What does wrestling need to get hot again?

[JaymeFuture]

An extremely broad question I know, but I'm taping a podcast tomorrow on this subject, and much like the "________ should have been a top guy" topic, I'd love to get a bunch of different opinions from here to read on the show.

 

Essentially, the roundtable question is, in 2014 and moving forward, what is the single biggest thing the wrestling world needs?

 

Obviously there are a few leading candidates, but in your own opinion, what is the most important? Less WWE on TV? Cena to step aside to help facilitate new stars? The network to die, new creative, new direction, new competition?

 

Simply put, if you could play God and were able to make a single change to the wrestling landscape in hopes to change it for the better and bring it to prominence, what would that one move be? What do you see as most important, and why?

 

[Matt D]

Bailey, Paige and Emma as the Crush Gals.

[DMJ]

To get hot again, the WWE needs a mega-star on the level of Hogan in the 80s or Austin and The Rock. A character that people simply can't get enough of.

 

Another Cena or Lesnar won't help - I'm talking about somebody that is so beloved, charismatic, and "must see" that ratings spike by a million viewers every time he is in a segment. Somebody with mainstream appeal AND at least a modicum of wrestling/athletic ability that casual fans and hardcore fans can agree about his greatness or, at the very least, begrudgingly respect his abilities as a performer in and out of the ring (you don't sell out arenas for years with 1-star matches, no matter what workrate nerds think of The Rock or Hogan's wrestling ability or how much Steve Austin "fell off" after SummerSlam 97').

 

Someone so entertaining that not even the WWE's terrible booking and creative writers could hurt him. Sorry D-Bry fans, they also need to be marketable in the sense that when they appear on Fallon, they are larger-than-life, if not in size than at least in some sort of character way (think Savage on Arsenio or how Austin's look said "bad ass" even in a black tee and blue jeans).

 

I'm not sure this person exists, but I'd kind of love it to be Dean Ambrose, who has been compared to Roddy Piper before. To me, though, that goes back to my first point - I'm not sure the next Roddy Piper is enough to make things hot again. I think you need Hogan and I'm not sure anyone, even a personal favorite of mine like Ambrose, is him.

[Fantastic]

To get hot again, the WWE needs a mega-star on the level of Hogan in the 80s or Austin and The Rock. A character that people simply can't get enough of.

 

Daniel Bryan, potentially, if WWE bites the bullet and really fucking gets behind him this year.

 

In terms of wrestlers on the roster with yet-to-be-fully-tapped potential in spite of their natural showmanship:

 

Bray Wyatt

Dean Ambrose

 

And my favorite, if he officially makes it to WWE and is given ample opportunities to do what he does best:

 

Fergal "Prince" Devitt.

[JerryvonKramer]

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

2. Give performers more creative license and script them less tightly

3. Never try to do comedy

[BillThompson]

Nothing really. I know it sounds like a pat answer, but wrestling really does seem to work in cycles. Right now isn't even really a down period, it's just a steady period. Eventually that something, which none of us can predict, will come along and another boom period will start up. Then that will die down and the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

[JerryvonKramer]

Bill - is that really true that wrestling is cyclical? I'd just like to analyse that comment for a moment, because I don't know if it is.

[Matt D]

If we're examining that, can we examine the theory that MMA devoured what should have been wrestling's last upcycle?

[concrete1992]

More skin.

 

Sorry didn't read the post just the topic. I don't know if there is anything. Maybe new competition? When there are two opposing sides or brands(not wrestling brands just brands in general) it tends to bring out the best in eachother as well as the passion from fans. Sometimes that passion can be contagious. In video games you've had Nintendo vs Sega, Nintendo vs Sony, Sony vs Microsoft, ect.. In comics you've got Marvel versus DC. Wait, that actually works counter to my point doesn't it? Unless you're talking about movies/TV I suppose. So I doubt this would happen and really is a wildcard in terms of it making wrestling hip.

[JaymeFuture]

Bill - is that really true that wrestling is cyclical? I'd just like to analyse that comment for a moment, because I don't know if it is.

 

 

Love this point, don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much, but we're going to be doing a podcast on this topic as well in a few weeks.

 

Interesting Bill - in that case, is there nothing in the current landscape that you would change at all to help facilitate the next boom?

[Bierschwale]

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

3. Never try to do comedy

 

So, don't do two of the things that were hugely significant parts of the last "boom"? Because for better or worse, they were.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

3. Never try to do comedy

 

So, don't do two of the things that were a hugely significant part of the last "boom"?

 

 

Absolutely.

 

You can only break kayfabe once before the novelty completely wears off.

 

And the funniest moments of the attitude era were moments in which Rock or Austin were allowed to free wheel on the mic.

 

The more scripted stuff -- DX especially, anti-WCW skits etc. -- was embarrassing then and even more so now.

 

The Attitude Era has been reponsible for more bad than good. They might have sold a lot of tickets short-term, but long-term they broke wrestling.

