JerryvonKramer

When the Attitude Era was around everyone complained about hotshotting titles, Russo booking and constant flux. Now there's been stability for a long time, people complain about stagnation. Bottom-line is that whatever the scenario, you guys will find things to complain about. I wonder if there was a Bill Thompson in 1968 or 1976 complaining about Bruno Sammartino being on top too long. I'm willing to bet there was. Yet if you look at that territory the main and semi-main were more or less stagnant forever. Bruno vs. whoever Undercard: Strongbow vs. whoever Denucci vs whoever shitty tag match [possible Andre match] Not a lot changed. It was a pretty staid promotion and it made a lot of money. In fact, go around the territories that made money and you'll find similar cornerstones of the card. Main eventers who stick around for ages. In New York Bruno's "whoevers" at least had some name value, in Memphis the "whoevers" were scrubs. As long as they have Cena as the top guy and run with the idea of a company ace, everyone else in the company is a "whoever".

I dunno actually Charles, didn't it devalue the main event? Kane, Big Show, Chris Jericho (list goes on and on) Were they *really* main eventers or upper midcarders who were over and artificially inserted into main events and given world title runs? Serious question.

I think that there's now a disconnect between the live fans and the people who WWE see as their core revenue providers. I also think that Vince -- in his drive to "keep up with the times" -- is probably listening to the stats and demographics guys. And making rational, data-driven decisions much more than going on gut instinct. That also came through in the interview. That there is a struggle between his emotional wrestling-fan side and his rational business side. He really didn't feel as personally connected to the current stuff -- he was detached. When he talked about his dad, about taking on Verne, about the attitude era, you could see it in his eyes that he was more personally invested. So I think there's a lot to this Loss.

You surely can't believe this. There are literally dozens of examples any of us could point to of Vince / WWF/E reacting to the fans. From turning Jake, Savage etc., pulling the plug on Warrior, to recent stuff with Bryan. People will accuse me of having the blinkers on -- I don't, I believe I see this clearly and that it's comments like that ("Vince never listened to the fans), which are truly blinkered.

I honestly believe that the disconnect comes with WHO the fans are that Vince thinks he's listening to vs. who the fans are who post online. Vince in the interview came across as if John Cena, for better or worse, is a place-holder "until the next Austin comes along". For lack of a better analogy, he's Backlund. He also seems like a business calculation. Vince talked about demographics and even went into it a bit. He said that the heart of wrestling is in the blue collar workers -- in the line of the night "Our audience is Americana", but then he quickly double-backed to note all the other groups who watch. Given that he just threw that out there, it's pretty obvious that they know -- WWE know -- that Cena is never getting over with that certain group of vocal male 18-35s from economic background X. He keeps saying he's listening to the fans. Which ones? I'm guessing the ones who spend money on John Cena.

What are these territories 30 years ago that were selling out major venues so consistently? Sean, you have to give that point to him it can't be won. More like 35-40 years ago (70s more than 80s), but most of the territories did good steady business hitting 8,000-12,000 gates on their regular big show loops for years. It can't be denied that far fewer people net see live wrestling every week than they did during the height of the territories.

Brain - as I said earlier in the thread, I am no longer Vince's target audience. I hate the modern product maybe more than anyone else on this board with the possible exception of El-P. And it's Vince's product. I do not like what wrestling has become and it's nothing to do with why I watch it. It's why I spend all my time watching shit from 40 years ago. I'm not "out of touch", I just don't like the product period and I despise the crowds even more. And I get the point about wrestling itself being at a low ebb. I would give anything to go back to the territory days. But my advice to anyone on this board -- hardcore fans, smart fans, whatever you call it -- would just be "don't watch". It's not for you. I come back to my Simon Cowell analogy. I don't watch X-factor or buy the shitty records that result from it. It's nothing to do with what I'm into as a music fan. But Cowell has to follow what gets over and what sells. And that sells. Vince isn't much different. Do you really think if he'd listened to all of the smart fans telling him to bury Cena and put Indie-god-of-the-week as WWE champ that the company would be doing BETTER? Thing is with Vince, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't with a lot of people. But I'll just throw out the elephant in the room here: a lot of modern wrestling fans -- the type of post on the internet -- are happiest when they are in a permanent state of disgruntlement. Because what they get from the product is enjoyment from communal bitching and moaning. Go back and read fans even at the height of the attitude era or go back and read people writing into Meltzer during the peak of 1989 and you'll find guys bitching and moaning. Because face it that's what smart fans do. I've never been interested in that. I think the experience of being a "current fan" is tied into all of that and it's just not my thing. But I wish more people would admit that that's basically why they watch.

