IC25's New Editorial - Hogan Says TNA is Gonna Start Shooting...

[johnbragg]

More casual fans know about sting-hogan than they do the angle-jarrett real life situation.

Casual fans know about Hogan's creative control clause in WCW, how Hogan "played politics" and how WCW Creative never was able to build anything for Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio? Really? Casual fans know that? Because that's what Sting has been referring to. Sting didn't spend 2010 campaigning for a final Sting vs Hogan Legend vs Legend showdown. (That would be a solid storyline, easily explained--"We have unfinished business from 1997 or so, and we must finish it." Works for Hogan-Flair, would work for Hogan-STing.) He spent 2010 talking about--strike that, referring obliquely to--WCW politics.

I'm not saying more people know A or know B. I'm saying that one is explainable in one sentence--"Jarrett is living with Angle's ex-wife"--and one is a complicated decade-old backstory of charges and countercharges.

More later, sorry.

 

[shattered dreams]

If you are talking specifically about that specific element of the hogan-sting relationship then it is more of a debate. The thing is that if Sting-Hogan have a conflict it does not only have to interest people for those "behind the scenes" reasons you imply, it could just as easily be the final legend vs legend aspect. Why I would think more people know about the Hogan creative control etc.? The amount of people that watched wrestling back then vs the amount of people that watch TNA now. These were not subtle behind the scenes developments. They made their way into the actual product on many notable occasions. All these things have been discussed over and over again in books, DVDs, on-screen in both WCW and WWE etc. Many of these issues are common knowledge among both former and current wrestling fans.

Now the Angle situation is something that is a hot button issue in the IWC for people that follow TNA but that is not exactly a casual fan market. The angle-jarrett situation was only referred to extremely vaguely oneish times on impact prior to that promo a couple of weeks ago. It was a big story when it broke but it was hardly some pervasive issue that everyone commented on publicly in various notable ways. There are just many more ways a casual fan would have come across the WCW downfall stuff than this internet driven report.

To top it off, at this point most reports seem to suggest angle-jarrett do not have bad blood over it. So they did not work a shoot in this case. First, there was no shoot to begin with. Angle or Jarrett never addressed it publicly for a long time, especially not on impact. Second, while there were legitimate hard feelings TNA did not touch the story. What they did is wait until things smoothed over and then instead of pretending it never happened, addressed that reality to add to the story. They take the believability, what you explained as basic human nature, in there being legit bad blood and use it to hype it up among the over-reactionary IWC. The thing is how do you know how angle and jarrett feel? You do not, but people like to think they do. TNA takes this flaw in the IWC etc. and works your perceptions, not their talent. At least that is my belief.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Ummm, the 4 guys in bold aren't actually involved in TNA currently, 2 of them don't even work there and haven't for a fairly long time. Well, you were wrong. Also the WCW/NWO days are absolutely nothing like the Shoot days they're two completely different eras.

Actually all 4 HAVE WORKED for TNA and the fact that Hall and XPac aren't there due to their personal issues doesn't mean they wouldn't still be there if those issues didn't exist. In fact, I'd practically guarantee they would.

Now Sting and Nash may not be on tv right now and perhaps they are "retired" but I'll take a wait and see attitude on that one right now. But the fact is they were there for several years and played a major role in where the company and their storylines are right now.

Look, I've said repeatedly that I want TNA to succeed as we need competition for WWE. Right now TNA isn't providing any. Do people watch? Of course we do. We do because WWE isn't on 7 days a week. TNA is filler. It's something we watch in between Raw and Smackdown. And I like the talent they have. I just understand that what I'm seeing now isn't all that different from what I saw during the days of WCW. And the base players have been the same. Not to mention that Hogan needs the money, Bischoff needs the exposure as a producer (so to speak), and Dixie needs the publicity for her brand.

Will they succeed long term? Not sure. Depends on how much money the power brokers have left. I know that either those working there are making very little money to do so, or that the well is going to run dry sooner or later.

 

[GameOver]

It seems that TNA is trying to do everything other than wrestling.

