Is VKM the Al Davis of Entertainment

[EStreet]

Simple question.

I have read several times now by different people that Vince has no equivalent, there is no replacement for Vince, and Vince is delusional.

All things that could be said for the late Al Davis. Revolutionary, delusional, and has no equivalent in his passing.


So what do you think?

 

[DirtyJosé]

I think there may actually be some weight in the comparison of the two.

Al Davis is Al Davis. Vince is Vince. The two aren't very similar personally and have their own legends about them. However, each of them share two traits:

1: They revolutionized the sport/product that they promoted

Al Davis, among other things, single-handedly forced the merger with the AFL which brought us the NFL as we know it today. By his cunning alone he changed the landscape of how the sport was run on a national level. Also of note was his hiring of the first Hispanic and Black coaches in the NFL.

Vince McMahon on the other hand took what was at the time a region based way of doing business and pushed it to a national level, bringing Wrestling to the highest highs it's ever seen. He made wrestling an household topic. Then, in the 90's, he tweaked the formula to bring his creation to even bigger highs. The things the WWE/F started doing became standards within wrestling, from the high quality presentations to "trons".

2: Each of them are/were seen as die-hards and old men out of thier time.

The same things that made Al Davis great made his legacy become tarnished in the end. His unwillingness to change and his "stick to my guns" mentality help ensure that his Raiders never won an NFL Championship since 1983. The Raiders, and Al Davis, became a league-wide joke; an organization and a leader out of time which could never change to keep up with modern advances, always staying two steps behind.

Vince fields similar criticism. After the folding of WCW, wrestling's popularity in the mainstream took a hit. Many people now will blame Vince for what they call "sagging ratings" compared the the halcyon "Attitude Era" days, but that's not really being fair about the situation. Vince, like Al, often has a reputation for micromanaging behind the scenes, often going over everyone else's heads to ensure that he maintains full control of the product, for better or worse.

So is Al the Vince of Football? Is Vince the Al of Wrestling? It may not be a fair statement to make either way. But the two do certainly have a LOT in common.

 

[DirtyD79]

I'd say it's a valid comparison. Like Al Davis, Vince McMahon was a revolutionary. He saw the way wrestling was at the time and what it could be. He changed the way wrestling was presented and the very nature of the business itself. Some saw him as a visionary out to save wrestling, while the traditionalists saw him as a heretic just like Al Davis and Football. Like Al Vince represented the new religion, the upstarts, the rebels. He was brash, flashy, and excessive compared to the stodgy old men who represented the old school Status Quo.

The problem is the business passed them by. What was revolutionary and brilliant back then is no longer the case now. Al still kept running the team much as he had for decades. Vince writes according to his personal tastes but while his tastes may have been contemporary for 1984 they are not necessarily so for the present. Like the game of football, pro wrestling is always evolving. What was once rebellious and unheard of had become the status quo.

Another parallel we might see see is between him and Walt Disney. Disney was the creative driving force behind his company just like Vince, so much so that nobody knew what to do when he was gone. They said "Just do what Walt would have done." The problem is Walt was no longer there and it was anybody's guess just what he would have done which led to bickering and infighting. The company was in turmoil until finally somebody stepped up and led the company in a new direction, their own direction. Much as Stephanie, Shane, and Triple H may resemble Vince McMahon they will not necessarily make the same exact decisions the same way he would have made them.