Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

What's wrong with current WWE?

Recommended Posts

Dean Ambrose's selling wouldn't make my top 100 list for things wrong with current WWE.



This comment was in the Dean Ambrose thread but it got me to thinking...


What is wrong with the WWE?


Make your list here. If you can make a list of 100 things, you get a gold star.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I can list 100, but I have a few things that I would assert are hampering WWE right now:


TV production: Shaky cam/excessive camera switching/zooming in and out make it look dated like a 90s MTV show, not to mention tending to cause nausea in viewers.


Security blanket booking: For a company that on one hand will ignore fans when they get behind a guy they didn't intend to get over, they sure panic quickly if there's one less John Cena shirt sold after a loss.


Brand uber alles: Putting the company above the wrestlers may soothe Vince's ego to keep someone he created becoming a big star outside of the company, but because they de-emphasized making individual stars there hasn't been anyone who moves the needle since Cena became a top level guy 10 odd years ago.


Spending time and effort making NXT a touring brand instead of the developmental group it's supposed to be is something that might be a bigger issue than we realize right now. It doesn't matter for guys like Joe and Balor, but nearly everyone else down there now needs to be spending more time learning instead of running around the country so WWE can wave their dicks at ROH.


This may be tied in to my first topic about TV production, but stuff like "no one can look at the camera" in backstage promos and that thing where they keep the camera on someone way too long at the end of a backstage promo always come off to me like they're trying to do a SNL skit making fun of bad soap opera acting. The over scripting doesn't bother me as much as it does others, but man does this "we make movies" concept make nearly everyone involved look like geeks.


Over reliance on stars from the past: Wrestlemania is at the point where it's a legit question if they can fill a stadium unless they bring back someone from the Attitude Era. Not to mention when they do, they are never put under the same conditions as the current stars (except when Cena was allowed to go toe to toe with Rock on promos) and it only serves to make the current roster look like geeks.



The only other thing I can think of is how for most of WWE's history there were always multiple levels on the roster. Main eventers, Upper mid card guys who won more than they lost, mid-carders who usually went around 50-50, and the low card/jobbers. Now you have a handful of top guys, and the rest are interchangeable parts. Now that might change since they put effort into rehabbing the US/IC belts, but for now it's a problem.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with all of the above.


Stop and start storylines/lack of long-term planning. - Makes it meaningless to commit to watching. Also, because of so many PPV's and TV to fill, storylines are fill of filler.


3-Hour Raws - I'm never going to rematch any raw from the past 3 years on the Network because every 3-Hour Raw is full of dead spots and is a chore, no matter how good one match or the main event angle may be.


Raw/PPV Arena Setup - The product has never looked so homogenized. Remember when PPV's each had their own theme or style? Cool things set up in the entrance way? WCW was especially good at this.


Lack of evolving - Raw 5 years ago would be remarkably similar to Raw today if you rewatch. Kofi Kingston, Wade Barrett, Dolph Ziggler, etc have all been in WWE without leaving for longer than guys like Big Bossman, Jake Roberts, Rick Rude, etc... and yet they don't come off as major players IMO. The announcing, camera angles, guys on top rarely change. Can't choose another 5 year period in WWE history (post-National Expansion) where there was such little change in everything.


Announcers - Suck and I'll never take Michael Cole seriously.


HHH/Steph as characters - There's never an extended period where they get their comeuppance or "show ass". Vince used to lose battles all the time on Raw. HHH and Steph rarely do and if they do they usually don't completely lose or at least get their heat back for the next 3-4 weeks afterwards. They also talk down to other performers on the show more than Vince ever did without retribution. Steph's den mother act with the divas makes them look lame. Seth Rollins (or any champ) should continually have their balls cut off by the authority, no matter what their "character" is suppose to be.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameras catching moments backstage and the wrestlers not realizing it.


Running matches on TV over and over again and then trying to put them on ppv.


No consequences to winning or losing.


No opponents for El Torito to face.


Mentioned above, but it really bugs me that there is no true hierarchy in place, besides Cena above everyone else.


TV needs more jobber matches, more six mans, more music videos, more event centers, more 24/7 type hype stuff for big shows.


I really hate having matches announced during the show. By the time Raw ends I should know the main event and who will be wrestling next week.


