Saturday Night's Main Event

[Guest savagerulz]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the show, but it was a complete failure in its aim, which was to hype WrestleMania in front of viewers who hadn't watched wrestling in years.  A 3.2 rating suggests that not even all their regular viewers tuned in and that they drew little in the way of new viewers and so the show will ultimately do little to help the WrestleMania buy rate.  Wrestling being a mainstream fad was over years ago, this really shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Except ratings points are totally different for cable, and even between UPN and the "big" networks.

[sek69]

So I'm not allowed to disagree with your thoughts?

 

Sure you're allowed, there's just no need to be a dismissive asshat about it.

 

It's pretty sad that instead of countering my points you go OMG REVIEWS ARE THE SUCK, but I don't really expect better then you.

 

Right, because I have a history of just appearing in threads to troll people without backing up my points.

 

SNME got a bad rating, and while obviously the product bears part of the blame, you can't ignore the fact that there was a NCAA game on and that Saturday is the worst night for TV (everyone seems to remember that when it comes to TNA's ratings). WWE was looking at ratings death no matter what. Not to mention I didn't see any promotion for SNME other than during RAW or Smackdown. When you calculate the difference between network and cable ratings, that's pretty much who watched, the usual audience.

[The Thread Killer]

And I am not piling on sek but there is no way you can spin that number as a positive... at all.

I don't think sek is saying the rating is good. What I take from what he is saying that running a WWE show against March Madness will take away a lot of the WWE's desired demographic. Most males 18-30 are going to choose NCAA over WWE any day of the week.

 

If that show would have got a better rating if CBS had been showing reruns is a matter for speculation. I don't think that the NCAA running opposite WWE HELPED the rating, that's for sure. Then again, as other people pointed out, WWE lost to a movie and Cops as well. So maybe the rating would have been bad either way.

 

As far as the show goes, I see both sides of the argument.

 

I don't like Sports Entertainment. So I didn't even bother watching the show, because I knew ahead of time that if I was looking for wrestling, I'd be out of luck. I haven't heard anybody who liked the show argue that there was good wrestling on the show.

 

What I am hearing is that the show was entertaining. Which is fine if you like that kind of stuff. So if you like WWE, you would probably like this show. If you don't like WWE, this show wasn't going to make you like them any MORE, it would probably just confirm to you why you dislike them in the first place.

 

I saw Vince McMahon give an interview once where he said that they had discussed ways to have the WWE do their shows, and get rid of the ring. Vince Russo confirms that in his book. The titles are just props, and they would get rid of the ring if they could. Remember Vince's famous quote in Beyond The Mat?

 

"We make movies."

 

Anybody who tuned in last night expecting to see wrestling was bound to be disappointed. Anybody who tuned in wanting to see a slick produced Sports Entertainment show got what they wanted. It sounds that simple.

 

The WWE used this show as their chance to present the product that they want you to see. Not the product that the fans want to see. They say that they give the fans what they want, but they really don't. They let all sorts of outside factors, including Vince McMahon's own whims influence what they put on television. They have decided they want to present Sports Entertainment, and that's what you're going to get, dammit.

 

If that's what you wanted...or if that's what you will accept from them...that's what you got.

 

If you wanted wrestling, you would have been better off buying a ROH DVD, or even watching IMPACT instead.

[goodhelmet]

The only problem with that line of thinking Dave is that over the last year I have picked up about 15 comps worth of WWE TV with nothing but wrestling. On those comps are 5 minute matches, 10 minute matches, 15 minute matches, 30 minute matches, etc. If they wanted to, they could have shown wrestling... and quality wrestling at that. They chose not to. When I tuned in, I saw hardcore crap that, looking back, seemed like a clip right of 2001.

[Guest wnyxmcneal]

Sure you're allowed, there's just no need to be a dismissive asshat about it.

I wasn't, I was pointing out that no matter how you try and spin it, the ratings were poor.

 

Right, because I have a history of just appearing in threads to troll people without backing up my points.

Disagreeing with you is not trolling.

 

can't ignore the fact that there was a NCAA game on and that Saturday is the worst night for TV

The NCAA Tournament didn't do that well either, and the ratings were bad- for a Saturday.

 

WWE was looking at ratings death no matter what

They should not have expected to do worse then NBC usually does on Saturdays, or lose to the Sixth Sense.

 

When you calculate the difference between network and cable ratings, that's pretty much who watched, the usual audience.

I saw some coverage for it in entertainment magazines and the like. This should've done better.

