Wrestling eras do not change smooothly

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Over the past few years I've seen people refering to different eras with different names (Golden, New Generation, Attitude, Ruthless Aggression, Pg, Reality(?)).
Everybody is waiting for Roman Reigns to become the next John Cena and bring upon us a new wrestling "era". However people, one person, can't do that.
People keep calling the 2011 and after period, the "Reality Era". The real-fighter Brock Lesnar and the pipe-bomb-shooting CM Punk seem to be the catalysts to that.
However, I disagree with the term "reality" being used for wrestling. It's ironic. I also disagree with the whole "reality era". It doesn't exist. It's fake. PG era is still here.

I'll get to my point, but first, let's take a look in the past.
The first era is considered to be the Golden Era from 1987-1992/93. How did it start? By Hogan winning the WWF Championship at MSG ofcourse. Wrong. It started because of Vince McMahon's vision and the creation of Wrestlemania. How did it end? It ended because Hogan left and new stars (Hart, Diesel, HBK) became champions. Wrong. It ended because of the 1993 steroid scandal.
How did that New Genaration Era ended? Austin won the title at 'Mania 14. Not so much. Bret Hart being screwed out of the WWF Championship in Montreal is the answer to that. It ended when WWF bought WCW.
Real life events, changed those periods.

Onto the next era, Ruthless Aggression era. That era didn't end because Batista, Orton, Cena and Edge became champions. It had the worst ending of them all. Chris Benoit, murdered his wife and son and the comitted suicide. He took away three lives and dragged with him the entire wrestling world.
Real life events change wrestling.

CM Punk's shoot and walkout almost changed the era, but Punk wasn't a big enough star to make any significant difference.
If you think that we're on the edge of a new era, think again. WWE would never survive another scandal like the ones mentioned in the current world. The day that we will see a wrestling era changing is the day Vince McMahon retires from his duties. I can't see any other way. No Reigns, Punk, Lesnar or Bryan could make a difference.

Just some things I wanted to share. Tell me your opinions.

 

[Reflection]

I think the Reality Era has more to do with Daniel Bryan than CM Punk; by my understanding, it was easily distinguishable (until the last month or so) from the stagnant product we connected with the "PG Era" and coincided with the following: (a) Triple-H being in-charge of more and more fields, (b) Daniel Bryan's rise to the very top, (c) Decreased Reliance on John Cena, (d) Entry of The Shield, the Wyatt Family, and Cesaro into the main roster and their rise, and (e) Increased importance of NXT (in the process of making some more future stars like Paige, Emma, Neville and Zayn, along with strong new recruits into NXT like Kenta, Steen and Devitt, who will ensure a bright future for the WWE in the years to come). The period between Punk's pipebomb and Team Hell No! was a transitional phase between the PG and Reality Era, although it can be included in the former.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Era's don't change smoothly but largely they do follow a cycle. It used to be 10 years but you do get 20 year cycles too... These tend to happen in all entertainment, certain trends repeat at the start of a decade, some in the middle and then at the end of the decade other's take over.

Take music... Since the 60's you've had a cycle of new music, guitar based mainly in the early to mid part of a decade, replaced with more formulaic manuactured music like Disco or Boybands and then dancier music at the end of the decade/early part of the new one.

For wrestling that applies too, you've had an incumbent star/stars from the early part of a decade, a new crop take over in the mid part and the peak comes around the 7 year before it drops off until the middle of the next decade after a couple of false prophets..

1980 you had Backlund, into 85 you had Hogan, Piper and the like... they hit their peak in 87 and business began to fall, they tried Warrior and then repeated the whole thing with Bret, Shawn and Austin... into the 2000's the same thing with Cena, Edge and Orton.

The patterns are there and have been for many many years now. Roman Reigns is in the exact same boat as Diesel was in 1994 and Benoit was in 2004... someone they want to push but ultimately try too hard with and it's destined to fail.

This era is going to be the least smooth because it's not a change yet.. the next era is the first era where Vince is no longer involved. Be that cos he is removed if the SEC stuff gets traction, if he retires or dies... On paper everything appears in place but there will come a point where even Trips will have to say "Enough Vince...one of us has to go". How WWE as a company handles that time will govern how the next era goes and if it's the last one... If Vince gets entrenched and fights, he'll take the company with him...

