Vince McMahon - Reallly a "Genius"?

[NintendoLogic]

If I'm not mistaken, if there hadn't been a huge walk-up crowd for the first Wrestlemania, Vince would've gone bust in his first year of national expansion. So that future revenue was by no means a sure thing.

[jdw]

Vince didn't inherit the WWF, he bought it from his father.

That always struck me as a work. He bought out the other shareholders, but Sr. effectively gave it to him, acted as a buffer against the rest of the promoters to hide the national ambitions, and then dropped dead. Seriously... Jr. was the sole heir to his father who was 69, and his step mom was the same age. Jr. was going to get the company, and Sr set up the transition.

 

It's a great part of Vince's worked bio... but it's just more nonsense. Hell, there probably was some tax benefit to Jr.

[BrickHithouse]

So now we're stuck on how he acquired the company?

 

I don't see how that really builds a case to either side of the argument, but don't want to give the impression I give a shit either way.

[Smack2k]

I'm OK with people not considering Vince a genius, but I don't see how anyone else in the history of the industry could be one then.

 

I hate the argument that Vince stumbled into Austin and the Attitude success. They set up Austin as Bret's opponent for his big first match back at SS96, they booked and executed a brilliant double turn at Mania - one of the great angles of all-time, with weeks of TV leading to that moment, they came up with the idea of the Harts being lead heels in America and lead faces in Canada and stuck Austin in the middle of this explosive dynamic, they had him stun Vince at MSG on RAW in a huge moment, they made a $3 million gamble on Tyson when money was much tighter and booked the whole scenario to perfection with DX playing great heels, Vince himself stepped up and became one of the greatest heels of all-time and Austin's perfect adversary, the Foley feud after Mania was perfect, the Highway to Hell with Undertaker for SummerSlam 98 was booked brilliantly and did huge business, they elevated Rock and turned him into a perfect heel foil for Austin.

 

That's like two full years of perfect booking for Austin. How do people still see that as something that was stumbled into?

 

He's a legend....but to be really successful in somethign you grew up around and develop it from a good money standpoint at the beginning is not a genius...if it is, then anyone who grew up in their business, took it next and got richer from it is a genius to....

 

Outside of the genre he knew, and knows WELL...what has he done to be considered an actual Genius?

 

I guess, actually, now I am thinking, that the word genius really can be taken anyway....I really mean he gets WAY too much credit (to me) for not really doing much of success outside of what he was taught to do and saw first hand how to do, and then took that to the next level, with a lot of help cash wise at the start to get moving...

[jdw]

People tend to forget that Vince grew up poor and barely knew his dad until he was a teenager.

This is a work. Barnett is the same age as Vince. He recalls Jr coming in with Sr to law offices of Barnett's dad when he was young, and already being an arrogant little shit at the time.

 

Vince's whole backstory is about as much bullshit as Flair's "I was there when Brody got stabbed" crap from the other day. It's Vince McMahon, and he's been bullshitting since he took over the company. It's staggering anyone would buy a single thing either he or Linda say about their backstory.

[jdw]

So now we're stuck on how he acquired the company?

Who is stuck on it? The "self made" stuff is nonsense.

 

On the other hand, he took a large regional promotion and turned it into a massive national promotion. In turn, he adapted to changing technologies and new revenue streams. What his company was in 1988 and in 1999 bore little relation to his father's company. Other than they promoted pro wrestling.

 

It's a bit like Ted Turner. Ted wasn't completely "self made". His father had money and had a business. He dropped dead. Ted took the business and went well beyond what his father did. Kudos to Ted.

 

Of course it's easier for Ted and Vince to get where they were going than someone growing up dirt poor without a pop with a good chunk of cash. So it's a balance.

[Loss]

I remember tomk making an interesting argument that Ted Turner actually won the war once. Need to dig for the post.

[jdw]

If I'm not mistaken, if there hadn't been a huge walk-up crowd for the first Wrestlemania, Vince would've gone bust in his first year of national expansion. So that future revenue was by no means a sure thing.

