Explain to me why this era of WWE is so popular (2022-2025)

[Ricky Jackson]

This is something I've pondered for years now, looking on from a distance, with Royal Rumble '25 being the only WWE show I've seen in the last 5 years. To me, the popularity of this era seems more difficult to pin down than the 80s boom or the Attitude era. But a big part of my ignorance is probably because I haven't been watching religiously like I did back then. 

WrestleMania 2022 (not even sure of the numbering off the top of my head anymore) seems to me like a turning point. Cody returned that weekend, arguably the most important star of this era, and there was a very noticeable buzz coming out of it that hadn't been heard in WWE since, I dunno, Bryan's peak or maybe the peak of the Women's Revolution. 

WWE getting on Peacock in the US seems like another significant moment. I may be way off, but I think this development, making it easier to consume the product, did create new fans and brought back lapsed ones.

Vince being finally removed from power? I think this also brought back lapsed fans, those that still loved wrestling, but had embraced alternatives in previous years, originally driven away by the downright crappy last decades of omnipotent Vince booking. But then again, Vince oversaw the turnaround and the years leading up to it, led by...

The Bloodline storyline. Perhaps this was the real beginning of the renaissance. This started during the darkest days of Covid, and, afaik, is still kinda sorta going on. This storyline definitely, after years and years of trying, finally solidified Roman Reigns as an all-time, major star. And giving him an era defining rival in Cody was maybe the final piece of the puzzle.

Which speaks to the fact that, with Vince gone, babyfaces have finally been allowed to flourish in a way they hadn't in years. Who would've thought fans actually wanted to cheer for heroes overcoming dastardly villians? Thank you...ugh...HHH.

Anyway, I'm interested in what folks who have stuck through it all have to say. Seems like the peak of the era has passed since Mania? (And of course, the company has somehow become even more reprehensible without Vince, part of a soulless corporate Empire, increasingly intertwined with Trump and all that shit)

 

[Dav'oh]

I was pondering something else so I'll piggyback.

In true Australian fashion, I'll answer by telling you what it's not. "Why is it so popular?" Not because of the matches, mate.

I like to think that two masters of their craft, Messrs. Cena and Punk, could paint me a masterpiece. But their match last night was a McDonald's colouring-in book and they still drew outside the lines. Yes, they're old and broken, but Beethoven was fucking deaf; they should be good enough to work around their limitations like that deaf bastard and give me something nearing a classic.

Cody and Randy? Spare me. Pro-wrestling has passed all these people by (and others, too).

I, too, have witnessed this "boom" period, and I, too, am puzzled. I use quotation marks for "boom" because one thing that gets me is that this is a company that needed (indulge me here, I can't let go) Johnny Knoxville more than Johnny Knoxville needed them, that needed Logan Paul more than he needed them, that needed Bad Bunny more than he needed them, was it Drake(?) that potatoed Cody, they need Goldberg, they need Cena, something called a Jelly Roll. I'm not sure how booming the wrestling side of things are. 

But they definitely, subtly, subliminally, rode the MAGA wave. Cody was out there in the exact shade of blue suit and exact shade of red tie as...someone....and a similarly dog-whistling tattoo. The Hispanics are rounded up and put on their own part of the show. Meh, my teeth still hurt. Hope I answered your question!

[JRH]

I think it's just because wrestling is now more accepted as a legit form of entertainment as opposed to just "that fake stuff". I'd argue it has to do with the whole superhero boom as well, since wrestling has always essentially been a live-action comic book (though WWE still hasnt completely embraced the whole "shared universe" concept, something that AEW does do), so the wrestlers are now seen as the equivalent of Marvel or DC heroes or villains.

[Ricky Jackson]

4 minutes ago, JRH said:

I think it's just because wrestling is now more accepted as a legit form of entertainment as opposed to just "that fake stuff". I'd argue it has to do with the whole superhero boom as well, since wrestling has always essentially been a live-action comic book (though WWE still hasnt completely embraced the whole "shared universe" concept, something that AEW does do), so the wrestlers are now seen as the equivalent of Marvel or DC heroes or villains.