I do agree with IC. There is nothing that TNA will gain by this. They are trying to be different but at the same time they are not realizing that they are becoming WCW version 2.0. A shoot comment once in a while is OK and might also be perceived by some people as acknowledging the smark fans of wrestling. But the beauty of such shoots is that it is meant to take the smark fans by surprise. Having a surprise everytime ruins surprises. Another thing that I feel like mentioning here is that there are still many fans who sit in the audience who are marks. Shoots should provide something for the marks to connect to as well

i disagree, they know damn well they are WCW v2, have always tried to be and now they want desperately to get to that point

Thats the point. WCW was competition for WWE, TNA is not.

about shoots, personally i'm 50/50 aslong as we don't have to put up with the shit Kevin Nash style shoots every damn week like they did in WCW
"Sometimes the boys in the back blah blah blah"

shoots should be something that is occasionaly used, not all the time.

 

[Wolf Pac]

As said already, shoots shouldnt be used all the time, only a few times like how every company does but if TNA is shooting full time, that's just a pathetic & desperate move. They may aswell just put on real wrestling matches if they're gonna break kayfabe in promos. I hope TNA lose viewers over this, desperation is such an ugly thing.

 

[Melina]

I sincerely doubt they are going full shoot. Vince Russo writes these very long and detailed scripts, and I cannot imagine the creative team giving that much control up. They could very well go worked shoot more often, which are entertaining when used appropriately, but very annoying when overused.

 

[johnbragg]

More casual fans know about sting-hogan than they do the angle-jarrett real life situation.

You don't have to know anything about the background to get the Angle-JArrett story. The wrestlers and announcers can tell you in a couple of sentences.

JJ: I took your wife from you, Kurt. I took your kids from you. And now I've taken the only thing that really means a damn to you, your career.

Tenay: A lot of our audience may not know this, but after Karen and Kurt Angle divorced, she took the kids and moved in with Jeff Jarrett. He's really rubbing salt in that wound, Taz.

Everyone that watched Impact knows just about all there is to know about the Angle-Jarrett conflict. It could have been your first time watching Impact, first time watching pro wrestling, and you're up to date on that issue. It's that easy.

You may be confusing "casual fans" with "former hardcore fans"? Because former hardcore fans may know all about WCW backstage rumors and who held who back and who refused to "do the job" for who, but I'd say that knowing and remembering that stuff rules you out as a "casual fan."

 

[johnbragg]

It is not about convincing people a fight is "real." It is about helping them suspend disbelief further because the motivations are plausible on several levels. Why should certain elements that can make a story better be off limits? At a time when viewers are tougher to come by for all, pointlessly limiting creative from mentioning things everyone knows anyway, all in the name of some urban legend from 10 years ago in a company with tons of other more important problems, is quite misguided IMO.

Skim this thread, and see how many people who are positive on this are talking about moments where they think that it isn't scripted, times when the real-fake line is at least blurred. Based on Hogan's video, it is about convincing people it's real, or at least "real." For an industry built on worked matches and scripted conflicts, this way madness lies.

I'm not saying don't use real life conflicts or emotions. I'm saying treat them as gravy--something you add to the meat that makes it better. Don't neglect the meat because you're off chasing gravy, though. Which is something that TNA creative has a problem with. Another good analogy is hard drugs like cocaine or heroin. Not everyone who tries them becomes an addict. But you have to be really careful, or you end up destroying yourself and giving $5 handjobs in back alleys/selling your tape library to Vince.

 

[shattered dreams]

You don't have to know anything about the background to get the Angle-JArrett story. The wrestlers and announcers can tell you in a couple of sentences.

And they cannot do this for Hogan-sting example why?

Skim this thread, and see how many people who are positive on this are talking about moments where they think that it isn't scripted, times when the real-fake line is at least blurred. Based on Hogan's video, it is about convincing people it's real, or at least "real." For an industry built on worked matches and scripted conflicts, this way madness lies.

Disagree, the entire lifeblood of the industry is creating "real." People's perceptions do not make something actually true and are subject to manipulation, apparently quite easily. That basically sums up what I have been talking about.

I'm not saying don't use real life conflicts or emotions. I'm saying treat them as gravy--something you add to the meat that makes it better. Don't neglect the meat because you're off chasing gravy, though. Which is something that TNA creative has a problem with.

Care to give some examples if this problem is so bad? To me, if the people clearly have more interest in the gravy then you should give them as much as you can.

 

[johnbragg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
You don't have to know anything about the background to get the Angle-JArrett story. The wrestlers and announcers can tell you in a couple of sentences.

