Attitude Era

[bulldog76]

I'll get trashed but oh well. I keep reading where people liked or don't like the Attitude Era. I want to say a few things that I have observed not necessarily about the Attitude Era itself, but the booking style that apparently defines the Attitude Era.

1. Performers not writers: While the Attitude Era officially ended around 2001, the WWE has pushed several edgy storylines. It seemed that most of the "edgy" storylines since, have flopped. Dawn Marie/Torrie Wilson, necro, McMahon dying, HLA..., I don't think I need to go on. In fact there were several storylines/segments DURING the actual attitude era that failed miserably. Bossman being hung, Beaver Cleavage, Rikishi running over Austin,... you get the point. (If Rikishi running over Austin was a success, then why didn't Rikishi do anything significant after the 6-man Hell in the Cell?)

ECW was a nice regional bit with a cult following but nothing that could sustain it on the national level. Yeah, it had fans across the country, but not enough to sustain it. WCW did great when it was just a bunch of thugs, but when they turned to the edgy storylines, they went down quicker than anyone thought possible.

The Attitude Era was not made possible necessarily by cussing, sex, or extreme violence. Hogan didn't become a household name by literally kissing McMahon's backside. Flair didn't acheive greatness by pulling a knife on anyone. It worked because of who launched it and carried it. Taker, Austin, Triple H, Rock, The Outlaws, Foley and even HBK. They all felt victimized by politics somewhere. They all had something to get out on the air. They all had something to show. You can't just book anyone for a role and make it work. Directors want certain guys in a movie to play certain roles. They were guys who learned the business, became very savvy in it, and developed an "attitude" that fans bought. Minus, the Outlaws, there were all smart guys who knew how to take care of their character.

2. Wrestling fad: It was a fad. It was the "in-thing." There were some new things going on. It was interesting. Everything we knew about wrestling was shaken up. After a while, we weren't blown away by what we saw. Fads happen all of the time. They die. The can never recapture that inital magic. Fans were turning off the TV around the end of the "Attitude Era." They're not going to comeback without a major shake-up. Something new. Not rehashing the same material that made you famous. But something genuinely new.

3. Golden Age: No one can doubt that the profitable era was the Attitude Era. It had its huge ratings. But taking off of number one where I mentioned performers, look at the quality of performers you had.

HBK- the bigger the stage, the better he is
Rock- grabbing a demographic that remains pretty much untargeted; even to this day. Really good in the ring and pheonomenal on the mic.
Austin- did everything we wanted. Became a hero by being an anti-hero. Great in the ring and great on the mic.
Foley- Superior on the mic, and great bump taker.
Undertaker- very few better at story-telling. A character that evolved with the business becoming more drastic and appalling.
Triple H- a complete package. Not superior at one thing or the other, but very versatile and could do nearly anything asked.
New Age Outlaws- Road Dogg had few peers on the mic. Really ran with this but has not re-captured this magic with Billy since. Billy was by far the better athlete and gave the tag-team a credible talent.

I remember when I first started watching basketball around 91. I could see Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockon..., Hall of Famers. To me, that was basketball's Golden-Age. Now, if it ain't a Texas team, I pretty much ignore basketball.

Plus, talent is not necessarily being bred all over the world like it was. Jericho, Benoit in Canada. Austin, Taker, and Foley in WCCW and USWA. Guys from AWA. NWA. WCW. Now, if you are going to wrestle, then you pretty much need to catch on with one of 3 promotions (and if you get in at ROH, you better be superior otherwise you become a respected worker like Danielson that can't get the major spotlight). So now you don't have all of these great talents coming from everywhere to have these big showdowns.

So I don't believe that it was Vince Russo or Vince McMahon who suddenly became writing geniuses and 4 years later became writing idiots. They had a lot more to work with. They had a window of opportunity that won't open itself up at one's will. They took advantage of it. There were a lot of things that lined up just right for this big boom for wrestling. Now they are going for a new audience. It will drop in ratings for a while. They may even make TNA competitive. But with the right crop of talent and the right timing on things, WWE could shine. Im not sure if it will ever be 6's or 7's again (or whatever the ratings were back then). But up and downs happen all of the time in business. WWE will see up's again.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Some will argue that now the talent pool is far from dry. Many of the guys that debuted during the Attitude Era (Edge comes to mind first) have carved out the top spot for themselves, and there are many talented younger guys and guys in general that are simply not getting a chance, not because they suck but most likely because they no longer have the chance to do what made the Attitude Era so great: invest and work out their character.

