Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

<Split> The decline of Vince McMahon


JerryvonKramer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"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.

 

Jericho and Angle have been mentioned, people were ready for them to become headliners. Even when Angle had the belt he was about 5th down the pecking order.

 

One thing that doesn't get mentioned all that often was WM2000. Sure there was some good matches that highlighted new talent, but the one thing that I don't see mentioned a lot is that it seemed a lot of people walked away from the event with a bad taste in their mouth. That was due to excessive McMahons in the main but also due to the fact that a heel went over on the biggest stage of the year. Fans had been conditioned for the past 15 years that the hero wins at Mania, and to see a swerve and the heel go over took the steam out for a lot of people. Then they made an even bigger mistake in the main the next year with Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

I'd agree with this. The Daniel Bryan ascendency was very fresh, but as soon as he got to the main event scene, his promos started sounding like Cena outtakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still havent got why they had to have Brock end the streak let alone win the title. Especially after be balled and pissed off alot of people who put him over during his first run. They seem to be thinking Roman Reigns is the next big Megastar who is the one guy who can take Lesnar down which Im not sold on.

 

If logically they are thinking keeping the belt on him till mania then its a terrible idea. Because of his contract he cant appear every week and a match on Raw is going to out of the question even though he needs to be on Raw. I just felt so sorry for John Cena in September having to do all the work for the feud because of Lesnars contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I have said this before here or not:

 

I love Brock Lesnar. I think he's an awesome special attraction. Whenever his music hits, you know shit is about to go down. Him being protected & not being subjected to over-exposure is a good thing. Much like André the Giant to me. He's Godzilla.

 

That's not someone that 1. needs the title or 2. should have the title. Especially when he appears so seldomly.

 

Now, granted, I don't think that the champion needs to be on every show. Brock should not be on every RAW just because he's WWE World Heavyweight Champion. Just like Hulk Hogan wasn't. However, he should certainly be on the big shows. Not being there for Survivor Series is pretty unacceptable.

 

If Brock is treated as this monster, of this caliber (pretty much the only guy on the roster that seems to be above John Cena) -- he should be above the belt. Much like, for awhile, The Undertaker at Wrestlemania was. Now Brock is even above The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Brock could have been WWE's Bill Goldberg: just the unstoppable juggernaut that lower card guys and main eventers alike could not topple.

 

I think WWE made some weird decisions with him since his comeback. Including his first match back, at Extreme Rules, where he lost to John Cena. That still doesn't make any sense. Then his feud with Triple H, which was pretty bad. Him going over The Undertaker & ending the Streak also didn't make any sense as the last person that needed that rub was him. It also pretty much killed, in my opinion, any interest in seeing The Undertaker at Wrestlemania anymore. Then Brock was gone pretty much the whole time after Wrestlemania, so they could not even capitalize on his win. So they blew a 20+ year streak on a guy that didn't need it that then didn't use it. Mind-boggling. There's two things I think WWE did pretty well with Brock: 1. when he came out & killed Vince McMahon when Vince was going to fire Paul Heyman. That seemed like a big deal. That whole segment was great to me. 2. When Brock Lesnar demolished John Cena. The 16 German Suplexes match. Dismantling the top dog in that fashion is going to make you seem like an enormous deal.

 

If Brock didn't have the title & just every other month or every third month had his music hit for him to come out & kill someone, he would still feel special & it would always be an "oh shit!" moment. Now WWE seems like they're in a no-win situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have come up with a storyline reason he wouldn't be on at least every big show. As it stands, it's going to be obvious to everyone in his last match that Brock is just doing a job.

Agreed. I actually *like* that he's not wrestling much, but I think they should still be airing video packages, "live via satellite" interviews, and such to remind people who the champ is and why he's important. It's so lazy of them that since they can't book him for shows they just don't acknowledge him at all.