On the last Where the Big Boys Play, I read out Dave Meltzer over a series of weeks in 1991 pissing and moaning about Van Hammer getting pushed at the expense of Johnny B. Badd. With 15 years hindsight we can say, truly, "who cares". It just doesn't matter. That's everyone pissing and moaning about Cesaro today. Vince has to make decisions. This is a man who worked with Bruno, Pedro Morales, and Antonino Rocca. And Rey. You don't think he might have a feel for who does and doesn't have the makings of a star regardless of their background?

But yet, even sad old man Vince in decline is making more money than any previous promoter ever. Bill Watts never did 75,000 in New Orleans. Vince did. Max Crabtree never did 80,000 at Wembley. Vince did. Jim Barnett never did 71,000 in Georgia. Vince did. And none of those gates took place during the "peak" periods. What does "upward mobility" mean in the context of being the best wrestling promoter who ever lived? Maybe it's Vince's personal tragedy that he's destined to be the biggest fish in a small pond, but who cares? We're wrestling fans. We view things from within the pond. If Vince is held to any standards they are standards he set himself in a league of his own by himself. My comments are here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/30116-vince-mcmahon-on-stone-cold-podcast/?p=5643163

Didn't say it meant anything just thought it was an amusing line in the context of recent debates. I also think with things like this that confirmation bias comes into play. Guys who like Vince like me will watch it and continue liking Vince. And guys you don't like him like you will point out all the ways he's flawed. For me, that interview was the best thing that WWE have put out in about a decade. I loved it.

I did want to say too that of course all the attention is going to go on questions about recent stuff (Cesaro, Punk etc.), and of course they had to talk about Austin vs. McMahon, but the most interesting stuff in the interview for me was the brief insights into Vince Senior, the young Vince during the territorial days, how he saw the competitors etc. Austin only had an hour with him and did a great job. But there were almost 4 or 5 different interviews going on competing for time and attention. - Vince under his dad - Vince vs. territories / Hogan expansion - Attitude era memories - Modern-day issues - General insights into the business and into the psychology of promoting We basically got glimpses into all of those, but not enough time to get into any of them properly. The biggest take aways for me were 1) how Vince views the business and the line he kept repeating about "listening to the audience" -- he confirmed a lot of the things I've thought about him for years 2) How CLOSE he is to that Vince vs. Austin storyline and how much it means to him on a personal and professional level, he might have not realised it but he came across like he thought that was the apex of anything he'd done as a human being period, personal, performer, business-wise. 3) That he seems to want people to challenge him, that he respects guys who are prepared to take risks and break the rules. And ... weirdly, seems to think that Cena is such a guy.

Watching this now and quite stoked. Running comments: Honestly this was about as good as it possibly could have been considering who was involved and where it was recorded. I get the sense that Vince got a kick out of this and would do it again. The man has been involved in so much stuff and been in the business so long, that who know where things might go if Austin could ever get him to do it again. Just need to let Vince's ego take over a little bit to allow him the time for it. Plus if it's a hit for the Network there might be a business case. I really hope this is just the beginning of a series of these. Absolutely loved it.