The thing about the Attitude Era is the feel of it. It felt genuine. Not because we've never seen anything like it before, although it is a part of it, but because it was genuine -- the writers were experimenting, the stars developed characters and grew, succeeded or failed in front of, and with, the fans. What occurs now is a far cry from that. Today's gimmick or character is packaged completely, thought up by some jack-off of a writer and then given to a wrestler to portray, regardless of whether it's the right gimmick for said wrestler.

Why were some of the guys let go earlier in the year, like Conway or Doane, or others? Because creative had nothing for them -- and even when the did come up with something, creative left them be without a leg to stand on.

The Attitude Era is marked by wrestlers and writers/bookers working together to emphasize the strengths of the characters to further advance the plots -- not just move along at all costs like a rampaging bull, emptily and pitifully. True, some ideas failed, but look at how many ideas were a success, and what they launched. And then look at why they succeeded... part luck, part hard work, part trust in the writer/wrestler dynamic that is so important to the business, that is now gone.

That collaborative effort, and the effort put into the stories in general, is what distinguishes the Attitude Era from today. Today's product is so far into the realm of 'entertainment' than 'sports' that it's ridiculous.

 

[Hayes]

What set the WWE Attitude Era apart from all other eras in professional wrestling was the evolution of the promo. It seems to have began in ECW and carried itself in the WWE. Edgier promos let to a more interesting show. Stone Cold, DX, The Rock, Mick Foley produced the most hilarious segments in pro wrestling ever. Kurt Angle (who is excellent on the mic himself) credits his skills to studying The Rock and Stone Cold. Shawn shooting on Bret with "Sunny Days" comment, "Suck It" becoming a household phrase, Stone Cold's King of the Ring speech there's are the moments that launched the attitude era and made it so special. ECW's influence coupled with live television made the the attitude era. For example, Rocky Miavia sucked as a character, it wasn't until he was told to be himself the became The Rock, a legend. The same goes for Stone Cold as Stunning Steve Austin, Road Dogg as The Roadie, and many of the other players in The Attitude Era. Allowing the wrestlers to be themselves and say what ever they wanted to during interviews was the key to success for The Attitude Era.

 

[Hayes]

What set the WWE Attitude Era apart from all other eras in professional wrestling was the evolution of the promo. It seems to have began in ECW and carried itself in the WWE. Edgier promos let to a more interesting show. Stone Cold, DX, The Rock, Mick Foley produced the most hilarious segments in pro wrestling ever. Kurt Angle (who is excellent on the mic himself) credits his skills to studying The Rock and Stone Cold. Shawn shooting on Bret with "Sunny Days" comment, "Suck It" becoming a household phrase, Stone Cold's King of the Ring speech there's are the moments that launched the attitude era and made it so special. ECW's influence coupled with live television made the the attitude era. For example, Rocky Miavia sucked as a character, it wasn't until he was told to be himself the became The Rock, a legend. The same goes for Stone Cold as Stunning Steve Austin, Road Dogg as The Roadie, and many of the other players in The Attitude Era. Allowing the wrestlers to be themselves and say what ever they wanted to during interviews was the key to success for The Attitude Era.

 

[Miko]

Yeah I will agree that the attitude era was a success because of the people involved and the wrestlers being allowed to do their thing, it was also because said wrestlers were legit. I still remember Glen Gilberti making comments about todays wrestlers being geeks who play video games and think that the amount of moves you know makes you great, and he's right.

In the attitude era you got a bunch of guys who oozed charisma because they were genuinely cool, they learnt what it took to become great, not a load of flips and suplexes. Sure some of them were fuck-ups in the end but you take the good with the bad. Take this for example, one of TNA's so called future talents named himself after a final fantasy character, how can I cheer that?

 

[Pimpin]

The quality of the product in my opinion was way better back then than it is now due to there being more cooperation between the wrestlers, the promoter & the creative team back then as opposed to now. I also think one of the biggest reasons why the Attitude Era was a success was that the Wrestlers could just be themselves(Austin, Rock, B.G. James. etc.) & make the improvements needed for their characters themselves as opposed to now(Cena, etc.) with those stupid hollywood writers giving you a gimmick that you probably will fail in & can't tweak it so it can be better.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'll get trashed but oh well. I keep reading where people liked or don't like the Attitude Era. I want to say a few things that I have observed not necessarily about the Attitude Era itself, but the booking style that apparently defines the Attitude Era.

As one of the largest critics of today's Era and biggest defenders of both the Attitude Era, and Post Attitude-Era, I am certainly not going to "trash" you for your opinions. The thing that separates me from many fans of today's product is that I can respect your likes as a fan. The problem is that many fans of today's wrestling DO NOT respect mine. That is one of the biggest issues I take with the fans of today's product, who do not like the Attitude Era style of programming.

