Matt D Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 People keep talking as if/when Reigns beats HHH at Mania that will turn the crowd in his favor. HHH got a huge pop after he won the Royal Rumble in front of what people are calling a 'traveling smarky crowd'. Does anyone really believe that in front of the biggest traveling smarky crowd in WWE history, Roman Reigns is going to walk out with a big face reaction and get the same response on Raw the following night? The Mania crowd was into Reigns by the end of the match because of the performance he was putting on against Brock. That said, my tendency is to believe that HHH is going to undercut him. Past the Bryan match, history's really shown that to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 It's going to be just like Mania with Sting last year. HHH is going to need a lot of smoke and mirrors . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 People keep talking as if/when Reigns beats HHH at Mania that will turn the crowd in his favor. HHH got a huge pop after he won the Royal Rumble in front of what people are calling a 'traveling smarky crowd'. Does anyone really believe that in front of the biggest traveling smarky crowd in WWE history, Roman Reigns is going to walk out with a big face reaction and get the same response on Raw the following night?I guess a point I was making, implicitly, was that if Vince really wanted to get Reigns over, he shouldn't have reacted to those smark fans by changing his booking. Every time Roman doesn't go over, or falls foul of a swerve finish, he's empowering those fans. I'm saying he should ignore them and press on with putting Roman over. Look at Cena, despite smark hate, he is now accepted as the top guy and one who has had lots of great matches. He has a grudging respect even from the boo boys. This brings me to another question: Question for Jerry: Were Funk and Backlund ever getting negative reactions like Reigns was at last year's Rumble? It's all well and good two say that those to were booked like winners, whereas Reigns has been booked like a loser, but I can't help but wonder how much benefit of the doubt crowds gave the former two. As in, if Backlund was booed out of the building for the first few weeks of his run, do you really think Vince would've stuck with him? I genuinely don't know because I'm unfamiliar with their respective runs until Race as transitional champ (from Dory to Brisco) and I've seen a cage match between Backlund and Patterson (but not much else from him, until 1994). First thing, from what I understand Dory was kind of a tweener in 69. Whether he was booed or cheered would depend on the opponent and market. I imagine he was booed vs Wahoo but cheered vs The Sheik for example. Babyface in Amarillo but heel in Florida. Etc. The point for Muchnick wasn't so much crowd reaction but getting Dory accepted as a credible champ in every market. He was going to press ahead with that no matter what the fans did. For Bob, as far as I know, he was never rejected by fans until arguably 83 when he was in the singlet, but the point is that Billy Graham was far far more over in 77-78 and Senior ignored those fans and stuck to his guns. Let's say Bob got a lukewarm reaction in 78, theoretically, would it have stopped the program or got Senior to change the booking? No, he was pressing ahead with it no matter what, the crowd are led by him not the other way around. Smark fans, internet, blah blah, changes nothing, the company leads the direction, the promoter dictates who is going over. Vince must be getting soft or he has no faith in Roman, but whatever the case, he hasn't been booked strongly. Put him over and do it consistently. The smark fans have no choice eventually but to go along with it. Vince needs to BREAK them not pander to them. More he panders, more empowered and entitled they become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Portraying this solely as Vince responding and reacting to the fans misses a heck of a lot of what's actually going on and what's been going on for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Care to elaborate? 1926, 1976, 1996, 2016, the principles of EVENT management let alone pro wrestling promotion, don't change. You can't let fans dictate booking, it's weak and flaky. And it encourages the sort of thing we've seen at the last two Rumbles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 The best booker in the world today is George R R Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Care to elaborate? 1926, 1976, 1996, 2016, the principles of EVENT management let alone pro wrestling promotion, don't change. You can't let fans dictate booking, it's weak and flaky. And it encourages the sort of thing we've seen at the last two Rumbles. 1. Lack of competition. Vince won the war. 2. The current revenue structure does not punish failure in drawing like it has in years previous. 3. A desire NOT to make new stars that are bigger than the company after the way Brock left in 2004. WWE is the draw, not any specific wrestler. 