Acknowledging the Past

[JerryvonKramer]

This thought flickered across my mind earlier and I thought I'd share it.

 

Back in the 1980s, wrestling was presented in a kind of perpetually present bubble. There were some unwritten rules:

 

- whatever happened yesterday is yesterday's news, now -- today -- is the greatest day in the history of our sport

- guys who were working elsewhere were not acknowledged, they basically never existed.

- the past was only ever brought up as a shill for the present and the needs of the present. So for example, if someone was going over Tito Santana in 1992, the fact he used to be IC champ would be brought up to add to his cred.

- if figures from the past were brought back for any reason (e.g. the NWA champs panel at Wrestlewar 89) it would be for the purposes of an angle.

 

These rules were in place for the entirety of the 80s and 90s.

 

Then, something changed. The WWE decided that it was now ok to acknowledge the past a bit more. The WWE Fall of Fame became a big deal. This totally changed the promotion's orientation to the past. Rather than being mostly forgotten, it became among other things:

 

1. A new source of revenue.

2. A way for fans to look back and celebrate their own memories.

3. A means of controlling history.

 

But this has had certain knock-on effects. The current WWE fan is CONSTANTLY being reminded about how great Steve Austin was. They are CONSTANTLY being told that Shawn Michaels is and was the greatest of all time. So the current generation of wrestlers have the hand of history on their shoulder in a way that no previous generation has.

 

How many times did the WWF bring up the legacy of Bruno Sammartino during Hogan's run? How often were fans reminded about the greatness of Bruno? Obviously then during the Attitutde Era most of the big 80s stars were working for WCW, but it also meant that fans in 98 or 99 weren't constantly being reminded of how great Hogan or Savage were in the 80s (although them being on the other side now helped in that).

 

I'd like to hear thoughts about this. The knee-jerk response to the idea of acknowledging the past is that it's a good thing, but I wonder if they haven't been shooting themselves in the foot with it. How is any current star going to compete with something with as much history and mythology built up around it as The Streak? Have the WWE backed themselves into a corner with this strategy of embracing history?

[thebrainfollower]

I don't think deep down Vince McMahon wants the WWE to survive him and I think this is one way of achieving that goal in a broader context on some subconscious level. His creative peaks (Hogan, Austin) are THE peaks and nothing will ever surpass that ever, just because.

 

But that's a roundabout way of avoiding your broader question. I think the moment that acknowledging the past became okay was the moment they no longer had any competition. After that who cares? You want to make money off Hogan DVD's and classic action figures? Sure why not. There's no real danger of those older guys biting you back, because what can they do and where can they go? No one has ever gone to TNA and made it even remotely serious competition and no one will. You look at when the DVD's of older superstars started to come out. The first was Hogan's in 2002. The year after WCW went under. The DVD market had been around for a few years prior to that and there had been nothing that old school prior to that. The Hall of Fame had been dropped after being a minor, minor footnote twice in the 90's and now it's a pretty big deal.

 

The reason the attitude era guys are still treated as the way there are is simple, HHH is nearly in charge and Undertaker is seen as the greatest legend in company history by them. Trust me if Hogan had stayed around the same thing would have happened to Austin and Rock in 98 as happens to say Punk and Bryan today, but fortunately he and his friends had gone.

 

Acknowledging the past is a great thing. But letting it dominate the future is suicidal. Imagine if the 3 biggest matches of Wrestlemania had been Hogan just narrowly defeating Bruno Sammartino, Piper getting squashed by a returning Gorilla Monsoon and Chief Jay Strongbow coming out of retirement to end the evil menace of Paul Orndorff once and for all? If someone had suggested that card to Vince in 85 he would have been fired or laughed out of the room but that's basically what we are getting for a Wrestlemania this year.

[MJH]

Acknowledging the past is a great thing. But letting it dominate the future is suicidal.

This.

