Yawn. Where in any point of my post did I refer to anything that was WWE centric? Sure, it's framed by TNA don't use managers, latter-day WCW didn't use managers, WWE don't use managers, towards the end ECW didn't really use managers, ROH doesn't use managers, AAA doesn't use managers, CMLL doesn't use managers in the way that you have described. The position of manager is completely at odds with the modern wrestling promotion, and it is why literally nobody uses them anymore. There is presicely zero in common between CZW and WWE stylistically, but neither of them have managers.
And like I said ... because it's more of a "Monkey See ... Monkey Do" approach that organizations take when it comes to playing "follow the leader". Case and point what TNA did with Taz. Here, they took the initiative to put a Play by Play and Heel Color Commentator duo in the booth by order of Jeff Jarrett .... but when Carter suspended Jarrett and decided to "put him in his place", she took her cues from WWE in how to run the commentary with the Play by Play / Analyst approach.
Despite an overwhelming number of fans speaking that the old commentary style is far more entertaining than today's.
All it is, is a case of companies play "follow the leader". At least Indys still use managers, and can think for themselves-- as they recognize the entertainment value they bring.
Call me a ROH-bot, call me a Shareholder call me whatever you want,
Well, if the shoe fits. I call it the way I see it, and if your comments come across those of either a Shareholder or an ROH-Bot, than that is what you will be referred to as.
Don't like the label? Then, learn to think for yourself.
I don't care, so long as you are prepared to call Dixie Carter, Paul Heyman and Eric Bischoff the same thing.
Why should I call Heyman that? Heyman had managers in ECW.
Bischoff did have managers in WCW, as well.
Vince was the one that began the trend on eliminating them.
As far as Dixie, I already established that this was nothing more than her playing a game of "follow the leader" with Vince. I may need to come up with a new name for promoters who do this type of thing, though.
I don't care about Vince's opinion on anything. He doesn't care about mine.
Well, I'm not convinced that you don't care about Vince's opinions, but at least you realize he doesn't care about yours.
As far as I can see, the only person obsessed with the actions of Vince McMahon isn't the ROH-bots or people who actually like the WWE, it's you.
LOL. It's not just me. Plenty of people are concerned about the direction Vince has taken the WWE in. All you need to do is start up a topic discussing the PG rating, and I guarantee you, you will feel the people's furor over what Vince did.
Also, start up a topic on the issue of the commentary styles, and again, you will hear people voice their displeasure over what Vince did by issuing in the Era of The Analyst.
The Toning down of characters .... again start it up and see what people have to say about Vince.
I'm going to have to stop you there. When you were watching wrestling in 1989, I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you were probably still a child. So we can pretty much discount your realtime comparisions. However, the internet is a wonderful thing and we can all look back and make judgments based on old videos. So you can stop with the patronization, thanks.
When did you begin watching wrestling, Tastycles? Not a knock on you, but when did you start watching? I'm curious.
Now, if you did not begin watching wrestling until the late 90's or so ... then do you not think that one who has watched wrestling through that Era all the way up to and including today's Era may be considered overall more experienced on the topic they are talking about?
I lived through all the Eras. I know what worked well in each and what did not. Therefore, I think I know through Experience what I am talking about, and therefore have confidence in my opinions on this topic.
Actually, that's not why it worked so well at all. It worked because Ventura is considerably better than everyone else in the company. If Byron Saxton turned heel tomorrow, we would not suddenly see a drastic improvement in the ECW commentary team.
You would actually see a definite improvement in the commentary style if Saxton, Striker, or Lawler turned Heel. No doubt about it.
Where as none of them are at Ventura's level, they would still bring a massive improvement in commentary style over the Analyst concept that Vince has in place today.
But yes, Jesse Ventura is generally regarded as the second best Color Commentator in WWE history ... only behind Bobby Heenan.
I'm not going to deny this. Managers certainly add some dynamicism to potential set ups of matches, within matches and whatever else you might care to judge a wrestler on, but there are more negatives to it.
I know were going to go in circles again, but please elaborate on what those negatives are.
If you are going to say "but they detract from the action in the ring" ... I really don't give a Fuck, Tastycles. It is not your job to tell me what I should and should not be focusing on at ringside. If I want to focus on EVERYTHING going on at ringside, that is my prerogative and not your position to tell me that "I should ONLY be entertained by what is happening in the ring".
