smkelly Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 It is easy to argue that HHH did turn people away from the WWF in that time frame. While he made up a large percentage of fans turning away, he wasn't the only reason though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 His return from the quad tear was huge, My thought would be to pop in that Mania again. Compare the crowd reaction to Hogan-Rock and Trip-Jericho. Close? A "huge" comeback doesn't fizzle out in two months if it truly is huge. Jericho cleaning up after Steph's dog. I don't know what point I'm trying to make with that. I'm just raising it. It's a story revolving around Steph and Trip. They controlled that story. So if it bombed because of the dog, blame Trip and Steph... and more importantly Trip for not making sure Y2J wasn't strong enough to carry the alleged main event of Wrestlemania, and tell Steph she was being an idiot if she was the one pushing the stupid elements of the storyline. That's one of the problems with Trip at the time: "I am super star and my comeback is so big as a face that it doesn't matter what we do with Jericho: people want to see me kick his ass!" Trip thought too highly if himself. It was quite enjoyable to watch that thing fall flat after the greatness of Hogan-Rock. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 It is easy to argue that HHH did turn people away from the WWF in that time frame. While he made up a large percentage of fans turning away, he wasn't the only reason though. * Trip as a performer turned away fans. * WWE Creative by (i) shitty storylines, (ii) shitty booking, (iii) shitty development/use of talent, and (iv) and pushing Trip to the moon turned away fans Trip is 100% to blame for the first one: he wasn't as good as he thought he was as performer and really didn't do enough to help other performers in the company like say Rock and Foley had in the same era. Trip was lost within his own punch there, and what he thought were "improvements" to his performing usually weren't. Some might think I'm being tough there, but it's really worthwhile to take a look at how someone like Rock improved tremendously over that time, to the point that not only was the "acting" part of his performing really far ahead of the typical worker in connecting with the fans, but that the in-ring work increased to the point that he was able to have that match with Brock at Summer Slam that so strongly put *Brock* over without having to do a quicky short squash. On those four items in the second batch... Trip was a central member of WWE Creative banging another central member of WWE Creative while having the ear/trust of the person WWE Creative reported up to in pitching ideas. A large chunk of the top line drawing elements that would be part of that second batch fall at the feet of Trip. While in the end the buck stops with Vince and he has to take a lot of the blame, I think it's very reasonable to think that the majority of that second batch falls at Trip's feet as well. So much of 2002-2006 (i)-(iv) was based around the concept of pushing Trip as the anchor, making sure there wouldn't be another "accident" like Austin/Rock/Foley to jump ahead of him, cutting off the legs of potential rivals (and at times even minor short term ones like RVD that were just nonsensical things to stomp on), and push his few cliquey friends/chosen ones like Orton, Dave and Batista. Cena ended up being the "accident" of the era, but did he ever get to the heights of Austin or Rock? It never seemed that the company fully put their weight behind him early enough like the WWE did Austin in early 1998 (which was little over a year after Austin first started showing strong hints of developing into something potentially big in the lead-in to the Survivors Series match with Bret). Trip isn't fully the one to blame. But I think a far higher % of the blame can be assigned to Trip for 2002-2006 that to any single person in WCW in say the 1997-98 range that lay the foundation to them falling apart. Some Eric, some Hogan, some Hall & Nash, some DDP, some the overall group of vets who didn't want to do much to make the up and comers look good, etc. With the WWF, there's Vince... and frankly Trip. I don't see Steph as controlling what Trip does or who Trip thinks should get pushed in the mains. The other way around. Anyone really think that Steph was the one pulling for the horrible feud with Scott Steiner? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 While it can't be argued that WWE could have been more profitable in 2002-2006, and Triple H takes blame in that, are we really comparing them to WCW losing 62 million in their worst year? I'd have to drag out Dave's business reviews, but I'm almost positive WWE was incredibly profitable for all of those years (albeit not to their potential), and some of the Manias and a few other PPVs (Shawn/Hogan-SummerSlam comes to mind) They were killed by botching the Invasion, their #1 star's (Austin's) ridiculous turn and their 1A (Rock) star leaving for the most part, in a one year span. Frankly, the wrestling 'fad' of '98-01 ended, and as happens with fads, the very casual fans went on to something 'cooler'. Did Triple H drive off more? For sure, but to compare him on *any* level to the WCW guys is absurd, Those guys killed a remarkably profitable company, the WWE made money (millions) and left some (a lot) on the table. Huge difference. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I think the impact of HHH having influence has been pretty disastrous. You could trace the push that starts and disappears back to HHH feuds with Jericho, Benoit and Angle in 2000. Now, it's really hard to get new guys over, because everyone expects the push to end within a few weeks and it usually does. I would also add that the last 10 years has seen so many guys walk away on their own accord. When has that ever happened in wrestling? In theory, since WWE owns the entire landscape, it should happen less than ever. Oftentimes, the guys leaving are making big money and are walking away because of creative differences or because they feel like they're spinning their wheels. HHH isn't to blame for all of that, but he definitely has been a big part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I think the impact of HHH having influence has been pretty disastrous. You could trace the push that starts and disappears back to HHH feuds with Jericho, Benoit and Angle in 2000. Now, it's really hard to get new guys over, because everyone expects the push to end within a few weeks and it usually does. I would also add that the last 10 years has seen so many guys walk away on their own accord. When has that ever happened in wrestling? In theory, since WWE owns the entire landscape, it should happen less than ever. Oftentimes, the guys leaving are making big money and are walking away because of creative differences or because they feel like they're spinning their wheels. HHH isn't to blame for all of that, but he definitely has been a big part of it. I think blaming him for guys leaving is a bit much and it's really a lot more Vince than anything. The one guy you would point to is Jericho, and in his book, he made it seem it was way more his drive/relationship with Vince at the time than anything else. Jericho also has things he wants to do outside wrestling (his music and acting) which when you're financially secure, is a lot easier to do. Batista loves him (and always says that on interviews since Triple H actually did make him) and he made it clear it was the PG aspect (very attributable to Vince/marketing). Shawn is his best friend and retired. Taker is broken down, and has essentially done the same. No Triple H here. Big Show's sabbatical probably added several years to his career given the state of his knees, back and joints for a guy that size. I doubt he had much to do with Trish/Lita leaving. Brock abhorred the travel and would almost 100% still be on top if he stayed. Christian, Booker and Angle (who was a time bomb in '06) all ended up making big money in TNA with a drastically reduced schedule and now Booker is back with an announcing gig and Christian is as high on the card as he's going to be. Maybe you can mention Jeff Hardy, but he was being pushed super hard when he left. I think you also underestimate just how much pain some of these guys are in after so many years just being on the road and some look forward to a break. You make a point that can work against you too. If guys who were making huge money and were smart with it, it's a lot easier to walk away as opposed to doing something they don't want to do. They can also read the landscape and realize the time off will make them a bigger deal upon return (Jericho being the big example). So it doesn't work 100% towards the company. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 It is true that 2002-2006 is the second lowest period in company history (after 1992-1996), and during this time, it's hard to argue that HHH's overpush didn't turn people off. I can remember for some reason in 06 the company was showing signs of turning things around business wise and Dave sort of alluded that they might be on the precipice of a boom. In fact I think I started I thread about that back in the nmb days. Then it just seemed to end. Probably was Benoit but it was an interesting time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Are you saying that Jericho, Benoit and Angle did not have main event pushes that started and then stopped, in some cases multiple times? Are you denying that this has happened repeatedly with other guys since then? We could start with RVD and Booker and end with Kingston, Barrett, Swagger, Sheamus and others. I agree that some guys look forward to the time off, but the money has been really good in previous eras too, and you had to drag guys away. Hogan and Flair are