 

Ignoring the past is stupid, and ultimately it only insults your audience's intelligence. Putting over the length of Punk's title reign by saying "now he's surpassed Bret's longest reign, Austin's longest reign, Cena's longest reign, etc" works. Using older rivalries to further current ones works. Having guys suddenly friends when one turns face/heel and ignoring all their history as rivals is just stupid. I'm not sure if putting over Shawn as GOAT is necessarily a detriment to Cena... it's not as though Babe Ruth is killing baseball. But, yeah, the could certainly do with reminding people a tad less... though as a means of putting a guy over ("Are we watching the GOAT in Lionel Messi?" etc) it can work too.

[El-P]

But that's a roundabout way of avoiding your broader question. I think the moment that acknowledging the past became okay was the moment they no longer had any competition.

Exactly. Once they bought off every competition, it was allright to talk about the past, with the twist of being able to rewrite history in a WWE-flavored way, depending on who's under contract at the moment of the DVD release/HoF ceremony/nostalgia show.

When did the Hof became the second biggest event of the year ?

When did the Streak became the biggest thing ever in wrestling ?

When did WM eventually became a show based on dream matches from stars from the past or retiring ?

When did "old-school Raw" began to show up ?

The past became the future once there was no fighting to do in the present. Once those streams of revenu will have dried up, there's no telling what will happen. They might go searching for the next John Cena really quick.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Acknowledging the past is a great thing. But letting it dominate the future is suicidal.

This.

 

Ignoring the past is stupid, and ultimately it only insults your audience's intelligence. Putting over the length of Punk's title reign by saying "now he's surpassed Bret's longest reign, Austin's longest reign, Cena's longest reign, etc" works. Using older rivalries to further current ones works. Having guys suddenly friends when one turns face/heel and ignoring all their history as rivals is just stupid. I'm not sure if putting over Shawn as GOAT is necessarily a detriment to Cena... it's not as though Babe Ruth is killing baseball. But, yeah, the could certainly do with reminding people a tad less... though as a means of putting a guy over ("Are we watching the GOAT in Lionel Messi?" etc) it can work too.

 

Yeah, but baseball is different in the sense that a team's goal isn't to draw per se. When Cena is pushed as the man whilst WWE engages in their double think that HBK is the GOAT, that does hurt interest in the sense that, at least for younger fans, they lose the sense that they're seeing something special before them and that they're living history. What made Hogan and Austin unique is there was never any doubt that these two were not only the man of their respective time but also that they were historically unique figures. HBK > Cena undermines that.

 

Brainfollower, why do you think Vince doesn't want WWE to succeed him? I don't think that's true at all, though I do think Vince sees his magnum opus as the 24/7 network. I think with Vince - and this is what distinguishes the bland, modern WWE compared to other eras - is they've been wildly successful in offsetting decreased macro-interest with an increase in self-generating revenue by having more and more television whilst keeping their talent roster at about the same levels historically (roughly 50 guys, with 80 on contract). So what has resulted is not only almost every guy being overexposed but also in almost every guy jobbing unnecessarily. Of course, their part-time legends who draw are immune to this, partly because they would never go along with that type of burial and partly because they wouldn't go along with it anyways. So that deterministic system has led to all their regulars looking vastly inferior to their part-timers. That's unfortunate because, at least wrestling wise, their regulars might be one of the best athletic rosters ever.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

But that's a roundabout way of avoiding your broader question. I think the moment that acknowledging the past became okay was the moment they no longer had any competition.

Exactly. Once they bought off every competition, it was allright to talk about the past, with the twist of being able to rewrite history in a WWE-flavored way, depending on who's under contract at the moment of the DVD release/HoF ceremony/nostalgia show.

When did the Hof became the second biggest event of the year ?

When did the Streak became the biggest thing ever in wrestling ?

When did WM eventually became a show based on dream matches from stars from the past or retiring ?

When did "old-school Raw" began to show up ?