And the fact of the matter is that both groups TOGETHER made up the fan base back then. However, my conclusion is that Attitude Era fans were not as loyal to the WWE product, as the base of the wrestling fans. Therefore, when Rock and Austin left, things went downhill for those fans. Then, when WWE began moving towards PG programming, that is when they began to lose interest in the product and bolted.

I have repeated myself umteen times, but the solution to this problem is to offer multiple products to the entire potential wrestling audience. Vince needs to do a better job in targeting more picky and choosy viewers, while still keeping fans like you happy.

I don't know why, for the love of God, he thinks he can only offer ONE universal PG product, when he now has the capability of offering multiple products to the wrestling audience ... while reaching out to past viewers and other potential viewers. None of this is anything new. It's simply recreating the formula that worked during the wrestling boom, when WWE, WCW, and ECW all shared the audience. The only difference would be that WWE would be offering multiple products like they did, however all of which would be under the WWE banner, with Vince collecting ALL the profits. Vince needs to get out of the small mindset of putting out one product like he has his entire career, and get into the mindset of becoming a specialty distributor with putting out a variety of wrestling products.

However, let's address your comments ....

1. Performers not writers: While the Attitude Era officially ended around 2001, the WWE has pushed several edgy storylines. It seemed that most of the "edgy" storylines since, have flopped. Dawn Marie/Torrie Wilson, necro, McMahon dying, HLA..., I don't think I need to go on.

I may have to ask that you do go on, if possible. You say those segments were flops. But were they really? How do you define a "flop" out of curiosity? Because if you think those segments "flopped" when they produced much larger ratings than today's wrestling segments, then I guess one could label today's wrestling as one gigantic FLOP.

Where as the Attitude Era produced ratings in the 5.0's and 6.0's, even after the Attitude Era ended and Steve Austin and The Rock moved on, the Post Attitude Era (as I called it) still produced higher ratings than today's wrestling. The problem wasn't with the edgy programming. The problem is that WWE didn't have a major backup star groomed to take over for The Rock or Steve Austin.

That is why they hit the Panic Button and called up all those guys from OVW like John Cena and Randy Orton. Essentially, WWE got caught with their pants down and dropped the ball. Absolutely nothing was wrong with the programming whatsoever (except for Katie Vick, perhaps).

Case and point. After the Attitude Era, do you know what segment in the Post Attitude Era produced the highest rating? It was the Live Sex Celebration between Edge and Lita in 2006. That segment scored a 5.2 rating for the segment and a 4.3 rating for the show.

So contrary to what many fans of today's WWE product may WANT TO BELIEVE, yes sex and edgy programming does draw. It is what it is. If that type of programming isn't up many of todays fan's alleys, that isn't the point. What is happening is that people are putting their own programming biases ahead of the reality of the situation.

I and many others feel that we have demonstrated time and time again through backing up our opinions with market research that the edgy programming draws. Yet, many of today's fans want to keep harping on the wrestling, the wrestling, the wrestling.

Today's quality of wrestling is the highest it has ever been in the history of the WWE. While the ratings, buyrates, and attendance are not bad ... they aren't great either, and are even lower than the Post Attitude Era. So that tells me that it isn't the quality of wrestling that the people want to see improved. It is the creativity of the product itself, that is the problem.

In fact there were several storylines/segments DURING the actual attitude era that failed miserably. Bossman being hung, Beaver Cleavage, Rikishi running over Austin,... you get the point. (If Rikishi running over Austin was a success, then why didn't Rikishi do anything significant after the 6-man Hell in the Cell?)

Again, I have to ask, what defines "failed miserably"?

Is it that some of those segments simply ruffeled the feathers of concerned parents, that was the problem?

To be frank, I agree that the Rikishi program failed. However, that wasn't because of the WWE doing a "Who Ran Over Austin" storyline. You assume the problem was with the storyline, but the storyline wasn't the problem.

You asked the question why Rikishi didn't do anything else significant afterwards ... but there is your answer right there. The reason the program failed was because of Rikishi, not because of the angle. Rikishi didn't portray a convincing enough heel, and people weren't into the character. But none of that had anything to do with the "Austin getting ran over by a car" storyline being bad. The wrong person was chosen to be the culprit ... that's all. And that person was a disappointment to the viewers. He didn't do enough to try to improve himself during this program, so the higher ups lost faith in him. Again, that had zip to do with the actual concept of the program.

Bossman being hung ... I was actually there in Philly at Mania when this was done. The match was terrible, but the ending was pretty shocking. I was maybe 21 at the time, but I thought this may have went overboard, only because WWE had never done simulated murder before. And seeing someone struggle while being hung, was probably a bit much. I can tell you that even the Philly fans were a little quiet after that was done.

