WWE

[Death From Above]

Yeah old thread but interesting questions so I'm answering anyway.

 

(1) What do you ultimately think Vince McMahon will most be remembered for as a promoter?

WWF (even years after becoming WWE) is still the term in standard western English that non-wrestling fans use to describe "pro wrestling" as a shorthand. So clearly his vision of the business has dominated in terms of public perception. As a promoter, that's an incredible achievement in itself. "WWF" and maybe at some point "WWE" have become terms in the common english language that anyone that hears them knows what it is even if they don't watch, and large masses of people that use that term have no idea the business exists outside of those three letters. That's no small accomplishment of scope. What he'll be remembered for is as "the guy who ran WWF", which to the mainstream = boss of all pro wrestling.

 

 

(2) What do you think is the most important positive change that has come from the WWE vision of what pro wrestling is?

Probably bringing it as far into the mainstream of entertainment as it's going to ever come. I suppose one can debate if pro wrestling in one form or another is really any "worse" a form of entertainment than the bad end of Hollywood or the manufacturing of pop superstars that can't sing, write, or play an instrument. Wrestling's never going to gain "respectablilty" (and really, it probably never should) but at least it's gained a degree of "acceptability" within the mindset of the general public where yes, it's kind of stupid but everyone knows someone that's a fan. People like Donald Trump and Floyd Mayweather woudln't touch even an event of Wrestlemania's scope if that hadn't been achieved.

 

 

(3) What do you think is the most important negative change that has come from the WWE vision of what pro wrestling is?

Basically, I think WWE's vision is a neutered version of what North American wrestling should be (from my uppity smart fan perspective). Again, the pop music comparison. WWE is the pop music of pro wrestling. Once in a while you get a hit single that is nice, but large chunks are really complete shit, but are consumed by masses that really don't care one way or the other as long as they get their fill. I respect that it makes for good business, but it isn't my choice for personal consumption. In my opinion the company has a low bar for work.

 

 

(4) What is something that you have always felt WWE does well that they don't get enough credit for?

Probably just the fact that the company hasn't totally flown apart at the seams over the last 25 years, and continues to be heavily profitable. When you look at the history of wrestling this is rare enough. When you also add in the status of being the only genuinely global company and all the added baggage that brings, I think it makes that more impressive.

 

 

(5) What is something that you have always felt WWE does horribly that they don't get enough criticism for?

There are so many points you can bring up here I guess. So because a lot has already been touched on I'll take on something different and say they basically were a mass contributor to the death of the psychology of the referee. It's a small point to some and it probably isn't even their biggest offense or anything, but it never gets talked about so I'll take it on. Really, referees (on a global scale with not many exceptions) are now just automotons that stand there, get KO'd at the drop of a hat, and are generally portrayed as the most fragile bunch of retards on earth. Watching the Mid South Watts set, a LOT of people have shit all over Tommy Gilbert as a referee. Where as I see him being actually mostly fantastic, but he referees the "old way" where referees still behaved like, you know, referees in any other sport, with some authority and you're not going to KO him just by looking at him funny (even when refs bump in Mid South they are almost never down longer than 30 seconds). And I think really fans that have only seen the "new way" misinterpet actual good refereeing for "being in the way", but I don't drink the Kool-Aid on that one. The referee in modern pro wrestling is meaningless, and WWF/E was the company I can peg as starting that slide.

 

It is a minor thing to quibble over but it's not something I've really seen addresed much. I never even thought about it myself until watching the Stan Hansen shoot interview once, they asked him about the switch from 1980's AJPW with a lot of DQ's and countouts, and it was like Baba literally flipped a switch one day and countouts and DQ's were off the table. And Hansen commented that he felt it didn't really help the show because you've killed the psychology of the referee "you can go out of the ring and he can count to 1000 if he wants, you know it's not going to mean anything". It's a symptom of the larger problem of wrestling becoming all about popping the crowd and less about trying to put on a semi-believeable form of redneck theatre. And I'm not really sure you've gained anything doing it.

 

 

(6) Overall, do you think most people are fair when discussing WWE, or do you think people tended to be blinded -- either by fanboyism or hatred?