If you like real contests and want to focus on that stuff, try UFC ... or watch Amateur Wrestling. People like you who buy into this garbage of wanting to view wrestling as a real athletic contest between competitors are part of why the wrestling crowds sit in silence at the events today. It's boring.
The point you're arguing is a sound one. The problem is, is that literally nobody has argued to the contrary.
Well, good. Glad to see we agree, then.
I'd disagree. Call them managers, call them valets, call them translators, bodyguards, fellow faction members, leperchauns, call them whatever you want, there are a similar number of matches that are disrupted by outside interferance now than there were in the 80s.
Well, hold off right there. Fellow faction members like Legacy ARE NOT MANAGERS. So don't even try to lump them in the same category.
And no, there is not the same level of outside interference from valets, translators, and so forth ... compared to managers. And that is what added to the drama of the match ... as you never knew when a manager was going to interfere in a match, or not .... and if they did, how they would influence the outcome of a match.
The only type of real interference in a match you see anymore are on a Wrestler to Wrestler Interaction ... such as Legacy interfering in an Orton match.
I'm not saying that these people share the role of managers, because they aren't the same, but I think it is wrong to say that there has been a shift to total in ring competition on the part of the WWE. ROH is pretty much the only place where such a shift has occurred.
Well, this was especially evident during the time when Mike Adamle was GM of Raw. WWE was basically all in-ring competition and the Entertainment level was pretty much at an all-time low.
However, for you not to see this shift towards a more in-ring focused product these past few years, I hate to say, but is very blind on your part.
I have noticed an increase in more promos and such these past couple months, but we are talking about the overall direction WWE has moved in during the past several years ... not simply what has been going on in the past few weeks, or months.
You even said it yourself with the concept of managers ... you find it "distracting" to the action inside the ring. And that was also why the Heel Color Commentator was removed ... because Vince found the arguing banter "distracting" to the in-ring action.
And in many ways, I think this was a move to try to appear less "cartoonie" (as Vince looked at it) and try to keep fans from potentially leaving to go to UFC ... by trying to get them to look at wrestling the way ROH fans do ... and appreciate the technical wrestling aspect of pro wrestling.
But to deny there has been a shift towards more of a focus on the technical aspect of wrestling and in-ring competition these past couple years, is flat-out dishonest, or ignorant.
Did Vince say that? You've quoted it, so can we have a source? That being said, my previous argument did focus on this aspect, so I'll get on with the others soon.
I didn't say that Vince himself said it. All I said was this was the same lingo used on the Internet from what WWE's position on the matter was. So, it's safe to say that this is what Vince is thinking behind closed doors.
This is definitely the ROH-bot philosophy of the matter though, in people who have argued against the case for managers at ringside. Because, Heaven forbid, they be "distracting" from watching a fake and scripted match, anyway.
It could be. For example, attributing the entire removal of an aspect of professional wrestling to one man is further from the truth.
No, I really don't think it is. Vince is the Pro Wrestling Leader in the World, and if this is what his Royal Highness deems, then so shall the rest of the world follow his lead.
With the support of ROH-Botz and "WWE Shareholders", how could you go wrong?
Ok, I'd agree with this. I've addressed point 1, with more to come. I will address point 2, and I will propose that guys like Rosa Mendes, Bam Neely and Ranjin Singh still do 3.
Well, you and I will disagree on the level of Point 3 that is done today, and it's obvious we aren't going to agree on Point 1.
Maybe, but to be honest there were five notable ones in the period you are talking about: Slick, Heenan, Hart, Frenchie and Mr. Fuji. The characters of these five were very different, but three of them were racial stereotypes, and the other two were two of the most colourful people in wrestling history. That being said, I'm not sure Heenan had a real discernible character, outside of hating the faces and loving the heels.
Just to make a correction to the first sentence. In the very late 80's, yes it was Heenan, Hart, Slick, Frenchy Martin, and Mr. Fuji.
In the early 90's, the main players were: Heenan, Hart, Slick, Mr. Fuji, Paul Bearer, and Sensational Sherri.
Obviously, you had the occasional Specialty Manager like General Adnan running around with Sgt. Slaughter .... and then of course other lesser qualified managers like Harvey Wippleman were added.
But then along came Jim Cornette, Johnny Polo, and The Million Dollar Man, as well.
Heenan was someone who was in fact, more of a personality. He had a number of different faces he put on: Comedic Heenan and Late Night Comedian wanna-be, as well as Tough Guy Bobby Heenan in which he physically involved himself in matches and occasionally wrestled.
