<Split> The decline of Vince McMahon

[thebrainfollower]

WWE will not turn into a corporation. It will be Stephanie and Hunter replacing Vince. Some things will change for the good (newer guys pushed, Dunn gone and NXT talent not getting buried when they move up to the main roster) and some things for the bad (Stephanie thinks even less of pro wrestling than Vince does, and HHH is far less forgiving of people who dare to challenge the almighty HHH than Vince is. Also I have a funny feeling Rock and Austin will no longer be welcome so HHH can be the big star of the Attitude era.).

[thebrainfollower]

By that I mean a real corporation where the McMahons ultimately control everything.

[thebrainfollower]

Also population and costs have gone up. It's like in 2004 when Karl Rove claimed George W Bush was the most popular President in US history, over Washington, Lincoln and FDR because in 2004 Bush got more votes than any candidate ever had.

 

Which happens every year because the population goes up.

[KrisZ]

Charles brought up 2000 WWF.....the Radicals going in was a huge boost for them and something like that can't happen today as there is no rival organization where talent can leave to go to WWE that is automatically known by the audience that can flourish immediately. All this Vince talk and not enough Kevin Dunn talk because Kevin Dunn is the point man for a lot of these issues right now.

[thebrainfollower]

But Vince could fire Dunn today or at least no longer let him run anything so it's his call ultimately. Dunn is his Martin Bormann.

[NintendoLogic]

To put it in less inflammatory terms, Dunn is Vince's Mark Penn.

[thebrainfollower]

I wasn't comparing Vince to Hitler except in how he uses various minions against each other and ends up doing more damage to a company that he ultimately does have control over and doesn't need to do this stuff anyway, but just does to give himself a few laughs.

[KrisZ]

The day that Vince relinquishes control is the day that Kevin Dunn is gone....Vince's loyalty to certain people is one of his faults

[thebrainfollower]

I wonder if it's loyalty. I suspect it's more using Dunn to be the heat magnet to mess with people for Vince's amusement. It's well known Dunn is messing with each NXT prospect (Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish). But Vince could stop it in a second and doesn't. Either he's just out of touch or it's a subtle reminder to HHH who's really in charge.

[The Chief]

I think saying Paige's career is done is a little extreme...

[BillThompson]

 

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.

TLC's two main events are Cena-Rollins and Ambrose-Wyatt. Three of the four guys in prime spots are relatively new to the main event scene. The plan for Mania is to headline with a guy who's been in the main event of one PPV previously.

 

 

There' no indication that those are going to be sustained pushes. Just look at Wyatt who went from mega over act, to jobbing to Cena and then being off of TV for a while. In three months time they'll most likely be back to Cena versus the Authority figure, or versus Orton, or whatever. Vince has proven time and again that unless his back is against the wall he fears changing things up. As long as there is no competition Vince has no reason to change things up and that's why WWE ends up with so many guys with failed main event pushes.

[Sean Liska]

 

 

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.

TLC's two main events are Cena-Rollins and Ambrose-Wyatt. Three of the four guys in prime spots are relatively new to the main event scene. The plan for Mania is to headline with a guy who's been in the main event of one PPV previously.

 

 

There' no indication that those are going to be sustained pushes. Just look at Wyatt who went from mega over act, to jobbing to Cena and then being off of TV for a while. In three months time they'll most likely be back to Cena versus the Authority figure, or versus Orton, or whatever. Vince has proven time and again that unless his back is against the wall he fears changing things up. As long as there is no competition Vince has no reason to change things up and that's why WWE ends up with so many guys with failed main event pushes.

 

Wyatt feuded with Cena for three months. Yes, he eventually lost, because it was presented as a battle of good vs. evil for Cena's soul and if you've followed New York wrestling for the past 50 years, faces tend to come out on top. Then Wyatt moved on to the Jericho feud which culminated in a clean win at SummerSlam. They gave him a month off to freshen up and he returned in the main event of the HITC PPV and is in a major feud with Ambrose now.

 

Really, the whole main event scene is filled with fresh talent right now. Cena and Orton are the only guys that have been around for a long time. (not counting utility guys like Kane and Show as headliners)

[pol]

 

 

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.