 

I'm saying enough time has passed now for them to be able to fix it again.

[concrete1992]

See the topic and post seem to be a little at odds. The topic says what does it need to get hot. Has anything ever stayed hot? Then the post says what does wrestling need. So is the question about gradual, sustainable growth, or boom period type growth?

[cheapshot]

History has taught us that previously wrestling has been cyclical, but that was with competition and other facts that are just not their anymore. Tough to say that's 100% the case still.

[El-P]

 

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

3. Never try to do comedy

 

So, don't do two of the things that were hugely significant parts of the last "boom"? Because for better or worse, they were.

 

 

Were there really ? Take Steve Austin and The Rock off the equation, and all you got is stupid insider references and shitty comedy. And that was basically WCW in 2000.

[JaymeFuture]

See the topic and post seem to be a little at odds. The topic says what does it need to get hot. Has anything ever stayed hot? Then the post says what does wrestling need. So is the question about gradual, sustainable growth, or boom period type growth?

 

 

Whichever you feel is healthier. If you believe a boom period can't happen then what would you do for a slower, more sustainable growth? You can target either, it really is up to you.

[cheapshot]

 

 

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

3. Never try to do comedy

 

So, don't do two of the things that were hugely significant parts of the last "boom"? Because for better or worse, they were.

 

 

Were there really ? Take Steve Austin and The Rock off the equation, and all you got is stupid insider references and shitty comedy. And that was basically WCW in 2000.

 

Just a thought, don't mean to derail the thread, however do people think if the internet didn't exist in the form it did in 1998 onwards then WCW would still be around as booking for the "smarts" wouldn't of occurred in the way it did, which was a reason they tanked?

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't want to get too off-topic, but historically competition was the exception not the norm. Don't forget, the NWA outlawed promotions who'd run against its members. Vince Sr's WWF had no competition. The AWA had no competition. Crockett had none.

 

So "competition" in actuality only existed in any meaningful form from 1984 to 2001.

 

In my massive arguments with jdw in the past over whether Vince was or wasn't a genius, he did bring up a few interesting points:

 

1. The total number of people watching wrestling after 1984 was probably down from before the "boom" (I'm still not sure on this, because it overlooks the millions of kids watching on TV ... i.e. US posting here ... who were hooked on wrestling who might not have been otherwise), but still, jdw made a good point about the adults.

 

2. Fewer towns were getting live wrestling as a result of the "boom".

 

----

 

Anyway, the point is that before 1984, I don't know if wrestling was "cyclical" in the way that we think of it being boom and bust. And when I say I don't know, I mean "I don't actually know".

 

Seems like a lot of the territories did solid business and occassionally went on hot streaks, but mostly the gates were stable going back to the 50s.

 

But then you have companies failing in the late 70s, so I don't know. My history doesn't stretch back far enough to be honest.

[cheapshot]

I don't want to get too off-topic, but historically competition was the exception not the norm. Don't forget, the NWA outlawed promotions who'd run against its members. Vince Sr's WWF had no competition. The AWA had no competition. Crockett had none.

 

So "competition" in actuality only existed in any meaningful form from 1984 to 2001.

 

In my massive arguments with jdw in the past over whether Vince was or wasn't a genius, he did bring up a few interesting points:

 

1. The total number of people watching wrestling after 1984 was probably down from before the "boom" (I'm still not sure on this, because it overlooks the millions of kids watching on TV ... i.e. US posting here ... who were hooked on wrestling who might not have been otherwise), but still, jdw made a good point.

 

2. Fewer towns were getting live wrestling as a result of the "boom".

 

----

 

Anyway, the point is that before 1984, I don't know if wrestling was "cyclical" in the way that we think of it being boom and bust. And when I say I don't know, I mean "I don't actually know".

 

Seems like a lot of the territories did solid business and occassionally went on hot streaks, but mostly the gates were stable going back to the 50s.

 

But then you have companies failing in the late 70s, so I don't know. My history doesn't stretch back far enough to be honest.

 

Some actual good points, I guess I am not thinking that far back, but I concede that in many places one territory had a monopoly pre '84.

[Loss]

Yes, wrestling's popularity has been cyclical, but it's always struck me as something promoters have used as an excuse to justify downturns in business. Wrestling wouldn't be cyclical if promoters would create new stars *during* peak periods instead of waiting to rebuild when things fall apart.

[Matt D]

We need Chris to run numbers. Lots and lots of numbers.

[Coffey]

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

2. Give performers more creative license and script them less tightly

3. Never try to do comedy

 

The "never do comedy" point is so true. Whenever something is funny on WWE TV, it's because it's something delivered off-the-cuff or unscripted from a genuinely funny, charismatic person. The writers trying to write funny lines or skits for the performers just comes off as cringe-inducing television. I hate it.