As far as Beaver Cleavage, was this really a failure? Or did WWE simply not have the balls to go through with the storyline and character? To be fair to Chaz Warrington, they didn't give the character much of a chance. They debuted him once, and I thought the gimmick received a decent reaction from the crowd. However, they were worried about doing an incest storyline and essentially chickened out. I personally think they should have went through with it.

ECW was a nice regional bit with a cult following but nothing that could sustain it on the national level. Yeah, it had fans across the country, but not enough to sustain it. WCW did great when it was just a bunch of thugs, but when they turned to the edgy storylines, they went down quicker than anyone thought possible.

It is true that today's ECW draws better ratings then the ECW of old with Paul Heyman. That is because it did not have the National Exposure of the WWE name behind it at the time. Once WWE became affiliated with ECW, by running it out of business and purchasing the rights to the product, the former ECW gained in familiarity amongst viewers.

I will disclose that where as there were some parts I did enjoy about the old ECW, for the most part I did not care for it. It was a niche audience. However, it was a large enough niche audience to be considered "somewhat" significant. And I feel like having a product like this around was still good for the wrestling industry, as a whole.

To provide further credence to my point that the old ECW gained in popularity with the help of WWE exposure, I point to the first several months of ratings for "WWECW" (as most people call it). The show's very first rating produced a 2.8 rating. That was a higher rating than Smackdown at the time, and is a higher rating than the Smackdown of today, which last week drew a 1.6. The last episode of WWECW drew a 1.1 rating. Superstars hasn't even broken a 1.0 rating, and it doesn't look like they will, either.

Fans tuned into that show, because they were under the impression that Vince was going to give them the old ECW product, they were accustomed to. Vince didn't, and the ratings gradually fell over time.

In reality, there were two different WWECW products offered.

1) The first version was a watered down ECW, that Vince felt wasn't clicking with the audience, evidently. However, he was wrong, to a degree, as this version of ECW still produced higher ratings than today's product.

I also think the downfall of this brand resulted from a pissing contest between Paul Heyman and Vince McMahon. I think Vince was the one most responsible for this happening, as supposedly even Stephanie was coming to Paul Heyman's defense (which was ironic since those two apparently did not get along well, either). Vince's ego in having the ability to push people around, got the best of him, when Heyman was trying to deliver a product the fans wanted. In the end, this resulted in Heyman and WWE parting ways, and the ECW product being reduced even further in status.

Fault- Vince


2) The second WWECW product was a Developmental Show and still is to this day. Ratings for this show fluctuate between a 1.1 and a 1.3. Clearly not as popular as the original WWECW that Vince put out.


So where as ECW was a niche product, it is higher in status, than I think you want to give credit for.

Keep in mind, as previously pointed out, that the first WWECW produced higher ratings than today's Smackdown.

The Attitude Era was not made possible necessarily by cussing, sex, or extreme violence.

I have to disagree. I know how some people want to psycho-analyze this thing, and can't bring themselves to accept that IT WAS the sex, cussing, and violence ... but at the end of the day, it was. The fact that it was something NEW that the WWE never offered its fans before, helped produce the highest ratings in the company's history.

Hogan didn't become a household name by literally kissing McMahon's backside. Flair didn't achieve greatness by pulling a knife on anyone.

Where as that was true, however you are forgetting that it was a different time frame back then.

Do you think if Hulk Hogan was just starting his career with WWE in this day and age, that he would be as popular as he was back in the 80's? Not at all. There is no way his gimmick would be as popular today, if he was a young Hulk Hogan just getting his start.

Hogan IS, however, still popular today, because of nostalgia reasons, and the fact that the fans respect the influence he had on their childhoods. Obviously, they are also paying tribute to the degree of influence he had on the wrestling business as a whole, and moving it forward. So where as Hulk Hogan the wrestler is still immensely popular, and I dare say would outpop anyone who is currently on the WWE roster (including John Cena, easily), his gimmick would not be anywhere near as successful today as it was back then.

It worked because of who launched it and carried it. Taker, Austin, Triple H, Rock, The Outlaws, Foley and even HBK.

Taker, Austin, Triple H, the Rock, Foley, and HBK were all in WWE BEFORE the Attitude Era started. Something changed. It was the programming content. The change in programming content allowed every single one of them to alter their characters to appeal as well as they did to the increasing audience.

So where as these guys did a great job with their new characters, you need to keep in mind that NONE of that would even be possible without the change in programming, which gave them the leeway to push their characters to the edge.