But Heenan was yes, more of a personality than the others.
As far as Slick and Mr. Fuji being stereotypes ... loosen up a little. Slick and Fuji entertained countless fans over the years with Slick in his pimp persona and Fuji in his "honorable, devious Japanese" persona. I wouldn't trade that for anything else back then.
Are you denying that there are Black pimps out there on the streets? Would a White pimp in this day and age make you feel better?
As far as a duplicate Mr. Fuji, maybe it could happen down the road. Who knows? Did that really offend you that much? Does Vladimir Kozlov really offend you, as well? What about William Regal, Tastycles? Honestly ....
Arguable. Very few storylines required managers,
I am going to cut you off right there. Wrestling storylines really don't require managers. That isn't what I am arguing. I am arguing that they provide MORE entertainment, drama, and MORE possibilities to angles and storylines.
Even if they aren't "required" for wrestling, why would you like to see something like this gotten rid of, given what they can add to the product?
I want to hear you say, "I don't want managers in wrestling because ........", as opposed to simply arguing "well, they aren't necessary." That tells us nothing. Why do you personally NOT want them around?
apart from ones involving the managers turning on teams. What I would say is that they increase the potential methods of interaction, but in the days when they were used, this was rarely seen. That's not to say they could be used in this way now though, and like I said, I agree that this is a worthwhile use of managers.
It adds for more possible EVERYTHING in wrestling. It is just one more factor for the viewer to look forward to.
Let's look at your possibilities:
Good idea, but there are many alternatives to this. Divas could do the same, a wrestler allegiance could do the same, but it is not a bad idea per se.
Why not a manager, though, as opposed to a Diva. That is the root of the matter I am trying to establish with you. Why is a Diva acceptable, but not a Manager?
I see it, but I'm not sure it would work for the current faces. Beating up what would probably be an old man seems cowardly, unless they attack the heel too which renders it pointless really. I can't remember even Austin beating up guys like Brisco and Patterson on their own, rather than without first eliminating an actual wrestler.
Oh, give me a break. Managers were in their 30's, 40's, and 50's. You make it sound like they are beating up a cripple.
Anytime a wrestler beats up and takes revenge out on a non-wrestler, the crowd goes wild. Listen to Taker tomb-stoning Vickie Guerrero for instance. It is a thrill for the audience because the person is not a normal in-ring combatant, yet is taking one or several bumps. And people get excited with that kind of interaction, especially since more often than not, the crowd feels the manager deserved it.
All this serves to do is remove the person people want to see from the feud they want to see them in.
Again, Bullshit. The opponent will be interjected into the storyline at some point. And eventually, it will be between those two competitors. However, does this happen in TV Dramas?
Does the hero automatically go after the villain, or do they have to go through a few henchmen and other obstacles first? It's all part of a developing story. So no, I don't accept that argument either from you.
Good, we agree.
What's the point though? CM Punk goes to Teddy Long asks for a match isn't really any different to someone else doing it for him. It isn't really fresh and all it does is remove the person from the equation, for no real benefit.
Because otherwise, it will always be CM Punk interacting with Teddy Long whenever there is a problem.
Adding a manager means that sometimes CM Punk will interact with Teddy Long ... other times it may mean that the manager will interact with Teddy Long ... and other times it may mean that the manager AND CM Punk will interact with Teddy Long. It means MORE possibilities for the types of interactions.
Maybe the manager will try to intimidate Teddy Long ... and Teddy Long pushes back and gets into a confrontation with the manager, to the crowd's delight. However, then CM Punk gets involved and bullies Teddy around. Thus, everyone receives heat.
What was the bi-line of the CW Network? "Characters welcome" That is what I am advocating. More characters and different types of characters to keep the crowd entertained.
But then what? You start all over again with exactly the same storyline with another wrestler, it's tired.
I'll tell you what's tired-- seeing the same bullshit you see over and over on TV today. Nothing new. And if you think today's wrestling isn't stale, then you have got serious issues.
Again, Tastycles, you are failing on every front to come up with an argument why a wrestling element that
ADDS more possible
Everything is bad for wrestling.
The more possible scenarios you create, with more types of characters, the more entertaining product you will have. And this is why I have no issue arguing with people like you on this front, because I know inside, you really don't have an argument.