Yeah, "legitimacy" is a key part of it. I guess the whole process unfolded very slowly and subtly since around, say, 2010 or so? Millennials who were kids during the Attitude era didn't have the same negative beliefs about pro wrestling as a whole like previous generations, and those in positions of power in the media treated it like any other beloved pop culture enjoyment, or something 

[El-P]

Watching from apart and really only following the business side of it, in term of the product : Cody Rhodes jumping from AEW + Sami Zayn lighting up the Bloodline. + AEW losing the favors of a part of the audience who really did not want an alternative but "WWE becoming good again" (which I think is a wildly overrated notion, considering the snipets I've seen over the years, WWE style and production is still the worst). 

The funny thing is that Triple H is over-credited for very minor changes, really. Both the Bloodline + Cody "finishing the story" were Vince's booking plans (likewise the Saudi deal which has made them idiot proof financially, the TKO sale and the Netflix deal). Everything about the company on the largest scale is still very much Vince. Triple H's stuff is incidental in the grand scheme of things. And like he has been exposed when he was running NXT, he's been already exposed by this atrocious John Cena heel retirement run.

[El-P]

3 minutes ago, Ricky Jackson said:

Yeah, "legitimacy" is a key part of it. I guess the whole process unfolded very slowly and subtly since around, say, 2010 or so? Millennials who were kids during the Attitude era didn't have the same negative beliefs about pro wrestling as a whole like previous generations, and those in positions of power in the media treated it like any other beloved pop culture enjoyment, or something 

And yet, pro-wrestling is not nearly as mainstream as it was during the late 90's or even the Hogan years. No one in the real world knows who the fuck Roman Reigns or Cody Rhodes are. 

[Ricky Jackson]

That's very true, and is one of the main reasons I've often been baffled about this new boom period. You cant just give a quick shorthand explanation, like "because Hogan" or "because Austin and the Rock" 

[El-P]

They became a big stadium show business. And that's what has been carrying (and defining, really) this era. The last previous successful era was John Cena's (and it was not nearly as successful, hell at first it was not), and it was defined by John Cena (which is why he is more akin to Hogan or The Rock despite the fact his era was not even close). They have reached the point of WWE becoming the "cool" thing. WWE. Not Roman, not Cody. WWE. The capitalistic evolution of the brand replacing the actual product has taken a while before being a thing in a very much star driven (and carny) business like pro-wrestling (No Logo by Naomi Klein dates from 2000 or something, and it was all about this), but WWE is very much there. It has been the point for ever and they *apparently* succeeded. For now.

But whose to say, maybe the fact they're a god awful MAGA supporting company will end up costing this business model, because the LOGO will be forever stained. 

Well. Probably not, because they've cultivated a cult-like audience (and workers). But who knows. I sure hope they'll get theirs eventually for being such a shitty company.

[Jmare007]

Tbh I think the OP summed the biggest reasons as to why they saw a big rise in attendance and popularity in the past 3 years. Sure, legitimacy is also a factor but without stuff like the Peacock deal and having mainstream people willing to take time off their own schedules to put a legit effort into WWE programming (and even matches), leading to a lot more eyes on the product, you don't get more eyes on the product.

And Vince leaving was HUGE. You had a couple of generations of wrestling fans that had either dropped the product or were barely watching because of Vince's horrible booking in the 2010's. The company stopped pushing the idea that real heel was WWE and fans getting mad at them was "good heat" plus most of the really stupid stuff Vince was doing weekly was reined in. 

49 minutes ago, Ricky Jackson said:

That's very true, and is one of the main reasons I've often been baffled about this new boom period. You cant just give a quick shorthand explanation, like "because Hogan" or "because Austin and the Rock" 

"Because Vince left" or "Because the brand finally overcame everything" would be the current explanation, imo. 

[El-P]

34 minutes ago, Jmare007 said:

And Vince leaving was HUGE.

Not really. The upswing started *under Vince*. There was no reason why it would have been different if Vince had stayed in power once the Bloodline/Samy and the Cody storylines got hot. (EDIT : of course it did play a role in term of perception, for sure, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it is that important. He's the one who shaped WWE as it is today with the TKO merger and the Netflix deal (which may also be a double edged sword in the long run))

If the audience cared that much about awful things linked to this company, the Saudi shows would have impacted the audience greatly. Last time Vince got on TV, he got cheered. When he "retired", they chanted "Thank you Vince". His name was cheered this year at the HOF ceremony.

[JRH]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

And yet, pro-wrestling is not nearly as mainstream as it was during the late 90's or even the Hogan years. No one in the real world knows who the fuck Roman Reigns or Cody Rhodes are. 