To all of the fans who bash the Attitude Era, but still liked Steve Austin, the elevator is clearly not going to the top floor with your thought process. Steve Austin would have never ... NEVER ... achieved the success he did, without the edgy programming to fall back on. NEVER. The fact that he could cuss out his boss and flip him the middle finger week in and week out, was what appealed to the audience, as a whole. Not Steve Austin's wrestling abilities.

That is why I have always stated that it is the characters themselves, AND the quality of the story-writing that is what brings the ratings in. Vince Russo was dead on with this, and he deserves credit for his vision. It is NOT the quality of wrestling the brings in the ratings. And that is what too many of today's fans just don't get.

They all felt victimized by politics somewhere. They all had something to get out on the air. They all had something to show. You can't just book anyone for a role and make it work. Directors want certain guys in a movie to play certain roles. They were guys who learned the business, became very savvy in it, and developed an "attitude" that fans bought. Minus, the Outlaws, there were all smart guys who knew how to take care of their character.

I don't know what else to say to that, that hasn't already been covered.

2. Wrestling fad: It was a fad. It was the "in-thing." There were some new things going on. It was interesting. Everything we knew about wrestling was shaken up. After a while, we weren't blown away by what we saw. Fads happen all of the time. They die.

The Attitude Era was a fad, I will agree with you on. Vince offered the audience something new that he never offered them before. And fans were hungry for that. Which is why it was successful.

However, just because it was a fad, that doesn't mean that the programming should have been altered at the close of the Attitude Era, just because of that.

The can never recapture that inital magic. Fans were turning off the TV around the end of the "Attitude Era."

Why do you think fans began turning off the TV, out of curiosity? The end of the Attitude Era occurred around the end of WCW AND the fact that the company's two most popular stars were in the process of leaving. Both Steve Austin and The Rock.

You want to claim that it was the programming that was responsible for the ratings drop. It wasn't. Steve Austin and The Rock leaving, without WWE having any MAJOR star to take over for both of them ... IN ADDITION TO Vince shutting down both ECW and WCW without offering programming alternatives in their place (at the time, both a family program AND a hardcore program) brought about the decrease in the popularity of wrestling.

Let's review some ratings over the past several years, while taking the programming content (edgy and PG), as well as the departures of Rock and Austin, AND the demise of WCW in mind, and let's see what happened to the ratings.

Here are some key years to keep in mind:


2001- ECW's last PPV was in January, before it folded. Shortly after, Vince purchased WCW in March.


2002- Both Rock and Austin both finished wrestling full time this year. Austin stopped at the first half of the year ... up through Judgment Day (5 PPV's) ... and Rock also only wrestled 5 PPV's, wrestling up to SummerSlam, while skipping Backlash and Judgment Day.

2003- Austin did a Specialty match with Eric Bischoff at No Way Out, and finished up his career wrestling the Rock at Mania. Rock wrestled at No Way Out, Mania against Austin, and finished up at Backlash against Goldberg.

2006- For all intents and purposes, WWE ended its Shock, edgy TV in 2006, with the final "edgy" segment being in July, where both Triple H received a BJ and Candice Michelle got eaten out under the picnic table. Thereafter, they gradually began their move towards PG television.

2008- WWE officially announces in July that all of its programs are now deemed PG. Although, it was quite clear there was a move in this direction since 2006.


This is the average rating for each year from 1997 up through 2008. These ratings were obtained through Slyfox (thank you very much for posting).

Keep in mind that WWE was PG back before the Attitude Era. Are these the types of ratings you want to see Raw and company go back to again? Because it sure looks like we are gradually heading back in that direction.


1996- 2.7
1997- 2.7
1998- 4.4
1999- 6.1
2000- 5.9
2001- 4.6
2002- 4.0
2003- 3.8
2004- 3.7
2005- 3.8
2006- 3.9
2007- 3.6
2008- 3.3


Things that we can conclude from this:

The closing of both ECW and WCW in 2001 didn't help the WWE's ratings. It hurt them and hurt the wrestling business, as a whole ... because Vince never bothered replacing the variety of products his competitors offered.

2001 was also, again, the last full year that BOTH Steve Austin and The Rock wrestled.

2001 ended with a 4.6 ratings average.

The WWE was still more popular and drew higher ratings in the Post Attitude Era, up through the Transition Period between then, and today with the PG Era.

The WWE began the move towards PG in July of 2008. That year was the WWE's lowest year for ratings since 1997, before the Attitude Era.

WWE has consistently lost .3 ratings points per year, since they began the move towards PG television content in 2006. At this rate, we could theoretically expect 2009 to finish up at a 3.0 rating, now that the Mania bump is clearly over.

