, it seems like critics look at them with a microscope. Alex Rodriguez is one of the best players in all of baseball but he is critisised constantly for his faults and mistakes. is he bad? I dare someone to say so. It takes great ability to get where he has gotten henseforth the WWE is where they are at. And they are called casual because they are human. They dont have the money to buy a new computer for a new game or they dont have the cash to put together to buy tickets to a WWE show. so kill them. but if you do, you'd be killing most of the population.

[weirdo_man]

Ring of Honor 'Nuff said.

[Trashbear]

[QUOTE=Remianen;181751] For the record, I have grown to despise the word 'casual' and equate it to 'dumbing down' or 'stupid-proofing'. When it's used in gaming terms, it's often the excuse for stalling progress ("We can't do those cutting edge graphics because the casual gamers won't be able to play the game with their 3-5 year old computers unless they turn down the settings!") or removing challenge ("That has to be tweaked. The casual players won't like it like that."). Casual fans, while a large bloc collectively, are afflicted with ADD. Their attention spans are measurable in nanoseconds, figuratively speaking. Casual fans are like those people who only care about futbol/soccer come World Cup time. Wouldn't it SUCK if teams and leagues only played games in the months leading up to World Cup? [/QUOTE] Dear God Remi you are my new hero. As a diehard lifelong gamer, the casual audience is the bane of my existence. When people say "Casual Fan" they are referring to the public at large and as someone that has dealt and continues to deal with the public in different capacities, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the average person is a moron. On this board, I would consider very few of us "casual". We're into very esoteric things, mainly wrestling and videogames. The level of intelligence on the boards is generally high, and that is definitely not a coincidence. In order to understand the nuances of anything, you have to be smart. Casual people don't understand the intricacies of most things. You can draw your own conclusions from that. Is that unfair generalization? Probably, but I'm basing it on my personal experience.

[SageFury268]

There are alot more marks/non hardcore fans on these boards the most online message boards I've noticed.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;181760]but how can the WWE have sucha big budget or have a big tv deal when they cant do a thing right? Microsoft makes errors and bugs but the fact is they mustve done something right. but because they are the big dog, it seems like critics look at them with a microscope. Alex Rodriguez is one of the best players in all of baseball but he is critisised constantly for his faults and mistakes. is he bad? I dare someone to say so. It takes great ability to get where he has gotten henseforth the WWE is where they are at. And they are called casual because they are human. They dont have the money to buy a new computer for a new game or they dont have the cash to put together to buy tickets to a WWE show. so kill them. but if you do, you'd be killing most of the population.[/QUOTE] AfroMan, are you really that naive? I've never said that WWE can't do anything right. They've grown to be masterful at 'short attention span theater', as it were. Pays very well it seems, but it's not good for maintaining a constant following. Look at what happened to WWE's ratings when WCW went bust (they went right in the toilet and STILL haven't recovered). Vince Russo once said that the 'hardcore' SE fans are worth a 2.0 rating. Everyone else is casual. During the periods usually referred to as "The Monday Night Wars", both shows were pulling 6.0+ regularly. Now, WWE would be ecstatic if they could break 5.0 (something they haven't done since August 20th of 2001). They appeal to transient fans (that's what I'm callin' 'em!) very well. But that appeal hasn't translated into their other areas. Examples? How much has The Marine made so far? (just under $19 million....in 13 weeks) How much and for how long was the movie hyped to WWE's audience? What about 'See No Evil'? ($15 million) Given the sheer volume of marketing to their captive audience, you'd expect a bit better performance, wouldn't you? That's not to say they can't do 'anything' right. They didn't take a bath on either picture. But they're finding that their audience isn't very reliable in the ways they envisioned. But people take potshots at WWE because.......WWE gives them plenty of ammunition! What happened when Microsoft botched the 360's launch? People took potshots at them! What's going to happen when Microsoft releases a buggy operating system with security holes a 4 year old could hack through? People are gonna take potshots at them! Is that so hard to fathom? And I must be inhuman since I can keep my rigs (8 of them) up to date with only semi-annual tune-ups or upgrades. I've found that once you fill your motherboard with RAM (which is dirt cheap nowadays) and get a current video card, you don't need much in the way of upgrades until it's time to replace the whole computer (18 months or so. I still have computers I built in 2004 that can play current games!). I'm surely inhuman because I can spend time on my hobbies and maybe some dosh as well from time to time. And the folks I refer to who don't come out of pocket to support their hobbies, some of them should learn that a car with an 8-cylinder engine when gas is $3.00+ a gallon (this past summer) is perhaps one thing that should be cut if money's so tight. No, money being tight isn't their issue. The fact that they don't think the product is worth their cash unless it's "free" (i.e. on TV or via corporate box access) is the problem. And that's something of concern to 'transient fans' primarily. Royal Rumble tickets are $90-300 for ringside seats and $20-50 for upper balcony. Raw/SD/ECW tapings are $55 for ringside seats and $20-30 for 1st-3rd level off the floor. T-shirts/merchandise is like $20. I don't see that as prohibitive, personally. But I guess they don't like the product enough to spend $20 (and if you say $20 is 'a lot of money'.......).