We've talked about this on the board before. It's a work. It would been very easy for Vince to downsize into (i) his old core markets, (ii) the new markets that we drawing a load of money for him, and (iii) cut back on his roster. In fact, we know not just that this would have been easy, but that it's exactly what Vince would have done. He has a long track record of cutting costs quickly and wisely when the WWF/WWE's business takes a dip. He's rather sharp about it, and doesn't let ego get in the way of decisions like that.

[BrickHithouse]

Who is stuck on it?

Couple of pages worth.

 

Anyway, I don't see how it matters to the general argument of whether Vince is a genius or not.

 

He could've won the company in a game of cards with Arnold Skaaland, raised the cash by whoring himself out to 1000 chicks for 100 bucks, or 100 fat chicks for 1000 bucks (fat chicks need lovin' too, but they have to pay). Either way, I really don't see it having any bearing.

 

I'd also probably take the word of a lying carny wrestling promoter over ANY lawyer, but that's just me.

[jdw]

Some of the other points:

 

* I don't think the XFL and Bodybuilding and Sugar Ray fight are terribly relevant

 

Geniuses can be gifted a one thing, and not another. Not just in the sense of apples and oranges, but even within a craft. I don't think we have to look hard to find partnerships where one people does one half and the other does the other half, but they might not be terribly great on the other half. Hammerstein was a playwright and lyricist, while Rodgers was the muscian. You can have that in business, where a CEO is a great "product" guy, but not so good on the marketing of finance side.

 

Vince is a wrestling guy. Has been pretty much his whole life. He kind of sucks at other things, just like Linda sucked as a Senate candidate. But that really doesn't have any barring on whether Vince is a "wrestling promoter" genius.

 

* semantics

 

I suspect we're all hung up on the word Genius

 

* It's freaking Vince

 

I suspect we are also hung up on it being Vince, and the years of either hating Vince or being a fan of his shit. It's a bit like Hogan.

 

It's very difficult to have an objective discussion about Vince because we all carry a ton of baggage on him. That was one of the things about the Vince & Hogan vs The World thread that Kris and I were kind of getting at: screw the baggage, what's the raw data/info/crap, how does it shift out, and let's give it some thought.

 

All three of these thing effect how I look at Vince. He and Hogan were the Great Enemies when I became a wrestling fan of JCP/NWA. Satan and the Beast to Our Hero Ric. I laughed when those various things of Vince bombed, or worse, scratched my head at the insanity of the XFL folly even as Vince/WWF Fans were trying to find reasons why it would work. I also am one of the more annoying people when it comes to semantics.

 

Is Vince a wrestling promoter genius?

 

I don't know... it's a loaded word. It's just easier to say that he's the best wrestling promoter in US history, and we all would have a tougher time figuring out who is #2 than who is #1. He did have the right base to succeed from (the Northeastern Promotion), but there's a pretty ridiculous number of things we could point to that show his vision where others failed to have it. While there were some things that others got to first (WCW was slightly ahead of him in TV Content = Big Money), even on those things he ended up hitting it out of the park more, or "perfecting" it while others flamed out after the initial burst.

 

I don't know if he's a genius. But a field might produce a few geniuses. They produce only one "best". He's it... so, chose your poison.

[WingedEagle]

And Vince jr bought the WWF from his Dad in 1982. And didn't Sr. leave whatever he had to his old lady?

I need to arrange a deal where I "buy" a company using that same company's future revenue as the source of payment. Pretty sweet deal!

 

If that future revenue is no lock and entirely contingent upon how you grow it, its not that hot a deal. Just an opportunity for you to either capitalize on or piss away.

[Childs]

God, Vince is great biography fodder. Interesting business narrative, tons of color, lots of facade to try and work around. Wonder if anyone will ever take a big swing on that one?

[thebrainfollower]

That's a great post JDW. One thing I would point out though, it might sound contradictory to argue that Vince grew up poor and acted like an arrogant little shit around his dad's office but it really isn't. I work in a field with tons of poor kids whose behavior convince you they think they are multi millionaires. It's compensating.