With the WWE doing its edgiest segment in years in 2006 with the Live Sex Celebration and it producing a 5.2 rating, that is clearly in line with what they were doing during the Attitude Era and should demonstrate that this is the type of programming the fans want to see. It may not be the programming content that prudy Internet fans of today want to see (who also feel the need to interject their opinions on everyone else on the programming we should be wanting to see), but it evidently is the type of programming that the "majority" of fans want to see.

They're not going to comeback without a major shake-up. Something new. Not rehashing the same material that made you famous. But something genuinely new.

I don't really have anything to add to that.

3. Golden Age: No one can doubt that the profitable era was the Attitude Era. It had its huge ratings. But taking off of number one where I mentioned performers, look at the quality of performers you had.

HBK- the bigger the stage, the better he is
Rock- grabbing a demographic that remains pretty much untargeted; even to this day. Really good in the ring and pheonomenal on the mic.
Austin- did everything we wanted. Became a hero by being an anti-hero. Great in the ring and great on the mic.
Foley- Superior on the mic, and great bump taker.
Undertaker- very few better at story-telling. A character that evolved with the business becoming more drastic and appalling.
Triple H- a complete package. Not superior at one thing or the other, but very versatile and could do nearly anything asked.
New Age Outlaws- Road Dogg had few peers on the mic. Really ran with this but has not re-captured this magic with Billy since. Billy was by far the better athlete and gave the tag-team a credible talent.

And if WWE would have kept John Cena in his Rapper gimmick, and built him as the Top Face of the company in that role, as opposed to this one where his character is restricted by the content rating, I am also convinced he would have at least came very close to the Rock in his ability to draw.

I remember when I first started watching basketball around 91. I could see Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockon..., Hall of Famers. To me, that was basketball's Golden-Age. Now, if it ain't a Texas team, I pretty much ignore basketball.

Plus, talent is not necessarily being bred all over the world like it was. Jericho, Benoit in Canada. Austin, Taker, and Foley in WCCW and USWA. Guys from AWA. NWA. WCW. Now, if you are going to wrestle, then you pretty much need to catch on with one of 3 promotions (and if you get in at ROH, you better be superior otherwise you become a respected worker like Danielson that can't get the major spotlight). So now you don't have all of these great talents coming from everywhere to have these big showdowns.

You can fault Vince for all of that, since he put all his competition out of business. However, he has expanded the size of his roster, at the same time, thus allowing the WWE to contract more performers, and provide more talent with opportunities.

However, the logical thing to do in this case is to back several schools from around the country and maintain positive relationships with them. WWE simply needs to do a better job at scouting talent, and getting Johnny Ace and those underneath him, familiar with the Indy leagues out there.

You mentioned Canada ... well what is stopping another Benoit or a Jericho from coming out of that country? What has changed, in that regard?

So I don't believe that it was Vince Russo or Vince McMahon who suddenly became writing geniuses and 4 years later became writing idiots.

Vince McMahon was clueless back in 1997 and had no idea where to take his company. Obviously, exposing kayfabe never occurred to him as being an option. It was Vince Russo's vision that allowed the Attitude Era to be executed. As stubborn as McMahon is, I am just surprised he listened to Russo, however am thankful that he did, obviously, as I am sure so are millions and millions of other fans, who appreciated that Era.

However, as far as the McMahon of today, he appears to have fallen back into that trap again, of not knowing where to take his company.

One can not view Vince McMahon as being the same person from the 80's throughout today. He was a visionary for that Era, and took the product to brand new heights. However, he lacks the vision to take it to the next level, evidently.

I don't think Vince McMahon is necessarily a genius. I know a Merchandiser who worked with them (who is dead now, sadly), who even said that Vince told the guy he didn't think he was a genius, either. He simply took some risks, and he got lucky. And I have to agree.

Outside of what Vince did with taking WWE to a National Level, I think it is more so his company as a whole, that simply works as a machine, to provide WWE the success it does year after year. What exactly is McMahon doing every single year to take the company to new heights? He obviously is HEAVILY involved in the Creative Process, and I would argue that for someone who is Chairman of the Board of a company, he is TOO involved in the Creative department, given his position. In doing so, he loses the big picture of his company's position in the marketplace, because he is too busy in the Creative Process week in and week out. And I may add that since he lost Rock and Austin, he has consistently done more damage to the Creative Process year after year, as evidenced by his consistently shrinking audience.

He routinely makes bad decisions, such as the WBF, the XFL, the WWE Hotel and Casino, and most recently WWE Films. All of which have been failures.

Vince had it back in the 80's and 90's. However, Vince does not have it today. And the very best thing he could do for his company, and the wrestling business as a whole, is to remove himself from Creative ASAP. I'm not saying he should retire as Chairman of the Board, but I think the man has become blind to the rest of his company, because he is too damn involved in Creative, and won't let his daughter or others, do their jobs, without constantly over-ruling them.

