<Split> The decline of Vince McMahon

[Loss]

I dunno actually Charles, didn't it devalue the main event?

 

Kane, Big Show, Chris Jericho

 

Were they *really* main eventers or upper midcarders who were over and artificially inserted into main events and given world title runs?

 

Serious question.

 

Kane and Show were Vince projection. There was no audience demand for them to headline.

 

Chris Jericho should have been groomed to be the successor to Austin and Rock. He was the #3 merchandising draw in the hottest year the company ever had. The potential was there until he was typecast as a guy who was just below that level because of all the start-stop pushes.

 

I don't think the world title should be a merry-go-round at all, but I don't think they should be so stingy with TV main events and the challenger role in title matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

When the Attitude Era was around everyone complained about hotshotting titles, Russo booking and constant flux.

 

Now there's been stability for a long time, people complain about stagnation. Bottom-line is that whatever the scenario, you guys will find things to complain about.

 

I just want it to not be the same old, same old. I realize the WWE will always be lacking in many areas, but change has to happen at some point and new faces have to be pushed, and remain pushed.

I wonder if there was a Bill Thompson in 1968 or 1976 complaining about Bruno Sammartino being on top too long. I'm willing to bet there was. Yet if you look at that territory the main and semi-main were more or less stagnant forever.

 

Bruno vs. whoever

 

Undercard:

Strongbow vs. whoever

Denucci vs whoever

shitty tag match

[possible Andre match]

 

Not a lot changed. It was a pretty staid promotion and it made a lot of money.

 

In fact, go around the territories that made money and you'll find similar cornerstones of the card. Main eventers who stick around for ages. In New York Bruno's "whoevers" at least had some name value, in Memphis the "whoevers" were scrubs.

 

As long as they have Cena as the top guy and run with the idea of a company ace, everyone else in the company is a "whoever".

[Sean Liska]

 

As long as they have Cena as the top guy and run with the idea of a company ace, everyone else in the company is a "whoever".

 

That's not even how modern WWE really works now. Cena was 4th from top at Mania. He was underneath Bryan-Kane and Evolution-Shield at Extreme Rules. He was underneath the Shield at Payback. He was only inserted into the SummerSlam main event because Bryan was hurt. He was underneath Rollins-Ambrose at HITC. He wasn't a main focus of the Survivor Series main event.

 

WWE is more of an ensemble than ever.

[thebrainfollower]

I said CARED Parv not listened. As I said until about 1991 what Vince Mcmahon wanted and what his fan base wanted were in touch so he was willing to go along with their ideas (turn Jake, Savage etc) as you say because he didn't go against them as much. In the Attitude era Vince's sleazy side took over as he turned WWF into the Jerry Springer wrestling show. Again he was in touch with what the fanbase wanted to a great extent.

 

But for the last 12 years he's been out of sync with society in general for the most part. And Linda's defeats in the Senate election sealed that disconnect for good IMO.

 

So yes Vince used to be MUCH better at listening to his audience. I'm not convinced he did that because he wanted to, I truly believe he did that because he had to (not wanting the huge expansion to end early and then needing to come back from WCW beating him.) I think deep down Vince is a misanthrope whose has contempt for every wrestling fan from JDW to the 5 year old kid buying a Cena shirt. I do believe Vince was a genius, but I also believe he's a pretty horrible human being.

 

With Daniel Bryan, that happened because the fans, bless them, were going to hijack the ENTIRE product for good until Vince caved and gave them what they wanted. And the moment he won the title he was put with the greatest momentum killer of the last 10 years, Kane. His push when he comes back, we'll see.

 

It was a great example of how the "great men" theory of history is total BS and how it's the people who make history.

[soup23]

Parv, I think you really are fixated too much so on this fan WWE wants and who frequents this board. We are all here as wrestling fans to some sort of degree. Whether or not WWE should be catering to the "smart" fan or not, there is not any reason that we shouldn't be major fans of the current product. In other forms of entertainment and hobbie endeavours, I can't recall a group that glorifies more on the past and maligns the present as wrestling fans to. This is a failure of Vince for being the biggest player in town more than anyone else.

 

The elevation of the talent and going all the way just hasn't been there on a consistent basis. Giving Bryan the win at WM 30 was a great moment but did it erase the previous 6 months of stuff where he was outsmarted by HHH/Orton and relegated to the Wyatt feud?

 

Cesaro is an even more glaring example.

 

Think about a guy that early in the calendar year started creeping into the main event picture and having good performances while carrying a secondary title. This person had some catchy catchphrase and a move that was getting over with the crowd. Many people believed he was in a group holding back his true potential. WM showcased this individual where coming out of the show, they were the 3-4 biggest thing talked about.

 

My above scenerio could be applied to Cesaro in 2014 or The Rock in 1998. Now, the aftermath of how they handled The Rock really helped shape him as a star. Maybe Cesaro wouldn't become as transcendent as The Rock but they have to start strapping the rocket to some of these guys and giving a clear elevation to them like you saw for HHH and The Rock in 1998. No one was exactly saying that Rock in 1997 and Austin in 1993 would be two of the biggest stars of all time in the business.