To be fair, you could say the same about the 90s boom. Sure, Austin, Rock, Goldberg, Foley, and maybe Chyna got mainstream recognition, but it's not like anyone outside of the fanbase knew about Undertaker, Kane, DX, The Hardy Boyz, Edge and Christian, The Dudley Boyz, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Kevin Nash, Rey Mysterio, Ric Flair, DDP, or any of the other top stars of that era.

[El-P]

Just now, JRH said:

To be fair, you could say the same about the 90s boom. Sure, Austin, Rock, Goldberg, Foley, and maybe Chyna got mainstream recognition, but it's not like anyone outside of the fanbase knew about Undertaker, Kane, DX, The Hardy Boyz, Edge and Christian, The Dudley Boyz, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Kevin Nash, Rey Mysterio, Ric Flair, DDP, or any of the other top stars of that era.

We're talking about the biggest, era defining names. Austin and Rock were mainstream names. Austin 3:16 was everywhere. Reigns and Cody are the two biggest stars of this era. They are Austin and Rock. They are John Cena. They are Hogan. Except they are not. Not even close.

[Jmare007]

31 minutes ago, El-P said:

Not really. The upswing started *under Vince*. There was no reason why it would have been different if Vince had stayed in power once the Bloodline/Samy and the Cody storylines got hot. (EDIT : of course it did play a role in term of perception, for sure, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it is that important. He's the one who shaped WWE as it is today with the TKO merger and the Netflix deal (which may also be a double edged sword in the long run))

If the audience cared that much about awful things linked to this company, the Saudi shows would have impacted the audience greatly. Last time Vince got on TV, he got cheered. When he "retired", they chanted "Thank you Vince". His name was cheered this year at the HOF ceremony.

We disagree on the power of the perception swing. Vince leaving meant the stuff that was working (Bloodline and Cody) didn't derail into some really stupid shit with the fans resenting the company once again. That's been key this whole run. WWE fans have been incredibly happy with their product and are as defensive as they've ever been about it. Under Vince you had at least a third of the fanbase shitting on everything and eventually stop watching or jumping ship to focus on another company. 

I do not believe the "feel good" that fans felt about WWE happens without Vince leaving. No matter how things really stayed the same in almost every way in the company, the shift in how fans feel about the company was pretty much a 180° once he left (both times). 

[TheDuke]

If we can bring up anecdotal evidence, i don't see non-wrestling fan friends or people at my work or whatever talking about wrestlers like I saw during the Hogan, Monday Night Wars, or Cena eras. I feel like their success right now is from doubling down on the modern WWE fans they already have and catering to their whims more (which I think are different from a lot of the people who visit this board).

Also, I feel like Undertaker belongs in that list with Foley and Austin etc. Again speaking from anecdotal evidence, I really feel like most of the people I went to school with in the 90s who didn't watch wrestling still knew who Undertaker was. 

[El-P]

19 minutes ago, Jmare007 said:

Vince leaving meant the stuff that was working (Bloodline and Cody) didn't derail into some really stupid shit with the fans resenting the company once again. That's been key this whole run. WWE fans have been incredibly happy with their product and are as defensive as they've ever been about it. Under Vince you had at least a third of the fanbase shitting on everything and eventually stop watching or jumping ship to focus on another company. 

I do not believe the "feel good" that fans felt about WWE happens without Vince leaving. No matter how things really stayed the same in almost every way in the company, the shift in how fans feel about the company was pretty much a 180° once he left (both times). 

I guess my point was really more attached strictly to the business side of things, which I don't think would have been that different if Vince had stayed in power on the TKO board. But surely, WWE audience working themselves into thinking Papa Trip (yikes) was this great booker who really cared (yeah, that aged like milk in the age of "Just enjoy the show") certainly is a defining part of this era.

[G. Badger]

Thanks for asking the question and the responses too because it's something I've wondered. I've tried to casually watch but its not my thing plus all of the real life drama is awful. As a kid, I worried the Steroids Scandal would collapse WWF...ha! That's nothing now - we've come a long way baby!

 

[DMJ]

Lots of good points, but just to add a few more -

* Some of the metrics are deceptive, though I think they're all still undeniably positive for the WWE. For example, their record-setting gates are not because they're selling out stadiums or basketball arenas every night. Prices have gone up and they're happier selling 1 seat for $150 than 3 seats at $35 because, ultimately, that does make business sense. I think most people would think that a company setting new records in live gates must be expanding its audience, but really, it seems to be that its the same audience as last year and the year before and the year before and the WWE has just been able to get more money from them. If you paid for tickets to go to RAW 2 years ago and had a good time at $75/ticket, the WWE seems to be confident you'll pay $105 this time they're in town.  