[Blasphemywebleed]

I just think the WWE are trying to make a quick buck wherever and whenever possible, and its definetely not through the quality of their product. I remember watching WWF when i was a kid in the late 80's early 90's, the actual wrestling was slow and the guys werent as big back then, the promo's were nothing more than interviews "aaaarg i'm going to destroy you Hogan, Roar" but it was entertaining. They had possibly the worst personality in wrestling history in Lord Alfred Hayes but I hung on ever stuttering word he said. The feuds were long and simple, take the Savage v Hogan Fued, there was no great in depth detail to that storyline but it was great to watch. The reason WWE is changing their product is audiences are changing, sex sells these days and Vince has tapped straight into that. Could you imagine if they ran an Edge and Lita type storyline back in the 80's the company would have been boycotted and wouldn't be as big as it is today. It was the early 90's that the gimmick really came into play witht he likes if Rick Martel and the warrior (the greatest power and paint wrestler of all time). Warrior was entertaining to watch but not as good in the ring or as fun to watch as the likes of Marty Jannetti. In summary WWE is just adjusting to todays audiences but in my personal opinion their product is piss poor compared to the old WWF we used to see.

[flamebrain]

I commend your bravery afroman and so far you have bee lucky that, for the most part, you have received thoughtful responses rather than flames. However I fear that there are far too many people that can't accept that its possible to be a fan of more than one branch of wrestling (read WWE and anything else really). I watch all kinds of wrestling, when its good its good, when its bad its bad. I don't beleive in things being bad simply because of where they originate nor do I beleive in bashing things simlpy because they aren't my cup of tea. WWE is tremedously successful, some people will resent that success seeing their own favourite as being more deserving. Its not just wrestling though it crops up all over the place: music, gaming, television and so on. I doubt the E really care what the minority beleive so long as they are king of the hill. I used to watch WWF/E on a regular basis, lately I've been turned off. I may moan to my friends about lack of continuity, poor booking and "soandso not being pushed" but then I have many of the same complaints with regards to TNA, often moreso. I will continue to watch what I can when I can and take the bad with the good. Those that moan about what they find in Promotion X are often complaniing about things one wouldn't expect to find in that promotion, which makes their complanit rather redundant in my opinion. We all have our own idea how wrestling promotions should be run (That's why so many of us clamour for Ryland's genius :) ) but I think a lot of people could use a step back when discussing the real deal. Feeling passionate about something is good, but plain ignorance is not.

[Remianen]

Excellent points flamebrain and Blasphemywebleed. My beef with WWE is the same as it would be for any other underachieving entity. Plus, I think they're doing their shareholders (of which I can no longer count myself among, thank God) a grave disservice in not making the changes necessary to grow their revenue on a larger scale. The 'transient fan' isn't the boogeyman, by any means, but I think the 'E could and should do more to capture (and maintain) the interest of those fans who are willing to support their hobbies. Whether they're able to support their hobbies is immaterial (why should the WWE care if someone's spending the rent money on Wrestlemania box sets and DX merchandise and the like?). Like Blasphemy said/alluded to, there is a large audience of people who WERE fans of the product but are no longer. Wouldn't it make sense to try to recapture that fanbase? Especially since doing so wouldn't alienate the current audience, given their general preferences.

[flamebrain]

[QUOTE=Remianen;182089]Like Blasphemy said/alluded to, there is a large audience of people who WERE fans of the product but are no longer. Wouldn't it make sense to try to recapture that fanbase? Especially since doing so wouldn't alienate the current audience, given their general preferences.[/QUOTE] You're right there and I think they have tried in their own hamfisted way. They think nostalgia will bring back those who have left but all nostalgia does is pop those that still watch (and for a limited time at that), those that left did so because the freshness disappeared from the product. I would rather see a much more organic product from them where they don't try to force "magic" and instead create an environment where they allow it to happen on its own. Rock, Austin, DX, Foley. None of this was planned out it just happened and then WWF/E had the common sense to go with it and experienced tremendous success in the process. WWE shouldn't try to make Cena the next Austin or Rock, they should let him be the first John Cena, something he was doing rather well in his mid card heel role on Smackdown before the bookers derailed it. I don't question the guys success, but I think his popularity would have been more unanimous had it been allowed to develop at a normal pace rather than manufactured backstage.

