Golden Age of Wrestling Right Now?

[Matty~!]

Hang on a minute you negate the ratings issue and then use a defence with it being 'socially active' which for the record is a stupid buzz phrase, so whilst it is being 'socially active' it must mean it is rated in some way, in comparison to other things that are on these sites.

The make a remark about it being an 'internet' being obsessed with ratings is so short sighted. You're basically saying one facet is of wrestling's internet presence is fine to be judged on, then discounting people like Meltzer and Keller who despite opinions on objective things, actually go and do the number crunching which is a far more interesting side and appeal to their newsletters.

WWE has had a global presence for most of the past 20 years, this is a promotion that ran shows in England, Germany, Israel, Kuwait, South Africa and probably other places too in the 1990's. It's not just suddenly sprung up out of nowhere.

The bottom line to any golden era for me is when the most people, make the most money possible, in the successfully promoting what they do. It happened like this for a lot of territories in the early 80's prior to McMahon's expansion. Then it happened again at the ended of the 90's, when you had something that will most likely never happen again with with companies of national television.

This era is confined to one promotion being successful on some levels, with only one place to make any real money, that is so wound up in it's own little world that they actively cost themselves money because they can't see outside of their own little cocoon.

 

[#tamale]

Again, read carefully:

In terms of pop culture, being the most socially active show does help.

In what terms is being socially active help?

And again, read carefully:

You are comparing those ratings and using them as fact that WWE is not as popular, when in fact, back in those days WWE barely had a worldwide market. So, they lost some of the domestic audience but have gained an international audience.

Where in there do I defend social media activity over ratings? Where in there do I say that social media activity is more important than ratings? Look at the context.

then discounting people like Meltzer and Keller who despite opinions on objective things, actually go and do the number crunching which is a far more interesting side and appeal to their newsletters.

There are forum members who are much smarter and understand the business more than Meltzer or Keller. They are not the be all and end all for wrestling knowledge.

WWE has had a global presence for most of the past 20 years, this is a promotion that ran shows in England, Germany, Israel, Kuwait, South Africa and probably other places too in the 1990's. It's not just suddenly sprung up out of nowhere.

Of course not. But it is much much bigger than when it started. If I lose 3,000,000 viewers in the USA, but I gained 3,000,000 viewers among the continent of Europe, what did I lose in terms of viewership?

This era is confined to one promotion being successful on some levels, with only one place to make any real money, that is so wound up in it's own little world that they actively cost themselves money because they can't see outside of their own little cocoon.

 

[Matty~!]

Again, read carefully:



In what terms is being socially active help?

And again, read carefully:



Where in there do I defend social media activity over ratings? Where in there do I say that social media activity is more important than ratings? Look at the context.



There are forum members who are much smarter and understand the business more than Meltzer or Keller. They are not the be all and end all for wrestling knowledge.



Of course not. But it is much much bigger than when it started. If I lose 3,000,000 viewers in the USA, but I gained 3,000,000 viewers among the continent of Europe, what did I lose in terms of viewership?

You are using the point of the product being active via social media as a plus point for a boom period that simply does not exist. When you have a small percentage of the actual core audience at anyone time actually using any internet platform.

There is no way the total number of fans WWE lost in the US has ever been replicated in any other market whatsoever. In the UK which is generally considered WWE's best market outside of North America, the ratings have ranged in recent months between 150,000 and 175,000 for both Raw and Smackdown. That means at it's top range ,they would have to have 17 markets worldwide pulling those sort of ratings on a weekly basis. To equal what wrestling as a whole lost in the post monday night wars era.

No offence to anyone on this forum but Meltzer and Keller have covered pro wrestling for decades, watched wrestling for decades and do it as their primary job. Not just as a fan or as a hobby. Their opinions I take subjectively and objectively, sometimes their opinions are complete BS but when it comes to barefaced facts, numbers, business cycles they present without opinion and let the FACTS speak for themselves.

I've watched pro wrestling for at least 20 years now from WCW, WWF, ECW, Puro, Lucha, historical stuff and would consider myself fairly knowledgeable but wouldn't consider myself to have a knowledge like Meltzer or Keller... But hey it's the cool thing to do to hate on them I expect.

As for that comment at the end of my last post I'm really not ripping on the WWE I watch their product, I generally enjoy their product most weeks but it's like CM Punk said in his promo back in 2011. Vince McMahon is a million who should be a billionaire.

 

[rge2010]

It certainly seems WWE have started to drop 'monsters' and 'meatheads' from the big dominant roles. These characters will also be present but they are needed. Today we have Show, Ryback, Kane, etc and in the 90s it was Taker, Diesel, Sid etc and before that Earthquake, Andre and Yokozuna.

They are focusing more on 'Wrestlers' now with Punk having his 434 days and Bryan the cream of the crop at the moment. Not to mention Del Rio, Ziggler, RVD, Orton, Ambrose who are all at the bear the top of the pile right now. They may not be liked by all but they are all great workers and nobody can dispute that.

Cena is still the Hogan of this era, but the show isnt all about him anymore despite what people constantly moan about. Now reminds me of the early mid 90s when the show was all about Bret, Shawn, Owen, etc.

 

[#tamale]

You are using the point of the product being active via social media as a plus point for a boom period that simply does not exist.

As a plus point towards pop culture. I never said this was a boom period.

Is right now a Golden Age of wrestling? Not at this moment. That's because it's not finished yet.