They had a lot more to work with. They had a window of opportunity that won't open itself up at one's will. They took advantage of it.

It was competition and the fact that a variety of choices were offered to the consumers, that Created the Boom. Booms don't just happen, by chance. Booms are created.

The absolute best thing Vince could do for the wrestling business (besides stepping down from Creative) is to replace the products that his competition offered during the Boom, and go out and target more fans by appealing to their interests.

Trying to appeal to everyone is a flawed and evidently failed strategy. There is a reason why not every show on TV today is Rated PG. It's because Network Executives realize that it isn't possible to tell a 34 year old in this day and age, that they need to like the same thing that a 9 year old likes.

That may have worked back in the 80's, but times are different now.

However, by having Smackdown targeting the Kids, and having Raw go back to targeting the older teens and adults, and ECW target the hardcore crowd of passionate wrestling fans, that can create another boom. Maybe not as large a boom, but I am willing to bet that this strategy would appeal to more people than Vince trying to force his one, universal product, on all age brackets, and expecting them all to like it.

There were a lot of things that lined up just right for this big boom for wrestling. Now they are going for a new audience. It will drop in ratings for a while. They may even make TNA competitive. But with the right crop of talent and the right timing on things, WWE could shine. Im not sure if it will ever be 6's or 7's again (or whatever the ratings were back then). But up and downs happen all of the time in business. WWE will see up's again.

You mentioned Brian Danielson earlier.

As I have pointed out, you can have the best wrestlers in the world all wrestling for your organization, but that is not the key.

That is why I chuckle at many of today's fans who demand the 15-20-25 minute matches on Raw. That thing, on a consistent basis, is what is killing the business, and you don't even realize it. Because that tells people, "Why order the PPV's if I can get it for free on weekly TV?"

Furthermore, having those matches for free on Raw and Smackdown each week results in the same guys fighting over and over and over again, so that when they do face each other on PPV, the crowd will have already seen them wrestle 15 to 20 minute matches, more than likely, multiple times on Raw.

I'm not saying don't ever have long matches on Raw or Smackdown, but that shouldn't be the norm. What Raw and Smackdown should be doing is focusing more on storylines to build towards the PPV matches. Raw and Smackdown should not be providing first rate matches on TV, while also providing those same matches on PPV, as well. People wonder why fans are tired of seeing Edge wrestle Cena and Triple H wrestle Randy Orton. How many times have those guys wrestled each other on free television over the years?

However, you can have the best wrestlers in the world signed to your organization, and that still won't produce the ratings. Wrestling, by itself, is never going to produce ratings. And I would have hoped that fans of the business would have learned that by now after the Attitude Era. It is the programming content AND the characters that produce the ratings, and thus will expand the audience.

So to those that want to complain about Shad Gaspard as being slow in the ring and sticking up for agents breathing down his neck, or any other talent that does passable ring work ... that is insignificant in the big picture.

You have better quality of wrestling now, than at any other point in WWE history ... and WWE still can't produce ratings or attendance anywhere near what it used to do, in the Attitude Era OR Post Attitude Era. Therefore, one can conclude that clearly the wrestling is not the problem, or not where the focus needs to be.

The majority of the total potential audience is clearly not interested in seeing WWE become a modern day reflection of the Original Ring of Honor. However, the fans that do, are frequently seen spouting off on the Internet about why today's product is supposedly far superior to the edgy programming of yesterday. And that is exactly why these people should be ignored. Because they have ZERO, and I do mean ZERO data that supports their arguments.

The wrestling itself, however, is not where the focus of the company needs to be. It needs to be on Creative ... but with Vince not having anything to do with it on a weekly basis. It is time for this man to lay aside his ego for once, and do the right thing for his company, as well as the wrestling industry as a whole.

 

[bulldog76]

I'll respond to some things said.

First, good thought out responses. Don't necessarily agree with everything said, but you will never fully agree with anyone on everything.

Secondly, I was a huge fan of the Attitude Era. But I also look forward to what the WWE is doing now. I look foward to the opportunity (if they get into it) to share something I loved growing up with my kids without worrying about content.

WWE could possibly pull of a variety package with (just an example) RAW being the edgy show, SmackDown being the family show, and ECW being the hardcore show. I wont say it will work and wont say it wont. Although I do find it interesting that ECW is moving back one hour.