And they cannot do this for Hogan-sting example why?

Try it. I did it for the Angle-Jarrett issue two or three times upthread. Here it is again: "For those in the audience who don't know what Jarrett is talking about, after Angle's divorce his ex-wife moved in with Jarrett."

Try that for the Hogan-was-a-backstage-politician-in-WCW riff. And remember, you're explaining it to a casual fan, not someone who has detailed opinions on why WCW folded. And do it without emphasizing too much that match outcomes are predetermined.

Care to give some examples if this problem is so bad?

Well, for starters, if they run this video on Impact or on Reaction, Hogan talking about getting rid of "fakeass storylines." So much for EV2, so much for Immortal/Fortune, so much for Dixie Carter's inevitable comeback, so much for RVD's revenge on Abyss, so much for Abyss, so much for the entire Knockouts division.

After Bash at the Beach 2000, when Russo went full shoot on Hogan, Nitro never drew a 3.0 again against Raw.

Now, can you name a single wrestler who has gotten over by talking about how the bookers have been holding me back?

To me, if the people clearly have more interest in the gravy then you should give them as much as you can.

If you ran a restaurant, and you decided to start selling gravy as a beverage, I think that you'd be going too far even for the American market.

 

[shattered dreams]

Try it. I did it for the Angle-Jarrett issue two or three times upthread. Here it is again: "For those in the audience who don't know what Jarrett is talking about, after Angle's divorce his ex-wife moved in with Jarrett."

Try that for the Hogan-was-a-backstage-politician-in-WCW riff. And remember, you're explaining it to a casual fan, not someone who has detailed opinions on why WCW folded. And do it without emphasizing too much that match outcomes are predetermined.

The thing is even the most casual fan already knows the matches are predetermined. Why people pretend their is still some grand suspension of disbelief is beyond me? Why hide from the non-kayfabe stuff that almost everyone watching already knows anyway? It is not that hard to say something like many wrestlers hold Hogan responsible for the downfall of a company they loved in WCW. They do not want that to happen again. All the extra stuff does is serve to drive the only thing the story needs to communicate to the audience, that being there is a reason for this conflict. TNA does not have many casual fans anyway.

After Bash at the Beach 2000, when Russo went full shoot on Hogan, Nitro never drew a 3.0 again against Raw.

It is pretty well documented that is not a full shoot.

Now, can you name a single wrestler who has gotten over by talking about how the bookers have been holding me back?

Can you name me a single day in the IWC that someone isn't talking about somebody getting held back by the bookers? Why ignore the pulse of the fanbase? Any "held back" talk was used to build faces and sell Hogan/Bischoff's heel turn based on reputation.

 

[johnbragg]

Try that for the Hogan-was-a-backstage-politician-in-WCW riff. And remember, you're explaining it to a casual fan, not someone who has detailed opinions on why WCW folded. And do it without emphasizing too much that match outcomes are predetermined.

Instead of trying it, ShatteredDreams wrote:

The thing is even the most casual fan already knows the matches are predetermined. Why people pretend their is still some grand suspension of disbelief is beyond me? Why hide from the non-kayfabe stuff that almost everyone watching already knows anyway?

Because no other form of entertainment breaks in the middle of the show to talk about how the show is just a show. The Office doesn't do it. The Wire doesn't do it. Sopranos didn't do it. Star Trek didn't do it. Should the later Star Trek movies have interrupted the plot so that Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner could argue about whose music albums were more embarrassing? Or debate TJ Hooker vs In Search Of? Of course not. That would have been a train wreck. Should The Office have segments where Steve Carrell and (Jim's Actor) talk about whether the Jim Love Interest from the season where he was in Connecticut was any good as an actress? No. That's a DVD extra, at best.

Does the Saturday Night Live audience laugh when someone screws up and breaks character? Yes. Do they design the program around those moments? No.

It is not that hard to say something like many wrestlers hold Hogan responsible for the downfall of a company they loved in WCW. They do not want that to happen again. All the extra stuff does is serve to drive the only thing the story needs to communicate to the audience, that being there is a reason for this conflict. TNA does not have many casual fans anyway.

So go ahead and write it. And then look how weak it looks on your computer screen, compared to "Jarrett stole Angle's wife."

Why rely on insider knowledge from ten years ago? How is that going to appeal to younger fans?