There is no way the total number of fans WWE lost in the US has ever been replicated in any other market whatsoever. In the UK which is generally considered WWE's best market outside of North America, the ratings have ranged in recent months between 150,000 and 175,000 for both Raw and Smackdown. That means at it's top range ,they would have to have 17 markets worldwide pulling those sort of ratings on a weekly basis. To equal what wrestling as a whole lost in the post monday night wars era.

17 markets? How many countries are in Europe? I think 50. Not counting Asia, Africa, Central and South America. You fail to miss my point. The reason I brought up that example was that your comparison and my comparison negates the points brought up.

I've watched pro wrestling for at least 20 years now from WCW, WWF, ECW, Puro, Lucha, historical stuff and would consider myself fairly knowledgeable but wouldn't consider myself to have a knowledge like Meltzer or Keller... But hey it's the cool thing to do to hate on them I expect.

And after those 20 years, you still feel the need to go Meltzer or Keller to form opinions?

Don't confuse hate with indifference.

As for that comment at the end of my last post I'm really not ripping on the WWE I watch their product, I generally enjoy their product most weeks but it's like CM Punk said in his promo back in 2011. Vince McMahon is a million who should be a billionaire.

Considering all the things that have happened from 2001-2011, I'm surprised WWE is still around. Mismanagement of talent, overexposure, Ruthless Agression era, Rock and Stone Cold leaving, and the Chris Benoit situation. That Benoit situation nearly destroyed WWE.

Again, this is not a golden age. It could be the beginning of one taking in all the factors. My point, like I stated in my original post was, that we shouldn't compare eras to define how this era will be defined. It should be defined on it's own merit.

 

[Matty~!]

17 markets? How many countries are in Europe? I think 50. Not counting Asia, Africa, Central and South America. You fail to miss my point. The reason I brought up that example was that your comparison and my comparison negates the points brought up.

If you had read what I wrote I said they would have to have 17 markets equal to what the UK draws. There aren't another 17 outside markets in the world that as strong as the UK, so therefore it's highly unlikely that your theory of WWE have replaced the loss of domestic fans with fans from other markets. WWF / E has always been on in most these countries anyway didn't the opening signature in the 90's say broadcast to a half billion viewers each week?

And after those 20 years, you still feel the need to go Meltzer or Keller to form opinions?

Don't confuse hate with indifference.

Like I stated at least twice their publications are generally worth reading for the business breakdowns and number crunching that they do when, which I stated at least twice isn't opinion. I also said their opinions can contain a certain amount of bullshit, like a lot of peoples opinions can. However just like posting on forums it's interesting to see what people think about the business. I don't base any of my opinions from Meltzer or Keller's opinions.


#30 Add to El Terrible's Reputation Report Post
Unread Today, 07:07 PM
El Terrible's Avatar
El Terrible El Terrible is online now
ONE POINT TWENTY ONE GIGAWATTS?!

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Mexico
Posts: 166
El Terrible is looking to come up from OCW...El Terrible is looking to come up from OCW...El Terrible is looking to come up from OCW...El Terrible is looking to come up from OCW...
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty~! View Post
You are using the point of the product being active via social media as a plus point for a boom period that simply does not exist.
As a plus point towards pop culture. I never said this was a boom period.

Quote:
Is right now a Golden Age of wrestling? Not at this moment. That's because it's not finished yet.
Quote:
There is no way the total number of fans WWE lost in the US has ever been replicated in any other market whatsoever. In the UK which is generally considered WWE's best market outside of North America, the ratings have ranged in recent months between 150,000 and 175,000 for both Raw and Smackdown. That means at it's top range ,they would have to have 17 markets worldwide pulling those sort of ratings on a weekly basis. To equal what wrestling as a whole lost in the post monday night wars era.
17 markets? How many countries are in Europe? I think 50. Not counting Asia, Africa, Central and South America. You fail to miss my point. The reason I brought up that example was that your comparison and my comparison negates the points brought up.

Quote:
I've watched pro wrestling for at least 20 years now from WCW, WWF, ECW, Puro, Lucha, historical stuff and would consider myself fairly knowledgeable but wouldn't consider myself to have a knowledge like Meltzer or Keller... But hey it's the cool thing to do to hate on them I expect.
And after those 20 years, you still feel the need to go Meltzer or Keller to form opinions?

Don't confuse hate with indifference.

Quote:
As for that comment at the end of my last post I'm really not ripping on the WWE I watch their product, I generally enjoy their product most weeks but it's like CM Punk said in his promo back in 2011. Vince McMahon is a million who should be a billionaire.
Considering all the things that have happened from 2001-2011, I'm surprised WWE is still around. Mismanagement of talent, overexposure, Ruthless Agression era, Rock and Stone Cold leaving, and the Chris Benoit situation. That Benoit situation nearly destroyed WWE.

Again, this is not a golden age. It could be the beginning of one taking in all the factors. My point, like I stated in my original post was, that we shouldn't compare eras to define how this era will be defined. It should be defined on it's own merit.

If you're using the catalyst of Punk's promo prior to MITB I think it's highly unlikely that this is the case. With that having taken place over 2 years ago now. I loved the promo and ensuing angle but it was really allowed to stagnate after Summerslam 2011. And as such any continued momentum was screwed and driving business and being a game changer with ratings was let to slip by.

If you look at the catalyst of Austin 3:16 there was continuous growth with the exception a slight speed bump right at the start. If you look at Hogan's explosion was pretty much spontaneous and certainly before the first wrestlemania the promotion was a juggernaut.