Almost no match is a big deal, because they all have been done before. If they are new, they just throw it on television with no anticipation.


Smackdown. What is it supposed to be? It's like a continuation of Raw, but with no consequences. They can have the World Champ face the number one contender and nobody will even notice, because it's on Smackdown.


Pasts being erased. It's very rare that something that happened before this current month is brought up again.


The term divas and it being different than what the male wrestlers are called.


The term superstars, nobody calls them that. Let's move on.


A heel authority. It just doens't make any sense that the people in charge would be doing things to piss of their top talent like that.


They need to slow down on finisher kick outs, because it's getting out of hand and making finishers mean nothing.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting that I was just listening to Big Show on Jericho's podcast and the issue of "wrestlers aren't allowed to look into the camera" was brought up. Both agreed with Vince's policy and said that WCW guys constantly looking into the camera and hamming it up made the company seem low rent. I'm inclined to agree with them

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like guys hamming it up for the cameras during their entrances, that's one thing, though I'm not sure I agree that it's a problem. Not letting guys look into the camera when they're cutting a promo is a whole other issue and, in my view, greatly diminishes the impact that promos can have.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep expecting it to be something it's not, never has been and never will be.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep expecting it to be something it's not, never has been and never will be.

Not sure if you're making a salient point here or saying you disagree with what has been posted so far or what. If you disagree with the points in this thread then let's hear it and be specific.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate how most programs are about WWE itself (its history and the thrill of performing on the stage of such a successful company) instead of some universal theme with a semi-relatable issue there at the core. Everyone on Tough Enough is cutting terrible promos about how they're so passionate and how much they want to be there. Well, no shit. We're creatures of free will, and as far as I know, WWE isn't putting hoods on people, throwing them in the trunk and dropping them off at gunpoint at Full Sail University. I mean, I get having to clarify that since we see televised moments multiple times a week where Michael Cole bathes himself in the holy water of WWE buzzwords while Lawler and JBL smile with every bit the sincerity of a prisoner of war in a propaganda video. But I still don't think that clarification is necessary.


Most entrance music lyrics seem to be some variant on the idea that it's that wrestler's specific chance to shine, it's their time and they cannot be stopped. Seriously, if you applied the lyrics to the Perfect Strangers sitcom theme or Starship's "Nothin's Gonna Stop Us Now" against a nu-metal track, would anyone even notice? It's fucking postmodernism on steroids, and if you find three words that more accurately describe WWE than *that*, come to Chicago and I will you buy you a dinner and drinks. I won't even expect you to put out. Anyway, there are exceptions to that, obviously. The company is run by a sheltered 70-year-old billionaire who lusts after his daughter and has a drug problem, and as a result, he has a great rapport with the devil, to the point that he knows his favorite demon. Randy Orton is called a "Viper" not by fans who think he resembles a Viper or even by the wrestler himself who envisions his character that way, but instead by the same megalomaniac CEO. He even does what the voices in his head tell him to do, according to his entrance music. It has all the substance of a Hot Topic t-shirt.


Motivations that don't involve having one's time or accomplishing dreams are all too rare. I suppose that is because WWE is so busy praying at the altar of their own bloated sense of self-importance, giving little time to create feuds centered around guys who hate each other (and are even allowed to use that word!) fighting for money, championships and women. Winning wouldn't mean accomplishing some overbearing, xeroxed-from-Shawn-Michaels childhood dream, and the journey may not play as a Lifetime movie of the week or WWE Network feel-good documentary. You used to have the guys that were there to make money, those who just liked hurting people where this gave them a legal outlet and those who wanted to win a title simply because they hated the current champion and know how much it would crush him to be dethroned. There's a place for all of it, of course, and the desire to have one's time and accomplish dreams is a noble goal. But it doesn't have to be the only one.