hurting financially now, for example, but they weren't always. Vince had to be the one to transition past Hogan and Savage and Bret. None of them walked away voluntarily. It's a shift in philosophy that I'm not blaming on HHH, as much as I am pointing out that his influence has resulted in a less exciting wrestling world -- both for people watching it and performing in it. You can make the points you want about newer guys keeping their priorities in order and saving their money well, which is valid. But would they be so eager to get out if wrestling was still as fun as it was years before, and also if they were being given more creative freedom and the ability to work programs that they enjoyed? Yes, that lies on Vince to some degree, but not entirely, or else the pattern of guys walking away would have been happening before HHH came into the picture. It wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Also what about all the OVW guys that did well there and fell off the face of the earth? Most of them didn't switch companies (some did), they just stopped wrestling. I'm talking about Dinsmore, the Bashams, the Heartbreakers, Jeter and Rico. LESNAR. Hassan. To name a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Are you saying that Jericho, Benoit and Angle did not have main event pushes that started and then stopped, in some cases multiple times? Are you denying that this has happened repeatedly with other guys since then? We could start with RVD and Booker and end with Kingston, Barrett, Swagger, Sheamus and others. I agree that some guys look forward to the time off, but the money has been really good in previous eras too, and you had to drag guys away. Hogan and Flair are hurting financially now, for example, but they weren't always. Vince had to be the one to transition past Hogan and Savage and Bret. None of them walked away voluntarily. It's a shift in philosophy that I'm not blaming on HHH, as much as I am pointing out that his influence has resulted in a less exciting wrestling world -- both for people watching it and performing in it. You can make the points you want about newer guys keeping their priorities in order and saving their money well, which is valid. But would they be so eager to get out if wrestling was still as fun as it was years before, and also if they were being given more creative freedom and the ability to work programs that they enjoyed? Yes, that lies on Vince to some degree, but not entirely, or else the pattern of guys walking away would have been happening before HHH came into the picture. It wasn't. I'm not going to deny that some of the stop/start on the RVD/Booker side (and frankly I think the right call was made on Booker), and particularly Jericho/Angle a decade ago was due to Triple H. It was counter productive to business and hurt them in terms of star power for the future. However, there is a difference between Triple H, main eventer protecting his spot and the soon to be, head of the company Triple H. You can not draw the line from guys he feuded with 10 years ago to guys like Swagger/Kingston/Barrett/Sheamus who he's had little to no interaction with. There hasn't been anything connecting him to their depushes other than speculating because he's part of creative, but the fact is, it's also been reported (in the observer iirc), that the feeling backstage is far more relaxed when he's been in charge as opposed to Vince. I forget which board I read a theory at, but it was a great one, and it was that Vince finally made it so that the brand was far and away the most important thing and that no wrestler (ala Hogan, Rock, Austin, etc) would ever again be bigger than the company. Triple H may be a big spoke in it, but Vince is still the wheel. It's also tough to establish the 'guys walking away' card due to Triple H. Vince had legit competition for years and gave concessions due to being in a war. (hello Pillman signing, grabbing Haku as the hardcore champion, etc) There's also a difference between main eventers walking away with some leverage and peripheral guys not enjoying their work, but that's a different discussion. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I do agree that there has been a generational shift in the business when it comes to why guys stay/leave. You have the guys who worked in the 70s and 80s who would go on forever because that's just what wrestlers did. Make as much money as possible and then get the fuck out. Then you have the next generation who grew up on 80s/90s wrestling and were big fans and cared about the business. They wanted to have fun, have good matches and great angles. I'm not saying the previous generation didn't care about that stuff but it was often looked at as markish back in those days. So when the current guys don't feel that fire, aren't having fun and aren't getting chances to perform they simply walk away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Also what about all the