[Loss]

"You guys" is the type of generalization we've asked everyone to stop doing. This is a site where a lot of people, yourself included, look at things critically, and I don't think throwing that out helps anything.

 

People were complaining about those things in 1998-1999, yes, but I don't recall much complaining in 2000 when they struck a balance. If you can point out all of these complaints about the WWF in their hottest year ever, which was 2000, that would be great because I don't remember them at all.

[Sean Liska]

 

People were complaining about those things in 1998-1999, yes, but I don't recall much complaining in 2000 when they struck a balance. If you can point out all of these complaints about the WWF in their hottest year ever, which was 2000, that would be great because I don't remember them at all.

I remember being so deflated when Jericho beat HHH for the title at RAW and then inexplicably did a clean job to HHH in the tag team main event at the end of the show to put him back in his place. I remember Edge and Christian often getting treated like jobbers by Taker. I remember everyone being excited for Angle, Benoit and Jericho getting big matches at Fully Loaded and all three losing clean and Angle being treated like a joke by Taker. Hated the payoff to the Angle-HHH feud.

[JerryvonKramer]

"You guys" as in "wrestling fans out there who read Meltzer post online" rather than PWO members. I did think twice about it, but clarification seems necessary.

 

I am convinced that the Cesaro stuff is not a million miles removed from Meltzer in 91 hating Van Hammer's push. It's a two-a-penny issue of the day that no one will care about even in one year from now.

[Loss]

I think a better two-a-penny comparison would be an old WON complaining about someone's lack of push.

[JerryvonKramer]

Right, Loss, I just can't think of one right now. Ha ha.

[soup23]

I am convinced that the Cesaro stuff is not a million miles removed from Meltzer in 91 hating Van Hammer's push. It's a two-a-penny issue of the day that no one will care about even in one year from now.

 

As we talked about on WTBBP, the Van Hammer push was really brief shutting Meltz up when the company saw the same things he was. Dylan was discussing the misuse of Cesaro at least a year ago when he was building him up as wrestler of the year. This isn't some flavor of the week narrative that has just surfaced up.

[The Chief]

Sometimes I really wonder how much Vince is to blame for a guy like Cesaro cooling off. From all accounts, Vince is only interested in his main event (Cena). Punk touched on this. Not to say he doesn't pay attention, but the guy probably has so much on his mind he doesn't keep up with everything that's going on in the undercard, and with dozens of writers trying to direct things, guys sometimes just get lost. I'm not so sure you can simply write it off as a simple case of Vince hates Indy guys. When Austin blamed booking for Cesaro's current situation, Vince seemed to think about it for a minute and then agree that his booking hasn't been the best. Since Cesaro seemed to be such a hot topic I wouldn't be surprised if they pay a little more attention to him. I get the feeling that Vince needs to hear things like that from people he respects to truly listen and there's no doubt in my mind he respects Steve. Notice how quickly he dismissed "critics."

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I am convinced that the Cesaro stuff is not a million miles removed from Meltzer in 91 hating Van Hammer's push. It's a two-a-penny issue of the day that no one will care about even in one year from now.

As we talked about on WTBBP, the Van Hammer push was really brief shutting Meltz up when the company saw the same things he was. Dylan was discussing the misuse of Cesaro at least a year ago when he was building him up as wrestler of the year. This isn't some flavor of the week narrative that has just surfaced up.

 

Guess the point is: if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.

 

"Guy not getting the push he deserves / Guy getting push he doesn't deserve" are basically permanent narratives in smart fan discourse. Literally two-a-penny.

 

If it wasn't Cesaro, it'd be another guy. Just happens to be Cesaro right now.

[thebrainfollower]

You are right. If it wasn't Cesaro, it would be the roughly 25 other guys Vince dropped the ball on in the last decade in order to keep Cena on top and his Attitude era stars as bigger than the modern product.

 

Vince 1985 sure as heck didn't suggest that Roddy Piper do a job to Pedro Morales at WM,

[JerryvonKramer]

But dude, that's every wrestling promotion ever.

 

Not everyone can be a main eventer. There's always someone who doesn't get the push they want despite being good enough.

 

Every promotion ever.

[thebrainfollower]

No it's really not. Promotions in history pushed new talent and tried to make new stars from time to time. When Crockett tanked in 84 he brought in a new booker and a huge crop of fresh talent and rebuilt his promotion. When WCW was failing in early 94 financially Bischoff turned it into the Hogan nostalgia show and when that wore off, reinvented the promotion again with new talent and the NWO. Vince himself reinvented his talent roster 3 times as far as I can see, 84, New Generation and Attitude era.

 

There's just a huge list of talent Vince dropped the ball on all for this one guy and his doofus son in law and his friends. That's the issue.

 

Not everyone can be the main eventer. That's true. But there are a lot of guys who MIGHT have been the next big thing and MIGHT have taken WWE out of a 12 year slump if Vince had still been what he was years earlier.