Did anyone in the thread argue this though? I contested two things: 1. That you can't suggest a guy who has been in the business for 40 years during most of which he's been the best promoter of all-time doesn't know what he's doing now because he's not booking the product in the way smart fans (or CM Punk) want him to. Like I've said, I'm convinced that to an extent Vince has always written off the hardcore fan and gears everything to the casual fan. (For right or for wrong) 2. Just because his entire time as promoter haven't been as hot as the Hogan or Austin years, don't mean that you can write him off as someone who only had 6-8 "great years" in a 30 year run. I don't deny that he's in decline, I just wanted to flesh out the how and why.

I haven't read Wrestling at the Chase, but I have listened to about 20+ hours of Larry Matysik running through the booking sheets on 57talk.com.

Missed this Will. If ever you come to London, I live about 15 minutes from Heathrow. You'll see the city in style!

Not all the way through yet, but this is fantastic. I think Punk comes across as reasonable, and someone who was dicked on quite a lot. But I also think to an extent "that's life". 45 mins left.

How about a heel that insists on a DQ whenever he's punched and who campaigns for refs to start enforcing the rules more strictly?

The financial industry comes to mind.

It's interesting to see how the revenue declines there as the profit increases. Looks like a scaling down of operations / cost cutting. Do we have revenue data for New Japan? Did Inoki ever have a year where revenue was $80m+?

That's a fair point actually. I just sub-consciously equated Vince running St. Louis in 1984 with Larry Matysik in his direct employ as a "win" for Vince. But it's true that Muchnick was technically out by then. It's also true that WWF struggled for years in St. Louis. It also may be true that I just threw Muchnick in there as extra weight -- got a bit carried away and veered into rhetoric.

Yes, he's extremely disciplined when he needs to be and never seems to lose sight of the corporate big picture. I think the mistake people make is conflating that skill set with his ability as a straight wrestling booker. As a booker, he's often flying by the seat of his pants, which makes him no different than most of the successful bookers throughout wrestling history. How much booking does he actually do or has he ever done? And how much is he more the final word? The impression one gets is that he is naturally inclined to micromanage.

He certainly used the claim he was losing money to renege on Bret Hart's 20 year deal one year into it. Yeah, but employers do that all the time. "The faculty has a £1 million deficit in their budget, so no one gets research leave this year and we need more students!" "But sir ... we made £10 million profit!" "THE BUDGET IS SHORT" Every work place ever with the possible exception of Google.

Loss - I would be interested to know what WWF were doing during the Bret and Shawn years when "WCW almost put them out of business dammit!" Were they losing money or did Vince cut the roster and dates and revert back to core business enough to off-set any real losses? Serious question, I don't know. Apologies if this is common knowledge to everyone. If NJPW or EMLL ever had a year when they made more than WWF it would have to be one of those I'd have thought.

One thing to think about though is that even phenomenally successful companies like McDonalds need to have periods of consolidation after rapid expansion. There have been periods when they've opened a new restaurant practically every week, and there have been others when they've just held onto what they have. Could Vince not just be consolidating? I am interested though in what exactly Vince has done to "fall off" in recent years. It seems like the only thing that has gone really wrong has been the Network. I'd like to know more. I'd like to see the arguments on either side presented, cos this is very interesting. I just get a bit heated when I see people run roughshod over Vince's achievements as if the only thing he ever did was Wrestlemania 3. There is a long-standing tradition of people doing as best they can to diminish whatever he has accomplished by as much as possible, attributing it to luck and circumstance rather than vision and acumen. And I am very opposed to that tradition. But I would like to focus into the ways in which Vince specifically has changed and how this has directly affected business. My hunch -- and this is nothing more than a hunch -- is that core business isn't really down as a result of bad booking and that this is just a smart fan hobby horse (because it has ALWAYS been one). See my Simon Cowell vs real music fans line for more.

I'm all for people pulling out the numbers. I'd be very interested to see.