Not really though. I mean, I agree that there are literally more interactions. But seeing Randy Orton talk to Kofi Kingston and then seeing Bobby Heenan talk to Kofi Kingston about Randy Orton are basically the same thing.
No they aren't. Because Randy Orton and Bobby Heenan aren't the same person. When you see Randy Orton interacting with Kofi Kingston every single week on Raw, it gets tiresome. But mix it up with Kofi dealing with Orton one week, interacting with Heenan the next week, and then interacting with Orton AND Heenan the following week, and you have a much more interesting product.
Plus, you have the element of the crowd getting a thrill out of a non-wrestler getting beat up in the program.
Slightly different, but what they gain in diversity, they lose in potential. When Cena and Sheamus did the contract signing, it was mano a mano, someone might get beaten up, but which one? Replace Sheamus with a manager in that altercation, and you know that the only possible outcome is a surprise attack, which leads to the same possible scenario of "who is going through the table?".
But it doesn't have to be that way.
Your way has two possibilities (assuming someone has to go through a table):
1) Cena goes the table
2) Sheamus goes through the table
Now, if you would have had both Sheamus and his manager Jimmy Hart at the contract signing ... then, that creates a number of possibilities:
1) Cena goes through the table
2) Sheamus goes through the table, while Jimmy Hart retreats
3) Jimmy Hart goes through the table while Sheamus escapes
4) Both Sheamus and Jimmy Hart go through a table
5) Sheamus goes through the table while Jimmy Hart gets beat up
6) Cena and Sheamus brawl, with Sheamus going through the table while Jimmy Hart gets beat up
Again ... a lot more possibilities with a 3rd man involved in the equation. More characters involved = more possible scenarios to entertain the viewer with.
A few more, but not enough to outweigh the problems.
There aren't problems, Tastycles. This is Vince McMahon and the ROH-botz telling you there are problems.
There weren't problems with wrestling back in the day when they were used and WWE had a highly successful product at that time period. Your thoughts that "there are problems" is unfortunately as a result of you being brainwashed by Internet speak.
But any wrestler could already participate in any of those storylines. There doesn't have to be managers to do it.
There doesn't "have" to be. But why not? Especially when there are more scenarios available to be used to entertain the fans.
It's about giving the audience more characters for the fans to follow. Some of them are wrestlers, some of them are non-wrestlers ... but are also intriguing to follow. And it's especially interesting to watch what they are capable of doing, since the viewer knows going into it that the manager is not physically capable of going up physically against the wrestler. So the manager has to be creative and devise scenarios to get even with, or take their anger out on certain wrestlers.
And this can entertain the audience in seeing how a non-wrestler manages to accomplish this.
They already do that. Watch a Hart Dynasty match.
There aren't enough people that do it though. Natalya is not a manager, either. She is part of the faction. She just competes in the Women's Division and accompanies them to ringside.
Nor does she involve herself enough in the matches, but that is a different point.
All of the aforementioned assortments of translators etc. do all of these things. Some better than others - Natalya good, Bam Neely bad - but there is no denying that these things still occur.
I want to see non-wrestlers do these things. Again, because of the things I elaborated on earlier. It's more interesting when a true non-wrestler gets involved in a match, as opposed to someone who is considered a wrestler like a Bam Neely or a Natalya.
I also didn't know that Bam Neely was still working for WWE, Tastycles. Way to try to inflate the "Manager" roster.
Again, this still happens.
With what "managers"? Natalya? Rosa Mendez?
How often do you see them getting up on the ring apron and complaining to a referee about the count? How often do you see them slamming the mat, disgusted with the officiating?
This still happens too. Ranjin Singh always used to get nailed during Khali matches. Every single Finlay win in 2008 pretty much involved Hornswoggle baiting the opponent then the shileilagh hit for the win. Just because Hornswoggle is abhorrent for an adult viewer, it doesn't detract from his usefulness in this capacity.
Ranjin Singh wasn't involved in any matches at all, until Survivor Series where Khali "fought" Hornswoggle. That is when he began taking bumps.
But Ranjin Singh really isn't around anymore because of Khali, and Hornswoggle is not even close to being considered a manager. Plus, he is a Face, which helps give the kiddies a kick out of it ... but what about the Heel manager who involves himself, to gain the crowd's furor at ringside? Is this currently happening?
Probably the only one that people don't currently do to the same degree, but I'm not sure it makes any difference really. The crowd still get worked up in the same periods of a match.