TNA does not have many casual fans anyway.

Isn't that part of the problem? And isn't that maybe because TNA repels casual fans, leaving only those who absolutely have to get a pro wrestling fix? TNA's fans don't watch because we want to, we watch because we almost have to?

Maybe if TNA cut the crap that repels casual fans, they'd have some. And then maybe those casual fans would become devoted fans.

After Bash at the Beach 2000, when Russo went full shoot on Hogan, Nitro never drew a 3.0 again against Raw.

It is pretty well documented that is not a full shoot.

Documented by professional liars when it became very possible that they would need to work together again, because Vince McMAhon had no more use for any of them. If that wasn't a full shoot, then there never was and never will be a full shoot, including Montreal.

And exactly what is your point? Bash At The Beach 2000 sure as hell looked like a shoot, if it was a "worked shoot" it's the Mona fucking Lisa of the art form. Was it good for business, or was it a complete clusterfuck and a nail in WCW's coffin?

I asked:

Now, can you name a single wrestler who has gotten over by talking about how the bookers have been holding me back?

I'll answer myself, since you didn't--no, you cannot give an example of a wrestler who succeeded by talking about backstage issues.

Instead you asked:

Can you name me a single day in the IWC that someone isn't talking about somebody getting held back by the bookers? Why ignore the pulse of the fanbase?

I'm not saying ignore the pulse of the fanbase. If there is a ton of Internet chatter saying that Shelton Benjamin should get pushed more, then creative should CONSIDER whether they're using Shelton Benjamin correctly. And WWE tried again and again with Benjamin.

That doesn't mean that Benjamin should go out there and break character, talking about how he's not being used correctly and is being held back by backstage politics. (If you want to send Benjamin out there to cut a promo about how he's being held back because he's black, that's a different story. That story could work. He can talk about quick counts, who gets a rematch and who doesn't, talk about that all day. But keep it in the boundaries of a pretend sport.)

When Benoit, Guerrero, Dean MAlenko and Perry Saturn were being held back in WCW and left because of politics, they went to WWF. Did they show up and bitch about Russo and Bischoff and Hogan and Nash? No, they came out as the Radicals and started kicking asses. And they got over. When Chris Jericho came to WWF, did he come out and bitch about WCW booking? No, he got in the Rock's grill.

Any "held back" talk was used to build faces and sell Hogan/Bischoff's heel turn based on reputation.

What faces did it build? Name one. Hogan and Bischoff's heel heat comes from being the leaders of the greatest heel faction in wrestling history. (Sorry, Four Horsemen fans.)

So, challenge scorecard:
1. Write a short, pithy promo for STing-Hogan about WCW history.
You can't do it.
2. Name someone who got over by talking about backstage stuff.
You can't do it.

 

[shattered dreams]

Instead of trying it, ShatteredDreams wrote:

No I wrote a sentence like you asked me to and now you want me to write a promo for some reason. You change what we are talking about every other sentence just to fit your convoluted point. Sometimes it needs to be more real, sometimes it is insane to be real. Make up your mind and if you want to have a real discussion or ignore me and re-post the same thing with a string of increasingly less relevant analogies that.

Because no other form of entertainment breaks in the middle of the show to talk about how the show is just a show.

Ever watch a reality tv show? There is nothing fake about acknowledging real conflict. Why you persistently claim there is confuses me quite a bit. So what if the source is "behind the scenes." OMG the world is ending, they just broke kayfabe. Oh wait, the strict kayfabe audience has been in a serious decline while many eat up this behind the scenes crap regularly. Practically every TV show ever has winked at the camera from time to time or worked in a subtle reference here and there at the very least.

Does the Saturday Night Live audience laugh when someone screws up and breaks character? Yes. Do they design the program around those moments? No.

Well, they say the hosts real name directly before they do most of the skits as someone else. They routinely pan out and show the sets and people getting ready for them. But sure they make every effort to pretend that what is happening is perfectly real because the slightest admission it isn't will be a horrible travesty as everyone gets a glimpse of something they already fuckin knew. What a disaster that would be.

So go ahead and write it. And then look how weak it looks on your computer screen, compared to "Jarrett stole Angle's wife."

How is that the angle here and when did they say anything about her minus two quick comments? Weren't you opposed to taking it that far a few posts ago and in general? Make up your mind already.