 

 

I think not following the current product is really hurting your argument here. From around the Rumble to WrestleMania people were very excited about the creative direction with Cesaro looking like a million bucks, the Bryan vs. Authority angle being great TV, The Shield and The Wyatts being engaged in a fantastic feud, etc. People weren't complaining then (except about Batista), when a bunch of young guys were being put over strong and were getting huge reactions from the live crowds. People were talking about how fresh and exciting the product felt and what a good job WWE was doing building for the future. When Cesaro was put with Heyman rather than the obvious move of turning him babyface, people weren't complaining, there was so much good will towards the product that they were falling over themselves to justify the decision. When Heyman spent most of his promo time talking about Brock while Cesaro stood there looking like a goof, everyone was sure that the fantasy-booked scenario of Cesaro eventually having had enough and giving Heyman the Giant Swing was going to happen.

 

All of those guys (except Reigns and Rollins) have since had their legs cut out from underneath them to varying degrees and have suffered a noticeable decrease in crowd reactions. It's not like I have to strain to remember this stuff, it was 10 months ago.

 

Yes, there's always going to be "where's this guy's push?" complaints, but I think it's disingenous to dismiss any and all such complaints due to that. You have to look at it in the context of the overall level of positivity/negativity towards the product.

 

And yeah, them dropping the ball with Cesaro is a minor issue in a vacuum, but he's just one of so many guys they've dropped the ball with this year alone. Who knows if any of them could have developed into major drawing cards, but when crowds start to seriously respond to a guy, why would you not even try? It's not like Cesaro lost out because all the protected spots were taken; nobody outside of Cena, Reigns and Rusev (who they have done a good job with - probably because he's either going to be used to make Reigns, or is Cena's Mania opponent) is protected at all. The entire midcard - we're talking like 90 minutes of TV time on their A show here - is full of guys trading wins in meaningless matches. The IC and US champions lose on TV more than they win. Why would you not pick a couple guys out of that morass to at least try and do something with?

 

Finally, had, say, Cena been jobbed out right as he began to get over, don't you think you'd be saying "this won't seem like a big deal in 10 years" about that too? It's not like Cena was a guy like a Hogan or Rock with obvious era-defining superstar potential. It's hard to see a guy's upside if you never give him the chance to show it.

[concrete1992]

GOING BACK TO THE NINTENDO COMPARISON DESPITE IT BEING DROPPED BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT SOMETHING BUT FEEL FREE TO IGNORE IT:

 

Yes Nintendo hung in with the Gamecube and had a roaring success with the Wii but they slumped on their way to this generation with the WiiU. Granted the software coming may give it a sizable uptick but BIG PICTURE WITH WiiU they didn't go about it well and now are in a whole. They have a line that hedges it a bit but still not the success level Nintendo would like. Wii U=WWE Network. 3DS= TV $$$. That analogy probably has a ton of flaws but I know more about Nintendo game history than WWE or Disney history, which still isn't much.

[anarchistxx]

The talent might be fresh but the booking, presentation, promos, style and overall aesthetic are stale as fuck. It might be new faces but they are saying the same things, in angles booked exactly the same way, with segments that we have seen a million times before just with different people acting them out this time. Wrestling isn't like rock music where everything has been done before, there are still a myriad of new scenarios and angles they could play out if they were creative enough.

 

Right now I would even settle for the latest War On Drugs record, unoriginal as it is - the same tropes played out just with better production and the sheen of quality musicianship and songwriting nous. We don't even get that. We get an even shitter version of Coldplay.

[Gregor]

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.

A lot of people online were mad about Benoit, Jericho, and Angle all losing to WWF mainstays at Fully Loaded 2000. That's the biggest one that comes to mind.

[Jesse Ewiak]

 

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.

A lot of people online were mad about Benoit, Jericho, and Angle all losing to WWF mainstays at Fully Loaded 2000. That's the biggest one that comes to mind.

 

Yeah, but that's after 5 1/2 months of people mostly not bitching. The problem isn't WWE doesn't get the result at the PPV wrong for the future. They get everything wrong.

 

They don't just mess up the wet dream, to use a Mick Foley line. In the wet dream, the bj has a lot of teeth and she's yanking at your chain like it's a stuck top of a mayo jar, and her boobs feel like concrete before the wet dream finishes.

[EvenStevenBooking]

(Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish).

Just when you think W2BTD is the undisputed king of stupid comments, a new challenger appears.

[Coffey]

I have heard before in wrestling, that after a seven year period (I think it was Jim Cornette that said that time table), that everything old is new again.

 

Go back seven years in WWE. What has really changed in that time? Not really much of anything...