 

It also really annoys me that they didn't expend one or two of his contracted dates to have him defend against someone up-and-coming. If his current run ends with him only having matches against Cena, Taker, and HHH then they'll have really missed an opportunity to have him elevate some guys. Guys like Ambrose, Rollins, and Wyatt could really benefit from a PPV match with him even if they lose. Just hanging with Brock in a match will make a guy look like a big deal IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brock Lesnar should absolutely be kept as a special attraction. Even saying that, he has been kept off television far too much for a champion. Often he is barely mentioned. They could at least have vignettes and interviews and updates.

 

And to think they are going to run Cena vs Lesnar for the FOURTH time since he returned is absurd. It is either that are they now regret getting themselves into this situation and are having Rollins win at TLC to save them doing the match again. The former is an amazingly narrow use of a wrestler who is only going to be around for a short time - they should be running every special match they have with him before he leaves. The latter just shows the awful short-termism of WWE booking.

 

Agree that they should be elevating other guys by putting them in the ring with him. A competitive squash with Dolph Ziggler, a short, violent brawl with Dean Ambrose, a hoss vs hoss match against Sheamus. A match with Randy Orton would probably pop a decent buyrate, whatever that means in the era of the network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem w/ that idea is Brock costs a lot of money per appearance. Which, if you want to say was a stupid decision or bad negotiating by the WWE, I'll happily agree with you.

 

But yeah, even if Brock can't be on TV often due to his contract, Heyman should be on, shit-talking people and setting up Brock's next program and/or appearance. And when Brock shows up on RAW, even if he's not in matches, he should be destroying people (ie. see his destruction of Miz).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I have said this before here or not:

 

I love Brock Lesnar. I think he's an awesome special attraction. Whenever his music hits, you know shit is about to go down. Him being protected & not being subjected to over-exposure is a good thing. Much like André the Giant to me. He's Godzilla.

 

That's not someone that 1. needs the title or 2. should have the title. Especially when he appears so seldomly.

 

Now, granted, I don't think that the champion needs to be on every show. Brock should not be on every RAW just because he's WWE World Heavyweight Champion. Just like Hulk Hogan wasn't. However, he should certainly be on the big shows. Not being there for Survivor Series is pretty unacceptable.

 

If Brock is treated as this monster, of this caliber (pretty much the only guy on the roster that seems to be above John Cena) -- he should be above the belt. Much like, for awhile, The Undertaker at Wrestlemania was. Now Brock is even above The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Brock could have been WWE's Bill Goldberg: just the unstoppable juggernaut that lower card guys and main eventers alike could not topple.

 

I think WWE made some weird decisions with him since his comeback. Including his first match back, at Extreme Rules, where he lost to John Cena. That still doesn't make any sense. Then his feud with Triple H, which was pretty bad. Him going over The Undertaker & ending the Streak also didn't make any sense as the last person that needed that rub was him. It also pretty much killed, in my opinion, any interest in seeing The Undertaker at Wrestlemania anymore. Then Brock was gone pretty much the whole time after Wrestlemania, so they could not even capitalize on his win. So they blew a 20+ year streak on a guy that didn't need it that then didn't use it. Mind-boggling. There's two things I think WWE did pretty well with Brock: 1. when he came out & killed Vince McMahon when Vince was going to fire Paul Heyman. That seemed like a big deal. That whole segment was great to me. 2. When Brock Lesnar demolished John Cena. The 16 German Suplexes match. Dismantling the top dog in that fashion is going to make you seem like an enormous deal.

 

If Brock didn't have the title & just every other month or every third month had his music hit for him to come out & kill someone, he would still feel special & it would always be an "oh shit!" moment. Now WWE seems like they're in a no-win situation.

 

The main problem I have with Brock is that the WWE Championship hasent been defended since September and we are in December now and that is quite unacceptable that we have had 2 PPVs and not had a World Title match. Now granted we dont have a 30 day title defense limit but its just off not having a World title match on a PPV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's how they feel, then the Chamber should not be in-between Rumble & 'Mania, in my opinion.