Why rely on insider knowledge from ten years ago? How is that going to appeal to younger fans?

This stuff is anything but insider knowledge. Like you love to talk about so much Russo said practically all of it on a PPV and that was hardly the only time it has been brought up in prominent places over the years. That is not some IWC dirtsheet report.

Isn't that part of the problem? And isn't that maybe because TNA repels casual fans, leaving only those who absolutely have to get a pro wrestling fix?

I think every company is hemorrhaging casual fans. They do not exist like they used to. Even casual fans can easily come into contact with internet reports these days anyways. TNA has been actively trying to go after an older audience. Meaning casual, or not, they know sting-hogan and they are not going to pee their pants if Hogan uses an insider word or two.

TNA's fans don't watch because we want to, we watch because we almost have to?

WTF are you talking about? I hope you are not trying to speak for me and everyone else.

Documented by professional liars when it became very possible that they would need to work together again, because Vince McMAhon had no more use for any of them. If that wasn't a full shoot, then there never was and never will be a full shoot, including Montreal.

Montreal is well-documented as real. Bash at the beach has not been for some time. That doesn't mean there were not some bad feelings over it, rumor has it one reason Hulk skipped out on TNA the first time was that he wanted no part of working with Russo. In spite of all that, both Russo and Hogan tell a similar story in which the promo Russo did was not a shoot and this story came out well before Hogan was coming to TNA this time.

And exactly what is your point? Bash At The Beach 2000 sure as hell looked like a shoot, if it was a "worked shoot" it's the Mona fucking Lisa of the art form. Was it good for business, or was it a complete clusterfuck and a nail in WCW's coffin?

Sadly we never got to see the payoff as some exec decided to double cross Hogan so he never made his return. The reason it was bad had little to do with the shoot and everything to do with "creative control clauses," one of a lot of things that had much more effect on WCW's demise than worked shoots. The fact you are still talking about the "shoot" seems to suggest that it was effective at drawing attention. The main problem is that it was a real conflict that was being addressed that people still had hard feelings about. Now if TNA starts doing that then I will agree that is a slippery slope. However, my belief is that TNA is simply tricking the collective IWC into believing it is real like WCW, opposed to "real."

What faces did it build? Name one. Hogan and Bischoff's heel heat comes from being the leaders of the greatest heel faction in wrestling history. (Sorry, Four Horsemen fans.)

2. Name someone who got over by talking about backstage stuff.
You can't do it.

The main problem here is that no one gets over for one reason or promo. Why does Hogan still have heat in the IWC and elsewhere even when he is "hollywood?" How about Edge for one? The situation with him, Matt Hardy and Lita basically pushed him to that next level and was the inspiration for his gimmick. Many people have got over by taking on an unjust, heel boss. In this case the way the boss is unjust and evil is just more real. Why that is such an issue makes no sense to me.

 

[johnbragg]

You don't have to know anything about the background to get the Angle-JArrett story. The wrestlers and announcers can tell you in a couple of sentences.

And they cannot do this for Hogan-sting example why?

Try it.

That means try writing a sentence or a couple of sentences for the announcers and/or wrestlers to say. What is Tenay or Sting supposed to say to tell new fans or casual fans what the conflict is about? That's what I challenged you to do in the first place. You responded basically that TNA has no casual fans, that everybody watching already knows the story of politics in WCW.

Sometimes it needs to be more real, sometimes it is insane to be real. Make up your mind and if you want to have a real discussion or ignore me and re-post the same thing with a string of increasingly less relevant analogies that.

The fundamental principle of pro wrestling is scripted wrestling matches that are presented as real in the context of the show. As long as you don't break that premise, you can bring in realistic elements. You can talk about the health effects of concussions. You can talk about Jeff Jarrett shacking up with Kurt Angle's ex-wife. You can talk about Jeff Hardy's drug abuse. If you have the balls, you can talk about Kurt Angle's drug abuse. As a rule of thumb, anything Terrell Owens or Brock Lesnar or Mike Tyson or Derek Jeter or Lebron James can do, John Cena or Robert Roode can do in pro wrestling.

What you can't do is talk about how the sporting element is fake, about "doing the job" or "holding on to your spot" or "holding young talent back" or booking to win or lose.

What you shouldn't do is build your show and your company around chasing the next "worked shoot" and book feuds and angles to take advantage of them.