The past became the future once there was no fighting to do in the present. Once those streams of revenu will have dried up, there's no telling what will happen. They might go searching for the next John Cena really quick.

 

I'm glad someone else noticed that pattern. From 2001 on, WWE has been in a "credit crunch" where they could generate arbitrary dream matches by slowly over time bringing in the top guys from Time Warner and thereby offsetting decreased interest. That was fine because, in the process, they created new stars (Cena, Orton, and Batista all were groomed while Scott Steiner, Goldberg, and Eric Bischoff were brought in to stretch out the WWE-WCW dream matches). Their problem is when Orton failed to become Cena's complement, Batista left, and fans started to crap on Cena, they weren't able to create newer stars except for CM Punk. So their modern credit crunch depends on Undertaker's streak, the Rock, and Brock Lesnar. In other words, they need to start creating stars now. They had that in Ryback but decided to job him out, partly because, again, they just have three times as much TV as in the 80's and 90's but with the same fixed roster size, with a few exceptions (namely around 50 guys, with 80 on contract).

 

Part of WWE's failing is in having gotten rid of OVW and Jim Cornette. Cornette really cultivated talent. But when you have guys like Johnny Ace running the show, you get junk for your roster.

[khawk20]

- whatever happened yesterday is yesterday's news, now -- today -- is the greatest day in the history of our sport

Some areas didn't necessarily subscribe to this. The AWA, for example, had a history of using past feuds, angles, and events years later to fuel current storylines. I always like it because it made them seem like they were acknowledging fans that were die-hard for their particular product.

 

There were likely other areas that called back to their past for the same reasons.

 

The WWF "ignore everything but us" policy was so blanketing that I doubt they even bothered to think of how die-hards would perceive the process of treating them like idiots. Of course, they weren't interested in catering to those fans anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.

 

Anyhow, just a point...

[thebrainfollower]

Why do I think Vince McMahon doesn't want the WWE to outlive him? Because then it's HIS. all his. Not even his dad (who from everything I've read, he hates deep down) but his.

 

I enjoy pre-attitude era WWF and there's a handful of people I can watch after that that kept me interested till about 2006. I've got 100 plus Coliseum Videos, more WWF than any other territory on my pc for footage, 50 or so DVD's, used to collect the toys for twenty years, love the card game, held an eight year subscription to the magazine, have owned 10 plus video games, you name it I was a huge fan. I'm probably one of the bigger fans the WWF would have on this board.

 

And I think Vince McMahon is a cocaine addicted sociopath who's been taking out his childhood frustrations and letdowns in a multinational company for the better part of a decade. With perceived competition Vince could keep his demons in gear. But from everything I've read, the moment WCW became his he went over a legit deep end from which there's no return. He's a man whose attitude to children is ignore them and use a nanny to keep them busy. He's a man who has never, ever taken a vacation in 25 years. He's a legit nutcase in my opinion who, like Nero, won't be happy if Rome doesn't burn down with him. And that's why I think deep down he wants the WWE to fail after he dies and has been (probably subconsciously) doing some of the stupid things he has in the last decade.

[jdw]

I'm with KHawk. It was the WWF starting in 1984 under Vince that largely was in a bubble, pretending that:

 

* nothing outside the WWF happened

* only what was currently in the WWF happened (i.e. when you left, your history did)

* today is the only day

 

These weren't 100% locked in... but it was pretty much a 100% mentality and philosophy.

 

The rest of the wrestling world had a history.

 

Granted... wrestling never has dealt with history well because people weren't writing it down in record books, and others were twisting it around. So history was a fuzzy thing, but it was out there.

 

Over time, you sort of got WCW under after the buyout doing the same thing. When people came in from the WWF in 1989-94 they really didn't talk about what they did in the WWF. I don't recall them talking about Ric winning the WWF Title twice "up there"... though maybe I'm forgetting it. I don't recall them talking about Arn winning the WWF Tag Title... or Valentine being a former IC and WWF Tag champ. They might have on some buried weekend or syndication broadcast, but it wasn't a strongly pushed thing like Ron Simmons playing at FSU being tossed out All The Fucking Time.

