Alpha Conference Final: jmt225 vs. Numbers

Discussion in 'Debater's League 2010' started by Phoenix, Nov 21, 2010.

  1. Phoenix

    Phoenix WZCW's First Triple Crown Champion

    Feb 16, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Now that Linda's Senate Campaign is now over, should WWE remain PG or not?

    This is a conference final match in the Debater's League. jmt225 is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

    This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

    Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

    Good luck.​
  2. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I have chosen to go first, and I will argue the side that WWE should NOT remain PG.

    Now, before I get started, let me say that I’ve never believed the reason why WWE went PG in the first place was because of Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign. Could that have been a small part of it? Sure, but to think it was the sole reason is a little stupid, in my opinion.

    Anyways, I’ve always understood why WWE wanted to try this PG thing out. It makes sense. Ratings kept dropping, and they figured it was time to try something new. At this point in time though, I think it’s more than safe to say that things did not work out. Ratings and pay-per-view buys have steadily dropped, and the quality of programming has been held back because of the restrictions the PG rating brings to the show.

    The fact of the matter is, WWE’s target audience should be the male demographic of 18-35. That was their target during the Attitude Era, and attracting those fans led to WWE consistently maintaining the greatest ratings and pay-per-view buys throughout the company’s history. So, why not try and attract that audience again, especially today when the voices of that demographic are louder than ever because of the internet and what not?

    Another thing I’d like to bring up, is that while it’s super cute for the crowd at wrestling shows to mostly be parents with their precious kids, the fact that it’s currently like that heavily brings the value of the show down. Today’s live wrestling audience is TERRIBLE. Only a couple of wrestlers get true reactions out of the crowd, which causes the program’s quality to diminish, since a quiet crowd brings the excitement of the show heavily down.

    The way I see it, it is because WWE has been trying to attract kids and their parents (who most likely were never real wrestling fans, or at least haven’t followed wrestling in the last ten years) why live audiences today seem so dead whenever you watch a show on television. The only exceptions to these audiences are international crowds, who are very into each show. Why? Because there are nothing but real fans of pro wrestling in attendance; grown men and women who truly love the business and appreciate witnessing a show live and in person. And that’s why it seems like every time we see a Raw or Smackdown overseas the show seems so much better than shows in America.

    All this said, let me add that me saying WWE should steer away from the PG rating does not mean I’m suggesting they need to go back to being really raunchy and offensive. I think where WWE’s product hurts most because of the PG rating is the restrictions it withholds from the programming. Because of the rating, they have to tone pretty much every thing down, and when you do that, the passion and intensity in storylines just aren’t there. The PG rating constantly has WWE throw in silly jokes in serious moments, and takes away potentially great spots because it might be looked at as too violent for PG.

    Moreover, having these PG restrictions heavily takes away innovations from the company. It’s just really hard for WWE to do new, innovative storylines and characters when you have to limit yourself because you want to be a kids program, rather than attract adults. You think if major networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox all of a sudden decided they want to attract kids to their primetime slots that they would be able to continue to create and produce new, innovative shows? Absolutely not, and it’s the same thing for WWE regarding storylines and characters.

    The fact of the matter is, pro wrestling is violent. There are violent images, and when you constantly have to stray away from the violent aspects of pro wrestling and constantly remind us that yes, the show is fake, it takes enjoyment away from being a fan, and it’s a huge reason why people are turned off from the business today. When we watch pro wrestling, we want to be shocked. We want to tune out from the real World and enter this crazy universe of professional wrestling. Why must there be restrictions? Anything should be possible in this business. Anything should be able to happen any given night.

    But, unfortunately, pro wrestling today isn’t like that. It takes a Raw dedicated to how things USED to be for me and most fans to actually enjoy an entire program of Raw from start to finish (I’m of course referring to the Old School Raw from last week). It shouldn’t be like that. WWE should be creating new memories for us to be able to reminiscence about ten years from now, rather than look back in disgusts in. That should be their focus, but it’s not. Their focus is to make a kids program, which just tremendously brings the value of programming down, especially for an adult like myself.

    And there are no good reasons why they’re trying to get kids to watch, anyways. Raw airs 9PM on Mondays and ends at 11. Ummm… most parents I know have their kids in bed by then, so why in the World would you try and get your ratings from people who are tucked into bed while the show is airing? It makes absolutely no sense.

    To end my opening post, I never, ever liked the PG Rating, but I understood why WWE wanted to try it. They had their reasons, however you can now declare that it's been an absolute failure, and now that Linda’s campaign is over (if that was indeed part of the excuse why WWE went that route), then there’s no more reasons why they should keep the show rated PG.
  3. a0161613

    a0161613 WZCW's Mr Excitement

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    If WWE committed to making their PG rated product a success, they could do it. There is no doubt in my mind that it could be done successfully. But the failures for a lack of success so far should be placed on Vince’s shoulders because he has not moved the company forward to cope with the pressures and requirements of a PG related product and everything that comes with it.

    WWE should remain PG - the company is not doomed to failure if it remains in its current form yet there is room for massive potential and future developments if they would commit to the revolutionary changes to its product.

    A PG WWE could be huge but there are so many restrictions that are holding it that are remnants of the Attitude era. No PG rated product that is broadcast so late will ever truly capture the imagination of its target audience when they are tucked up in bed. Is the prime time slot so important to WWE? It can’t be as precious to them as much as it was five years ago. It’s the same with their pay-per-view buys – the PPV schedule, especially in recent weeks, where there are too many events. It’s one of many factors which has not evolved with the product and are a remnant of the days when they opposed WCW.

    The in-ring product is just as crucial as it was ten years ago. Nowadays the characters are as plan as whipped cream – surely there is room for characters that are just as interesting as Stone Cold or The Rock. We don’t need blood, innuendo and swearing. But characters can be interesting and have qualities which mean that people of all ages – not just kids – relate to them in the same way that we related to Austin ten years ago.

    The traditional core audience of wrestling doesn’t need to be alienated, which is often (but certainly not always) the case. Everyone can relate to a great match if it displays athleticism and drama – a great WrestleMania main event is still great no matter when it happens. While Vince likes to call his product a soap opera, at the end of the day it is sports-entertainment and at its’ roots it’s still wrestling, which has always had great characters and immeasurable drama.

    The Old School Raw proves that PG doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It took a show dedicated to how things used to be but made it entertaining because there were old school characters who were beyond larger than life and brought them back within the constraints of their programming. It worked because of the characters worked and the program wrote itself. The characters made that programme worth watching beyond anything else.

    The WWE is getting a lot of money for committing to this new agenda. Merchandise and advertising are worth a huge amount, with the deal with Mattel being worth a lot than it ever was with Jakks. And the value of merchandise is about as high as it ever has been. PG is a success off screen as much as the Attitude era ever was.

    The problem with the current product go back before WWE even thought about PG. The writers are being told to write a soap opera and are hiring aspiring Hollywood writers to do it. That led to HHH vs Orton at Mania and that home invasion angle, which was particularly abysmal. The problems are not solely due to the PG ratings anymore. It’s due to the style of booking that Vince seems to want to promote at the moment.

    But as TNA are proving, controversy, blood and big names who were popular ten or twenty years ago does not make for a great product that people tune into.

    PG gets a lot of stick from fans clamouring for some Attitude. I don’t like how they have approached it in many ways but I am of the firm opinion that the PG era has brought plenty of good things that WWE fans will remember as fondly as JMT and I recall our own favourite moments.