* The Peacock and Netflix deals were incredibly lucrative, but the viewership, at least in the US, seems to be the same as it has been for awhile. What I do think has helped the WWE is the additional partnerships and TV exposure they got with FOX, NBC, USA, A&E, YouTube, ESPN, and a number of high-profile podcasts too. It really seems like, in terms of saturating the market, at any given moment over the past 5 years, WWE or WWE-adjacent content (like the A&E Biographies or "Miz & Mrs." or "Total Bellas") has been available on cable 5 days a week, multiple times a day. Then you have plain ol' social media making WWE news and highlights and clips and fan discourse available on everyone's phones every day, all day, and its no wonder that the company is seeing engagement and merch sales and views that its never seen before. But I don't think the actual number of fans is growing all that much. But engagement is non-stop in a way that technology didn't allow it to be even 15 years ago, let alone 25 or 35.

* Others have said it, but as the WWE gets more and more corporate, more and more entrenched in the broader media world, closer and closer to being seen as a brand like Disney or Major League Baseball, the more omnipresent and bulletproof it becomes. I don't think they had that same strength when the Benoit Murder-Suicide happened. I think we would've seen considerably more pushback against the WWE if the Vince scandal had happened in 2002 or even 2012. The WWE has become popular the same way certain brands are perpetually, always popular. And with how much money they generate just from the Saudi deal, it doesn't really matter if they slip 100k viewers here, gain 50k back there, or stay hovering around the same number of fans, they're gonna get their money. 


* Lastly, something anecdotal: There's always a new generation of fans being born and while most of that generation will probably stop watching (not everyone is a lifelong fan), if you can keep hold of a certain amount or bring back those childhood fans later on in their lives, that's good enough. I think the WWE has gotten really, really good at being a "big tent" brand that appeals to young viewers under the age of 12, more girls and women than ever before, and older, lifelong viewers. I think they learned, at some point, that even bothering to try to market the show towards older teens/early 20s people is a dead-end (and it absolutely is). You're not going to create a wrestling fan at the age of 17. You create them young, lose them for a little, and hope they come back. That seems to be the pattern/relationship that all my friends have with pro-wrestling. When I was in middle school, Steve Austin was my idol and I wore wrestling shirts every day to school. Within 3 years, I got my driver's license, picked up smoking, started to dress like a member of The Strokes (or tried to), and my hero was Vince Vaughn from Swingers because he was good at picking up chicks (why I thought emulating his speech style, poorly and with way less charisma, would somehow work is beyond me). I think we see that sort of wave happen with the WWE all the time and, theoretically, that cycle is only going to repeat and get bigger each time if they continue to focus on younger viewers, which is 100% what they did for much of the late 00s and 2010s.

 

[The Thread Killer]

This was a good question and a good idea for a thread, and I agree with a lot of the points made here already.

From my perspective, I really don't think Pro Wrestling is in a "boom" period again, and I honestly don't think it ever will be.  Both major companies have perfected the ability to maximize their revenue, but like others have mentioned, I don't think Pro Wrestling is anywhere near as popular as it was during the Hulkamania or Attitude Era. Both companies have managed to turn huge profits because they have taken advantage of the decline of traditional television and the fact that there are so many different ways to consume entertainment now.  The TV networks and streaming services are desperate for cheap content that will provide a guaranteed audience on a consistent basis.  So of course, WWE and AEW used that to their advantage and leveraged themselves into TV and streaming deals which if we are being honest, they're probably being overpaid for. For now. Personally, I think this bubble is going to burst eventually, but for now both companies are cashing in.

Between the NBC/Universal deal, managing to get their developmental territory a paying TV deal (even if it’s The CW) the massive Netflix deal, Saudi Arabia, ridiculous amounts of advertising, merchandising, and jacking up live event ticket prices, WWE have definitely managed to make themselves pretty much financially bulletproof. They have monetized pretty much everything they can.  But I don't think they have delivered the kind of numbers Netflix was hoping they were going to, and I'm betting once the Netflix deal is over TKO is not going to get anywhere near that kind of money again...but that's just my opinion.