 

One got the sense that WCW didn't want to look "lesser" by pushing guys who'd been something in the WWF a while back but weren't much when they left.

 

That perhaps changed a bit under Eric, more so in the Monday Night Wars where Eric was able to steal WWF guys who weren't washed up.

 

John

[Loss]

This is a great topic and I'm glad Jerry brought it up. I do enjoy any form of entertainment - wrestling included - that really rewards people with long memories. I hated the WWF's approach to history in the 1980s, but I also think it's part of what made them successful. They ultimately were seen as a cut above other wrestling promotions because they didn't acknowledge those promotions. They didn't even call themselves wrestling. So as much as I hated it, it was a brilliant bit of marketing and fan education that worked very, very well.

 

Yes, they have built up the past to be so much better than the present, to a point where they can't do Wrestlemania without returning stars at this point. They don't have the star power. And sadly, they don't seem to care all that much.

[Stuttsy]

I think one aspect that no one has really touched on yet is how much the current generation is held in contempt for failing to produce a new mega star of Rock or Austin levels. Cena's obviously the closest but even his popularity is a pretty big drop off from the days when an animated series on MTV decided wrestling was so cool that they needed Stone Cold as a regular weekly character.

 

Sometimes this contempt manifests itself through subtle, passive aggressive mentions of how great Michaels and Austin and the Attitude era were, as referenced in the original post. But sometimes it manifests itself in the form of downright hatred, to the point that watching the show you can almost imagine Vince screaming at the current guys that they are all worthless nobodies.

 

I don't know how big a part the contempt for the current crop of guys plays in this, but I firmly believe it factors in.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Why do I think Vince McMahon doesn't want the WWE to outlive him? Because then it's HIS. all his. Not even his dad (who from everything I've read, he hates deep down) but his.

 

I enjoy pre-attitude era WWF and there's a handful of people I can watch after that that kept me interested till about 2006. I've got 100 plus Coliseum Videos, more WWF than any other territory on my pc for footage, 50 or so DVD's, used to collect the toys for twenty years, love the card game, held an eight year subscription to the magazine, have owned 10 plus video games, you name it I was a huge fan. I'm probably one of the bigger fans the WWF would have on this board.

 

And I think Vince McMahon is a cocaine addicted sociopath who's been taking out his childhood frustrations and letdowns in a multinational company for the better part of a decade. With perceived competition Vince could keep his demons in gear. But from everything I've read, the moment WCW became his he went over a legit deep end from which there's no return. He's a man whose attitude to children is ignore them and use a nanny to keep them busy. He's a man who has never, ever taken a vacation in 25 years. He's a legit nutcase in my opinion who, like Nero, won't be happy if Rome doesn't burn down with him. And that's why I think deep down he wants the WWE to fail after he dies and has been (probably subconsciously) doing some of the stupid things he has in the last decade.

Interesting points. Where did you read he had contempt for his father? He always seemed fond of his father. I think I remember him tearing up over his father's memory. But I didn't see any footage of that or remember where I read that, so I have no episodic context to attach that to.

 

Where did you read that Vince is a coke addict? In Sex, Lies, and Headlocks, it is said that Vince snorted coke and used to brag that he won't get addicted, but who is to say he has snorted coke in the last 20 years? I do think you're onto something about Vince's drive with WCW, but Vince nowadays sees his competition as keeping his ratings up to keep his advertisers happy. To him, that might be his big drive. If he were intent on the company not surviving him, why does he return and take unnecessary bumps just so the ratings don't collapse?

 

I don't know about Vince's relationship with his kids, but it's clear that he prefers Stephanie to Shane. I think Shane was going to take over the business, but Vince learnt that Stephanie was more like him than Shane was. Shane was too passive.