 

Less to do with how they feel and more what the buyrates have shown for years now. The February 2015 PPV is the awfully-named Fast Lane now though. EC will presumably resurface elsewhere in the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a fascinating tidbit in the latest WON. I'll drop it here because I think it's worth discussing in the context of this thread:

 

 

 

For the first time, historically, there is proof that streaming is affecting the volume of television viewing. For years people have talked about it, but the average time spent in front of traditional television had stayed steady or even grown. However, television viewing time, on average, over the past year has dropped four percent. The average American watches four hours and 32 minutes of television daily. Last year that average was four hours and 43 minutes. Even factoring in the rise of Netflix, Hulu and other streaming services, the average American watches 20 minutes of streaming content per day, up from 13 minutes one year ago at this time. So it’s still very one-sided. The gap is closing and will close more news year. I’ve read people predicting that this will be the end of traditional television, and who knows what the future will bring. Another point to note is that there has been a small number of people, the cord cutters, not as big as people make it out to be (the funny thing is it’s amazing how many people I know that fit into this category), and while this study didn’t factor them in, I’m guessing given the about a three percent drop in people who have eliminated cable, that if they take those people out of the mix, that may take into account the entire drop in at least the viewing of television. In the sense, the person who has cable is probably watching almost exactly the same amount of television, but the overall number is down from people who have dropped cable and satellite. And those same people may figure in at least some of the rise is streaming (although streaming viewership is going to be rising noticeably for the next several years, cord cutting or not, just as people get more used to it). But the movement in this direction, particularly among kids, who are the future, is a very significant business story. The key aspect of it and how it relates to wrestling and MMA is that its niche audience will become more important because it’ll be tougher to get new fans. The key to television in the past has been its ability to make new fans of people switching the dial and seeing something and getting into it. With specialized services, you are relying not on people finding it themselves, but word of mouth buzz among friends. But if cable constricts, ratings will decline and there won’t be people switching channels and finding what’s good on and watching, but the audience will be those who always watch as a pattern. In other words, the regular fan base will become more important and marketing to the casual audience will become more difficult than ever. And introducing a new product for mass consumption won’t have the barrier of needing to get on television, but it will be umpteen times harder to get anything but a cult audience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

loss brings up a great point there.

 

when i was living with my brother in columbus, we were among that group who completely ditched cable in favor of the internet. i also know quite a few others in the same boat...would venture this group is largely younger folks and will only grow over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use my television as my computer monitor & never watch TV. Anything I want to watch, including live sports, I can watch online. There's also the added bonus of not having to sit through ad breaks or having to pay for the channels you don't want because that's the only way to get the ones in the package that you do want. Yes, I would like TNT and ESPN so I can watch NBA...no, I don't want five Jesus channels that come with it for an additional $7/mo. Cable Companies will fuck you silly.

 

Oh the best was when I had a cable package - internet, phone & TV. I called to address an issue and her solution was to reset the modem...no wait don't do...*dial tone*

 

You know, cause resetting the modem also shuts off my phone. Fun times. Because no one is bright enough to have reset their modem as the jump before ever calling, right? "DID'JA TRY PLUGGIN' IT IN!?"

 

I have both Netflix & WWE Network. I'm doing good on having something to watch if I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the cord cutting part is both overrated and underrated at the same time. I think it's overrated in the way it's going to effect things in the next few years, but it's huge and underrated as the current generation of damn Millenials age into the core buying demographic and the demographic of tweens and kids who think of Youtubers as the biggest celebs in the world age up into having any buying power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

WWE Announces Record-Setting Thanksgiving Weekend Sales on WWEShop.com

On Black Friday, WWE recorded its single biggest online sales day ever, drawing a 44% increase in sales on WWEShop.com compared to last year’s record-setting day. WWE also broke records on Cyber Monday, with sales +32% year-over-year, making it the No 2. best-selling day on WWEShop.com ever.

WWEShop.com’s five-day holiday weekend saw sales +39% year-over-year.

WWE Superstar Dean Ambrose “Unstable” Hoodie Sweatshirt was the hottest seller, and the WWE Monopoly Board Game came in at No. 2.

 

Decline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...