I remember when I first really started going online regularly in 1998. There were two successful wrestling companies at the time, although WCW was on the brink of an inevitable decline. And people just ripped WCW booking to shreds, unapologetically and without pulling punches. WCW deserved it. Keep in mind that we didn't know the consequences of their stupidity yet. We only knew that it made for a shitty wrestling show. Somewhere along the way, fans were beaten into such a point of submission that a teleporting cult leader who cuts promos with lines that would embarrass Jewel doesn't draw nearly the same levels of vitriol. But now, conventional wisdom is that it doesn't matter so much, because WWE will still be successful. We didn't know WCW's bad decisions were going to be so catastrophic in 1998, but we still had a call to arms because it made for a shitty wrestling show. Now, fans are so numb that they can't even muster enough passion to make a huge issue out of this crap, so they just point to WWE's continued existence as proof that it's not that bad. They either watch with blinders on or have switched the focus of their fandom to obsessing over the business side. Fans don't care enough to hold WWE's feet to the fire every week, even when it's proven that in rare cases where they do, Daniel Bryan ends up the WWE World Champion after beating all of Evolution by himself in one night at Wrestlemania.


We need a heel like we need water, someone to fire us up by pointing out how lame we are. But WWE has a pay structure where it's financial suicide to really go all out being a heel, since so much income is derived from merchandise, and who wants to wear t-shirts of someone they don't like? And even if they didn't have that set-up, they have become the most risk averse company perhaps in modern times. Their ideal heel is someone who doesn't make anyone mad.


The sad part is that they wouldn't have to placate sponsors and Wall Street to the ridiculous degree they do if they would simply focus on making their creative great and get people excited about what they show us every week. But they've lost so many fans that they'd be in the red big time if they were left to only rely on live gates and Network subs to make money. I don't think they should avoid other revenue streams, and I don't even fault them for it. But the more revenue streams a company has, the less what its fans want actually has to matter. We've always gotten Vince's moral vision to a degree, but now we're getting a McMahonifesto. There are no checks and balances in the WWE Universe and sadly, I'm not sure how that changes.


Oh yeah, but RAW is three hours now. How could I forget? It's a three hour show. A THREE HOUR SHOW. They have so much television time to fill. I like how this assumes that when RAW was two hours, WWE Creative was clicking on all cylinders and that these problems are something new, just like it somehow tricks people into thinking NXT is good because it's short, even though it's filled with the same opening dueling promo crap, characters without a strong hook and matches where people just kick out of stuff over and over. These problems have been there for 15 years.


I don't root for WWE's demise. But I do root for them to be forced out of their comfort zone through some type of major challenge, one that requires them to re-think every aspect of their presentation from the bottom-up. But as I type that, I know some apologist wants to tell me WWE is going to be fine because of their TV rights deals, not realizing they're only proving my point.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a heel like we need water, someone to fire us up by pointing out how lame we are. But WWE has a pay structure where it's financial suicide to really go all out being a heel, since so much income is derived from merchandise, and who wants to wear t-shirts of someone they don't like? And even if they didn't have that set-up, they have become the most risk averse company perhaps in modern times. Their ideal heel is someone who doesn't make anyone mad.


One real takeaway I had from watching the AWA 80s set was that in 80-83 or so, there seemed to be a real fear of letting the heels get heat in the arenas in any meaningful way. It was striking. That could have been selection bias but I watched some TV as well.


When you combine that with the idea of bringing in old timers to pop houses, it's a fun little comparison.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripes with the company are endless, in fantasy booking “Here’s how I’d book/direct it” kind of ways. But instead of giving point-by-point critiques of TV every week, I’ve become one of those fans who cancelled his network subscription and just watches PPVs. Moreover, I try to watch them with a grain of salt and laugh it off when I see someone as shitty as 2015 Taker being made the main event of Summerslam. It’s much easier, I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything, and it’s far less of a time commitment, esp. for something I wasn’t enjoying. There’s more than enough old wrestling on TV that I enjoy far more, and to Goc’s point - that old stuff is what I want wrestling to be, rather than placing old standards on today’s WWE. (That’s not to say WWE shouldn’t learn from the past, or that they never produce anything great today: it’s just that I can’t stress over it anymore.)

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet: from the way that the McMahons talk about talent - and the way they book TV - it seems like they don’t really like or respect very much of their current roster. It probably has a lot to do with Vince getting older and wishing the business was more like what it was during glory days, but he just doesn’t like this batch of guys on any personal or professional level. For whatever reasons, the bookers seem to think that most of these workers lack “star” power or whatever it is that Vince and co. are looking for. (The sad irony being that such "star" power would be exhibited only by going off-script from what's being asked of you.) Vince has recently said that he views the future as being built around Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, and Wyatt. Which would be fine, if the 90% of your employees were offered any direction or career opportunities whatsoever.