Although it is infinitely more difficult for the wrestlers to do it as they are concentrating on the match itself. And often, they don't do it enough. However, when a match is slow, this is what a manager is useful for on the outside ... to stir the crowd up by taunting them and inciting them.
Plus, it can't hurt if both the wrestler does it as well as their manager.
Again, more possibilities is not a bad thing. The greater the flexibility, the better.
I assume you don't mean literally those people are still out there, because some of them are dead, and the others are pretty unhealthy. I reckon Heyman is the only one still fit enough to work and still in the business is probably Heyman.
No, I don't literally mean those same people. Heyman is available obviously. So is Cornette, but that won't happen, as we know.
But my point was that people of that caliber are out there and waiting to be discovered, if only WWE would change their stance on managers ... and allow them to be the characters they used to be.
So wait, Vince does what ever he wants and spoon feeds the shareholders, but he's actually listening to the ROH-bots. Interesting. Does anyone else know about this higher power? Are we going to see a Shareholder-ROHbotinistry soon? I reckon your clutching at straws. I reckon that you want to blame everything that you don't like in wrestling on a minority of fans that are, on the whole irrelevant, and Vince McMahon. I reckon that you're struggling to pin the lack of managers on either of them so you're contradicting yourself and trying to force them into the same pigeon-hole.
I didn't contradict a damn thing, Tastycles. I think Vince has been influenced by a number of factors over the years ... changes that evidently you are too blind to see.
And I think those factors are:
UFC/MMA
ROH
Japanese wrestling
He simply gave all of the ROH-botz what they wanted in the process ... and that is why they have been thrilled with the changes the past couple years.
And of course the blind "WWE Shareholders" simply go right along with whatever Vince McMahon says because to them "Vince McMahon is GODDDD!" Right, Tastycles?
I don't doubt that somebody out there has similar talents to Bobby Heenan, but nobody is looking for them, in the same way that nobody is looking for someone with the same talents as the world's greatest horsecart designer, because those talents are no longer necessary.
Those talents were "never" necessary, however they only provide more enjoyment to the product.
The bottom line is ... "do you advocate things that provide for MORE enjoyment and possibilities for the product or LESS enjoyment and possibilities for the product?"
And for you to acknowledge that "another Bobby Heenan is out there" but "WWE shouldn't look for that person because they are useless and not needed" is probably going to be a sin amongst internet posters who absolutely loved Heenan. How on Earth could you in good faith, not advocate another Bobby Heenan in the WWE? Ridiculous.
Yes, Vince rang me up actually. Oh wait, no he didn't. Show me where Vince has ever said "managers are dated". He doesn't have them on his shows, but neither does anyone else. They were a necessity in the way of broadcasting that was used from about 1984 to the start of Raw and Nitro, but have been scarcely used by anyone anywhere before or since.
And we are going in circles with this.
But when Vince refers to someone as a "manager" in this day and age, let me know.
Vince is not necessarily going to come out and say that "managers are a dated concept". I believe Jim Ross, however, made this reference to Face/Heel commentary teams .... and that clearly comes from Vince's ideology, because Ross himself said in the blog that he personally advocates those types of teams because they are more entertaining.
However, it's safe to say that since Vince believes that about the change in commentary he made, then he certainly believes the same about managers. Do you think Vince just woke up one day and simply said "You know, I am tired of calling the people at ringside managers. Let's call them stylists, translators, leprechauns, etc. And down the road, let's eliminate most of them ... for no real reason at all."
Yeah, Tastycles. Vince doesn't think it's a dated concept at all.
Just like you don't think it is either, right?
Until now, it has been all opinion from both sides, but this ladies and gentlemen is categorical proof that Lord Sidious is talking out of his arse.
Managers didn't really exist in the days of complete regional competition. Buddy Rogers, Killer Kowalski, Gorgeous George, all of these early days big named heels were managerless.
The change came in the 1970s, when wrestlers started touring, but the companies stayed put. Basically, the manager would stay with the company and appear with new heels as they entered the fray, so people knew to boo them and they had heat, basically.
In the early nationalised period on television, until weekly TV, there was bigger rosters, but little time for everyone to get over. This is why there were more wrestlers than managers- the managers appeared with a different wrestler each week to build heat, but their presence maintained the heat for their other clients. 1993-5 saw the advent of regular weekly television and the manager disappears from the major companies. In the late 90s the advent of digital broadcasting means smaller companies get some television exposure and the manager disappears completely.