I miss when pro-wrestling was about two people that hated each other beating the hell out of one another. Whether is was because the babyface was jumped in the street, or was protecting his valet, or was cheated out of his title by nefarious means, whatever. I want to see the heels cheat and the faces want redemption. I have no problem with the babyface winning the blowoff match in a definitive fashion, as they should. What WWE seems to lack right now, in my opinion, is the stuff leading up to the big, final match with the babyface triumph. Outside of Brock Lesnar, the heels never really dominate. Look at the John Cena Vs. Bray Wyatt feud. At no point did it ever really feel like John Cena was in trouble. Or when John Cena was in a 2-vs-1 handicap match against The Miz & Alex Riley. Or when John Cena was against the entirety of the Nexus. Superman has to look weak so that the final scene has any meaning. That's why he has the krytopnite weakness.

 

I guess a lot of the things in pro-wrestling that I have enjoyed all seem to be relics of the past. In the modern era, we're not really going to get blood feuds, with guys that hate each other, settling their beef in a case match until one of them can't stand anymore. Not in a publicly traded company with a TV-PG rating that probably cares more about a Mattel toyline than they do with their "flagship" show.

 

Good versus Evil, with Good prevailing in the end but Evil making you hate them along the way so that you want to see them get their comeuppance. We don't get that anymore. Instead, we get good guys that half the crowd boos, bad guys that are more over (sometimes even sarcastically), and three PPVs in a row of rematches where none of the wins, losses or titles matter. Pro-wrestling, to me, is at its best when you not only want to see the good guy win and get his revenge, but you also want to see the bad guy lose and get what is coming to him. I just don't think that's really possible anymore. Not with the death of kayfabe.

[funkdoc]

 

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.

A lot of people online were mad about Benoit, Jericho, and Angle all losing to WWF mainstays at Fully Loaded 2000. That's the biggest one that comes to mind.

 

 

was this the one that sparked scott keith's huge rant on undertaker? the "retire NOW, you no-selling fried-food-eating has-been piece of SHIT. Kurt Angle is the future and you are NOTHING"?

 

to add to this, i seem to recall 2000 being the beginning of the whole Glass Ceiling narrative that dominated smart fandom for a few years there...doubt the picture was as rosy as loss seems to think, from my memories of that time.

 

if anything, i'd say there was far more optimism during 1999 just because everything was still so fresh. somebody should look up star ratings outside of the WON from that year - that cultural zeitgeist basically led to the wrestling equivalent of beer goggles.

[BillThompson]

 

(Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish).

Just when you think W2BTD is the undisputed king of stupid comments, a new challenger appears.

 

 

This adds nothing to the conversation except a personal insult, which is really not the tenor of this place.

[Matt D]

I don't remember exactly how I felt about that PPV at the time. I think I was mostly glad that the guys I liked were just getting elevated in big matches all at once, win or lose.

[EvenStevenBooking]

 

 

(Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish).

Just when you think W2BTD is the undisputed king of stupid comments, a new challenger appears.

 

 

This adds nothing to the conversation except a personal insult, which is really not the tenor of this place.

 

It's an astoundingly idiotic thing to say. It's right up there with Mr. "You're making me personally insult these wrestlers!" and why anyone should engage in a discussion with someone who has the same opinions as a 13 year old GameFAQs user is beyond me. It's better to point out the stupidity and move on.

 

Also, personal insults aren't the tenor of this place? You're being called an anti-Semite in the Punk podcast thread.

[Shining Wiz]

 

 

 

(Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish).

Just when you think W2BTD is the undisputed king of stupid comments, a new challenger appears.

 

 

This adds nothing to the conversation except a personal insult, which is really not the tenor of this place.

 

It's an astoundingly idiotic thing to say. It's right up there with Mr. "You're making me personally insult these wrestlers!" and why anyone should engage in a discussion with someone who has the same opinions as a 13 year old GameFAQs user is beyond me. It's better to point out the stupidity and move on.

 

 

 

 

There....I fixed that last part for you.

[BillThompson]

 

 

 

(Paige is basically done at this point career wise at 21 ish).

Just when you think W2BTD is the undisputed king of stupid comments, a new challenger appears.

 

 

This adds nothing to the conversation except a personal insult, which is really not the tenor of this place.

 

It's an astoundingly idiotic thing to say. It's right up there with Mr. "You're making me personally insult these wrestlers!" and why anyone should engage in a discussion with someone who has the same opinions as a 13 year old GameFAQs user is beyond me. It's better to point out the stupidity and move on.

 

Also, personal insults aren't the tenor of this place? You're being called an anti-Semite in the Punk podcast thread.

 

 

No one called me an anti-semite in the Punk thread. Even if they did that too would be something that I personally don;t think of when I think of PWO. This is a place full of diverse opinions where people hash out those opinions in interesting discussions. If you want to personally insult people that's not the modus operandi of discussion here, and if it is then I won't be sticking around, I assure you.