It's interesting to note that the UFC's rights deal is coming up, and if you believe what is being reported, they are having a very hard time finding the kind of deal they want or were hoping for. Apparently they were hoping to move their entire deal over to Netflix, lock, stock and barrel, just like WWE has internationally, but Netflix has no interest in that, partially because they aren't thrilled with how the WWE deal is working out for them, considering how much it cost them.  UFC still uses traditional PPV (at insanely exorbitant prices) for their big marquee shows, and then has a TV deal with ESPN/ABC for their TV shows.  Their library is housed on their own service "UFC Fight Pass" which is a total waste of time because you can't see the big shows on that service live, so what's the point?  Dana White has already said that he thinks they are going to have to "splinter" their rights among various providers when they get a new deal...like they stay on PPV, plus sign separate deals for their TV shows and keep their library on Fight Pass.  I would not be terribly surprised if that is what ends up happening with WWE as well once their deal with Netflix is up.  The problem is, UFC and WWE are now conjoined, so if UFC gets a crappy deal, that effects WWE's bottom line.

As far as creatively, that's a whole other story.

I had quit watching WWE years ago for two reasons.  Partially because I hated Vince McMahon and didn't want any of my money going into his pocket, but mostly because the product was total shit.  I tried on several occasions to sit through all 3 hours of RAW, and I just couldn't do it. It was SO BORING. Their TV was awful, for a very long time. They would have the same guys fighting every week, there were never any stakes, the matches weren't good, and the presentation was bland and generic.  I remember my personal breaking point was that PPV where Seth Rollins fought The Fiend in the Hell in the Cell. The entire arena was lit with this stupid red light, making it so you could barely see anything, and if I remember correctly, a giant clown hammer came into play during the match.  That was enough for me to finally throw in the towel. And that was pretty much down to Vince McMahon.  Lets leave aside the fact that he was a creepy sex pervert, because the horrific details about that weren't publicly known at the time, or at least the worst details weren't yet public.  But there were so many stories from people who had worked there, about how Vince McMahon ruled creative with an iron fist, how he would tear up shows at the last minute, how he would write horrible promos for wrestlers, or change them at the last minute. I stopped watching WWE because it sucked. It was beyond boring and stale.  My main issues were that Vince had clearly changed his creative philosophy over the years, in a number of key areas:

- He fully embraced the whole "the WWE brand is the star, not the individual talents" philosophy.

- He totally lost the ability to create and book believable babyface characters.

- Worst of all, he developed that ridiculously stubborn and myopic attitude of "the fans don't tell me what they like, I tell them what they like."  He was bad enough with Cena, but he really went into overdrive with trying to turn Roman Reigns into a generic white meat babyface.  Vince McMahon stopped listening to the crowd for some bizarre reason I will never understand. One of the most egregious examples of that I can think of was "Rusev Day."  It got over, hugely.  But Vince didn't think it up, so aside from printing up some TV shirts, McMahon practically buried Rusev for the unpardonable crime of becoming popular on his own. 

When Vince got run out of town the first time, I didn't immediately go running back, because I knew it would probably take a few months to get the Vince stink off the creative, and plus his lackeys were still there, like Kevin Dunn.  I decided to wait 3 months, and then check it out, but then Vince came back.  I remember shortly after his return, he apparently rewrote the RAW after Wrestlemania 39 at the last minute. I tried to watch that show, and as expected it was terrible, just boring and repetitive.  So I stayed away. 

When they finally got rid of Vince the last time in January 2024, I did the same thing...I decided to wait for a couple months, and then I checked WWE out again. For me, I would say from around the time of the Royal Rumble 2024 onward, the creative direction in WWE definitely started to improve. There were some signs of improvement from 2022 onwards, but once McMahon came back you could tell he was still sticking his fingers in there, even though he supposedly wasn't directly involved in creative.

I know there are some hardcore WWE fans on Twitter and Reddit and whatnot, who apparently like to praise Triple H as some sort of booking genius and the savior of WWE. I am not one of those people.  Firstly, it's not like Triple H writes everything himself...he has a huge creative staff, I would seriously doubt he's directly involved in creating anything, he just oversees it.  Secondly, just because WWE creative has improved significantly since Vince got forced out, I don't think it's perfect by any stretch. I think what Triple H has done, is create a more relaxed atmosphere backstage and allowed the talent to develop naturally.  I do believe the talent are also being given more input into their own creative.  I believe this simply because I have heard a large number of WWE talent say it. Countless wrestlers have basically admitted that Vince McMahon thrived on tension and paranoia and he actually liked having an uncomfortable atmosphere backstage. I don't believe Triple H does that. 