[jdw]

It wasn't Sr's office. It was Sr & Young Jr visiting the law offices that Barnett's dad worked at, while Young Barnett was there. Jr was taking that arrogant little shit attitude on the road, rather than in a place where his dad was King.

 

Vince's backstory is self invented. Those that would point out it's full of shit are dead, are aging and have lost their minds, or have Vince to thank for making them a lot of money. It's not like a lot of people now 30 years after he took over the business, and nearly 45 years after he started working for his old man's company, are going to question him.

 

Come on... Vince was the lead announcer on his dad's TV show when he was 26. He was effectively the head of the company when he was 35. He was his father's heir and had been groomed by the old man to take it over. Is anyone buying the bullshit that Vince spins that his old man squeezed him in taking over the company?

[flyonthewall2983]

Vince didn't inherit the WWF, he bought it from his father.

 

I think the point was that Vince wasn't exactly starting from scratch, he took what his dad built up and went national.

 

Exactly.

[Sidebottom]

I always hought a good argumen would be - how would hisory have remembered Vince had WWF gone out of business in 1997?

[Marty]

I remember tomk making an interesting argument that Ted Turner actually won the war once. Need to dig for the post.

Are you talking this one? (Unfortunately, I can only Google Cache it, and that would be a post quoting Tom's post.)

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=on&ct=clnk

 

tomk, on Oct 28 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

 

It's Atlanta.

 

In the 80s two guys took wrestling national.

 

One guy was so succesful based on taking wrestling national that he was able to buy baseball team several cable stations, get the Olympics into the South, and turn a city in Georgia of all places into a major media center.

 

The other guy was able to sell a lot of wrestling T-shirts internationally and became the international face of a traveling sideshow.

 

You can gloat about beating Ted Turner in any other city in the US, but if you walk around Atlanta it is pretty clear who won. Claiming otherwise in Atlanta would make you look like a fool.

[Loss]

That's the one! Thanks for finding and posting.

[Lee Casebolt]

Is Vince a wrestling promoter genius?

 

I don't know... it's a loaded word. It's just easier to say that he's the best wrestling promoter in US history, and we all would have a tougher time figuring out who is #2 than who is #1.

Internationally, does he have any competition for that #1 spot as a global promoter? My instinct is to say no, but I've got more than a few blind spots.

[Phil Schneider]

God, Vince is great biography fodder. Interesting business narrative, tons of color, lots of facade to try and work around. Wonder if anyone will ever take a big swing on that one?

I nominate you

[KrisZ]

WWE never could claim Atlanta until after January 4th, 1999. Sure they ran shows there but it wasn't until the Fingerpoke of Doom which killed WCW's hometown that WWE could come in and officially take the city.

[Johnny Sorrow]

It wasn't Sr's office. It was Sr & Young Jr visiting the law offices that Barnett's dad worked at, while Young Barnett was there. Jr was taking that arrogant little shit attitude on the road, rather than in a place where his dad was King.

 

Vince's backstory is self invented. Those that would point out it's full of shit are dead, are aging and have lost their minds, or have Vince to thank for making them a lot of money. It's not like a lot of people now 30 years after he took over the business, and nearly 45 years after he started working for his old man's company, are going to question him.

 

Come on... Vince was the lead announcer on his dad's TV show when he was 26. He was effectively the head of the company when he was 35. He was his father's heir and had been groomed by the old man to take it over. Is anyone buying the bullshit that Vince spins that his old man squeezed him in taking over the company?

I get that. But I never doubt the idea that a wrestling promoter would be so cut throat as to hold up his own son to a deal. And I didn't get that story from some interview with Vince, it was from some other bullshit.

 

Edit: Oh, and arguing against Vince's bullshit with stuff from other people in wrestling's bullshit is just a bullshit parade.

[JerryvonKramer]

I made an argument for how WWF changed wrestling here. The "one" major innovation was going national? Are you fucking serious?

Alright... let's take a look at this...