Third, the general consensus seems to be "there is a disconnect between creative and the talent." While we could speculate all day, unless you are back there, you don't know why that is. Creative had to trust Austin enough to get the mic (apparently) unscripted and then follow this attitude that he had. Creative had to trust Triple H and Shawn with DX, Undertaker with his evolution, Rock with his development. That connection doesn't seem to be there. Instead, either talent is waiting for something to be handed to them, what they are proposing sucks, creative isn't coming up with something good enough, or creative doesn't trust what these guys come up with. Maybe it is a combonation of all of them. I don't know but the connection doesn't seem to be there the way it was before.

As far as swearing and sex. You can over do it. Edge and Lita's sex scene was something different at the time that it happened. So it scored high. Yet, HLA (from what I have read) scored the lowest rating for RAW at that time since before the Attitude Era. People getting up out of their seats and leaving and ratings drop is not a good sign. SEX DOES SELL though. Why do cheerleaders wear skimpy outfits? Why does Girls Gone Wild succeed? But, poeple have a line. I am not sure what that line is but you don't cross it (apparently it is not a definite straight line). And you certainly don't cross lines with sponsors/investers. Sex was an element but didn't make or break the Attitude Era. Just added to the "break all of the rules" mentality. I personally, didn't care for the sex element. If I want to watch sex, I'll get a porn. But I do understand that it sells.

Cussing was another element. It brought believeable emotion. If you have guys who felt screwed over, they are probably going to say a couple of words. But the nWo seemed to do fine minimizing it.

Speaking of the nWo, Lord Sidious had the following quote:
It is NOT the quality of wrestling the brings in the ratings. And that is what too many of today's fans just don't get.
I agree 100%. The best actual in-ring worker the nWo had that was relevant was Scott Hall. Hogan and Nash connected with the fans. Not saying Hall didn't but I think most people know what kept him from bigger things (undependable). They were far from great wrestlers. HBK and Hart far exceeded just about anything that WCW could put up wrestling wise. But yet, ratings favored WCW. TNA has some good wrestlers yet I find Impact impossible to watch. There has to be more than wrestling. You better have a connection with fans and a connection with creative as well.

I think it is who launched it. Creative trusted them. Yeah, they had all been in the WWE before. But who besides Taker and Michaels were top talents before the Attitude Era? Not Triple H. Not Austin. Not Foley. Not Rock. Something happened in real life for them to open up on the air. They all felt like they got jacked around somewhere. They used it. Again, creative trusted them. Maybe this is where Paul Heyman should get the credit. Stick a mic in front of the guy and see if he can make the connection. Can you imagine how bad ECW would have been if Paul had to come up with everyone's gimmicks/stories? He was already stretched out too far.

There was a lot more business savvy (and with that comes more trust in your talent). There was a lot of revolution. WWE doesn't need to rehash anything. Just find the next thing that fans can connect with. Edgy should still be there. I'm just not sure it should be as frequent. Don't over do it. Let us appreciate it when the next superstar steps out of line like we did with Austin. Don't try and push things that aren't there. I actually think Vince is doing a decent job of this but there is always room for improvement. I don't think Vince woke up one day and said, "screw this. I want it this way." It seems what Vince is doing is trying to make an investment in the future generation. (Could easily be wrong.) Ratings went down when Austin and Rock left and there wasn't really anyone of their caliber to pick up the ball and run. So he takes a step back and tries to rebuild. There is going to be a loss but hopefully it pays off in the end. Shake things up for the next generation. But only time will tell if this is a gamble that works for Vince like WrestleMania and the Attitude Era or flop like XFL.

As far as the revolution, the opportunity for a wrestling boom wans't just ripped open. The timing had to be right. If Austin had debuted the Stone Cold gimmick 5 years earlier, he could have easily been fired. Opportunity has to present itself. Then you have to have what it takes to seize the opportunity.

If it seems like I am "fence sitting" or going back and forth on this, I am. I trying to point out that the Attitude Era was the golden age. Incredibly profitable. Sex and cussing were elements that gave the Attitude Era a feel for nothing is off-limits. But at the same time, you have sponsors, you have investors, and you have a future to shoot for. And the reality is, there are things that are off-limits. Certain things are not permisable on TV. Sponsors/investers who put money into your company have a certain standards for where they put their money. (Paul was so hell-bent on shaking things up and breaking all of the rules and getting away from everything wrestling was, ECW failed. It added some good things to the industry but ECW itself failed.) And remember, you also have merchandise and a future to worry about so you can't just say "screw the kids."

Bottom line, everyone needs to step it up. Vince. Steph. Creative. Talent. Marketing. (I don't think cross-promotion with The View is going to get a lot of the audience you are supposed to be targeting whether it be kids or men 18-35). Otherwise, the numbers won't continue to float around the mid to high 3 mark.