    Simple storylines work. Nexus, HBK vs Undertaker I & II, the Orton turn were all clever ideas and great events that have worked and came about in the last eighteen months and demonstrate perfectly that a PG rating is not the disaster that fans claim it to be.
  4. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    So you’re saying WWE truly hasn’t been committed to the PG rated product? I don’t understand; what more could they do to convince you that they gave this a real shot to succeed?

    You can’t just make a claim like this and not provide examples. How hasn’t Vince moved the company forward to cope with the pressures and requirements of a PG related product? What more can he do, exactly?

    WWE of course will never be a doomed company (at least, not any time soon). They have too much money and exposure for that to happen.

    However, they could be much more successful than what they currently are, and stepping away from the PG product is a nice first step to start that process as I explained in my first post.

    WWE and Raw are synonymous with that time slot. It would make absolutely no sense to change it, especially if you’re talking about moving it to an afternoon slot or something to that affect. The USA Network wouldn’t allow it, anyway.

    With the restrictions that the PG rating brings, I don’t think it’s possible this day in age. To attract casual fans to the sport, there must be unique, edgy characters apart of the programs, and you absolutely cannot do that with the PG rating. What PG rated shows do really good in the ratings? Even Glee is rated tv-14.

    Shows must be edgy and shocking to reach a broader audience. The PG rating just does not allow that to happen.

    I agree, but regardless, if a storyline needs to go in that kind of direction to make it more believable and/or enjoyable, then WWE shouldn’t restrict themselves from going that route if that have to. It makes no sense.

    Then why hasn’t it happened yet? The only person WWE has been able to get true exposure for in the last 5 years is John Cena. That’s it. And even Cena turns people off with his super goody-two-shoes approach. People today are attracted to screw-ups and assholes. Why do you think you see more stories in the media about people like that than you do the good guys? Because people are interested in them, that's why. Even in sports a typical hated personality will be way more covered by a station like ESPN over a beloved personality. It’s just how it is.

    I love the wrestling aspect of sports entertainment as well, but wrestling isn’t what draws the people in. Nobody paid to watch Hogan wrestle during the eighties, they watched him to beat up bad guys. They didn’t care about the quality of matches, just who Hogan was and why he wanted to beat up his opponent.

    Even during the Attitude Era, people were not drawn to Austin and The Rock’s matches. Nobody cared who the nWo faced in the ring… it was all about the continuing storylines why people were drawn in, not the actual wrestling.

    The Old School Raw was only entertaining because of the nostalgia effect it had on us who have been watching pro wrestling for a really long time. However, for those newer fans, they were bored, as we were able to see by the dead reactions from that pathetic crowd.

    It’s nice for WWE to pay tributes to their old wrestlers, but all last Monday was at the end of the day was a simple reminder that yes, things used to be better when Raw was a Raw show, not a sissified kiddies program.

    Do you have any proof to back this up? WWE has always done extremely well with merchandise, and I find it hard to believe that today, when they can barely manage a 3.0 rating, they do more successful merchandise wise than when they were doing 6.0 ratings on a consistent basis.

    Soap Opera in pro wrestling has always been there. Hogan vs. Randy Savage was a soap opera, and look how well Wrestlemania 5 did. The nWo vs. WCW was a soap opera. Austin vs. Vince was a soap opera. Soap opera and storytelling will always be a huge part of pro wrestling and what draws people in. If fans were strictly in it just for the wrestling aspect, then Ring of Honor would be the biggest wrestling company in the World right now. But we both know that isn’t exactly the case, is it?

    TNA’s problems have nothing to do with blood and controversy. It’s all about terrible writing. Those past stars could contribute something to the company, but TNA doesn’t know how to use them properly. That’s their problem. If they tried to be PG themselves, trust me… they would be doing even worse than they are now.

    It’s not about WWE having attitude, it’s about them being a program for adults and real wrestling fans, not for kids who don’t draw them dick. Kids will stdill watch even if it’s rated tv-14. I was a kid all throughout the attitude era, as were my friends who watched. If kids want to watch pro wrestling, they will watch it, no matter what the rating is. However, adults and teenagers are MUCH harder to appease, and I think it’s really hurting WWE that they aren’t trying to appease that demographic, business and quality wise.

    Nexus was great at the beginning, and then the novelty wore off and it all became about Wade Barrett. HBK vs. Undertaker were two legends who built their names off the nineties, so of course people were interested in those two wrestling. And the Orton turn was from the fans, not from the writers, and nothing about it is memorable, to be honest.

    But the fact is, Nexus could have been much bigger without the PG restrictions, and WWE could have done a lot more with the faction. Moreover, Orton could do a lot more with his current character if it weren’t for the show being rated PG. Sadly though, we’ll never get to truly know since WWE has limited itself to being a company for kids, rather than a company who does what’s truly best for business.
  5. a0161613

    a0161613 WZCW's Mr Excitement

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    There's plenty that could be done and I think that if WWE wanted to make a big push then they could. They could put their programming on earlier. SD, pay-per-views and they could do it with Raw. The current content of these programmes would warrant it.

    There is no guarantee that an edgier approach would be any more successful

    There’s also a change in writing and booking style that could happen. There are signs in recent months that this is happening – Cena – away from the title picture - is fighting the ultimate bully in Nexus. John Morrison is doing the same himself. Even Santino being a tag title contender seems to appease to a PG audience because of the character he portrays.

    There are simple heat-getting heels like Vicky Guerrero and the anonymous GM, even Michael Cole, who are just being simply obnoxious. Not offensive or in your face.

    Agreed - they are using their position to do something which has never been done before. This PG era is low risk for the company. The deal with Mattel lasts until 2015, so this time can be used to make stars who can then flourish with the reins off, if they choose to do that.

    This would depend on the definition of successful. They are still making money, ratings are not going down and stars who will be around in five-ten years time are being created.

    And they can't step away until this deal with Mattel expires. PG is not something that will be walked away from. Even when it happens, it won't a quick shift.

    I think an afternoon slot would be extreme and unsuccessful for a live programme but early evening would work a treat. I don’t know about in the US but over here the only regular WWE programming that shows before 10pm is Superstars on a Sunday morning and that is probably a rerun.

    Wrestling has as much history for being shown in the early evening as it does at between 9-11pm but

    I don’t believe that PG is restricting them in terms of creating unique characters. And I think that if Vince was really fussed about the ratings and challenging Monday Night Football (for example) on a regular basis, then he wouldn't have catered the programming to this PG rating. Unique shows get good ratings - Glee showed this- but Raw has the problem of being a PG rated programme in a slot that is not catered for PG programming.

    Casual fans would have been turned off well before the PG era started. There are countless events that would turn a casual viewer off – I could highlight entire years like 2003 or events like the Invasion.

    I dont see it as a must. Nexus was a shock but that didn't increase the ratings in the long term. If a casual fan saw that angle, they would definitely tune in.

    The problem I have with WWE is the choices that they in writing and choice of who goes over in the big storylines. I don't think blood is a hugely important factor but I agree it has a place in wrestling although I am not sure it has been missed.

    Yes, I am not a huge Cena fan. He is an incredible company guy, with a great work ethic. He deserves his spot. I blame the WWE for not giving his character a makeover. They made his character stale and encouraged the bad-selling, Superman approach. The writing and booking is blame here, Not Cena.

    But he was over with the kids and is a huge part of the PG environment. The drama between him and Nexus in recent weeks has brought about incredible reactions from the fans.