[Godsmacker]

Well, I can even take this argument to TNA nowadays. Ever since Vince Russo took over the booking, all I hear every day is the collective moans and groans of the entire IWC while watching Impact. Seriously, it makes it hard to pay attention with all that ruckus. And now, even if they do something right, the fans bash them because "Russo will just screw it up". Let me say it this way, there is a term in sports that you are only as good as your last game. This concept is the exact reverse of what happens when informaiton about anything is leaked to the IWC. "Vince Russo has been resigned as the TNA head booker" and people start responding to it like TNA is showing live baby-killings now instead of wrestling. And the worst part? No one gives them a chance to prove themselves. Instead of taking a step back and looking at the promotion, or even and individual taping, as a whole, they disect it, to the point that even reports online that are supposed to be unbiased are bashing them. But, let's look at the WWE. Ever since dX reformed, all I keep hearing about is how the only reason it's around is because HBK is hurt, and Triple H is the only one that's going to benefit from it, because he's the boss' son-in-law. Look, if that argument held up, Triple H would have beaten Cena at WM22, and dX never would have re-formed. Now, there are some things that, yes, are horrible. Rosie v. Trump was one of the most embarassing moments in wrestling history since the debut of the Shockmaster in WCW. But, one horrible thing a bad promotion does not make. You can't mean to tell me that if you had a PPV card like Wrestlemania XX, which is still one of my all time favorite Pay-Per-Views, and then say that despite the fact that the triple threat between Benoit, Triple H, and HBK, the entire show was horrible because of Lesnar/Goldberg. The WWE does do things right, it just sometimes takes them time to find their niche. It goes in spurts. I remember when I hated Smackdown with a passion because it was obviously the lesser of the two shows, but since the rise of Finlay, Booker, Kennedy, the Hooliganz, and the return of Chris Benoit, I can no longer say that. I would rather watch Smackdown than RAW any day, now. So, remember that one point, it all goes in spurts. I don't agree with holding one thing over a company's head, unless it either a) has taken that one point and made it their biggest topic of discussion (see also: Eddie Guerrero's death), or b) it's in jest. Any time continuity falls through the floor and the WWE pretends like something never happen, I have two words, and those two words explain that entire philosophy. "Morecai, who?"

[flamebrain]

[QUOTE=Godsmacker;182102]Now, there are some things that, yes, are horrible. Rosie v. Trump was one of the most embarassing moments in wrestling history since the debut of the Shockmaster in WCW.[/QUOTE] Oh come on, that's not fair. At least The Shockmaster is funny, albeit unintentionally. :D [IMG]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k197/flamebrain101/Other/shockmaster.jpg[/IMG] "They call me The Shockmaster. You've ruled the world long enough, Sid Vicious. Get ready! Come on, you want a piece of me?" Actually [URL="http://www.x-entertainment.com/messages/431.html"]this is worth a look [/URL]for anyone that thinks bad booking is a new concept. :)

[Blasphemywebleed]

[QUOTE=flamebrain;182100] WWE shouldn't try to make Cena the next Austin or Rock, they should let him be the first John Cena, something he was doing rather well in his mid card heel role on Smackdown before the bookers derailed it. I don't question the guys success, but I think his popularity would have been more unanimous had it been allowed to develop at a normal pace rather than manufactured backstage.[/QUOTE] I agree, no one can deny that John Cena would have been successfull if they had left him in his heel role to brew for a bit. John Cena was one of the few heels that i had watched in mid card positions and i've thought "i'll be watching this guy in a wrestlemania main event in a few years", and I did want him to be succesfull as he was a very charismatic performer. The Rock was quickly changed from heel to face as the crowd started cheering him during his matches, this would have happened with John Cena in due course but they have rushed him through it. The formula for most heels is that they will get to be a main eventer through a face position and then someone will "upset" them causing them to turn heel, very few (and i dont mean none before i get flamed) heels make it to be a main eventer by just being a heel an dit would have been refreshing to see a heel that I actually enjoyed watching get there without the writers intervening too much.

[Genadi]

I think ECW is or was as close as Vince is going to get to appeasing the IWC community:p

[flamebrain]

Something else was bugging me and I figure this is as good a place to put it. I think there is a school of thought that says hating WWE [I]proves[/I] you like other wrestling. Its as if people think it lends their opinion more weight if they qualify every statement with something like "unlike the crappy WWE" or "something you wouldn't see in WWE". These boards are hardly the worst for it but they have their share. To be honest (to me at least) its tired and I think it robs a statement of weight if it include "smarkish" stuff like this.