 

1. He turned wrestling into entertainment that competed not with sports, but with other TV shows by making it more about the CHARACTERS and STORIES than about the action in the ring.

That's why The Destroyer wrestled a Bear in the 60s. Because bears took the field NFL games, played outfield in Major League Baseball, played for Matt Busby in the 60s, etc. Right...

 

As far as characters and stories, that went back before Vince even promoted the business.

 

Wrestling was entertainment back to the 20s. Don't be stupid and think otherwise.

Pathetic attempt at a knockdown strawman argument that misses the fundamental through line of my argument. For a guy who is so clever, you seem to have tunnel vision when reading what other people say.

 

I'll pull out the through line for you.

 

the change between his vision and what his dad was putting out is night and day. What's the difference:

 

- Bob Backlund putting Greg Valentine in a headlock for 10 minutes = change of channel for casual viewer or "Can we please watch something else now?" from the wife.

- Cyndi Lauper telling Albano to stick it on Piper's Pit = ooh this is interesting for casual viewer or a wife who is as invested in the storyline as you might be.

 

Is that "genius"? It's certainly something that few other promoters had had the vision to do. He changed the demographic from just men or sports fan to "the whole family".

You can rag on Moonsoon as much as you like as a play-by-play guy, but thinking mainstream, think of successful show formats, think of people who don't like wrestling being converted into fans.

Vince's "genius" lies partly in being able to get guys over before they've even put a foot in the ring. His grand innovation is in thinking about the product as a TV show first, traditional wrestling logic that says "a guy gets over through wins" takes a backseat.

He understood that get over with a mainstream audience EVERY wrestler needed their own identity.

 

Vince took wrestling from being an underground carny "sport" to something mainstream credibility.

I've tried to make it real simple for your semi-autistic brain. How in the hell can you read that and pull "oh what about wrestling bears" out of your arse? Well? How is a wrestling bear anything to do with the argument I've laid out?

 

My argument is that he used these elements to popularise something that was marginal, and not in the mainstream media.

 

You've turned it into "he injected entertainment into wrestling"

 

Some classic jdw bullshit shifting of the goalposts to try to win an argument. If I was marking your post as a paper, I'd tell you to read what the source is saying. You haven't understood the argument. You haven't responded to the argument on its own terms. I'm told you have legal training. Objection your honour: Irrelevant or immaterial.

 

You also seem to be fundamentally incapable of drawing a distinction between on the one hand, "who did it first", and on the other "who made it big with the idea". I talked about David Bowie and Lou Reed. We can think of countless examples in history of guys taking other people's ideas and making it big.

 

But so what? Innovation is not invention.

 

Innovation can be applying existing ideas in new ways or in new contexts or with a slightly new spin in order to create something different. In a business or sales context such innovation can give a company an edge. And in our capitalist system, what matters is not what or who came first, but who made it big with the idea. Vince was not an inventor, he was an innovator. He also made it big.

 

This is not about All Japan Wrestling or how many people that house show in 1988 drew, it's about creativity -- something I've yet to see any evidence at all that you have an iota of understanding about.

 

Corrected, though you're not self reflective enough to see it in yourself.

 

Or perhaps better stated with:

 

 

Tugg Speedman: In a weird way I had to sort of just free myself up to believe that is was ok to be stupid or dumb.

Kirk Lazarus: To be a moron.

Tugg Speedman: Yeah!

Kirk Lazarus: To be moronical.

Tugg Speedman: Exactly, to be a moron.

Kirk Lazarus: An imbecile.

Tugg Speedman: Yeah!

Kirk Lazarus: Like the dumbest mother fucker that ever lived.

Tugg Speedman: [pause] When I was playing the character.

What is this meant to be? What does your argument gain by trying to run down my intelligence? You honestly think I'm a stupid, pig-headed dumb-fuck don't you. I tell you what, at least I'm not a man in my 40s (or is it 50s) making posts as juvenile and asinine as that. I get it, ok, you've been around a long time. You know a lot of shit. You met Meltzer. You made a bunch of conclusions about a bunch of things 10 years ago and think they are all correct. We all get it. Sometimes though knowledge and experience can't substitute for intelligence, imagination or personality. Sometimes it's possible that there is more than one way to look at a problem. Sometimes it's possible someone can see something that you can't.