What I can say, is that the product has changed in a variety of ways.  Firstly, in my opinion the long overdue removal of Kevin Dunn definitely brought a change to the look of WWE TV and major events.  Secondly, WWE actually appears to be listening to fans now.  Guys like LA Knight and Jacob Fatu get big reactions, so they get pushed. Remember how before he left, Vince had decided Austin Theory...sorry, I mean "Theory" (you can't have more than one Austin) was the next big thing and was ramming him down everybody's throat, going so far as to appear on TV with him a bunch of times?  I am a lot more confident now that if I like a particular wrestler and he gets popular, he's not going to get buried for no reason.  WWE also seems to be embracing long term storytelling (sometimes too much) and lengthy title reigns.  The championships actually feel like they mean something now.

There is still a lot about WWE I don't like.  I hate the way they book the Tag Team division, on both shows.  Quite honestly, I hate most of the fans, who just want to chant and sing along, and don't seem to care what is going on in the ring, unless it involves a table.  I hate the fact that WWE doesn't run house shows anymore, because it doesn't give the less experienced talent a chance to improve.  You shouldn't be getting your reps in on live TV. Obviously, the incessant advertising is annoying.

I talked about this in the Night of Champions thread, but it bears repeating. In order to enjoy the WWE product, you generally have to divorce yourself from your opinion of TKO as a company.  Vince McMahon is gone, and I don't necessarily think most of the stuff that was going on while he was in charge is still going on.  That doesn't mean that there aren't people in WWE who did know what Vince was doing, but at this point, that's neither here nor there.  Also, TKO clearly has their own separate brand of scuzzy behavior that they engage in, that has nothing to do with what Vince was doing, but is no way to run a business.  Maybe I'm just used to TKO and their particular cutthroat brand of corporate behavior because I am just as big of a UFC fan as I am WWE.  Actually I probably prefer UFC, when it comes down to it.  And at the end of the day, as a UFC fan I had to make the decision...am I going to stop watching UFC just because I think TKO are a bunch of jerks?  And the answer was no...I'm not.  I'm not saying the day won't come where TKO does something so unethical that I don't stop supporting the company and watching the product, but that day has not come. Yet.

And that's the thing, in a lot of cases it comes down to what it means to "support" a company. For international fans like myself, the only way I can watch WWE in on Netflix. All three of their weekly TV shows are on Netflix. Their major Premium Live Events are on Netflix.  Their PLE archive is on Netflix.  I was already paying for Netflix before WWE showed up there, and I imagine I will continue to pay for Netflix when/if WWE is no longer available on Netflix.  So it's not like I am going out of my way to financially support WWE.  I would never purchase WWE merchandise and you wouldn't catch me dead at a WWE live event.  So at worst, I'm just wasting my time watching WWE, and it's my time to waste...so who cares?

I actually do have a couple of old friends, who I've known since childhood, who used to be WWE fans during the Hulkamania era but drifted away.  One of them stopped watching because he hated the Attitude Era.  The other one tapped out during the "Ruthless Aggression/Cena" era.  Both of them have started watching again, since WWE has come to Netflix. They are the guys I usually hang out with and watch the PLE's with. It's kind of interesting, because I am watching them rediscover Pro Wrestling again through their eyes.  They were both extremely impressed with how Women's wrestling has evolved since they watched. WWE talent are definitely a lot more athletic than they were back during the Hulkamania era, that's for sure. In some ways, WWE is still what is always was (when it was being presented well), goofy fun. Stupid stories which result in fake fights.

Once you have divorced yourself from caring about how TKO does business, it comes down to a pretty simple question. You either enjoy the kind of Pro Wrestling that WWE is presenting right now, or you don't.  I certainly prefer what they are doing now over the Attitude Era, and this stuff is miles better than the crap that came afterwards, during the continued mental and moral decline of Vince McMahon.  I can easily sit down and watch RAW or Smackdown now, and not be bored to death. Generally speaking, the major events have delivered.  Bottom line is, I think since Vince left, the product has definitely improved. I don't think Triple H deserves to be lionized for that, nor is that an endorsement of TKO and how they do business.  I just think the product is more enjoyable.  I haven't missed an episode of RAW or Smackdown, or a PLE since the Netflix debut, and I have been generally entertained.  That's pretty much all I can ask.

[Ricky Jackson]

Thanks for the thoughtful response @The Thread Killer!