[Loss]

I will say this, and it's not intended to be a WWE apology, but there is no reason that anyone who wants more wrestling and longer matches featuring quality workers shouldn't be able to find something in WWE for them. There's more that I don't like than I do like, but looking from my point of view:

 

Rey Misterio is better than anyone in the world.

 

MNM is the best tag team in wrestling.

 

Finlay and Benoit are two of the top five or ten in the world.

 

Randy Orton, Super Crazy, Gregory Helms and Psicosis are all better than anyone in TNA these days. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're better than anyone in TNA _in any environment_, but I'll take Randy Orton going against Super Crazy in a really strong 8-minute Smackdown match over any X-Division match I can think of.

 

Then, you have guys that are getting the opportunity to work with better talent that have shown that they're either capable of being carried, capable of being good when motivated (and they have been much of the time lately), or they're vastly improved, guys like JBL, Lashley, Mark Henry, Undertaker, Booker T, etc.

 

I've been watching a lot of CMLL this weekend and if 2006 is as good as 2005, there's no competition, as it's still the best wrestling anywhere by a long shot, but WWE should satisfy anyone's need for more wrestling with the names mentioned above. If it doesn't, I have to ask exactly what they're looking for.

 

Problems for WWE come for me with booking and presentation far more than the wrestling. That, and people tend to judge their opinion of the entire company on whatever HHH or Michaels or the McMahons are doing on RAW since that's the higher-profile show. Smackdown has the misfortune (read: benefit) of being thrown together hastily and being light on complicated angles that end up basic, logical and easy to follow more often than not. It's far more toned down typically than RAW, and it comes across much better as a result.

 

The weakness of Smackdown is that so much of it is inconsequential in the long run, and they've also run most of the Eddy Guerrero exploitation there as well, which has understandably turned a lot of people off. There's also the issue of a lot of embarassment, more so on RAW, but also on Smackdown, with stuff like the Boogeyman.

 

WWE still typically runs, as Goodhelmet pointed out, matches that run anywhere between 5 and 30 minutes on free TV on a fairly regular basis. Crash TV is mostly dead (although many other Russo ideas aren't). Undercard could be given more time and direction, but it's the main event that sells the show. With that, we can just hope for a main event scene that's somewhat defined and good, since it's going to be eating up at least 50% of the TV. Main event on the Smackdown side features three above-average guys, one of which is the best on the roster, one of which a lot of people think is the best on the roster, and the other who's better right now than I've seen him at any point.

 

So quality wrestling isn't really a problem when you have Rey, Finlay and Benoit given plenty of time to deliver most of the time, with a fairly strong or carryable group of talent to work with. Problem is that there's so much stupid stuff that distracts from the wrestling.

 

With SNME last night, I can't judge the show because I have no idea what even happened on it, since I can't find a good recap. It's not off to a good start. As a criticism, I'll say making Austin and the McMahons central characters on the show seems like a bad idea, because it just reinforces the idea that nothing has changed. As a defense, I'll say expecting some good matches on last night's show isn't unreasonable, but that should have been a side effect of what was offered, not the purpose of the newfound exposure.

 

As for sports entertainment, I'm not sure I understand really what the difference is. Wrestling with no interviews, no angles, no storylines would be pretty boring. WWE's problem isn't that they have the extracurricular stuff, it's that they book it like it's an attraction in and of itself instead of using it to highlight the roster and build to future matches. The biggest criticism of WWE I could ever make is that they try way too hard to be cute.

[Guest Local Jobber R]

Anybody who tuned in last night expecting to see wrestling was bound to be disappointed. Anybody who tuned in wanting to see a slick produced Sports Entertainment show got what they wanted. It sounds that simple.

The hardcore match looked like it was Summerslam 2002 mindless spots with no direction and Mr. McMahon continueing to rub in the fact that he "Screwed Bret".....ok we get it, STOP BEATING THE DEAD HORSE BAWH GAWD!!! The beer contest was better than I expected and I thought that the Cutting Edge segment could of gone longer and everything else was just pure crap. If Stone Cold Steve Austin is the standard of what Sports Entertainment should be then everything else on the show i.e. anything not in the ring looked bush league. At least back in the attitude days all of the buildup hype would lead to a somewhat entertaining match but in the present nobody can work a decent brawl or wrestle because of restraints on moves, I just tired of watching the same shit over and over again. If everybody looks and works the same how am I, the fan, suppose to get excited about the big payoff if it already happened a week ago on tv or a month ago on PPV. The repetition of the same ol same ol has desensetise me from finding entainment from WWE.