[cappyboy]

I don't know if I'm really the one who should be answering this. I don't really think of myself as a member of the IWC as such. Technically, we all are as we're on the Internet talking about wrestling. But I'm not big into the commentary sites. I wouldn't know Meltzer from Scherer from Adam without Hi My Name Is nametags. And I've been known to crap on IWC darlings like Tajiri and sticking up for guys they hate like Ernest Miller. But all that said, I'd say it comes down to the old Spiderman thing. "With great power comes great responsibility." The IWC as I have seen it seem to think that since WWE has risen to having the power of a monopoly that they also have the responsibility to put on the absolute best possible shows. An understandable belief I can't exactly hold against them. They also seem to believe that it's their job to hold the E's feet to the fire. And that's where I part company with them. Because I don't necessarily share their standards. I'll admit I do tend to be a bit old-school at times and I prefer everything to lead to the ring in some form or other. But really, it's about balance for me. I'll gladly listen to people who lack the diction and charisma of a cult leader if it suits their character and/or they can light a ring on fire. I'll forgive folks for not being ring generals if they have an entertaining character. All too often, the IWC seems to lack this. They often talk about wrestling like a zero-sum game. Like you're either the total package or you're garbage. No middle ground or sense of perspective appears to be allowed. And once they arrive at a decision, they lay it down with fists of iron. But you know, I've managed to do something the IWC often says they want to do but never manage. I've quit watching WWE. I've come to realize they aren't interested in putting on a product I'd find consistent and stay away. But if I start getting reports they are doing stuff worth being seen on a regular basis, you can be sure I'll be more than willing to settle in for the ride. No brand biases here.

[flamebrain]

[QUOTE=cappyboy;185582] But you know, I've managed to do something the IWC often says they want to do but never manage. I've quit watching WWE. I've come to realize they aren't interested in putting on a product I'd find consistent and stay away. But if I start getting reports they are doing stuff worth being seen on a regular basis, you can be sure I'll be more than willing to settle in for the ride. No brand biases here.[/QUOTE] I'm in a slightly similar boat, I haven't stopped watching per se but I haven't made any effort to tnue in either. I catch bottom line on the occaisional Saturday morning but haven't actually watched Raw or Smackdown in a long time, and have yet to watch the new ECW. I do read the results online as I do still have an interest, its just not as powerful as it was a few years ago. With Bravo now showing TNA here, I'm not sure how it will mpact my viewing as TWC used to show it almost constantly so I usually caught each show, but again I can't see myself going out of my way to tune in as not a lot was grabbing my attention lately. As for everything else, I just watch it whenever its on, whenever I'm in the mood. Except Chikara, I make sure to catch each and every podcast :)

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=cappyboy;185582]I'll admit I do tend to be a bit old-school at times and I prefer everything to lead to the ring in some form or other. But really, it's about balance for me. I'll gladly listen to people who lack the diction and charisma of a cult leader if it suits their character and/or they can light a ring on fire. I'll forgive folks for not being ring generals if they have an entertaining character. All too often, the IWC seems to lack this. They often talk about wrestling like a zero-sum game. Like you're either the total package or you're garbage. No middle ground or sense of perspective appears to be allowed. And once they arrive at a decision, they lay it down with fists of iron. But you know, I've managed to do something the IWC often says they want to do but never manage. I've quit watching WWE. I've come to realize they aren't interested in putting on a product I'd find consistent and stay away. But if I start getting reports they are doing stuff worth being seen on a regular basis, you can be sure I'll be more than willing to settle in for the ride. No brand biases here.[/QUOTE] I'm a bit old-school like that as well. I actually preferred the old ways where guys would stand up next to some pencilnecked announcer type and say, "I'm going to go down there and beat the holy hell outta him!"......and then go and do it. All of this dilly dallying and talkin' smack and running away and blindsiding (then running when resistance is encountered), is lame to me. I don't have the zero-sum outlook but I do think that the company has gone too far in the wrong direction in that respect. There was a time when "the total package" types of guys made the WWE talent scouts drool. Now, "what's his/her looks like? How big is s/he?" not "is a microphone a foreign object to him/her? does the sight of him/her raising a mic to their mouth make the audience feel the need to run to the bathroom...URGENTLY?". I too stopped watching WWE (though I meant to catch last week's RAW to see what they did to recover from Trip's injury) but I watch other things and even go to shows whenever possible. I'm not a part of their target audience and don't think I'll ever be in the foreseeable future. That's okay. Other promotions are more than happy to program to my demographic so it's all good.