 

Vince doesn't vacation frequently, but he does vacation. One thing about Vince is he only shows up to TV tapings and to MSG shows, which wasn't that frequent until the Monday Night Wars. But he does that for a reason. Without Vince around to lay down the law, things become chaotic backstage, and Vince wants the company to go in the direction of his vision.

[thebrainfollower]

There'a thread somewhere in the megathread archive about interesting things said on boards that quotes Vince's drug issues as well as how his system of yes men and his daughter have become barriers to reality and actually made improving the company impossible. As far as his relationship with his father goes, I don't have any proof, just the playboy interview amongst other things and the sense that Vince viewed his dad the same way he views Shane, as too conservative and not ruthlessly aggressive enough to be truly worthy of respect.

 

Vince's dad basically denied Vince his boyhood dream of being a wrestler. The Million Dollar Man, Mr. McMahon and JBL are all ways of dealing with that rejection without being able to face it. I've heard Vince and many many of his minions claim he has not taken a vacation since Wrestlemania I all the time. Vince's dad also basically abandoned him to a mother Vince claims sexually abused him. There's no way that didn't leave deep scars. I work with kids who have been through the same things and can see the results.

 

If Vince sees his job as to keep his ratings up he's a failure. Raw's ratings have halved in the last 12 years.

 

And yes I agree there have been no breakthrough mega stars. But that's because Vince doesn't want them. They might leave him like Brock Lesnar. Ever since then they really haven't cared about giving anyone the chance to become the next Steve Austin or Rock. Because such a person might leave them (Vince's motive), gain enough power to see what a moron they are and be able to do something about it (Stephanie and the writes motive) or challenge their unquestioned supremacy (HHH's motive, Taker's too to a much lesser extent given he works once a year now). If people able to do that don't exist or don't actually do anything about it (John Cena may or may not have told Vince he's senile and past it, but he hasn't quit the company or even shown the balls of Zack freaking Ryder by voicing his views) then things remain as they are. Forever. Which they will until WWE falls on its face 10 years after Vince dies and whatever the heck might rise from the ashes succeeds it. Assuming MMA doesn't just swallow up pro wrestling and we go full circle back to 1890 again.

[rzombie1988]

But that's a roundabout way of avoiding your broader question. I think the moment that acknowledging the past became okay was the moment they no longer had any competition.

Exactly. Once they bought off every competition, it was allright to talk about the past, with the twist of being able to rewrite history in a WWE-flavored way, depending on who's under contract at the moment of the DVD release/HoF ceremony/nostalgia show.

When did the Hof became the second biggest event of the year ?

When did the Streak became the biggest thing ever in wrestling ?

When did WM eventually became a show based on dream matches from stars from the past or retiring ?

When did "old-school Raw" began to show up ?

The past became the future once there was no fighting to do in the present. Once those streams of revenu will have dried up, there's no telling what will happen. They might go searching for the next John Cena really quick.

 

Answers:

1 - Wrestlemania 21. It happened at Wrestlemania 20, which was the real official return of it but it was a much smaller deal.

2 - Wrestlemania 17 was the first time it was acknowledged and Wrestlemania 20/21 was when it became a big deal.

3 - This one kind of depends on the year. WWE did it at 18, 24, 26 to an extent and 27 was a part in the Cena/Rock storyline. Of course, 28, 29 and probably even 30 will have the theme as well. I still believe we will get one last big Hogan match at some point.

4 - This happened first in 2010.

 

I think it is going to be hard to wrestling to make a mega star in this day and age. Everyone just has too much going on and there's too many entertainment options already for non-wrestling fans to really get into it.

[SteveJRogers]

 

When did the Streak became the biggest thing ever in wrestling ?

2 - Wrestlemania 17 was the first time it was acknowledged and Wrestlemania 20/21 was when it became a big deal.