 

The recent SNME show suffered bad production, editing, direction. Starting the show with the main eventers which had everybody turn on each other was predictable and should of been given more time and shown in the second hour. SNME should of been on at a later timeslot so it could gone the full monty if you will. If shown at the SNL timeslot it probably could of gotten away with some more T&A, shown some blood, gotten more violent.

[Guest Bruiser Chong]

Starting the show with the main eventers which had everybody turn on each other was predictable and should of been given more time and shown in the second hour. SNME should of been on at a later timeslot so it could gone the full monty if you will. If shown at the SNL timeslot it probably could of gotten away with some more T&A, shown some blood, gotten more violent.

I disagree. I miss the days when a show would open with the big draw match. I still think there should be something to look forward to at the end of the show, but having the big match start off the show draws the fans in and may keep them tuned in.

[Guest savagerulz]

Rey Misterio is better than anyone in the world.

 

MNM is the best tag team in wrestling.

 

Finlay and Benoit are two of the top five or ten in the world.

 

Randy Orton, Super Crazy, Gregory Helms and Psicosis are all better than anyone in TNA these days. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're better than anyone in TNA _in any environment_, but I'll take Randy Orton going against Super Crazy in a really strong 8-minute Smackdown match over any X-Division match I can think of.

 

Then, you have guys that are getting the opportunity to work with better talent that have shown that they're either capable of being carried, capable of being good when motivated (and they have been much of the time lately), or they're vastly improved, guys like JBL, Lashley, Mark Henry, Undertaker, Booker T, etc.

 

 

Orton is a green wrestler four years into his career, and all signs point to him being green ten years into his career. He does decent promos as a heel (when he doesn't have to insult the dead for cheap heel heat), but that's the extent of his talent so far. All he does in the ring to stand out is DDP's move, and he doesn't even do it as well as DDP, who could hit it from different positions.

 

Every cruiserweight in the WWE is a wrestler who had their style castrated by being forced to assimilate to the bland WWE style of wrestling, including Super Crazy and Psychosis, people who get thrown into meaningless 10 man free for all clusterfuck cruiserweight matches on pay per view, instead of being booked into one on one cruiserweight title matches where they might actually get to tell a story.

 

A lot of X division matches may be triple threats, or three on threes, but at least the wrestlers all have distinct personalities and are creative with their moves, instead of being constrained like WWE wrestlers, who basically (like wrestlers in old video games) get the same standard moves (ie headlock, slingshot, suplex) and one "special move" to make them stand out. On the other hand, X division guys mix it up and try to use different moves in each match, in addition to the few "trademark" ones that they can be counted on to deliver.

 

I like Rey Misterio, but compared to what he was in WCW and ECW, he's watered down "Rey Misterio lite" and even though I like him, "better than anyone else in the world" sounds like absurd hyperbole even to me.

 

JBL, Mark Henry, and Undertaker are all dead weight who have been doing the same shit for years. Undertaker and JBL can have OKAY matches if they're carried by someone, and of course nobody can carry Mark Henry. Lashley is "big man unstoppable monster rookie who crushes everyone he faces" number #234955 in the history of the wrestling business. Just like Goldberg, except Goldberg actually got over.

 

Booker T. never had to "improve". He's been a solid wrestler since his Harlem Heat days in the 90s. I don't know where you get the idea that he's improving after he had some boringass matches with Benoit of all people in a sad attempt to recapture their past glory when they're too old for that to happen, and during a time when he's involved with a lame gimmick wrestler.

[Strummer]

I'd just like to say that, as Sek mentioned earlier, people are right there ready with a laundry list of excuses when TNA has low ratings but when WWE does, it's "OMG Vince is going under!"

[Guest Local Jobber R]

Starting the show with the main eventers which had everybody turn on each other was predictable and should of been given more time and shown in the second hour. SNME should of been on at a later timeslot so it could gone the full monty if you will. If shown at the SNL timeslot it probably could of gotten away with some more T&A, shown some blood, gotten more violent.

I disagree. I miss the days when a show would open with the big draw match. I still think there should be something to look forward to at the end of the show, but having the big match start off the show draws the fans in and may keep them tuned in.

That concept only worked when there is direct competion from another wrestling company. The idea of trying to one up each other through competition made the product better during the Monday Night Wars. iMPACT was not going head-to-head against SNME so starting the show with all of the main eventers was a bad idea. Starting the show with "the best" wrestling made the rest of the show a big let down because the way the show was booked...this was a case of blowing your load early via premature pops. Besides the turn on your partner angle should of been saved for the Trish match. Why WWE did the same angle twice on the same show makes me :ph43r:

 

Booker T. never had to "improve". He's been a solid wrestler since his Harlem Heat days in the 90s. I don't know where you get the idea that he's improving after he had some boringass matches with Benoit of all people in a sad attempt to recapture their past glory when they're too old for that to happen, and during a time when he's involved with a lame gimmick wrestler.