4. Political Hit? Rollins as HHH's mortal avatar on earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 All that stuff means nothing cos the NWA ran a monopoly at the height of its power during Dory's run and Senior ran unopposed in the North East. What does competition or the lack of it change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 It changes levels of motivation, and lessens the consequences of failure. It also significantly lowers the bargaining power of individual wrestlers vs the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Kind of ironic when you consider that Vince brought about the paradigm of competition in wrestling in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Matt D hit it on the head with point 3. Jerry you want wrestling to be about big stars. You're a heel guy but you're smart enough to see WWE has traditionally been a babyface company. You correctly see the company as mediocre right now and you assume (correctly IMO) a huge solution would be to create a new transcendent babyface ala Bruno, Hulk or Austin. Then you argue Roman Reigns isn't that guy because of how he's booked. VINCE DOES NOT WANT HUGE STARS. He doesn't want anyone bigger than WWE, he doesn't want the company to be reliant on a single star or even a few stars. Because said star might leave him and he can't handle that situation anymore. He doesn't have the ability to create a new megastar because his values and beliefs are totally out of sync with society and has been for a decade plus. And Vince is too stubborn to change or move on. WWE today is the circus. It comes 1-2 times a year, you see it to see IT not any one act or star and you move on. That's what Vince wants, that won't change. It's not a failure of booking it's a decision to settle for mediocrity rather than excellence. Whether it's just desserts this happened to Vince or a tragedy is up to you. I think that if people HAD embraced Cena as the next megastar like Austin his push would have actually gone down. He'd have lost tons of matches and never gotten the sustained runs he's had but that could be an insane view with nothing to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 I've been a proponent of the "McMahons use 50/50 booking and other tricks to keep the brand bigger than any star" theory. But to say that Vince doesn't want huge stars requires us to "show our work", as Matt said. Are we then saying: - That the McMahons know damn well how to get a Reigns type of top star over, and intentionally aren't doing so, all in the name of "control"? - That they are so resentful of performers who've left that they would rather have "control" than compelling shows/household recognition/a hot product/more money and longterm stability? You get where I'm going with this. Many of us come on here and say that the McMahons should be booking the main roster as something more akin to our preferred wrestling of the past. And that the booking that we'd iike would have greater financial upside than what they're doing now. Fine: maybe not, maybe so, but I generally agree. But implicit in the (#3) theory above is the idea that the McMahons are well aware that better shows would likely make for a hotter product / more money, and yet choose not to book well (that they in fact consciously book mediocre shows) all in the name of avoiding another Brock/Punk walkout. I'm not saying that isn't possible. It's entirely possible. Senile tycoons often act against their best interest simply because they're stubborn and think they know better. It's a prevalent story in American business. And obtaining resigned subservience is sadly a large part of any corporate culture. But I think we need to be clear that if you buy this message board story that we keep telling each other (myself included), then we're saying that the McMahons are consciously choosing to make less money for themselves and their empire, all out of vengeful spite toward a guy who's now happily back under their wing (Brock) because they're voluntarily paying him an outrageous salary, and another guy who was kind of a prima donna and never a good fit for their business model to begin with (Punk). If that's the true state of affairs, then they will never have another boom period for as long as that policy is in place, and have consciously deemed that reality acceptable. Which is a pretty spicy conspiratorial meatball for us to be tossing around here. Is it true? Sure seems that way some days. But as I keep watching the last few years of WWE, I tend to think it's more a "banality of evil" problem. A mix of bad writers, bad executives, bad strategy. Not a political hit, but a shooting of one's self in the foot. Great tycoons sometimes lose their touch. Sometimes their lieutenants lose it for them. I just don't think Vince and co. are a bunch of evil geniuses intentionally producing a lousy show on purpose. I think they're a bunch of semi-evil idiots who are producing a lousy show out of a mix of incompetence, laziness, fear, poor strategy, and bad habits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Thankfully, we have a bearded anarchist who has made it one of his two goals this year to propagate insane but probably correct theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 I rather doubt that Vince is deliberately pursuing a strategy that he believes will be less profitable, if for no other reason than the fact that it'd be a pretty serious breach of fiduciary duty to his shareholders. I think it's far more likely that he's convinced himself that creating a situation where the brand is the draw and the performers are largely interchangeable cogs is Best For Business. After all, the human capacity for self-deception knows no limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Vince