 

Interestingly enough, the first time I recall it being discussed on a WWF program was on an 1998ish (may have been 1999) edition of the Byte This internet show (kind of a proto vidcast/podcast).

 

Howard Finkle was on and he threw it out there as a trivia answer about the then longest currently active winning streak at 'Mania (ton of turnover obviously).

 

To be fair, streaks in non scripted sports rarely get spotlighted until they reach some sort of achievement of rarefied level of accomplishment. And that was what, 8-0 at that point? I'd say that would be about when the media and sports themselves would be appropriately pumping up a legit streak of its kind.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I remember in 84 every now and then WWF would acknowledge stuff. I clearly remember them congratulating Kerry Von Erich for his NWA title win. And there was the Piper's Pit with Valentine where they "made up".

[goc]

I remember in 84 every now and then WWF would acknowledge stuff. I clearly remember them congratulating Kerry Von Erich for his NWA title win. And there was the Piper's Pit with Valentine where they "made up".

That whole thing with Kerry seemed like them testing the waters of being friendly with Fritz. Fritz was about the only guy who had a locked in territory with stars who wouldn't leave and fans who were completely loyal to those stars.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I remember in 84 every now and then WWF would acknowledge stuff. I clearly remember them congratulating Kerry Von Erich for his NWA title win. And there was the Piper's Pit with Valentine where they "made up".

That whole thing with Kerry seemed like them testing the waters of being friendly with Fritz. Fritz was about the only guy who had a locked in territory with stars who wouldn't leave and fans who were completely loyal to those stars.

 

Right, I remember reading about that years later.

 

When Vince went full "there is nothing but the WWF" hardcore was really big in 86-87 when they had the mass influx of Watts guys. As a 16 year old wrestling geek, it drove me nuts.

[sek69]

Vince really wanted the Von Erichs, Kevin even made appearances in MSG around that time. I wonder how much that was because the promoter was their dad (tying in to the previously mentioned issues Vince may or may not have).

[goc]

I assume he wanted the Von Erichs for the same reason he wanted every other big territory star: to make money with and keep other people from making money with them. With the WWF marketing machine behind them I think they'd have done big business with Kevin & Kerry as a tag headlining the non-Hogan shows. How long they could have lasted on the road in a promotion where their dad wasn't the owner and all the local cops didn't know who they were is a different story.

[khawk20]

I think the Von Erichs in MSG preceded expansion by quite a few years. I'm thinking Kerry and Kevin were in around 1980-81, for solo shots. The WWF did that quite a bit up until early 1984 or so. JJ Dillion's IC title match with Tito in early 84 might have been one of the last "random appearances" for a name guy from another area.

 

I could be wrong, of course.

[JerryvonKramer]

What about Killer Kahn in 87, khawk?

[khawk20]

In terms of Khan coming back to the WWF in 87? I think that's more a case of his previous history serving no purpose to bring to light. Bringing him in as "the guy that broke Andre's leg" wouldn't have been feasable given Andre was their top heel.

 

Now, if they had brought Khan in as a face, they most certainly should have acknowledged he once broke Andre's leg. Instant program for both of them.

[goc]

In terms of Khan coming back to the WWF in 87? I think that's more a case of his previous history serving no purpose to bring to light. Bringing him in as "the guy that broke Andre's leg" wouldn't have been feasable given Andre was their top heel.

 

Now, if they had brought Khan in as a face, they most certainly should have acknowledged he once broke Andre's leg. Instant program for both of them.

I guess they could have made it work if they'd had Bobby Heenan bring in Khan as the "guy that's so tough he broke Andre's leg but now they're working together" but they put Khan with Mr Fuji.

[Al]

There were quite a few one-shot appearances in MSG. The Von Erichs separately, Steamboat/Youngblood, Ric Flair, Roddy Piper, Tiger Mask, etc. It's kind of what gave MSG its prominent place in wrestling. They weren't part of any angle, just wrestling.