Quote:
Because no other form of entertainment breaks in the middle of the show to talk about how the show is just a show.
Ever watch a reality tv show?

I've never seen a taped reality show where someone says to the camera "The producers don't want me to tell you this, but...."

I've never seen a reality show that exposes how they create the reality that they want to put on the show. I've never seen an American Idol that shows how they hype up the worst contestants in the tryout round for days until they actually believe that they are undiscovered gems of singing talent. I've never seen where Last Comic Standing acknowledged that the lousy "outragerous" comic that showed up in every city was a plant by the producers.

I've never seen a reality show that undercuts and destroys its own premise of reality.

There is nothing fake about acknowledging real conflict. Why you persistently claim there is confuses me quite a bit.

Acknowledging real conflict is fine, as long as it doesn't violate the fundamental premise of pro wrestling that the matches are supposed to be real athletic contests. And it's foolish to start booking feuds and matches based on who has real-life conflicts with each other.

So what if the source is "behind the scenes." OMG the world is ending, they just broke kayfabe.

If the conflict is openly over who the writers should book to win matches, how does that get settled by a scripted wrestling match? If the conflict is over Hogan not allowing younger wrestlers to advance into the spotlight and win titles and beat Hogan and his cronies, how can that conflict be resolved in a wrestling ring? If you're going to claim that "this time it's real" then you flush the rest of the promotion down the toilet. If you don't push things that far, then you just have a mess.

And it's a bigger mess if the conflict is over who the writers should have booked to win matches ten years ago in a completely different company.

Quote:
Why rely on insider knowledge from ten years ago? How is that going to appeal to younger fans?
This stuff is anything but insider knowledge. Like you love to talk about so much Russo said practically all of it on a PPV and that was hardly the only time it has been brought up in prominent places over the years. That is not some IWC dirtsheet report.

Rephrasing. Why would a 21-year old MMA fan who's watching Impact (for some reason) care about this decade old complicated conflict over who held who back and who wouldn't job to who ten years ago? Even on a soap opera basis, how in the world is he supposed to start caring?

As opposed to a simple story like, Jeff Hardy went all Darth Vader and sold out to get the belt. Or, the skinny blond guy Jeff something stole the Olympic gold medalist's wife. Or, the really tall guy is standing up to the bosses because they wanted to make some other dude wrestle with a concussion and that's really dangerous, even for pro wrestling. Or the guys who have been in the company a long time are mad that management is bringing in these other old guys from a dead company and giving them prime time spots. Or this guy, who is kind of a self-righteous dick, is mad that all the fans love this drug addict so he's whupping the drug addict's ass and turning on the fans.

Those are examples of stories that have a chance to hook a new viewer. They don't need you to know ten years of wrestling history to understand what the wrestlers are talking about. You don't have to look up anything on wikipedia if you don't feel like it. You don't even have to care if it's "really real" or not. You just watch the show.


There were some lame excuses about Bash At the Beach 2000 being a work, and about how it would have had a really great payoff but these shadowy executives ruined the whole thing. Because Hogan and Russo and Bischoff would never work gullible fans into thinking that they're smarter than they are, and would never tell some bullshit story to shift the blame for the mess that was late WCW onto someone else.

 

[SpecialFNK]

I didn't watch the video, because I'm only working with a dial up internet connection for now and watching videos just don't work. but judging by what people are saying maybe I'm taking it a different way.
TNA is going to get real. as in not use cartoon type characters that other wrestling companies have used? this is what Bischoff did back in WCW using wrestlers real names such as Nash/Hall/ect.

too many people seems to think WCW=failure. but what WCW had with the nWo at the time was gold. if TNA can get to even some of that they will be in a good position.

I don't think TNA can use too many real life conflicts because really, how many wrestlers have real life outside the ring conflicts? not many.

what TNA needs to do is bring in more general wrestling fans. your mostly always going to have the hardcore wrestling fans, but you need something to get the general fans to watch. to get the general fans you have to put out what would interest them more. reality TV/real life type situations?

someone else mentioned this somewhere. TNA needs to be a TV show with wrestling, not a wrestling show on TV. TNA needs to put on an entertaining show, and that doesn't have to be a show packed full of wrestling. obviously you do have to have wrestling, but how much wrestling would general fans want to see.