[Loss]

Not everyone can be a main eventer, but shouldn't the goal be for everyone to hit their ceiling as much as possible, at whatever level that happens to be? I realize wrestlers intersect and that this is an impossible standard, but it would be cool if they tried anyway. Even in failure, it seems like they'd be so much more successful.

[JerryvonKramer]

But do the WWE or Vince perceive the "12-year slump" as a slump? Or are they happy making the money they are in this tough media environment and uncertain time for television with Cena on top? If the figures weren't adding up, they'd change the main event in a heartbeat and try out new stars there. Vince has been ruthless with talent in the past. I think he would be again. But maybe they are happy with business as it is.

 

There has been much less focus on Vince's positive comments about Ambrose / Rollins / Reigns. He marked them out as being hungrier than the "millennials". He seemed like he was looking for a new Austin and has been looking for one. He just doesn't think he's got it yet.

 

So in the mean-time, place-holder Cena can tide things over.

 

It's much much easier for us to arm-chair book than it is for the guy who has to take the actual risk and suffer the potential consequences. He's the one who stands to actually lose money.

[thebrainfollower]

So Vince is basically trying to just stay above water in a tough media environment that he hasn't been able to figure out how to master the way he did in 84 and 98 Parv?

If so then he is no longer a genius. A genius businessman would adapt and triumph ala the people who run Disney (smaller scale for Vince of course). Vince hasn't done that. You yourself are the biggest supporter of the Vince is a genius theory (which I agree he definitely was).

 

So that's our argument, which you admit to agreeing with. Vince McMahon is a man in decline who can't keep up and is no longer the success he once was.

[Sean Liska]

Wouldn't the unprecedented revenue and profits in the decade pre-Network be considered something of a triumph?

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm just saying he might be biding his time until he finds the right guy.

 

Even Disney had down periods and slumps. The 1980s spring to mind. And then again in the early 00s.

 

Someone made the analogy to Nintendo. They hung in there with the Gamecube, scarcely relevant and massively disappointing, until they had a big hit with the Wii.

 

Alex Ferguson had some down periods in between his great sides. He was coming 4th in the EPL, squeaking into Europe, and just doing enough to keep Man Utd a "big side". And then he won the EPL again.

 

Sometimes you just have to hang in there and wait it out. I think that's what he's doing. Maybe the next hit doesn't come, but I don't think you can write him off just like that.

[thebrainfollower]

The difference with your first 2 analogies is that Disney and Nintendo had different people in creative to shake things up. WWE will always be Vince and Stephanie and (assuming he never has a divorce) HHH running and micromanaging creative. That's a problem that won't let them adapt the way Disney and Nintendo were able to.

[JerryvonKramer]

We should leave Nintendo out of this probably, because they've been around since the 19th century, but WWE and Disney are at difference stages of their company development. WWE are still transitioning from family-run business to corporation. They are roughly where Disney were in the early 1960s not long before Walt himself died.

 

The things you are talking about will happen, but not until Vince himself has gone.

 

And who knows, maybe the Network will be Vince's Disneyland.

[NintendoLogic]

WWE is highly successful by any historic standards. The Rumble sold out this year in minutes. So did SummerSlam. Payback sold out Chicago. Extreme Rules sold out NJ. MITB sold out quickly in Boston. TLC is going to sell out. The last international tour had plenty of big crowds. Mania does a $10 million gate every year now.

 

Here you go again. Whenever the subject of WWE business comes up, you cherry-pick individual shows that did great business while ignoring the bigger picture. Is the overall trend up or down?

 

The 1998 NBA Finals averaged 29 million viewers. Last year's Finals, with the made-for-TV Lebron story and Spurs redemption deal, did 15 million. Game 7 of the 97 World Series, with two teams lacking national appeal in Cleveland and Florida, did 39 million viewers. Game 7 of last year's World Series did 23 million.

 

Yet another example of cherry-picked data. Looking at the years you highlighted, NBA attendance in 2013-14 was 21.4 million as opposed to 20.4 million in 1997-98. And MLB attendance this past season was nearly 74 million as opposed to 63 million in 1997. So when you say there's less interest in every sport then there used to be, you couldn't be more wrong. Meanwhile, how do WWE's attendance figures compare to 15 years ago? Or even 5 years ago?

 

It's true that WWE has been consistently profitable in recent years. Well, not this year, but let's set that aside for now. The thing is, it's almost entirely due to the rights fee explosion that has benefited every sport (fucking MLS got a big money TV deal, for fuck's sake). If WWE got the same in rights fees as they did a decade ago, they would've been in the red in a major way the past few years. It's certainly a feather in Vince's cap that he's been able to adjust to the changing landscape and continue to make money. But that speaks to his skills as a businessman, not a promoter. His business is based on getting networks to pay him to provide content rather than getting fans to pay to watch wrestling.

[PeteF3]

Staying mostly out of this, but both the NBA and MLB have expanded since 1997--more games means more attendance. MLB's attendance on a per-game level is still strong but not as good as it was up until the '94 strike.