Being fair about something so large and well known is nearly impossible. WWE internet marks are insufferably thick, but so are a lot of their haters. Staying objective is pretty rare. The same thing happens in debates about Led Zeppelin or Quentin Tarantino: you know before it starts it's going to get really fucking stupid, both ways.

 

 

(7) What match would you point to as the match that most defines the WWE version of wrestling?

Am I totally crazy for wanting to say HHH vs Undertaker from Wrestlemania X7? Over the top characters, a big band playing an entrance, big use of props, wild match, all that stuff, and still a pretty fun match as part of an absurdly fun show. Really it's about as "sports entertainment" as anything I can imagine.

 

 

(8) Could the WWF have had their initial success without Hulk Hogan? Why or why not?

Probably not. The burst into the mainstream required somebody to be the face of it. Hulk Hogan was that face, and for all the piles of criticism you can make of Hogan, I think his charisma was for a time a special thing that WWF did need to get to the next level. I don't think that if you put (as examples) Savage, Dibiase, Steamboat, Duggan, or whoever else they had over Andre at Wrestlemania III that it leads to mass success. That's assuming the company even lasts to Wrestlemania III, as I seem to remember reading that Vince basically banked everything he had on Wrestlemania 1 (I'm not toally certain if that's true or not).

 

 

(9) Could the WWF have been more financially successful in the post-Hogan, pre-Austin time period with different people on top? Why or why not?

I'm not really sure it would have made a ton of difference if things had been somewhat different. As a (young) fan at the time, I still enjoyed a good chunk of that period quite a bit, even if it didn't draw en masse. Maybe if they'd had Flair through that time to go along with Bret and Shawn it makes a difference, but I'm not going to bank on it because I doubt Vince would have used Flair the way the NWA did even if Hogan wasn't around. So overall I say no.

 

 

(10) Who do you think was a bigger star at their peak -- Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin?

Hogan is by far the more world famous, I don't think it's even remotely close. There was probably a point at Hulkamania's peak when you could have made a case for Hogan being one of the 10 most recognizable celebrities in the world. People who haven't watched wrestling ever in the last 30 years know Hogan's name. Austin isn't famous on that level.

 

 

(11) What do you think is Vince McMahon's greatest accomplishment as a promoter?

Just the scope of what he's taken wrestling to, again. The major multinational cable, the PPVs, the worldwide brand recognition, it's all part of one collective about Vince becoming a self-made billionaire (or high multi-millionaire). You don't have to like his show to respect it's been good business. And in the process I guess what I'm going for is "name recognition". In the same way that whenever people discuss boxing, inevitably for better or worse Don King comes up, Vince's greatest accomplishment is that whenever anyone discusses pro wrestling, fan or not eventually WWE comes up (or in many cases, is seen as the entire business).

 

 

(12) What do you think was the greatest contributing factor to WCW overtaking the WWF from 1995-1998?

WWF being stuck in a stale, comic book formula that was burned out with fans. Combined with a large talent defection, and the sudden burst on the scene of national competition, WWF was caught asleep at the creative wheel. Basically the "cartoony bullshit" answer from above.

 

 

(13) What do you think was the greatest contributing factor to the WWF overtaking WCW in 1998?

WCW being the worst run managerial clusterfuck this side of the solar system as far as wrestling goes. From everything I heard about the internal workings of the company, the sheer scope of money being funneled down the tubes, and the amount of political infighting because the inmates were running the asylum, I think a collapse at some point was inevitable even if they had, say, got the Hogan/Sting blowoff right or even made Godlberg into the new Hogan without blowing it. At some point the sheer weight of backstage problems both in management and with the talent were going to bring down the Titanic. There are lots of things you can criticise McMahon in terms of the show he puts on and what you like or don't like about it, but he simply ran a much better ship than WCW was running.

 

 

(14) Which world champion was the best in terms of ring work and why?

I have to asterisk this (and all the following specific worker related questions). I haven't watched WWE in years, since the WCW invasion angle period: I missed, for example, Eddie Guerrero's whole run as champion, and believe it or not I've never even seen an entire John Cena match, ever. At this point I still follow all the company politics and such but don't watch anymore.