That, for your information, is why managers are dated, because the purposes they served no longer exist.
Managers were a part of pro wrestling for about 10-15 years before they had their 9 year heyday, which is emphatically not DECADES.
Oh, please. You're arguing semantics. I was counting the 80's and 90's for this. However, they were around in WWE for at least 1985-1997. And WWE did quite well with them, wouldn't you say?
Yup, because CZW is taking all of their cues from Vince McMahon aren't they? ROH too. No, it couldn't possibly be a general trend, literally internationally witnessed, could it?
The question is "Who started the trend?" Trends start from somewhere. Who started this one, Tastycles? I already said that Vince took some pointers from Japan, ROH, MMA/UFC and so forth with his current product.
But Vince is the one that set the trend in motion in the U.S., yes. Even though he may have looked at ROH as an influence.
Are you going to be ignorant enough to suggest that Vince isn't influenced by anything outside of WWE? We already know and accept that he was influenced by ECW in creating the Attitude Era.
Right, good for you. Funnily enough, that's what WCW did very successfully. That being said, there are a few things that seem to be universally accepted by all as necessary, e.g. having heels and faces, and right now managers appear to be in this category.
I would like to agree with you, in that they should be considered necessary. Unfortunately, I think you simply made a typo.
No, actually I would quite like them to hate the person who tours with the company, the person who is invariably younger and the person who is far more dynamic in what I can have them do. If Bobby Heenan had left the WWF in 1990, about 8 people's heat would have tanked. If Haku had left, it would have effected only himself. That is why, as a promoter, you do not want the manager to be the real deal.
Just like people care about the following wrestlers who don't really have managers:
Big Show
Drew McIntyre
Sheamus
Cody Rhodes
Ted Dibiase
Dolph Ziggler
Vladimir Kozlov
Ezekiel Jackson
Shelton Benjamin
and the list goes on and on.
Like I said, the trick is for the manager to get equal timing with the wrestler they manage. Their purpose is to support the wrestler. And maybe managers went a little overboard in the past. However, let's fault that with the writers in scripting the segments to be too one-sided towards the manager and not enough for the wrestler.
Plenty of great wrestlers/characters had managers and could co-exist just fine.
Ravishing Rick Rude
Mr. Perfect
The Honky Tonk Man
The Million Dollar Man
Macho Man Randy Savage
none of those guys needed managers.
Rick Rude didn't NEED Heenan.
Honky didn't NEED Jimmy Hart.
The Big Boss Man didn't need Slick.
But they were all better with them. It was a package deal that entertained the audience and again, provided more scenarios.
Yeah, just like when nobody cared about half of Slick's clients. Crap wrestlers, crap reaction. Crap managers, crap reaction. It doesn't matter which.
Just like the crap reaction you see today to wrestlers who fans couldn't care less about today, right?
Exactly, the failure being that they focussed on the managers not the wrestlers.
There can be an equal attention on both. But if the crowd chooses to hate the wrestler more so because of the manager, who the fuck cares? That's their choice, and nor is it my place to tell them what they SHOULD be hating the wrestler for.
Firstly I don't know if you know the meaning of "exactly", but they aren't the exact words I used, so you might want to revise that one. Detracting from the man in the ring, as in the wrestler the feud is centred on, is actually a very bad thing, for reasons I've already stated. Detracting from the match in the ring, which is what you are talking about, is an entirely different thing altogether. The guy can have a man on the outside doing whatever he wants, and that can be a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing when it starts becoming more about the manager than the wrestler, which is invariably what happened in the manager era, but isn't really what happens in the current translator/enforcer/girlfriend etc. era.
If a storyline is more so about a manager's revenge for something, ambition ...etc. and they are the key focal point of the storyline, I don't have a problem with it. But those cases are going to be few and far between.
But managers are not involved enough in the matches today. They have the same problem that the wrestlers have in which Creative simply does not give them enough reason to care about them. So if you aren't going to do that, then yes, they really are useless if they aren't going to do a damn thing at ringside except look pretty 99% of the time.
There is a way to do it right, and Creative needs to find that balance. And they DO NOT have that balance today.
Secondly, I have absolutely no idea what websites you are talking about, but unless they are this forum, I have never read them.
Oh, well.
Good for you, explain to me where I said anything that countered that.