Ideally, you’d just fire all these people who you consider lost causes. Save money, give your Slaters and Fandangos and Sandows a fresh start elsewhere, and give the salary you were paying them to your new projects: Corbin or Scott Dawson or Bailey or whoever. Only Vince has become the greedy kid who wants the toys he never plays with to remain on his shelf. Part of monopolizing the business is that you don’t want Ziggler to go be of use to anyone else, even if “anyone else” is a company like ROH or New Japan who pose absolutely no real threat to you. So you give these guys just enough to stay, and you remind them that there’s no real competition. And you instill enough fear for job security that most guys become compliant. And you hire subservient types who’ll buy into the office mentality and amuse/behave themselves, without getting all CM Punk about it. (And believe me, I’m no allegiant mark to Punk: he’s just an example of the type of prima donna they’re trying to extinguish from day one of Developmental.)

WWE has become so tenacious about quelling any potential #2 competitor from getting off the ground, that they’re willing to damage themselves (listless booking, no long-term direction, no pushes, painfully repetitive and insignificant TV) in the name of absolute control. Here we are talking about why there are no faces, or heels, or feuds in this company. At the risk of being lofty: a lot of it comes down to corporate America. Within that structure, being an individual isn't rewarded. Personal pride and devotion to your own unique cause isn't rewarded. At some point wrestling stopped being a collaborative circus and became not just a corporation, but a Corporate Ministry. We all know why it happened. The usual reasons for why things stop being fun: money and power got in the way.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with the WWE (in no particular order). I can only come up with 40 this morning and some of this is pretty nitpicky. Maybe I will think of more later.



  1. Booking that feels like it is only planned for the next three – four weeks.
  2. Booking themselves into a corner (ex. Reigns vs Wyatt, neither should lose right now
  3. Weak looking champion
  4. No freedom for wrestlers/overly contrived scripting (probably my number 1)
  5. Too much TV time making for too much pointless wrestling and an overall disinterest in making everything meaningful
  6. Inept booking (lately) of the hottest commodity in wrestling (brock)
  7. Racism
  8. Sexism
  9. Branding (superstars and divas)
  10. Company Ego (ex. Sting being brought in just to lose to HHH)
  11. Overemphasis on revising history
  12. JBL’s getting sort of tired in his role (I liked him at first)
  13. Their enthusiastic love for HBK and insistence on calling him the best ever.
  14. Lack of new and creative storylines with nuance. We kind of get the same recycled stuff and they depend on the performers to save it
  15. Insistence on beating the audience over the head with what they are trying to do/leaving nothing open for interpretation and limiting their own flexibility.
  16. HHH’s periodic lectures to the internet.
  17. Tough Enough… all of it.
  18. Making the women’s division second to a reality show (they are MAYBE coming out of this, but I’ll believe it when I see SUSTAINED attention to fixing it.
  19. Continued reliance on stars of the past and not enough energy put into making stars for the future.
  20. Overly produced shows that still somehow miss action on TV.
  21. No squash matches
  22. No strategic use of DQs and count outs
  23. Too many people killing each other’s finishers
  24. WWE networks interface (I don’t want to scroll through every pre and post show interview to browse the wm section.
  25. An Inconsistent (at best) tag team division, no sustained effort to make the tag titles matter
  26. The hideousness of those tag team titles, aesthetically
  27. Stardust
  28. Not enough managers who can help build matches and feuds as well as add nuance to the stories.
  29. Use of the Hall of Fame as a political and history making tool
  30. Kane
  31. Not capitalizing more on Big Show’s most entertaining attribute being that he knows people want him to retire and he doesn’t care.
  32. The lack of explanation as to weather the Bellas are heels or faces and why they are back together (I may have missed this on total divas or something since I don’t watch)/a general lack of explanation for these sorts of things.
  33. Too many gimmick ppvs
  34. Too many gimmick matches (especially ladder matches)
  35. Too much talk of and attempts to create contrived “wrestlemania moments”
  36. Kind of tired of the company’s current aesthetic. It seems time for a small change.
  37. WWE.com… just most of it.
  38. No real distinction in levels of the roster/lines a bit too blurry
  39. Their refusal to use Sandow in any substantial way.
  40. Too many sort of tired characters that kind of wander aimlessly until they book themselves into a corner (Orton comes to mind right away)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to add, people got it covered. I enjoy angry Loss, complete with swearing, typos and all.