Is Booker T still using the Scissor Kick finisher? That alone would be the reason why his matches are boring and unbelievable. Having his opponet stand bent over for over a minute while Booker T sets up the kick made the matches hard to watch. The Scissor Kick was decent when he was in tag matches but it should not be his finisher when he works singles matches it would be entertaining he he mixed up his 4 finishers on free tv at least that way it would not be predictable.

[Loss]

There is no way anyone who actually watched Smackdown on a regular basis could have those opinions, unless they decided that's how they felt months or years ago and are unwilling to be proven wrong or have their minds changed.

 

If you don't see the improvement in Orton, I don't know what to tell you. Working with good workers has really put him over the hump, and he doesn't come across nearly as awkward or green for me now as he did in his 2003-2004 push. Benoit and Undertaker have specifically had the best results with him, but he's also had good matches with Orlando Jordan (yes) and Super Crazy, which shows that he's improved a ton since 2004. Orton is not great, but he's good and seems to get better every week these days in pretty much every aspect of his game.

 

Cruiserweights aren't booked that well, admittedly, but I don't know what your expectations of them are. Super Crazy specifically looks better to me now than he ever has. I sense a bias against the heavyweight style from your posts, which is fine, but that's the style Crazy is working now. It's not worse, or watered down, it's a different style. I much prefer him wrestling as an underdog babyface against a wide variety of wrestlers to him wrestling the exact same sequences and performing the exact same sloppy spots every week against Taijiri on ECW TV. Psicosis has always been a great, well-rounded worker -- never been as much of a high flyer as he has been an amazing bumper and really strong on the mat. No slouch as a high flyer for sure, but that was never really what made him great. Psicosis reminds me in many ways of a Mexican Bobby Eaton and always has, taking some truly stunning bumps on his head and neck that other guys won't take, and performing a top rope legdrop as a finisher. Psicosis has adapted just fine to the WWE style. It's an insult to him to compare him to any of the spotty guys in TNA, honestly.

 

I'm glad the WWE cruiser style isn't the X-style. Granted, I have my problems with the WWE style too, just because of all the sameness, but at least the matches have a defined build from start to finish and feature something more varied than spot-spot-spot, which is all the X-style matches really are. Miles apart, so don't think I'm making the comparison from quality, but the WWE cruiserweights are *far* more resembling of the NJ juniors style than TNA X Division matches.

 

How is Rey not as good as he was in WCW and ECW? What did he ever do in ECW that came anywhere close to what he's accomplished in WWE? In WCW, he has three matches that can reasonably be compared to his best in WWE (Havoc '97/WW3 '96/Starrcade '98) and the race is closer than you think. He's not as much of a high flyer as he was, but he's also wrestling as a main event heavyweight now (again, I sense bias against heavies), which is a completely different style with different goals. Best in the world is hardly hyperbole. Who is better? Who else has gotten good matches out of Mark Henry and Sylvian Grenier? Besides Eddy or Benoit, who else with JBL? Look at the feud with Eddy last year, which was excellent from start to finish (well, if you start after their WM XXI match). Look at all the tag matches with various partners against MNM. I fail to see how Rey is watered down in the least - if anything, he's become better because he wrestles as a total Ricky Morton-style underdog, as opposed to someone who was always great, but got over in the past not for being sympathetic, but for dazzling the crowd with some really brilliant aerial moves. You say no one can carry Mark Henry, which is really funny considering he's been carried by both Rey and Taker.

 

Taker is not consistent, which frustrates me, because when he has his working boots on, he's really good. He's had them on more frequently lately, possibly because he knows everyone is working hard and he has to keep up. He's also been doing more main events. Lashley is nothing special, but Finlay would sure make you think so if you watch their feud. You can also see an improvement in Lashley from the time he has started working with Finlay. I watched a lot of SD today and it was pretty evident how much more confident he's gotten and how much better he understands his role. More heavyweight bias, though. There's a reason there have been so many strong demolishing babyfaces like that -- because they typically work. I don't know if you're expecting him to do a Space Flying Tiger Drop off of a balcony to impress you or if you expect everyone to be Chris Benoit or they suck or what.