    And I am certain that this could work in a PG environment. Heels are assholes on a regular basis - the Miz is a prime example of how that can work well. They dont need to swear to pull it off. Good work on the mic and in the ring can do that. It's not edgy compared to Stone Cold but he gets heat. Another example is Vicki Guerrero.

    The drama hasn't disappeared and has shown to be alive and well in the current environment. The PG rating doesn’t affect the basic ingredient for intriguing storylines. The storyline formula has barely evolved.

    You said yourself that the crowd reaction has been dying so the reaction on that one episode is not a one-off. And as fun as it was to watch, it didn't make a jot of difference in the ratings, which is probably more different that the crowd reaction.

    So surely, no fans were put off because the core TV audience barely changed. The three hour episode didn’t draw new fans or take old fans from MNF, just like good episodes in the past haven’t taken fans on a consistent basis.

    As far as I have noticed, crowd reaction hasn’t died a death like you claimed. There are many faces in the company currently who get a reaction even the faceless GM gets a reaction. Maybe the lack of reaction can be down to the old wrestlers who were used, who were simply not popular enough or well known enough to the current audience.

    But the Old School Raw was a PG program, so it was done Old School-style within PG constraints. Apart from Sheikh and Piper swearing and someone bleeding, what was missing from that Raw? It's not like Stone Cold appeared and was unable to say hell yeah.

    From the Stamford Advocate:
    I've read elsewhere that the deal is worth $15 million a year but there is clear room to improve and going to a company like Mattel is going to improve it. I am certain the new WWE game will have sold as well as expected too.

    The ratings are poor but the PG era has very little to do with it. The ratings certainly aren’t an indication of quality programming and they can’t be blamed for the current 3.0 level. WWE turned plenty of fans away long before PG was a factor.

    The problem in my eyes is that they need to realise they are working with wrestlers not actors. What I mean is the drama with Austin and McMahon was quite simple, Hogan and Andre, Hogan and Savage. It was all quite uncomplicated and Nexus / Cena harks back to that.

    Even the Higher Power angle was simple. So was the Two Man Power Trip. No reason why that couldn’t work in a PG setting.

    If they went PG I think i would actually give up with them. But the point you make about the writing affects WWE just as badly some times. I think they play safe with a lot of the choices that they make. They don't seem to explore some of the boundaries and what they can get away with.

    I think the PG thing is just a stage of wrestling; in many ways it is cyclical and I think this is just a means to the WWE evolving to the next era. Before the Attitude era, the mid-nineties were similar in many ways and the company was quite boring and lacking a lot.

    If this is the case then PG WWE will evolve into TV-14 and keep a lot of the fans as they grow up, they will turn into young adults who will draw them lot of money.

    Or I could be wrong and WWE may well be looking back in ten years time and saying that PG was a mistake.

    The novelty wore off when WWE didn’t have the balls to use Cena to put them over. The Super Cena routine at Summerslam killed them off. They should have demonstrated themselves as a dominant unit and the result at Summerslam really harmed the dominant aura that they had built up.

    And HBK vs Undertaker brought about all the drama that you say couldn't have happened. The PG guidelines didn’t harm the build up to either match, especially the second when they were truly pushing the heel/face drama of it. Of course the nostalgia was a factor but the buyrates showed that they didn't draw the old fans in.

    What could they have done different? Danielson wouldn't have got fired, Cena would have bladed. The basic outcome would have been the same with the Nexus being dominated by Cena.

    This is probably true. We will never know how successful Orton could truly be. He may well be the guy that leads the company like Austin did, but in recent weeks he has suffered due to a real lack of creative attention to his character. Orton, even as champion, has been secondary to Cena and Nexus, which has made his run as champ a total non-event.

    Orton was around before the PG era and showed what he could do before the restriction came in - his character hasn't really changed too much.

    Like i said they may regret this approach but the day when that becomes clear is a long way off. I certainly dont see that the PG era is bad for business. The company is making money, they are creating future fans and future Superstars that those fans will pay money to see. Yes, buy rates ratings are down but Vince clearly is not panicking.
  6. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Nah, putting programs on earlier would be death. When do you ever see popular kids programs in the afternoon/early evening top the ratings chart? Pretty much never.

    Besides, it's as I said earlier, that's not even WWE's choice; it's the network's.

    Of course, because we're talking about WWE here. They could fuck anything up, storyline or character wise, no matter what the rating of the program is. However, my argument is that they would have more options and wouldn't be limited to as much as they are if they weren't rated PG.

    Why should a company's goal be to appease the current audience they have? Their goal should be to attract new viewers, not just satisfy the people tuning in.

    And those characters would be fine if the show wasn't PG, and probably even better since they wouldn't have as many limitations on what they could say or do.

    Why should Mattel be the end all and be all for WWE? The end all and be all are the shareholders, and it's been like that since WWE became a public company. They are what really matters now, not some toy company.

    My definition of successful is simply doing a lot better than what WWE is doing. Growing up watching pro wrestling, I know what successful for the pro wrestling business is, and it's NOT 3.0 ratings, and 100,000 pay-per-view buys. To me that's below mediocre.

    True, but television today is revolved around the primetime slots. Even if WWE could choose what time they wanted to air their shows, you just don't give up a primetime slot, especially the timeslot most fans (current and old) are used to seeing the product.

    Which is another reason why they shouldn't be PG. This is pro wrestling; no matter what WWE does, it's going to be hard for them to be ever truly considered PG. When people tune in, they'll be seeing violence, end of story.

    For them to be truly PG, it's as you said, they're going to have to move to earlier time slots, and they're also going to have to get rid of a lot of violence. How in the World could that end up being a success for WWE? How could that make it a more enjoyable product, even for kids?

    I agree, but going PG isn't helping matters, only making it worse, which is what my argument is built around.

    That's not a guarantee, because if they tuned in, sure they would have saw a great angle, but they would have also saw the rest of the program most likely, and would have been turned off by the childish ways of WWE and lack of wrestling, storylines, and character development.

    I agree, but don't you think if WWE wasn't gearing towards kids, that maybe by now Cena would have had a makeover? As long as WWE is maintaining that PG Rating, John Cena will be the same John Cena we've been watching the past 4 years.

    True, but what else on the card has? Orton, and what else? Ah, that's right... nothing, because no one cares about the undercard. Why? Because undercard characters are limited to what they can say and do to make them more over with the audience.

    I'm not saying they need to swear, but what's the point in being a wrestling fan if you cannot watch someone you hate get the absolute shit beaten out of them? When people watch movies or television shows, and they grow to hate a character, they want to see that character truly pay for it. However, in today's WWE, that just isn't possible. A bad guy never gets what he deserves.

    Nah, the crowd that night was especially dead. That's simply a fact.

    Wrestling is no fun if the live crowd isn't into the action. You put RVD vs. Cena from ONS 06 in front of a dead crowd, and the match ends up being shit. A big problem today is that the live crowd is not into the show like they used to be.

    Sure they get reactions, but it's NOTHING compared to what the stars of yesteryear received.

    Also, there are only a handful of guys who get true reactions, whereas ten years ago almost everybody on television got some sort of reaction in the WWF. But today, nobody cares about the undercard.

    How about just the feel of the program? It felt Raw, not like a spectacle. Moreover, there was shock value about the show.... anything could happen at any give moment. Today you just don't feel that way on a regular basis like you used to.