 

And you have blind spots jdw. Sometimes they are glaring.

 

"Yeah but you're still an idiot Jerry"

 

Well, think whatever you want. I am not one of these people who feels the need to prove anything. You are, by the way. Every post you make stinks of it. It's one of the reasons you're not very likable. However, at this stage, I'm just trying to be as civil as I can while putting forward my part of the argument. I'm aware that I called you tedious. Sorry, okay, I'm not my usual cheery self. I'll try not to say it again ok. You try not calling me a moron. Fair?

 

Anyway, back to the topic:

 

There are elements of this discussion you haven't addressed.

 

A key part of my argument is wrestling "before and after" Vince. Your claim is that the only innovation is going national. I think that's demonstrably untrue, and patent nonsense.

 

Your argument rests on saying "oh but there was national TV before ... DEMONT NETWORK" "Oh but there was entertainment before ... WRESTLING BEARS" "Let's just look at the facts ... FACTS"

 

How about we also look at the product, and what was actually presented on TV. I pointed to Vince Sr's product. We can also look at the way guys like Sam Muchnick presented wrestling.

 

I can't really understand the point of view that says "there was not a seismic shift in the way wrestling was presented between the 70s and the 80s". It's so obvious that there was a massive change that goes beyond simply "going national". It's more than simply "there was entertainment".

 

I have to ask you: why are you so against giving credit in this area? What's the big problem with admitting that Vince McMahon changed some of the wrestling paradigms of the previous generation? I mean anyone with an ounce of sense can see it, why can't you?

 

"Oh but there were wrestling bears and ... eh GORGEOUS GEORGE"

 

Is that really what you're saying? That because there were entertaining elements in wrestling before Vince, we can't credit Vince with anything but going national?

 

Has it ever occurred to you that the change in direction and the massive success are somehow linked? That things like the merchandising and the boom in gates are somehow linked? That the family-friendly entertainment-heavy product and 90,000+ at Wrestlemania 3 are somehow linked?

 

Well?

 

There's something known as a "stickiness" factor. You are one of those guys who sits there with his fingers in his ears just shouting "Ah but Hogan, ah but Hogan" over and over again. You attribute the success to 1. Vince had Hogan, 2. Vince went national.

 

Maybe you just lack the imagination or the necessary understanding of social phenomena to see that it has to be more than just those two factors. Hogan is the product, "going National" is the strategic business move.

 

But there is more required. Marketing. Packaging. And this is the key:

 

- Getting people who don't watch wrestling and have never watched wrestling invested in the product.

- How do you get KIDS talking about wrestling in the playground?

- And this one is particularly special: How do you get people who've never even seen a show, to come to the show?

 

That's the area in which Vince left the competition dead.

 

I think your picture isn't fully fleshed out. It's an overly functional view of how things went down. It lacks nuance. It doesn't tell the full story because your approach in looking at the figures alone -- THE FACTS -- is one dimensional. I question your methodolgy. I question your ability to see the difference between the way something like Dory Funk Jr. vs. Jack Brisco was booked, and who it played to, and the way something like Wrestlemania 3 was built, and who that played to.

 

I think you underestimate the shift and growth in demographic. It's not just numbers. It's not just taking territory, and stealing talent and fans. It's making new fans. It's turning people onto the show who'd never in a million years would have watched Backlund and co.

 

But I seriously question your ability to see that because you seem to process things in a systemised and mechanistic way. It's a flaw in your thinking. Overly functional, hung up on numbers to the point where it blinds you to things that are patently obvious.