Parties hit the core of their problems on the head - it doesn't seem like they like their full time roster very much. It's a constant uphill struggle.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Play-by-play doesn't talk about matches

2. Colour commentator is bland

3. Sucky live crowds

4. Accumulative "atmosphere" of 1, 2 and 3.

5. Scripted promos

6. Terrible acting as a result of 5.

7. Lack of promo ability of stars regardless of 5 and 6.

8. Wrestlers not allowed to be themselves.

9. Wrestlers being called "Superstars".

10. Wrestling being called "Sports Entertainment".

11. Lack of star power.

12. Too many star vs. star matches.

13. Not enough jobbers.

14. No sense of hierarchy.

15. Parity booking.

16. Short-termist booking.

17. No sense of direction.

18. Wrestlers overexposed.

19. Raw too long.

20. Too many PPVs.

21. Tag titles don't mean anything.

22. Tag teams don't stay together long enough.

23. Every single thing that gets over organically is killed by being turned into a catchphrase and then commentators overselling it. (see "Suplex City, "Yes!")

24. Babyfaces aren't over.

25. Heels aren't booed.

26. Workers don't know how to do transitions.

27. Workers don't know how to do a finish that isn't false finish spam.

28. Matches have poor psychology as a result of 26 and 27.

29. Character work involves staring pensively into the camera.

30. Too many "pregnant pauses"

31. Workers are too self-conscious in general.

32. Every arena looks the same.

33. Product feels staid.

34. Heel authority figure trope is played out.

35. Big Show

36. Kane

37. Stupid multi-way matches on PPVs putting 7+ people in one match

38. Lack of blood

39. Awful comedy

40. Awful twitter shilling


Should I bother going on? I could get to 200, I reckon.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote about the "Three Very Real Problems That Face WWE" back in Late 2012 during the build to the Punk/Ryback match...and since literally nothing has changed since then, other than things probably getting worse, I guess I might as well just repost that:





I touched on this a bit already, but it bears repeating. It's stunning just how little thought and effort seems to go into these shows. Time was that giving a guy like Ryback a title shot would've been seen as a very simple and straightforward booking move, but nowadays, it feels like a master stroke of creative genius, because we've sunk to a level where finding a new challenger for a champion after he's disposed of him - even when other guys have been logically positioned as potential contenders - is actually considered too much effort for creative to handle. Let me put this into perspective: I've read people complaining about the Sheamus/Big Show feud. Now, I admit the build has been nothing to write home about, but I'm still excited about it for two reasons. One is that it looks like a really good match on paper. The other is that, before it was announced, I was pretty much just taking it for granted that they were going to run Sheamus/Del Rio again. I mean, I shouldn't have been expecting that, what with the fact that they've already had a million matches against each other, Del Rio lost them all, and there's no logical reason for him to still be challenging at this point. But on the other hand, that's exactly how they book title programs nowadays, so that's exactly what I expected. At least Sheamus/Show is a new match-up. We're lucky we got that much out of them. It almost makes me long for Vince Russo, who may not have good ideas, but at least had ideas. I'm not saying they need to be wildly experimentative. I'm usually the first to defend the use of very commonplace wrestling tropes because the whole reason they became commonplace was because they worked. But they've somehow sunk below even that. That doesn't work at all, and it never will. And when you look at the rest of the problems I list, you'll probably find this is behind most of them.


There's this whole talking point now that says "the wrestlers aren't what draws, the brand is", and what's really frustrating about it is that it's so obviously false, and yet WWE themselves clearly believe it. What's worse is that it probably didn't happen accidentally, either. A while back, TomK wrote this:

tomk, on Jan 14 2011, 03:44 PM, said:snapback.png

In the May 26, 2008 Observer, Meltzer wrote about drawing in the WWF:


Wrestling today is a huge entertainment brand event and it is the brand name, and not the wrestlers, who are the primary draw. SummerSlam tops 500,000 buys because it's SummerSlam. They did the same business last year without Hogan as they did the year before with Hogan wrestling Orton, so the days of any individual making a huge difference all by himself are over and I think that's a big part of the issues, because McMahon essentially told him that

Later in same issue he pointed out that in recent PPV when they had Cena work a match on the lower part of the card, you could see people leave after the Cena match.