    But that still doesn't mean that their merchandise sales are better than what they used to be. So they make a good amount from a toy company and from video games, that doesn't mean WWE wasn't doing well in that department before.

    I agree that the PG era isn't why the ratings became poor, but it is a valid part why they've stayed poor and gotten worse rather than improve.

    What storyline has WWE done recently that was complicated, exactly? I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, anyway. You can still keep things simplified even with a tv-14 product. That's not a part of the problem.

    If you believe it's just a stage, then how am I not right about saying that this "stage" should end sooner rather than later? It's just a stage, as you put it, at the end of the day.

    That philosophy is nice, but it's not true. If someone grows up loving pro wrestling, they're going to continue loving it as a teenager or they're going to grow out of it. Ratings have nothing to do with it in that aspect.

    And that's exactly why I believe WWE should be appeasing the 18-35 demographic. Kids will watch regardless if they want to. If a parent doesn't want their kid watching pro wrestling, then they won't let them watch, no matter what the rating of the show is.

    And why did that happen, exactly? Because WWE is appeasing to kids. WWE will not give sad endings to a huge pay-per-view like Summerslam without the good guy coming out on top while they're appeasing the children. It just won't happen, and hasn't happened once since the PG era began.

    But the PG Rating doesn't deserve any credit for the success of those matches, do they?

    Pro wrestling can have good matches no matter what the rating is; I'm not arguing that a single bit. It's storylines and character development where I think WWE suffers because of the rating. HBK vs. The Undertaker wasn't a storyline, it was simply two legends having a match at the biggest stage of them all. Those two didn't need a great storyline; however, situations like that only occur rarely.

    They could have built them up as legit faction and make them a legitimate threat to WWE, instead of just focusing only around Barrett's quest to become WWE Champion.

    The best Orton we've seen was Orton vs. Foley. That storyline was fantastic and the matches involved with it were all truly great. Now, let me ask you... could that storyline have gone down during the PG Era? Of course it couldn't, and that's why I say the PG Era limits a diabolical character like Randy Orton.

    But personally, I look at it as a failure when a company decides to settle when they could do much better. Sure, WWE does alright, but why not shoot for higher? It's like a sports team being settled with making it to the playoffs every year, instead of competing for the championship. To me that's just not how an entertainment company or sports team should be ran.
  7. a0161613

    a0161613 WZCW's Mr Excitement

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    I'm not saying that Raw needs to be on at 4pm or even 6pm. I'm merely suggesting a PG programme on 9pm is insanity. A 7pm start is not unreasonable.

    And I doubt the networks would oppose anything WWE wanted to do. however if you say the USA network are in charge then they have to be content with both the content they are showing and the ratings that are being received. And I'd doubt you can find anything to say they are unhappy with Raw right now.

    Well we agree on WWE's ability to screw up. But I really don't think they would have any more options and there's no guarantee that they would be more entertaining or more importantly, successful in the longer term (with no restraints).

    The be-all-and-end-all for WWE is Vince McMahon, the guy who signed the deal with Mattel and who pushed them in their current cretive direction. PG WWE is his mandate - in many respects it will be his legacy. And who would question it if WWE end up being back to massive success in ten years time?

    Again, they are dealing with wrestlers, not actors. Limits aren’t necessarily a good thing. Vince Russo had McMahon filtering his work in WWE and that worked out for the best. There’s no evidence an edgy or no limit approach would work.

    If WWE weren't happy you can be damned sure that they would be doing everything to improve it. I personally think that their youth drive is part of that.

    It's mediocre compared to any wrestling programme at its peak but it's a different time. No competition has not helped. It's is simply impossible to compare the business now to what it was ten or twenty years ago. It's a completely different landscape.

    At a time when UFC is showing what real sports can draw, is it totally smart for WWE to compete against them when the roster is still inexperienced?

    Primetime is irrelevant if the target audience is in bed. This is why I am surprised a time change for some WWE programming has not been considered. Also if you say it's the networks choice, then surely they can dictate to WWE when they broadcast. To me, the current time schedule of WWE programmes doesn’t make sense to me.

    My argument is that WWE are trying to create themselves new fans and new superstars so when their programming evolves to higher ratings (which I believe it has to do eventually) then they have both the fan base and the talent base to capitalise. It's not getting worse because ratings (no matter how low) are steady.

    And this is with a huge amount of young, inexperienced guys on their roster. Guys like Swagger and the Miz could be huge with another five years of experience under their belts. They will only get better.

    WWE also has to replace older guys like Kane and the Undertaker. Taker for example has been wrestling less than part time recently and this is with a product that requires less intensity and strain on the body. Working a brutal, Attitude-era-alike match would be a lot tougher for him and result in more injuries. WWE has been coping with a bare bones roster at times in recent years. Programmes like NXT would never have worked ten years and out of two seasons they have probably created 6 or 7 future Superstars and a couple of likely future champions in Danielson and Barrett.

    WWE will NEVER consider themselves violence, hence the invention of sports-entertainment and the Don't Try This ads. They are athletes now, not wrestlers and have been for a while. A move to earlier timeslots would not be a disaster for the company because like I pointed out and that you agreed, wrestling has success and history in an earlier timeslot.

    But going PG hasn’t made things worse. The product before the change to PG wasn’t great for the most part. Even under the PG banner, the product has improved in the past year.

    That’s no guarantee itself. We don’t know what a casual fan would have taken interest in.

    Maybe, in fact it’s fairly likely. WWE haven’t turned him heel partly because they don’t want to lose his merc sales. However the Nexus shirts are making plenty of sales.

    There’s no guarantee that Super-Cena and being PG goes hand in hand. And there are plenty more problems that Cena has that are irrelevant to the ratings. The temptation to turn him heel at Survivor Series had to be there because they know that Cena vs Taker at mania (which is probably where the heel turn would end up) could draw very well.

    Undercard characters are only limited by how good they are. Guys like Santino and Kozlov will never get over on a main event level but at the level they need to be at for comedy purposes, they do very well.

    But who of any significance on the roster can say they don’t get a good reaction. All the champions do very well. The Miz has been drawing heat all year long. If the WWE are short on challengers who can draw significant heat, then that is due to poor booking and character development that is unlikely to be related to a PG rating. (Case in point; Ted Dibiase Jr seemed to be on the road to the main event 18 months ago but something has gone seriously wrong even though he is a regular on Raw.)

    But going PG hasn’t made things worse. The product before the change to PG wasn’t great for the most part. Even under the PG banner, the product has improved in the past year.

    That’s no guarantee itself. We don’t know what a casual fan would have taken interest in.

    Maybe, in fact it’s fairly likely. WWE haven’t turned him heel partly because they don’t want to lose his merc sales. However the Nexus shirts are making plenty of sales.

    There’s no guarantee that Super-Cena and being PG goes hand in hand. And there are plenty more problems that Cena has that are irrelevant to the ratings. The temptation to turn him heel at Survivor Series had to be there because they know that Cena vs Taker at mania (which is probably where the heel turn would end up) could draw very well.

    Undercard characters are only limited by how good they are. Guys like Santino and Kozlov will never get over on a main event level but at the level they need to be at for comedy purposes, they do very well.

    But who of any significance on the roster can say they don’t get a good reaction. All the champions do very well. The Miz has been drawing heat all year long. If the WWE are short on challengers who can draw significant heat, then that is due to poor booking and character development that is unlikely to be related to a PG rating. (Case in point; Ted Dibiase Jr seemed to be on the road to the main event 18 months ago but something has gone seriously wrong even though he is a regular on Raw.)