controls the shares. It's not about Brock leaving it's about a ton of stars leaving and Vince struggling for years to come back from that and not wanting to be put in that desperate a situation again. There are many creators who screw over their own fanbase out of spite. There's no way George Lucas wasn't aware that the fans hated Vader's pathetic NOOOOOOOOOOO at the end of Revenge of the Sith. And lo and behold he puts that exact same sound during probably fandom's favorite moment in Return of the Jedi's blu ray. He's trolling his audience. Vince has been doing the same. But do I think Vince COULD create another Rock or Austin and have another boom? No I don't think he could. Partly that's the writers and their in a bubble boss, partly that's the corporate culture and partly that's Vince being totally out of touch with modern culture (and I don't blame him at his age). I also don't think he wants another boom or needs it in the way he did in 84 and 98 however. So as suggested it's a combination of a lot of things. But the bottom line is that Vince wants WWE to be the star. You go to see WWE. You don't go to see wrestler X. That's the fundamental change of the last 15 years, it's yet another step to take wrestling away from sport (nobody goes to a Patriots game to see football, they go to see Tom Brady and co) and it's a recipe to stay afloat and mediocre. Vince in 84 would be disgusted to see what a wuss Vince 2016 is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 So as suggested it's a combination of a lot of things. But the bottom line is that Vince wants WWE to be the star. You go to see WWE. You don't go to see wrestler X. That's the fundamental change of the last 15 years, it's yet another step to take wrestling away from sport (nobody goes to a Patriots game to see football, they go to see Tom Brady and co) and it's a recipe to stay afloat and mediocre. Not disagreeing with your point about WWE, but the NFL is not the right counterexample. Of the major American sports, it's the least star-dependent. If anything, I think Vince could look to the NFL as a shining example of how to create financial security by emphasizing the product over the people who make it. Because fans eat up football no matter who's playing. (Don't get me wrong, stars help. They always help. But the NFL sees them as largely expendable.) The NBA is the ultimate star league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Hmmmmmmmmmm. As a New England resident, it would seem to me the way the team took off in popularity after being average for decades under Brady and Bellicheck makes me wonder about that. But that's another thread entirely. Agree about the NBA for sure though. Was watching a sixers game the other night and assuming tickets must be at 1985 prices given how few people seem to be going, even though they are terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eegah Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The NFL is definitely the strongest brand in American sports. No matter who gets injured or how inept the league office is viewerdship is always good. Fantasy football and betting have made things even better for them and in that sense you could point to stars having an impact. The Patriots have grown in popularity because they win. It happened with the Cowboys of the 90s, Niners of the 80s, Steelers in the 70s, so on and so on. People love winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Good last line and one that connects back to this very thread. Roman Reigns isn't a winner. He's not even a face who is defeated by cheating at the Rumble, well not really. I do think JVK might be right. Either there's a very civil Civil War in WWE right now over him and the booking reflects that or Vince has no faith in the guy. OR Vince has played a heel so long he's starting to book more like one without realizing it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Word coming out of Raw was how furious they were at what Rock did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 You mean with Lana? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Of course not. That was WWE sanctioned bullying. With the fans they had moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Rock telling them to F off again strikes me as the likely result if there's any attempt at punishment over something that trivial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 I can say I have never bought the idea that Vince doesn't want huge stars. He sure let Cena become one and has worked hard to maintain that. And Undertaker in some ways has peaked as a draw in the last few years when working a part-time schedule. And he's certainly booked Brock as a star. I think a more accurate description is that Vince has become increasingly nitpicky and overly critical of his roster as he's gotten older and more out of touch (possibly as his son-in-law, the king of "He's too this" and "He's too that" has gained influence), so now he sees wrestler flaws as reasons not to go all in instead of something to find a way to cleverly disguise. Everyone is expected to be able to do it all, and if that wasn't the case, Titus O'Neill would be a modern Dusty or JYD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 I hope you're wrong Loss. If you're right, this lasts another 30 years at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.