Mcmahon has decided that no one should make a difference and yet Cena is the guy who makes a difference.

I think the conclusion is that at this point (for better or worse) that Mcmahon has decided that it is a better business move to coast on the brand name and not put all the eggs in one basket, not have one person anchor his promotion. But that said Cena is the one guy on the roster who they could build around. Loss’ statement about Cena’s period being short is accurate. He’s the one guy who they could anchor the promotion around, but the promotion would rather sail without an anchor.


Perhaps more importantly, he also wrote this:

tomk, on Mar 22 2012, 02:40 PM, said:snapback.png

Huh? These have always been the criticisms of Vince's product and this has always been Vince's dream from the start. He's taken wrestling out of the "smoke filled back rooms" and turned it into a modern corporate product. He's created a highly controled enviroment where management/the promotion means more than the interchangeable talent. This has been the goal he has been working toward his entire adult life.

I might argue that he probably wasn't consciously working towards it, because Vince is too much of an unstable coke fiend to be much of a long-term planner. But his more likely conscious plan of "how can I most easily gain constant access to cocaine and loose women?" dovetails very nicely into "how can I make my wrestling promotion be all about me?" And by God, he found a way.

And now, I'm going to roll out one of my most quoted pieces, which I wrote in the immediate aftermath of Mania 23, when I thought - and try not to laugh at this one - that wrestling was about to enter another boom period. Most of what I wrote in that post blew up in my face spectacularly, but this remains as true today as the day I wrote it:

S.L.L. saidsnapback.png

[John Cena]'s your Hogan/Austin-type company ace in this situation, whether people want to admit it or not. One thing that really has not yet happened with Cena that did happen with those guys is that the WWE has not really presented themselves as "The Cena Show". By this, I mean that Hogan and Austin both became the clear cut "main characters" of their shows, and everything on the show reflected them, what they believed, what they did, and what they represented.

When Hogan was the star, the WWF was all about being a live-action Saturday morning cartoon. Hulk Hogan was a real-life He-Man, only so kickass that he never turned back into Prince Adam. He was a proud Christian American, and he fought for what he believed in. To that end, he WWF presented patriotism and basic Christian values as the standard for morality. The other faces all became little Hogans: positive role models portrayed through broad, cartoony characters. The heels became anti-Hogans: classic cartoon bad guys, intensely immoral and often *GASP* foreigners who didn't care for the good ol' U.S. of A., again portrayed through broad cartoon-friendly gimmicks. It all was for the benefit of Hogan. He was the star, and the presentation of the show reflected that.

When Austin was the star, the WWF became something of - as Michael Cole used to say - an action/adventure series. Steve Austin was your classic anti-hero, with roots planted firmly in the wild west. He was deeply individualistic. He wanted to be who he was, and he didn't like when people tried to force him to be someone else - especially when that someone else was someone like Mr. McMahon. He wasn't evil, and he was more ammoral than immoral, he just wasn't going to play by somebody else's rules when he knew they were wrong. This made him gruff and unwilling to trust anybody, but he was still clearly good. He drank beer and gave people the finger and otherwise lashed out to show he wasn't going to be held back by anyone. The WWF of this era was all about standing up for yourself, and the importance of being free to be an individual. The other faces all become little Austins: characters who refused to conform to the demands of a heartless society, and became themselves, often represented through a distrust of authority and breaking "The Man"'s rules to show they didn't control them. The heels became anti-Austins: conformists whose "moral" behavior mask their true immoral nature, often representing skewed versions of traditional virtues, or characters otherwise bound to the control of society. It was all for the benefit of Austin. He was the star, and the presentation of the show reflected that.

But this hasn't happened with Cena. He's presented as the top guy. It's not like he's a Chris Benoit-type undercard champ. But the show doesn't reflect him as the star, and when you have a star that big, that's usually what happens.