    Well surely the Miz/Daniel Bryan storyline disproves. He spends 6 months ripping on Bryan, loses his title to the guy but still ends up with the WWE title.

    And Wade Barrett seemed certain to be champion going into Survivor Series but got “screwed” out of it. When the inevitable Cena-Barrett match happens, then you can’t imagine Barrett not getting beaten from pillar to post.

    How is that crowd any different to any other PG crowd? Truth is, it just isn’t. You put that in front of any PG crowd and probably end up with the same reaction.

    You can’t compare the Hammerstein Ballroom to a PG crowd. A truly good match with talented workers will get the crowd involved. Old School didn’t do that. I gather Survivor Series did that.

    Again, you can’t compare two entirely different products. Bring back a star on the level of The Rock or Stone Cold and you get a noisy crowd.

    This is because there are far less established talent. Ten years ago the names were established in either WWE or WCW or ECW, and it’s likely that the fans watched all or most of the programming. Nowadays WWE is having to build up new stars on their own.

    Do it well and you end up with the Miz. Do it badly and you get Cryme Tyme.

    Then that is due to bad writing, not writing within constraints of a PG rating. In truth it is not likely to be any different to any other Raw. If the Old School Raw was designed to be special but the subsequent programmes do not capitalise on that feeling then isn’t that poor all around from WWE?

    I suspect they weren’t doing awfully but by bringing on board a company like Mattel will only improve it

    Far from it, ratings have been consistent for months now and have shown sign of picking up in the future because they are standing up well against opposing programmes like American Football.

    The point being that PG hasn’t brought an end to dramatic, soap opera-like storylines that you claim were the high point of previous years. Soap opera in wrestling hasn’t died. It doesn’t matter whether it is Cena or Hogan, people want to see the good guy prevail. Cena isn’t on Hogan’s level. He doesn’t have the appeal that Hogan did.

    Because these stages last for at least five years – Attitude lasted for five or six. The post-Hogan era lasted five or six. You can’t double your audience in two years.

    It’s hard to watch the product “go backward”. A fan of the eighties probably didn’t like HBK and Hart because the style changed, these guys were entertaining as hell in a different way but couldn’t draw a dime by comparison. When that evolved into the Attitude era, that turned into money and became a peak time for the industry.

    By targeting a young audience, I assume WWE will evolve to attempt to capture them when they are older. Older audiences mean more money and higher ratings, so it has everything to do with it.

    They way I see it, WWE, by going PG, are trying to register in the mind of the future 18-35 demographic. It’s a sensible strategy albeit frustrating for long term fans.

    But they rarely give sad endings to any events, let alone pay-per-views. I can’t think of the last time it happened.

  8. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Even if you're right, it's like I said... that's strictly a network's decision, not WWE's, so the argument is irrelevant anyway, man.

    Nah, that's not true. I remember reading reports where there were times WWE didn't want to do a 3 hour show, but USA forced them. So, at the end of the day, it's USA Network's way or the highway.

    Nah, when WWE became a public company, Vince stopped being the br-all-end-all. It was because he made WWE a public company why he was able to become a billionaire again... it's now about appeasing the shareholders more than anything else. Sure, Vince is the head honcho, but overall... WWE isn't his company anymore. It's why he had to resign a 3 year contract to keep his position about a week ago.

    There's more evidence that an edgy program would work more so than a PG program, since, you know, an edgy program led to WWE having the most ratings and highest pay-per-view buy rates in history, whereas the PG Era thus far has been a failure compared to WWE's past success.

    I'm not saying WWE isn't happy; I'm saying I think it's sad that they're willing to settle just because of some toy company.

    If WWE has legitimate competition, you and I both know WWE would have never taken this PG route to begin with.

    Where in that statement do you see me saying WWE should be trying to compete against the UFC?

    EXACTLY, which is why WWE should not be PG. It just makes no sense.

    And even if starting the program an hour or two before usual, why do you think that would work when Old School Raw's rating from the 8 PM (Eastern) slot was lower than the rest of the program?

    To me, it's just too big of a risk to focus on future audiences, especially when the audience you're trying to convert are kids. Kids are wishy-washy, they're not a faithful audience. More times than not, kids out grow what they like as they get older. There's just no point in a pro wrestling company appeasing towards them, especially if you're reason for doing so is only in hopes for them to give you ratings when they're older.

    True, but if they are, the PG Rating will have absolutely nothing to do with their success.

    Undertaker's matches today are by far and away superior to his matches from the Attitude Era, and once again... the PG Rating has nothing to do with it.

    Tough Enough worked, and that was basically the same thing NXT.

    Almost every sport has violence apart of it. Baseball has a pitcher throwing at a guy's head, basketball has hard fouls, hockey has hard hits and countless fights, American football is filled with hard hits, and European football is filled with brutal shin kicks and even riots/fights. Violence is apart of every sport, and entertainment of course is FILLED with violence as well.

    Just because WWE calls itself sports-entertainment, doesn't mean they can't have violent aspects about the company. It's expected when you tune into a pro wrestling program.

    Also, keep in mind that yes, you can be violent and still be safe. It's a show at the end of the day, and there are plenty of ways to tell violent, believable stories without someone getting legitimately hurt.

    Dude, just because WWE has one very good storyline in Nexus doesn't mean this year trumps the last 3-4 years as the best.

    What is a guarantee is that casual fans will not take interests in WWE PG. If they had, then ratings and pay-per-view buys would reflect it.

    How has is it been doing very well though, when they're not drawing anything for the company? I guarantee there is not a single person on this planet who tunes into Raw just to see what antics Santino and Kozlov are up to.

    Also, I think using Santino and Kozlov is a poor example, since they only started getting air time again a few weeks ago. Before then there was a VERY long stretch where we saw hardly either of them on television.

    Any significance? How about any of the tag division, including the champs? Dolph Ziggler needs a woman to get him heat. John Morrison (a perfect example of who I feel is limited because he's trying to appease to kids) doesn't get loud pops. Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes both don't get reactions. And Smackdown is dubbed, so it's hard to get a real feel what's over on that show and what isn't.

    Regardless, the fact remains, pops today suck compared to those of yesteryear. You just cannot compare Cena pops to the pops Austin and Hogan received, or R-Truth getting the crowd to say "What's Up" to Road Dogg's intro, or even Vickie Guerrero to the heat Stephanie McMahon used to get.

    You're leaning on one storyline to make you're point, and I think you're wrong there. Nexus's storyline is nowhere near as good as Jeff Hardy vs. CM Punk was, and Barrett/Cena's feud isn't as good as Cena's feud with Edge (the first run, anyway).

    The fact is, WWE is always going to have golden moments every now and then, but they aren't consistent with it, and no one year has been better than the other these past few. They've been consistently mediocre or worse, with very limited shades of brilliance every now and then.

    Bryan beat Miz, but The Miz never got the true ass kicking he deserved from the abuse Daniel Bryan went through dealing with him.

    We'll see, but I'm sure you would have said the same about Cena vs. Sheamus, but that ass whooping never came to Sheamus, did it?

    Well we agree that the PG crowd sucks then, right?

    I didn't compare them; I just used it as an example how a good crowd can solely make a show more enjoyable. A lot of things about the nWo sucked back in WCW, but the crowd hated them so much, that every segment with them was entertaining. The live crowd is a huge part of the show.