 

I mean Jesus I can't look at the Star Wars shit, but franchises man. FRANCHISES. The way people think about making four movies now rather than just one. Some of this shit is so obvious it doesn't need to be pointed out, and yet somehow it seems to escape the great jdw. Why? Tunnel vision, eye on the prize. Must.Win.Argument.At.All.Costs. These aren't ad hominem attacks on you, it's just me trying to account for why you miss these glaringly obvious things all the time.

 

----------------------

 

This was long. Let me try to sum up this argument neatly and logically. I just want to be absolutely clear that I'm saying. I don't want any movement of the goalposts or smokescreens or strawmen.

 

Argument 1: Vince McMahon changed the way wrestling was presented

 

Premise 1: There was something about the way wrestling was presented before the 1980s that turned off the mainstream audience

Premise 2: In the 1980s, people who didn't watch wrestling were turned onto watching the WWF

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the WWF changed something about the way wrestling was presented to attract these new fans

 

Premise 3: Although some of these new fans came from going national and invading other territories, it is not the case that the WWF simply took existing wrestling fans from every other region; they created new fans. Many of them were children.

Premise 4: Although Hulk Hogan was integral to attracting these new fans, he was simply the product; as the promoter Vince McMahon was able to package him and the rest of his show in a way that optimised its 'stickiness factor'

Conclusion 2: Therefore, the WWF's success in the 1980s is attributable to more than simply going national and having Hogan

 

[Modus ponens P1, P2, C3, P3, P4, C2]

 

Argument 2: jdw gives us an incomplete and mistaken view of Vince McMahon's impact on wrestling in the 1980s

 

Premise 1: You can't get a handle on fundamental changes in presentation or understand social phenomena by looking at the numbers alone ("the results"); to understand social phenomena truly you need to look at the finer details: not only what ("the product"), but how (how that product is marketed, positioned and sold).

Premise 2: jdw in the "Vince McMahon vs. The World" thread looked at numbers alone

Conclusion 2: This gives jdw a one-dimensional view of the story that is blind to the finer details; his methodology produces an incomplete picture

 

Premise 3: Innovation and invention are not the same thing

Premise 4: jdw denies innovation by pointing to earlier examples, therefore he mistakes innovation for invention

Premise 5: Vince McMahon was an innovator not an inventor

Conclusion 2: Therefore, jdw mistakenly denies he was an innovator

 

Conclusion 3: Therefore, jdw gives us an incomplete and mistaken view of Vince McMahon's impact on wrestling in the 1980s

 

[Modus ponens P1, P2, C2, P3, P4, P5, C2, C3]

[jdw]

Is Vince a wrestling promoter genius?

 

I don't know... it's a loaded word. It's just easier to say that he's the best wrestling promoter in US history, and we all would have a tougher time figuring out who is #2 than who is #1.

Internationally, does he have any competition for that #1 spot as a global promoter? My instinct is to say no, but I've got more than a few blind spots.

 

I don't know. Tough to compare. Kind of why I stuck to US.

[jdw]

It wasn't Sr's office. It was Sr & Young Jr visiting the law offices that Barnett's dad worked at, while Young Barnett was there. Jr was taking that arrogant little shit attitude on the road, rather than in a place where his dad was King.

 

Vince's backstory is self invented. Those that would point out it's full of shit are dead, are aging and have lost their minds, or have Vince to thank for making them a lot of money. It's not like a lot of people now 30 years after he took over the business, and nearly 45 years after he started working for his old man's company, are going to question him.

 

Come on... Vince was the lead announcer on his dad's TV show when he was 26. He was effectively the head of the company when he was 35. He was his father's heir and had been groomed by the old man to take it over. Is anyone buying the bullshit that Vince spins that his old man squeezed him in taking over the company?

I get that. But I never doubt the idea that a wrestling promoter would be so cut throat as to hold up his own son to a deal. And I didn't get that story from some interview with Vince, it was from some other bullshit.

 

Edit: Oh, and arguing against Vince's bullshit with stuff from other people in wrestling's bullshit is just a bullshit parade.

 

Sorry... I must have missed when I was arguing Vince's bullshit with someone else in wrestling's bullshit? Where was that?