 

[No Count Pup]

This era is going to be the least smooth because it's not a change yet.. the next era is the first era where Vince is no longer involved. Be that cos he is removed if the SEC stuff gets traction, if he retires or dies... On paper everything appears in place but there will come a point where even Trips will have to say "Enough Vince...one of us has to go". How WWE as a company handles that time will govern how the next era goes and if it's the last one... If Vince gets entrenched and fights, he'll take the company with him...

Just remember that every major wrestling promotion in the United States has closed its doors, except Vince McMahon's. Nobody outside the McMahon circle has developed a proven system of sustainability. When Vince McMahon exits stage right, the industry will find itself in unchartered territory. Professional wrestling could take a nosedive.

If the OP thought era changes were messy before, wait until Vinces goes. Era changes tend to sink wrestling promotions. Transitions are difficult. Vince McMahon has overseen several of them. Can his former rivals make that claim?

A crotchety, stubborn Vince McMahon is better than any promoter past or present. He knows he's irreplaceable. That's probably what motivates him to stay on the job.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

If he sticks to being a wrestling promoter... but it's clear he has never been happy with that and every time has failed when he has tried to branch out. Be it XFL, WBF, WWE Films to an extent and currently the network is "on the bubble".

Wrestling operations are fine, to an extent Wrestling IS an unsinkable property, it expands and contracts but it was a staple of TV before Vince took over and will be after he goes. It's popular and relatively cheap programming for the networks that host it while getting strong ratings. That side of things is in very good hands with Triple H, to the level that worst case if Vince was removed then Trips would be the one "kept" because the core business is flourishing under his watch...it's the bells and whistles that are not and that is what Vince has always been about. He was never a true "wrestling promoter" and while that has helped sustain WWE at times and build it, it has also damaged it when his delusions of grandeur have exceeded his skills.

TNA has not yet closed it's doors, WCW only closed it's doors because Vince closed them, he could have very easily kept them open as a seperate company but chose not to. A Wrestling promoter would have seen the value and kept both... Vince being an "Entertainment" guy saw more value in destroying it. WCW didn't go cos the era changed, it went cos of corporate machinations in 3 companies, AOL. Time Warner and WWE.

 

[chuckmdubya]

I think we should call this the $9.99 era.
The way we watch wrestling is going to change. If the network starts doing very well, they may move all of their programming to it. In other words, if they can make the same amount of money from the network as they do now from TV contracts and advertising, we will see the end of Monday night raw.

Maybe WWE would do well with an actual TV channel, like the college football conferences are doing.

 

[WBL]

I think we should call this the $9.99 era.
The way we watch wrestling is going to change. If the network starts doing very well, they may move all of their programming to it. In other words, if they can make the same amount of money from the network as they do now from TV contracts and advertising, we will see the end of Monday night raw.

Maybe WWE would do well with an actual TV channel, like the college football conferences are doing.

I doubt we'll see the WWE off of regular TV anytime soon. Just for the sheer fact that, if they wanted to pull the show, they'd have done it already. The advertising dollars they get from USA and SyFy and the exposure they get, the opportunity to plug the network on basic cable, is too much for them to pass up unless the network starts doing really well, or the company ends up in the toilet.

 

[Mudlup50]

Can we be serious right now? They would not take Raw off USA unless they had to, it's making them money plus they get to brag about the fact it's the longest weekly episodic show in history that's a record and WWE loves records

 

[WBL]

Can we be serious right now? They would not take Raw off USA unless they had to, it's making them money plus they get to brag about the fact it's the longest weekly episodic show in history that's a record and WWE loves records

Actually, the longest running show on television is Meet The Press.

Unless you're talking about sheer number of episodes, then by far, it's Sportscenter.

I forget all the little caveats the WWE uses when it brings up how many episodes they've done.

 

[No Count Pup]

Actually, the longest running show on television is Meet The Press.

Unless you're talking about sheer number of episodes, then by far, it's Sportscenter.

I forget all the little caveats the WWE uses when it brings up how many episodes they've done.

Longest running weekly episodic show in history.