    Nah, guys like the Hardys, Edge & Christian, Kurt Angle, etc. were all built from scratch by WWE.

    Case and point on this argument, look at Mark Henry. He gets no pop today, but ten years ago people either legitimately booed or cheered when his music hit.

    Yes, but still... with the PG restraints, it would still be hard to get that feeling back regardless.

    Pure assumption, not actual fact.

    Even before football season WWE was consistently averaging around 3.1.

    But the pay-off isn't there with the PG restraints. We can't count on Cena beating the shit out of Barrett like we could Austin/Vince or Hogan/Slaughter. Hell, Cena PROMISED the fans and Barrett himself that win or lose at Survivor Series he would kick Barrett's ass, and what happened? Absolutely nothing, because with PG feuds there are no real pay offs if you ask me, and that hugely takes away from storylines.

    But they could have at least improved, even if it was just a bit. But WWE has just gotten worse. In 2006/2007 WWE was averaging about 3.7 per Raw, if not higher (take a look for yourself). As you'll see with that link, it wasn't until April 2008 where ratings started to stay consistent with the low 3's, and by golly... that's around the same time WWE went PG, isn't it?

    Wrestlemania 17 ring a bell? Hell, HHH from 2003-2005 was dominating as the heel, including pay-per-views (case and point being Summerslam 2003). And even Edge had some big time wins on pay-per-view, leaving the fans disappointed.

    Sometimes it's more interesting to see the heels win; however with the show gearing towards kids, it's much harder for WWE to allow it.

    You could argue it to a certain point. I mean, a faction like Nexus coming in and destroying WWE just isn't going to fly with kids. Sure, WWE will let it seem like it's happening for a couple of weeks, but they don't continue to build on it, and yeah... I think the show being PG can get a part of the blame for that. A small part, sure, but it's definitely a part of it.

    Miz vs. Bryan was a great feud, but again... what was the pay off, exactly? They had one good match, and then a three way with Morrison the next pay-per-view. There was no real ending, like most of WWE's storylines today. Orton vs. Foley got a real ending, and it was a great one. Had Bryan vs. Miz have a similar ending, then that feud would have lived for the ages. But, again, WWE can't go down that route while appeasing to kids, and it really takes away from the product.
  9. a0161613

    a0161613 WZCW's Mr Excitement

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    It’s not the crux of my argument but there’s a point to be made. What I am saying is the network are probably quite happy or at least content with the ratings and the product because if they weren't, something would have changed.

    Then if they, the network, weren't happy with the show or the company for any reason then they would have told WWE to do something about it.

    Vince answers to the shareholders, who also must be happy with the show or they wouldn't have resigned him to the boss. Same with the Mattel deal and all the big decisions that WWE make. But it's Vince's call at the end of the day. He and Stephanie run the TV product and they answer to no-one on creative decisions.

    An edgy program - call a spade, a spade – means nothing. The increase in ratings came about because of Stone Cold vs McMahon. When DX were running roughshod and being the poster-child for edgy in 1997, WWE were still taking a whooping. And having checked out the ratings for 1997, I'd take a punt that they were even lower than they are now as they were below 3.0 for most of the year. This was when they were letting HBK stuff his crotch with ornaments and socks. This was when they didnt care because WCW were killing them.

    I don't doubt edgy makes for downright entertaining watching; it does when it is done well but it has been shown that it works when done with a considerate approach. It worked because of a combination of factors, namely because established and popular names were doing something different. Rebellion worked but only in small doses - if every guy was opposing Vince in the Austin did then it wouldn't have been as good or unique.

    I agree to a point. I think if they decided to tone down the entire show for Mattel then it's sad. If there is a considered approach behind it, like using this time of no opposition pressure to build new stars to replace the older guys, then it has to be given time to work.

    I'm saying that WWE can't compete with UFC and they know it so they aren't trying. They want to get back to the WM17 levels of popularity when they were breaking records for buyrates. That card would have failed if the main players were working with less experience and history - Stone Cold vs The Rock at Mania drew a lot more the second time around. That card is a prime example of a more experienced roster who can connect with the crowd from top to bottom will draw money.

    Having a PG programme go from 9pm to 11pm makes no sense - blame the network as it's their call right? PG 2010 is drawing higher TV ratings than "edgy" 1997 so something is working.

    And three hour Raw ALWAYS has a lower first hour.

    Of course, it's a risk but we don't know how it is going to pay off. Kids are wishy-washy but it could pay off for them in a few years when those kids are teens who buy pay-per-views. Besides, wishy-washy kids still buy the merc, still buy the video games, still go on the website and go to the shows. I mean wrestling will never be a mainstream hit like other sports but even if some of the audience grow out of it, then the future fans will still have come from this fan base and find a product that they can still connect with. So by appeasing them there is a bond that will likely be maintained through many years.

    It will have plenty to do with but it won't be given any credit. These guys need experience and we both know that if they get it on WWE TV then it will be better than getting it on ROH or TNA TV.

    Yes his matches are superior but they generally take a lesser toll on his body because he doesn't have to take huge bumps every night. I'm not saying PG is responsible for anything in terms of match quality for match substance, it has improved the product in many ways. Nobodys wants to see somebody knocked silly or bleeding like a pig from unprotected chair shot to the skull or by a careless blade job. Blood would be nice in some matches (very occasionally) but they couldn't half-ass it and having no blood is easier to handle for everyone involved. If this means the talent needs to learn to be careful to prevent hard-way cuts then so be it.

    Point taken about Tough Enough and while it is impossible to say that NXT will be more successful, it is fairly likely that NXT season one alone has produced more stars than Tough Enough ever in a shorter period of time. I'm not claiming a success for PG here - it may just be due to a different approach.

    Good point about soccer - the World Cup final was a prime example of violence in that sport. But shouldn't WWE claim a success for essentially being a violent product but presenting it successfully in a PG light? This has never been done before.

    The basic content of the product has not changed much in thirty years but they have shown that extreme measures do not need to be taken to tell a good story.

    Oh come on, you know as well as I that Nexus is not the one great thing to happen to WWE since 2008.

    There is no guarantee because we do not know what a casual fan will tune into; certainly the UFC is catering more to casual fans as much as Atttude era ever did. We know when the MNF game is bad or boring that the WWE ratings generally increase marginally. We also know that WWE Raw has had the same primetime slot for years now. We know that because of the events of last weeks Raw and the mainstream exposure of it, that the ratings are expected to increase. The Miz as WWE Champ may well be a ratings winner but we don't know that yet.

    Kozlov, no. Santino, well he is more entertainment than Kozlov, the success of the SFAC here proves that regardless of his abiliity in the ring, we know his comedy is received well. We know because he has on Raw regularly since his debut.

    You can't compare talent who aren't comparable in any fair test. Cena and Austin? One clear winner all day long. But you can't dismiss Ziggler for using Vicky when you agreed with me earlier that she is a fine example of a heat-getting device in a PG environment. Ziggler does fine and he probably does better than McIntyre who WWE are desperate to put ont a higher level. And Stephanie only got heat when she was attached at the hip to the top heel in the company, otherwise she got crickets. Vicky has got over in a variety of roles.

    I'm definitely not leaning on one storyline. Punk vs Hardy is a great example of a PG storyline. But Cena/Edge has taken place at a different time - still, decent feud though. WWE have rarely shown any consistency ever, certainly not in the last decade. They have always focussed on a big storyline on Raw and let SD do their own thing. That's been clear since the brand split. SD has often been the better show and they have always had PG tendancies.