 

I'll go with Bret Hart. I was a huge Hitman mark as a kid, and I thought in general his matches were of a consistant level that seemed to deliver in the ring to me at the time. There's a huge chunk of it I haven't watched since I was a kid, but he certainly *seemed* like the best at the time. Even if it didn't draw.

 

 

(15) Which world champion do you think meant most to the company?

Hogan. Nothing that comes after Hogan means anything if Hogan doesn't come first.

 

 

(16) Which world champion had the worst run?

Kevin Nash/Deisel seems a safe answer.

 

 

(17) What do you consider the high point in WWF or WWE history?

Wrestlemania X7. It's true, sports entertainment done right can be massively entertaining to watch.

 

 

(18) What do you consider the absolute low point in WWF or WWE history?

From a wrestling/angle standpoint: Take your pick from a number of things that were being done in the attitude era before WCW decided that Vince Russo knew something about wrestling. Not a business lowpoint, but they ran some angles that led me to really question if I wanted to be watching pro wrestling (or their version of it as I was getting into Japanese stuff by then). Examples such as the Terri Runnels gets shoved off the apron miscarriage angle, the Steve Austin holds Vince hostage and theatens to shoot him with a gun on national TV only to have it pop out a BANG! flag and Vince "pees himself" on the air... stuff like that. I mean, nobody is saying wrestling is high art but some of it was so tasteless it made me uncomfortable to watch, and I basically switched to being primarily a Nitro viewer for a time.

 

From a much bigger picture standpoint of real significance: Owen Hart's death. Benoit's was pretty awful as well.

 

 

(19) Looking at things from their point of view, why do you think WWE frowns on employees being big wrestling fans?

I guess Vince is operating under the idea of not wanting people who can't see the forest through the trees, I guess just wanting an outside perspective that can try and tap into other markets of fnas. I don't really know though, I think it's a really fucking dense policy myself.

 

 

(20) Do you think the WWF has ever done a good job at booking tag teams in a meaningful way? If so, what time period?

I think they've built up some teams at points that are "well received" as a unit, but booking them in a meaningful way, not really. Tag team specialists have always been portrayed as being job fodder by comparison to a top singles worker, and nobody ever makes it big without the tag team split. And if you do get a superteam of two top singles workers, they always make a point to put over how they are both still top singles workers that just happen to be doing the tag team thing.

 

 

(21) What is the best non-main event feud the company has ever produced and why?

I'm really drawing a blank on a "great" non-headlining feud that made me really care for longer than it took me to change the channel. Hardys vs. Edge/Christian in the TLC matches and others, I guess? I dunno. At least it was a feud built around (pseudo, ladder based) wrestling and beating the crap out of each other and respect and toughness and all that good stuff. Not some stupid thing that had nothing to do with wrestling at all.

 

 

(22) What is the worst main event level feud the company has ever produced and why?

Undertaker vs. Undertaker was seriously awful on pretty much any level you want to name.

 

 

(23) What do you think was the single biggest contributing factor that caused the end of the 1998-2001 boom?

Loss of big stars with the fact that crash TV gets really, really old after a while, and a bust was inevitable. But mainly the number of big names that said bye-bye.

 

 

(24) From your personal experiences, is the WWF a company that delivers house shows where you feel you get your money's worth?

Not really, it's never been a company built around great wrestling so you take all the TV glitz and angles away and what's really left? I haven't watched them in any format for years, and they bring pretty much nothing to the table that makes me think I'm punishing myself by missing out on the things that make wrestling tick for me. I think I went to three house shows, and really they had nothing from a wrestling perspective I couldn't get for like $10 at a Prarie Wrestling Allicane show. There's no question which of the two options gives me more in ring bang for my buck.

 

 

(25) Where do you think they'll be in five years?

Unless there's a massive change in the competition, meaning a national opponent that actually means something, probably about the same that they are now. There's no reason to think they will suddenly change their ways until they need to, like when WCW lapped them originally.