Well, being that you don't want managers around because you think they are useless, this may be something you didn't say, but certainly implied.
To be honest, I'm getting tired of you bringing up the same old tired points that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand and arguing points that nobody has made.
I don't really give a shit, Tastycles. Quite frankly, I am tired of you doing the same, and that is likely why you see my arguing and responding with the same arguments ... because they are only a response to your own.
You don't have a case here and deep down, you know it.
It is imperative that the fans are more interested in the wrestlers than the managers, because they are the ones that you have a long term vested interest in. I have not at any point in any post I have ever written said anything negative about the idea of something going on next to the ring while there is a fight going on. Seriously, the sooner you wake up and realise that there are people that disagree with you that don't fall into some petulant categorisation that you wish to impose on them the better.
Managers, if used right, are another type of character you can have a long term interest in, as well. You have to manage both characters correctly. Maybe some managers are excellent for managing, but some wrestlers ... even with a manager, simply aren't cut out for wrestling.
So it is really dependent upon each individual case, and the potential of the wrestler.
However there is no better way to get a wrestler over than to have an established manager introduce him to the crowd.
That's all well and good, I'm not going to stop you from watching wrestling because you derive entertainment from complaining about it or for whatever other reason you choose to watch it. However, the primary focus has to be on the wrestlers themselves, because otherwise you are jeopardising your long term future. While WWF was focussing on Stone Cold and The Rock, WCW was focussing on shocking the audience. There is literally no better example.
Please. Go back and talk to Eric Bischoff about what Killed WCW. And even he will tell you that it was the Time Warner merger that did that. Don't even play that game with "Russo Killed WCW". Did Russo kill WWE by shocking the audience? No.
Managers are entertaining to many, but the problem is is that people start to care about them more.
That's the prerogative of the fan in what they want to care about. Nobody should tell them otherwise, as long as they continue to watch.
That in itself isn't much of an issue, except for the fact that eventually they get their commupance and when that does happen, people start losing interest.
That's why eventually, new wrestlers, and new managers are signed. Different characters and personalities.
There has, to my recollection, never been a manager that has stayed with a company as a manager for much longer than 5 years because once their client turns on them, nobody cares about them the next time. Having managers spread across rosters leads, in the modern era, to overexposure and people will get sick of them.
Just like they do the wrestlers, right?
There is a shelf life for managers, just like there is a shelf life for wrestler.
And if handled correctly, yes people will still care when wrestlers split from managers.
Did people stop caring about Undertaker when he split with Paul Bearer? There is a right way and a wrong way to book splits like this.
All of which are currently served by girlfriends/bodyguards/sponsored drug rehabilitation people etc.
Not enough of those characters and DEFINITELY not to the degree where people even give a shit about them.
To an extent. The standard would be for Mean Gene to ask a question, the manager to spend about 2 minutes answering, then the client saying something like "I'm gonna crush you, Hogan" then that's it. For such a staunch advocate of character development of wrestling like yourself, the manager is a massive burden. What did you know about the Hart Foundation as heels other than they wore pink and Jimmy Hart was their manager? Nothing.
Then you know what you do, Genius? You spend equal time with the managers AND the wrestlers with their promos. Divide them up.
There are plenty of wrestlers on the WWE roster today that the crowd could care less about, like Mike Knox, who could use a manager to make the crowd actually care about him.
Because that isn't really variety is it? There's like 10 heels on a brand, so say 8 of them take a manager, that removes 3 possible opponents instantly. It would also lead to overexposure of the manager.
What do you mean, removes opponents? How does giving them a manager "remove an opponent"?
For fuck sake, how many times have you misquoted me?
First of all, you watch your Fucking mouth in how you speak to me. You want to debate, then let's debate. However if I seem testy in this response to you, it has only been escalated in your post right here. Watch your tone, Tastycles. For someone who I nominated as "Best Poster" out of only choosing one person to nominate, I honestly would have expected better than this out of you.
Please, before your inevitible reply, can you actually reply to what I said. I said it had moved on, not forwards, not backwards, just on. That doesn't mean it's better, it means its different. If you need a thread to explain to you that a constantly evolving roster with irregular television exposure is different to a fixed roster with copious weekly television is different, then so be it.
Why do you define getting rid of managers as "moving on". You say the business has moved on with them having their roles reduced. Why is it necessarily "moving on" in your words, as if it is a good thing for the product? How is this benefiting WWE today in your words? Please give examples.