    I'd say losing his US title and tapping out in the three or four matches that they had counts as an ass-kicking. I'm not even sure the feud is over so we may be counting chickens early here.

    No, Cena/Sheamus never ended but that is due to bad booking. Nonetheless, you could say the same about HHH/Sheamus but I doubt that feud is over.

    It wouldn't be difficult for me to disagree with you. However it's like all forms of entertainment, you sometimes get bum crowds for music gigs and comedy shows. It's not always a reflection on the talent. However, with kids involved, I think you should expect a noisy crowd but if the young crowd don't recognise the names involved, then why would they generate heat? PG can’t be blamed here.

    Maybe they aren't doing a good job for building up the crowd. And it's not like they have an Impact Zone crowd who cheers heel and ruin the atmosphere of the event. That kind of crowd is more damaging than a quiet one. Besides, you can't Blame PG for quiet crowds. Even in the current environment, when I see WWE programming the crowd always seem into it. Sure it can't compare to the Attitude era but like I've said, it was a different time. The characters were better, kayfabe was better utilized and not destroyed and the line between face and heels weren't blurred.

    Kurt Angle being the exception, those guys had to work for years to even win a match. But again, it was a different time where the competition forced WWE to avoid using guys who weren't able to make an impact. Guys like Swagger and even Danielson would have struggled for longer to get near the roster. The Miz may not have had his chance to work on SD and it was his hard work through those times that has led him to his successes of the past two years. In a PG environment.

    But I can't explain Mizark Henry. I dont know how he still has a job.

    Hard, but not impossible with better writing.

    Opinion because they haven't been working together long enough to product results. However they're working on enough new products that this Christmas may well be when they see the benefits of this deal. And when the financial results emerge next year, we will see how well they are doing.

    So yes, Raw's current ratings are showing signs of stability in the face of a programme like MNF. These ratings haven't dipped so consistency is good.

    Then it is bad writing. You can pin the lack of feud endings on PG. Besides, Cena/Orton had a huge blow-off match and WWE tried to make that as hugely significant as they could. So it is not always the case. If WWE could commit to a push or a feud then it would reflect in their writing.

    It's not far from speculative to say Barrett wll lose to Cena or Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Either way he is getting his ass kicked, just like HHH will to Sheamus when he returns.

    That shows plenty of low points where ratings touched 3.0 plenty of times, including 1997 when WWE was at its most controversial and was below a 3.0.

    That a huge amount of time ago. For PG bad endings, I could point to Nexus's arrival and Miz's title win as bad endings. I am sure it happens on pay-per-views - Kane's recent wins would be one example.

    It's not a regular occurence, that's very true. I can't explain and can only suggest that WWE don't have the balls to give negative endings at all. I mean they didn't do it on a regular basis even in the 90's.

    That is what I am saying. PG gets far too much flak that should be pointed in the direction of the creative and writing staff. Don't like Super-Cena - blame Vince, blame Cena. Don't like Orton not getting promo time? Blame the writers. Don't like the fact that Cena didn't turn heel at Survivor Series? Blame Vince.

    But too often, people are ready to blame "PG" because it's easy to attack a label, easier than the guy in charge of making a show to fit within a specific margin of restraint.

    I don't think picking on Miz/Bryan is a fair point when all the signs point to that being a career feud or at least one that is ongoing for a significant period of time. Punk/Hardy had a blow-off. So did Undertaker/Edge and Cena/Orton.

    All this happened within the PG era - assuming that is about from Summer 2008 and were both conclusive and hugely satisfying. When they do it right, WWE have shown that they can do great wrestling that matches anything the late 90's produced.

    Of course the product is different but despite what the majority on WZ think, different isn't always worse.

    Like i said, I think WWE will end up having a boom period in the post PG years. They are showing all of the signs of preparing for it now and there is every chance it will be successful but after two years, they need to be given a chance to see it through.
    jmt225 likes this.
  10. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Well obviously the network won't have a problem with the show since even at 3.0, it's still one of, most of the time THE, highest rated shows of the week for them.

    However, I personally just don't believe WWE should have such low standards for themselves.

    Okay, I see what you're saying, but we're steering away from my original point. You made it seem as if Mattel was the main reason why WWE is rated PG (which they very well could be), and I'm just saying that I think it's foolish to let a toy company dictate how your program should be ran. You said that Mattel has a $15 million deal with WWE, and to me, that just doesn't seem worth it. WWE could easily get that $15 mill else where.

    I never said WWE should go back to the routes of DX... even I agree that's taking it too far. When I say edgy, I mean edgy by today's standards. Make the show intense and make it feel more real; that's what I mean by edgy. Not crotch shots and dick jokes.

    I don't think they should try to compete with the UFC, either. The UFC isn't competition... they don't have an episodic weekly program, and their pay-per-views don't combat with that of WWE's.

    No, I blame WWE for going PG in the first place. Like you just said... it makes no sense to make that move when your A Show is in the timeslot Raw is currently in and will most likely always remain in.

    Which only helps my case even more that most fans won't adjust to a change to the Raw timeslot.

    I still say it's stupid for WWE to sacrifice what they are if that's what they're banking on. Those are all HUGE "If's" in your statement.

    But why exactly does the PG Rating deserve credit for that? There's no doubt those guys would have been given the same opportunities to succeed in a TV-14 environment as they did in the PG era.

    They don't need to take huge bumps every night; I never said that. Huge bumps should be saved for very special moments, specifically on pay-per-view, and should only happen a couple of times a year. I'm a firm believer in that.

    Sorry, but I just don't see the improvements made since the product went PG. Those changes you mentioned (with the exception of blood) all came about because of the concussion rates in the business, not because of the PG rating, so no chair shots and stuff like that would have been enforced no matter what.

    But you could argue that a lot of stuff WWE does shouldn't even be considered PG, so no... they shouldn't get credit for that, especially since that success fails when compared to WWE's past success.

    I didn't say that, but by that point in your post, that one storyline was what you were relying on to make your point that WWE PG was a better product than that of a few years ago, so I had to call you out on it.

    I don't think casual fans will ever tune into a PG rated product, especially a professional wrestling PG rated product.

    But it's not really a success. They barely get any airtime, and you're basing this on strictly one good segment. That's all they've done lately.

    That's not true about Stephanie. Hell, Steph got most of HHH's heat, to be honest. Trips was kind of too cool to really hate, but when Steph came along and starting doing her on-air deal, it became easy for fans to start hating HHH. She was a major, major heat getter, and that's indisputable.

    Maybe, but I'm just saying... I've been watching pro wrestling my entire life, and never during my time have I've seen heels so easily get away with the harm they have caused for the babyfaces. It heavily takes away from the product, imo.

    PG is blamed there, because it's like you said.. it's kids who are uninterested in everything that's not John Cena. An older audience would mostly know who those guys were, no matter what.

    Nah, I disagree there. Take Cena vs. HHH at Wrestlemania 22; that match is great alone just because of the atmosphere of the crowd booing Cena and cheering HHH.

    But the PG environment has nothing to do with their success. Basically, what you're saying is that if WWE remained TV-14, this 'youth movement' would have never happened, and I have a very hard time believing that. These guys would have still been given every opportunity in World to get over with an audience that was catered to 18-35 year olds. No doubt about it.

    But they can't get much worse. For years to come WWE will maintain a core audience, pretty much no matter what.