 

If you haven't caught Booker's renaissance lately, you haven't been paying attention. The guy was solid to good in WCW, and has had good moments in WWE, but has largely been on a hunt to find himself. He's found himself in his new role of cowardly heel who ducks matches and is totally revitalized. The Benoit/Booker series has worked in making Booker relevant again, as he and Sharmell are one of the best things to watch on Smackdown. Wasting that on Boogeyman is a problem, but if you're telling me Booker now and Booker six months ago are the same, then you're beyond hope.

[Slasher]

Well now, I don't think the Boogeyman is all that bad. Yes he is a pretty abysmal worker, but as far as cartoony gimmicks go, he's done well so far.

[Guest bravesfan]

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of bragging by the anti WWE squad over that rating despite the fact it was up against the NCAA basketball tournament which is arguably the biggest sporting event in the US after the Super Bowl.

They didn't even beat the Sixth Sense!

 

Or an episode of Cops!

 

Seriously, stop trying to rationalise this.

If the NCAA tournament's rating came mostly from 18-49, the same key demographic that did a 1.6 for the WWE, doesn't it make sense that were whalloped by the other two shows? When one sports event is predisposed to kick the other's ass because of its storied history, they usually have to fight for the same demo. If CBS had their usual schedule on, they would've killed ABC/FOX (like they usually do on Saturdays) and sent a portion of 18-49 to SNME.

[Marty]

I need one of those applause emoticons for Loss right now. I've been enjoying Smackdown for the very same reasons he has stated here, and I don't think I could come close to describing them as well as he has. Well done, Loss!

[Marty]

Well now, I don't think the Boogeyman is all that bad. Yes he is a pretty abysmal worker, but as far as cartoony gimmicks go, he's done well so far.

I credit that to him being completely different than everyone else. Yeah, it's taken a really over-the-top, nutty, cartoonish gimmick for that to happen, but the Boogeyman is a lesson on how being different can work, albeit in this case, likely the short term.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Check out Raw - Shane & HBK show no effects of their SNME street fight.

[Guest wnyxmcneal]

At TSM, HTQ posted Meltzer's thoughts on the ratings of SNME, and he said that blaming the NCAA Tournament doesn't hold water.

[sek69]

Saturday night is the worst night for TV, most networks run movies or re-runs of popular shows instead of sending new series out to die. It's a chicken and egg argument, are Saturdays bad because networks gave up or did they give up because Saturdays are bad?

 

Combine that with wrestling not being popular in the mainstream, and WWE not at its peak creatively, I don't know how any other rating was expected.

 

I'm not trying to make excuses for Vince, it's just that a poor product that's not popular + the death night for TV = low ratings. NBC and WWE would probably have been better off putting SNME back in the SNL slot like they used to, since SNL still gets consistent ratings despite people bitching about it not being good as it used to.

[Guest rob]

Saturday night is the worst night for television, but the fact of the matter is that SNME lost out to reruns and a movie that everyone has seen a bunch of times already. So basically they were the worst of the worst.

[Guest wnyxmcneal]

They gave up on Saturdays, because except for CBS, the networks were shooting blanks there and they wanted to stay profitabe.

 

I think CBS also gave up on Saturdays b/c their shows are very expensive to produce, and their Crimetime Saturday lineup doesn't do that badly, so running reruns on Sat is a way to recoup costs.

[Guest rob]

FOX does alright with the Cops/AMW lineup. That basically guarantees them something around a 3.5-4.0.

[Coffey]

I just think that SNME was the best WWE show that WWE have put on in years. Especially for free. If you didn't like it, you're not going to like anything WWE does. THAT is what WWE does, that show. Actually, that's the top of chain, about as good as it can get. If you watched it and didn't like, you don't like WWE. You're not going to be happy. You're still watching for, maybe, five matches a year. That's not a good investment.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

I'll take pretty much every Smackdown going back to the beginning of the year (or more), and maybe a Raw or 2, over SNME.

[Guest Dangerous A]

I agree with Spiff that there have been SD's in the last 2-3 months better than SNME and even a Raw or two the last year. SNME accomplished a few things ...

 

1) Raw is superior to SD in every way, hence HHH leaving Cena alone and outnumbered, only to have Cena pull out the win. The SD guys were made insignificant in that match.

 

2) HHH is the stud of WWE. Laid out Cena and Rey with pedigrees and floored Angle, then left everyone in the ring while he just walked away because he could. Not because he was scared or selling an injury in the match, but just because he could.

 

3) Vince is the top heel and still hasn't gotten over Montreal 97.