OVW guys that did well there and fell off the face of the earth? Most of them didn't switch companies (some did), they just stopped wrestling. I'm talking about Dinsmore, the Bashams, the Heartbreakers, Jeter and Rico. LESNAR. Hassan. To name a few. To be fair, Dinsmore still wrestles and trains guys here in Louisville. Also, he left WWE due to a pretty hardcore pill addiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Also what about all the OVW guys that did well there and fell off the face of the earth? Most of them didn't switch companies (some did), they just stopped wrestling. I'm talking about Dinsmore, the Bashams, the Heartbreakers, Jeter and Rico. LESNAR. Hassan. To name a few. What about them? Lesnar was covered. He hated the travel and was banged up working a very physical style and was never a wrestling fan growing up. If he came back a few years after he left, he immediately would have been back on top. That doesn't even seem debatable. The Heartbreakers weren't very good, the Bashams were kind of vanilla, Jeter was not a guy with the size Vince (and to be fair Triple H) seem to like, Rico was kind of old etc. What about the guys like Morrison, Santino, PUNK, etc that worked there and did make it to varying degreess? It works both ways. Some guys can adapt to the big stage, some impress the new bosses, etc. I largely find the product today dull, but it can't just be painted with a broad stroke. Paul Jacobi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 You have an excuse for everyone, so this is a waste of time. That you're able to name three guys who have persevered compared to nearly two dozen who haven't doesn't really prove anything. And speaking of Morrison, there's another victim of start-stop pushes who has been at the exact same upper midcard level for several years now. To be clear, HHH is not the cause of every single problem WWE has. If HHH disappeared tomorrow, many of these problems (maybe most or even all of them) would still exist. But guys getting pushed and the push stopping and them eventually getting bored and leaving is an issue of the past decade. HHH is not the reason all of those people are out of the company now, but he got the ball rolling in that direction. And back to my original point, it being harder to get new people over as stars can be traced directly back to start-stop pushes of new guys that started in the midst of HHH's megapush. Fans are now conditioned that pushes won't stick because that's what they've seen over and over for years now. It's a systemic flaw that grew out of HHH programs a decade ago and has continued after his run ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I do agree that there has been a generational shift in the business when it comes to why guys stay/leave. You have the guys who worked in the 70s and 80s who would go on forever because that's just what wrestlers did. Make as much money as possible and then get the fuck out. Then you have the next generation who grew up on 80s/90s wrestling and were big fans and cared about the business. They wanted to have fun, have good matches and great angles. I'm not saying the previous generation didn't care about that stuff but it was often looked at as markish back in those days. So when the current guys don't feel that fire, aren't having fun and aren't getting chances to perform they simply walk away Agreed. There is correlation between how guys are pushed and the walking away. Anyway, back to Punk. I'm going to split my off-topic banter off into another thread so it doesn't derail this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Also, from a February issue of the Observer, the annual revenue and P&L of the WWE from 1994-95 on..........especially those 'lean' years of 02-06 WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS HISTORY Year Total revenues Profit/Loss 1994-95 $87,352,000 -$4,431,000 1995-96 $85,815,000 $3,319,000 1996-97 $81,863,000 -$6,505,000 1997-98 $126,231,000 $8,446,000 1998-99 $251,474,000 $56,030,000 1999-00 $373,100,000 $68,973,000 2000-01 $456,043,000 $15,987,000* 2001-02 $409,622,000 $42,233,000** 2002-03 $374,364,000 -$19,455,000*** 2003-04 $374,909,000 $48,192,000 2004-05 $366,431,000 $39,147,000**** 2005-06 $400,051,000 $47,047,000***** 2006 $262,937,000 $31,617,000 2007 $485,655,000 $52,137,000****** 2008 $526,457,000 $45,416,000 2009 $475,161,000 $50,303,000 2010 $477,655,000 $53,452,000 Note: WWE operated on a fiscal year from May 1 to April 30 until changing to January 1 to December 31 in 2006. The 2006 numbers reflect the period from May 1 to December 31, or an eight month total. *Wrestling profits were $84,981,000, but WWE’s share of the 50% of the XFL losses was $68,994,000. Total XFL losses for 2001, the only season of the league, were $137,988,000, half of which were covered by NBC. **Wrestling profit was $42,948,000. Also figured in was a tax break of $4,638,000 for shutting down the XFL, offset by losses of $4,903,000 from operation of The World restaurant ***Wrestling profit was $16,362,000; offset by $35,557,000 through the operation and closing of The World restaurant. ****Wrestling profit was $37,778,000; also figured in was a tax break of $1,369,000 for shutting down The World restaurant *****Includes $16,000,000 in profits from the movies “The Marine” and “See No Evil” and $15,700,000 in losses for the movie “The Condemned” This company is a monster and incredibly well run. Even in weak creative years, wrestling profit was always pretty huge. It sure as hell could have been a whole lot more, but in the end, you still have to give credit for keeping the machine as lucrative for as long as they have. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 You have an excuse for everyone, so this is a waste of time. That you're able to name three guys who have persevered compared to nearly two dozen who haven't doesn't really prove anything. And speaking of Morrison, there's another victim of start-stop pushes who has been at the exact same upper midcard level for several years now. To be clear, HHH is not the cause of every single problem WWE has. If HHH disappeared tomorrow, many of these problems (maybe most or even all of them) would still exist. But guys getting pushed and the push stopping and them eventually getting bored and leaving is an issue of the past decade. HHH is not the reason all of those people are out of the company now, but he got the ball rolling in that direction. And back to my original point, it being harder to get new people over as stars can be traced directly back to start-stop pushes of new guys that started in the midst of HHH's megapush. Fans are now conditioned that pushes won't stick because that's what they've seen over and over for years now. It's a systemic flaw that grew out of HHH programs a decade ago and has continued after his run ended. It's not a matter of having an excuse for everyone. You seem to think everyone can be a star and that frankly isn't true. Think about a baseball team, only a few prospects turn into MVP candidates, (Lesnar, Punk, Orton, Cena, Batista), some fill in to very good players (Morrison), some are good utility guys (Santino, Rico to a degree) and some fizzle. (Bashams, Heartbreakers). You seem to have an issue understanding attrition and the fact that the wrestling world (like with many companies), with far less top spots than ever to go around is going to be more difficult for people to break through. It's frustrating, but it's the way it is. You could argue the problem is even worse in TNA. You also ignore me admitting Triple H is part of the problem for them to achieve maximum profitability, but I'm far less inclined to label him ' a disaster' when they make money hand over fist. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 WWE has been a very well run business. WWE even had successful Wrestlemanias during those years. WWE also made a lot of spending cuts, accounting tricks and layoffs to keep profits what they were during that time, which is how businesses work, but it's a point worth adding. I'm glad WWE is run as well as it is, because if it wasn't, there would be no wrestling scene to speak of at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I thought Triple H in '10 did a good job in getting Sheamus over. He was stretchered out, beaten the whole bit. It seemed like an attempt to genuinely elevate the guy and was one of the rare instances where Hunter looked weak. I don't think he was the one responsible for his push stopping (Dave mentioned Kevin Dunn not liking him) and it would be counter productive for him to have looked so weak against someone they had no plans for. Then again, he did the total layout of him when he came back prior to Mania this year, so who knows. Also, he was allegedly the ones behind the vignettes building Kharma and Sin Cara, which was a good way to build them coming in and something the company hadn't done in years. Unfortunately, they ran into some bad luck with them. But those are positive steps (albeit small) for the future. He was also apparently far less hard on the announcing crew, which can also only be a good thing at this point. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 It's not a matter of having an excuse for everyone. You seem to think everyone can be a star and that frankly isn't true. Think about a baseball team, only a few prospects turn into MVP candidates, (Lesnar, Punk, Orton, Cena, Batista), some fill in to very good players (Morrison), some are good utility guys (Santino, Rico to a degree) and some fizzle. (Bashams, Heartbreakers). You seem to have an issue understanding attrition and the fact that the wrestling world (like with many companies), with far less top spots than ever to go around is going to be more difficult for people to break through. It's frustrating, but it's the way it is. You could argue the problem is even worse in TNA. You also ignore me admitting Triple H is part of the problem for them to achieve maximum profitability, but I'm far less inclined to label him ' a disaster' when they make money hand over fist. -Paul Jacobi- I ignore it because you say it, but everything else you say defends him, and because any point I make that contributes to that point is somehow wrong. So if you think that, what are you willing to criticize him for? WWE has had a profitable decade. WWE is a stable business for the foreseeable future. WWE has done a great job of diversifying revenue streams. WWE gets paid TV rights fees that wrestling companies never did in the past. They have lots of advantages and have wisely milked them for all they are worth. Good for them, because if they were forced to remain profitable based on domestic house show attendance and domestic PPV buys, those years would have looked terrible. WWE has not been exciting to watch in years, and for the most part has lacked the fun and fan excitement of years past. There are reasons for that. One of which is their failure to create stars. Not every attempt will work, but they rarely even try anymore, which is one reason WWE is rarely as exciting as it used to be. Compare that to 2000 when much of time, if someone got a pop on Raw, they were in a TV main event the next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Anyway, wrestling is way more fun in 1992 than it is in 2011, so I'm running back there. I'll be interested again when Punk resurfaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jacobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I have stated numerous times he has been counter productive to building stars and it started a decade ago and has stopped them from making as much money as they could have. It's absolutely led to the lack of depth on top and I don't see how that can be construed as anything but a criticism. The problem is, you're trying to blame him for a lot of the stop/start pushes, when there isn't really any evidence that he's the *main* one to blame. It's a given he has influence, but you seem to be putting more on him than on Vince, which is ridiculous. Dave also insinuated he was mainly involved booking his own programs and for the bad ones (RVD, Steiner, Jericho) he deserves to be called out and he also gets some credit on his pluesses (Batista, DX reunion) I agree 100% that the product is a shell of itself and has been boring. I'm enjoying the 3 yearbooks I've purchased far more than most WWE the last several years (with the exception of HBK/Jericho, HBK/UT, Rey/Jericho and a few other angles), but I also think you're a tad off on domestic houseshows and PPVs. They are down for sure, but they are still profitable. TV rights fees are a result of them having done great business (not relative to the boom, but overall) ,the last several years, that's still a plus for the company. -Paul Jacobi- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 You can make the points you want about newer guys keeping their priorities in order and saving their money well, which is valid. But would they be so eager to get out if wrestling was still as fun as it was years before, and also if they were being given more creative freedom and the ability to work programs that they enjoyed? Yes, that lies on Vince to some degree, but not entirely, or else the pattern of guys walking away would have been happening before HHH came into the picture. It wasn't. I think you would still see a lot of guys walking away because of the brutal travel schedule and the constant pain these guys are in. I went to a house show on Saturday with probably 3,000 people there, and everybody worked hard and took a lot of bumps. Orton and Christian had a better match than their PPV one the next night, so the physical toll has to be steep. There is barely any time off. They're doing a live RAW shoot on December 26th this year. All of the overseas touring is grueling. I think it really is that guys have more money and are smarter than before. Hogan barely worked from 04-09, but he found himself in a position where he actually needed money. And Flair's just crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Wait, wait, wait... Isn't the WHOLE start/stop push for debuting guys entirely to PREVENT them from leaving? I thought it was reaction to Brock, making sure that new guys didn't get a big head and to see how they did with being in the doghouse before they were trusted with a real push. The idea is that if they have the sort of attitude that makes them think they're bigger than the WWE, they won't get that repush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Anyway, wrestling is way more fun in 1992 than it is in 2011, so I'm running back there. I'll be interested again when Punk resurfaces. I told Matt the exact same thing last night. Well not exact as I returned to 1988. But they lost me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.