 

I think the big star is important to have another "boom" (if there ever is one) but it also has to be in an era with something current in the non-wrestling world as well, so people can relate to it. Austin was an everyman that didn't put up with people's shit & got to put his hands on the boss. Anyone with a crummy job could relate to that. He wanted to drink beer & didn't take shit. That's like a lot of middle-American men. Hulk Hogan was an over-come-the-odds patriotic good guy in an era where it was all about patriotism leading into the gulf war & whatnot. Granted he was over before that too, but do you see wrestlers nowadays on the cover of Sports Illustrated or making appearances on Johnny Carson? He was also the top guy of the first era of cable TV. Kids looked up to him & he toppled over-the-top villains.

 

What are the things that people can relate with nowadays? Being under-qualified for jobs despite having experience and degrees, being in debt due to student loans or medical bills, not being able to get a loan for a home, maybe doubt or a lack of trust in the government. How do you relate things like that to a pro-wrestler? Daniel Bryan was pretty close, I guess.

[cheapshot]

I think now more than ever WWE have to create a star who doesn't just appeal to the american audience, which is going to be inherently harder.

[Bierschwale]

 

 

1. Cut all self-consciousness and anything kayfabe-breaking

3. Never try to do comedy

 

So, don't do two of the things that were hugely significant parts of the last "boom"? Because for better or worse, they were.

 

 

Were there really ? Take Steve Austin and The Rock off the equation, and all you got is stupid insider references and shitty comedy. And that was basically WCW in 2000.

 

You wouldn't call Montreal a kayfabe-breaking moment? Now, obviously that is the most extreme example possible, but I would also consider the Outsiders' debut to be kayfabe-breaking. Anything that acknowledges that wrestling isn't real in any way is self-conscious or kayfabe-breaking. Making references to make references is obviously pointless and wasteful, but there is confirmed value in acknowledging what's outside of kayfabe as long as you don't just come out and say it. The Bryan storyline was entirely about the idea that the company could and would pull the rug out from under him at any time; same with the Rhodes Family feud. Everybody knows that it's fake, so by acknowledging what's happened off-screen to the right extent has become probably THE most effective way to build heat in the last fifteen years.

 

Even if you know that it's fake, the idea that a guy is going to be screwed legitimately makes things more intense and allows the performers to put in performances that have a more realistic sense of emotion, a true sense of contempt. All you need in wrestling is hate-- if you can effectively create hate, then you have that added heat, that added emotional context.

 

As for comedy, I agree that the large majority of the Car Crash TV Era stuff is dogshit-awful, but we just talked about how even Vince disliked the "This Is Your Life" segment, regardless that it was the absolute peak in ratings for the company.

 

It's all about subtlety, of course. I don't think that I need to expand on why acknowledging what people think of Triple H has generally worked and how Vince Russo running around talking out of ass didn't. How a segment on an episode of Heat in 2000 that had Foley (when he was the onscreen authority figure) and Edge helping Christian make weight to challenge for the LHW title by having him run around the arena in a chicken suit in a silly, ultimately meaningless bit worked and how John Cena's Photoshop Tutorial in the middle of a feud against a psychopathic cult leader didn't.

 

They were important aspects, and saying that what wrestling NEEDS to do to hit another boom period is to completely dump them is ridiculous.

[BillThompson]

Yes, wrestling's popularity has been cyclical, but it's always struck me as something promoters have used as an excuse to justify downturns in business. Wrestling wouldn't be cyclical if promoters would create new stars *during* peak periods instead of waiting to rebuild when things fall apart.

 

I'll use this as the jumping off point to people asking me about the cyclical comment I made earlier. Yes, I do think wrestling has always been cyclical. The difference is that in the territories the cycles were very short, and the booms appear to have been much smaller. Such is the nature of things when the top talent comes and goes and the majority of guys adhered to the philosophy of "Get out before you're not hot anymore."

 

I still think wrestling is cyclical today, and I think people overlook the times of stability. I don't know if one could say that 1992-1994 was a boom period for the WWF, but it certainly wasn't a struggling cycle. It was a time of stability where things were running smoothly without the dangers of bad ratings or the highs of insane merch and PPV numbers. The boom and bust periods do come along, but they tend to be shorter in nature when placed against the periods of sustained stability.

 

To Loss' point, I'm not sure I completely agree with the new stars idea. That purports that there is a new star out there waiting to take the wrestling world by storm. Maybe that's true, or maybe it's not. New stars need to be created, but simply creating new stars doesn't mean there will be a boom period. I'd argue that up until after his title win WWE did everything right when it came to making Daniel Bryan a big star. Yet, business seemed to remain the same as usual. The boom has to come organically, and sometimes it takes it a while to come.

 

That brings me back to the question of what I would do to facilitate a boom period. I wouldn't sit on my hands and do nothing, but I don't believe you can force start a boom period. I'd try to consistently produce the best product possible to ensure that I can maintain a sustained period of stability. That way when the boom comes along I'll be better prepared to ride with it, ala a Vince in the 80s and again in the late 90s-early 00s, and not completely at a loss as to how to handle it, ie; WCW in 1996-1998.