    No, I can blame it on PG, because it wasn't until until PG where this sort of thing started happening regularly.

    One example, that's all you could come up with, which shows the lack of good feuds in WWE since the PG Era began. And personally, while I'm actually a big fan of Cena, I thought his work with Orton was some of his worst, outside of maybe 1 or 2 matches.

    Pure speculation, man. Until it happens, you can't make a claim like this, epsecially when there's only one example you could come up with since WWE went PG.

    But we're not talking about 1997, we're talking about the last few years, which is what matters in this argument, not what happened almost 15 years ago.

    Why didn't either happen on pay-per-view? Miz could have done that for Survivor Series, but he didn't, did he?

    Kane's match wasn't the main event.

    But it happened every once and a while, and kept the product unpredictable.

    I like Super-Cena; I just wish he was more of a bad ass, rather than a sensitive ass-kisser. That blame there goes to PG in my mind.

    Orton... that blame goes to everything, including PG.

    Fuck Vince; I have no problem whatsoever putting the blame on that motherfucker, lol. After all, it's as you said, he's ultimately who made the product PG, so yeah... I do blame him for that, but the label itself can be used as an excuse in the poor quality of the programming.

    I hope it's on-going, but I'm not optimistic about it.

    Not really. They had a good last match, but nothing was settled. Punk just moved on to get his ass kicked by 'Taker, which really pissed me off at the time.

    Yeah, they did, but the PG era started in July 2008, and their blow off match came in August of that year, so I think it's unfair to put that apart of the PG era, since the feud was booked well before the PG Era started.

    WWE should definitely be different than they ever have before; I just don't look at being PG is a good different. WWE should be focusing on stuff that has never been tried before in the business, now more than ever, and being PG limits their possibilities, if you ask me.

    There is absolutely no guarantee in that, man, and even if that boom period comes along, it's as you said... it will be post PG. So, why not start post PG sooner rather than later?
  11. a0161613

    a0161613 WZCW's Mr Excitement

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    As much as many fans would love to go back to the good old days, it simply isn’t going to happen. All the characteristics of the Attitude era are gone.

    The business has not suffered for it.

    JMT is saying that PG Monday Night Raw is pointless because it is broadcast on a late primetime slot, that it is unsuitable for a PG audience and that the talent is being held back by the imposed restrictions.

    I’d argue that the ratings are satisfactory and steady and that the company and the USA network must be content with the current set up and the result they are getting. WWE has clearly accepted that they can’t touch the peak of ten years ago. They have given up trying to match it because of the lacklustre results of recent years before 2008.

    The PG era, coupled with no competition for the company means they can build new talent for the future. I believe that WWE will not be PG in a few years time. But by doing this now they are growing their talent as the fan base increases with age.

    I've also argued that the current talent isn't good enough to live up to the expectations of the edgy product. HHH became The Game after years of running with the blue blood gimmick and as HBK's DX understudy. This is the experience that the talent are getting now. They are getting the experience that they need to. They can’t flourish in FCW. Bryan Danielson is a hugely experienced and talented wrestler who many here believe could be huge in the WWE, but Daniel Bryan is a rookie as WWE would have you believe.

    The current talent roster is not on the level of what it was ten years. We don’t have the Stone Cold Steve Austin but we may well have the next Stunning Steve Austin. We don’t have the next Rock, but the next Rocky Maivia is probably on TV already. The current roster couldn’t stack to what we saw in the 90’s and so they need to rebuild this.

    Flaws of the product lie with poor decisions from up top. While it could be claimed that the rating force these decisions to be made, WWE still have to make the choices that are best for business. The influence of being PG is minimal. WWE are still capable of doing the right thing, as shown by the handling of the character development of the Miz, Randy Orton as well as the outcome of the Bryan Danielson firing.

    WWE PG is here to stay, whether we like or not and regardless of Linda McMahon’s Senate attempt. I am certain that being PG will help WWE in the short term and in the future as well.


    Damn JMT, I can't believe this is over so quickly. I would have loved to have had the time attack your last post, but I'm being dragged on a weekend away to London :)

    Good luck and again, it's been a lot of fun debating with you. Even on a topic which I was not a fan of, this has been really more enjoyable than I expected it too.
    Miko likes this.
  12. Phoenix

    Phoenix WZCW's First Triple Crown Champion

    Feb 16, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Another great debate here guys

    Clarity of debate: Numbers
    Great understanding of the debate from both guys, but Numbers had an opening and rounded off with a conclusion here.

    Punctuality: Draw
    Both men were consistent with their posting. Not going to penalise jmt for a lack of a conclusion in this point.

    Informative: jmt225
    Despite a significant lack of backup used, jmt actually brought in some links and even countered a lot of points that Numbers brought up so giving the point to him.

    Persuasion: jmt225
    Both great brought another great debate here, but as the debate went on, I felt jmt's grip tightening on the subject and while Numbers was great at keeping up, I felt jmt just did enough to edge over him and convince me that WWE does indeed need to stop being PG.

    Final Score
    jmt225: 3.5
    Numbers: 1.5
  13. Cena's Little Helper

    Cena's Little Helper Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Jul 1, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Clarity of debate: jmt225
    jmt had a great opening arguments while Numbers's opening argument was quite vague. jmt called him out on it, but it was to his detriment as we'll see later on.

    Punctuality: Numbers
    Numbers posted a conclusion. I think it's convention now to post one, so I'm giving the point to him.

    Informative: Numbers
    All right, this is where I thought jmt225 fumbled quite a bit. His initial opening post was just as speculative and unsubstantiated as Numbers's opening post was, except he used these flaws to rebut Numbers's argument. Numbers consequently provided the examples and information that jmt225 thought he lacked. Unfortunately for jmt, Numbers didn't reciprocate the criticisms, which ultimately left his argument with some crucial premises that were left unverified.

    Persuasion: Split
    Great opening post by jmt225, but better overall showing by Numbers. I split the points here.

    Final Score
    jmt225: 2
    Numbers: 3
  14. Miko


    Feb 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Clarity: Numbers finished strongly enough to earn a share here

    Point - Split

    Punctuality: Numbers gets the point here, for closing his argument and all that

    Point - Numbers

    Informative: Good use of information from jmt, but in certain areas Numbers was able to use it for his own devious purposes. Split point

    Point - Split

    Persuasion: I'll give jmt the points here as I found his argument to be the better of the two, but it was a close run thing

    Point - jmt225

    My Scores

    jmt225 - 3
    Numbers - 2
  15. D-Man

    D-Man Gone but never forgotten.

    Jan 26, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Animals... you guys are fucking ANIMALS. What a debate.

    Clarity: Split
    I think both men did a great job with their opening posts and clarity throughout. Their styles were similar and I cannot choose who's is better.

    Punctuality: Draw
    Once again, I didn't see a flaw on either side. Gotta split this one.

    Informative: jmt225
    Just like I hoped this debate would be, it's split here again. I really thought both guys put forth great information.

    Persuasion: jmt225
    Here is where I needed to choose a winner. I couldn't leave the whole thing in a tie. I chose jmt225 because of his opening statements that called Numbers out for his speculation. Although jmt225 could have been caught for the same thing, unless Numbers could clearly point it out, it's almost as if it didn't happen. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it..." you know the rest.

    Final Score
    jmt225: 3
    Numbers: 2

    Congratulations to jmt225 who will move onto the Debate League Finals!!!

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"