Yet, five years later, it still hasn't happened, and at this point, I think I can safely say it never will. You can understand why I got everything else in that post wrong. WWE was handed a new boom period on a silver platter. I did not consider the possibility that they would turn it down.

It's too bad. I probably would've really liked The Cena Show. I realize, of course, that not everyone feels that way, but whether you like Cena or not, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that throughout his run on top, he has been booked terribly, and personally, I read that as a desire by the company to not have a big star wrestler on their regular roster by any means possible. Part of me wants to take a conspiratorial bent with it. Part of me feels like when Triple H failed to become a Hogan/Austin/Rock-level star, he decided that "well, I'm clearly the best, so if I can't be a huge star, I guess nobody else should be, either". That's a childishly simplistic way of looking at things, obviously, but again, it dovetails nicely into the whole "it's the brand, not the wrestlers" thing, especially as he shifts towards a primarily backstage role.

But like I said, the idea is obvious bullshit. There is no brand without the wrestlers. The fact that they've yet to run a wrestling-free PPV despite it being all about the brand should tell you something. The fact that they dig retirees and part-timers out of the mothballs to headline WrestleMania because they spent the rest of the year not caring about their roster should tell you even more. They've trained viewers to not care about the current crop of superstars, and people respond to that by tuning out.


I love The Rock. Honestly, I do. But when he announced that he would challenge for the WWE Title at the Rumble, it really did hammer home how little anything in this company matters right now. I said my piece on that particular incident a while ago, but it really is emblematic of how WWE presents their shows nowadays. I'm reminded of a No DQ match between Rey Mysterio and Jack Swagger in 2010. That was my WWE MOTY that year, but if any of you have forgotten about it - or didn't realize it had happened in the first place - I wouldn't be surprised. As Phil Schneider noted:


I remember really digging this, it is kind of a victim of the 2010 style of wrestling TV, if a crazy around the arena brawl out into traffic ending in the ocean happened in Mid-Atlantic in 1983 it would be a legendary moment in wrestling history. Here it was kind of forgotten after a week.

Nothing is presented as important. Nothing that happens is worth remembering, even when it is. Don't invest emotionally in this wrestler. We'll forget about him in a few weeks. Don't get excited about this match or this angle. They won't lead anywhere. Don't think of titles as something important. The important thing is that The Rock is challenging for it, and he's important, because he was a big star when we were important. But we're not important anymore. Pay us no mind.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest heel in the WWE is the company itself. I guess it's not about drawing heel heat anymore but trolling your fan base because you dont agree with them or because they like the "wrong" wrestlers. This is maybe the biggest disconnect between a company and its fans in history. I remember Loss saying that the underlying theme of every WWE TV show is that Hunter and Steph are trying to make the worst show possible for the fans and John Cena and his buddies are trying to save us from that

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Should I bother going on? I could get to 200, I reckon.

I don't think you can. Prove it!!!


Well can you demonstrate something n****?

I'd rather not.




That would be more time thinking and writing about modern WWE than it deserves. I'd prefer to spend my time doing that about wrestling I actually enjoy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be more time thinking and writing about modern WWE than it deserves. I'd prefer to spend my time doing that about wrestling I actually enjoy.



Like shootsyle ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In no specific order, but numbered for sake of keeping count -

1. No real heels who cheat or take shortcuts or do anything sneaky

2. No squash matches to make us anticipate Big Wrestler A vs. Big Wrestler B

3. No "dream matches" left because everyone's fought everyone a dozen times on TV already

4. No differentiation between the way shows are produced

5. The announcers

6. The 20-minute opening segment promos

7. 3-hour RAWs

8. No reason to watch any other TV programming

9. No "ladder" for workers to climb (i.e, trading meaningless wins and losses)

10. The ridiculous amount of recycled gimmicks

11. Most matches being "you do your shit/I do my shit" instead of telling logical stories with momentum shifts

12. 99% of entrance themes

13. Overexposure and annual heel/face turns for everyone but John Cena

14. The current Authority storyline offering nothing new to the formula

15. "Smart" fans "hijacking" shows with "smart chants" instead of just booing/cheering


That's all I got for now, but I'm sure I could think of more with more time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now