Because then they'll think they're doing something right and will continue to suck forever. I don't want TNA to go away, I want them to get better. But everything old Jerry said was true. TNA needs a complete creative overhaul. And then they need to trim the fat from the roster.
Jerry Jarrett To TNA: "Cut The Cancer Out"
- Thread starter Jack-Hammer
- Start date
Because then they'll think they're doing something right and will continue to suck forever. I don't want TNA to go away, I want them to get better. But everything old Jerry said was true. TNA needs a complete creative overhaul. And then they need to trim the fat from the roster.
Agreed but casual fans don't really own cable. WWE fans and Internet fans are sheep.
The reason why WWE is big right now is because they had a balanced marketing strategy of RAW (Cable show), SmackDown (Broadcast TV) and ECW (Internet fans). WWE has the same level of attendance as TNA but again, they have better TV coverage.
How is it not working and they just started it? The pulled well over 1.7 million viewers this summer. DVR ratings are separate, so that is around 1.9 or 2 million viewers. The ratings has gone down since NFL and Jersey Shore returned.
You can't call something a failure that hasn't full blown happened yet.
Wrestling is dead. Nobody is drawing 5 million viewers. Raw draws 3 million viewers, every year. SmackDown draws 2 million viewers, every year. TNA draws 1.8 million. That's not a failure.
WWE isn't pulling in anyone, TNA isn't pulling in anyone, ROH isn't pulling in anyone. It's just the way things are.
Again, Hogan and Bischoff do more than think about ratings. That's the problem right there, ratings, ratings, ratings. There is ALOT of other things that keep a company generating money and viewership.
Sponsorship deals, Endorsements, Merchandise, etc. If a company is strong in those areas, you can't fire the people who made it better. If TNA right now is the highest rated show in the wrestling market in the UK and Ireland, that tells me. TNA and Spike TV need to figure out how to maximize their relationship.
UFC draws less ratings than TNA does. Doesn't mean Lesnar or Ortiz should be fired, right?
WCW might've been in the shitter before Russo got there, but saying he was there for three months is erroneous at best. He signed in October 1999, and we all know he was there at Bash at the Beach 2000, that's at least 8 or 9 months right there. Not sure when he left WCW, but I remember him being around a while after that. In his short tenure there he:
Booked David Arquette as champ
Booked himself as champ
Insane amount of title changes
swerve piled upon swerves
fake retirements
X on a pole matches
shoot/works work/shoots
I mean god... remembering back on that era it was just so damned chaotic, and I specifically remember giving up on WCW at that time, personally. Also, wasn't his idea to name TNA? As in Tit n' Ass Wrestling? And what was with all the idiotic acronyms and play on words? Hugh G Rection? Sports Entertainment Xtreme? Lance Storm's "Saskatchewan Hardcore International Title?
So many wrestling talents/figures that were actually in this business for years, and many that are not in WWE or TNA, have been huge critics of his for years. Don't you think maybe they're on to something? Don't you think they know more about this subject than we do?
Booked David Arquette as champ
Booked himself as champ
Insane amount of title changes
swerve piled upon swerves
fake retirements
X on a pole matches
shoot/works work/shoots
I mean god... remembering back on that era it was just so damned chaotic, and I specifically remember giving up on WCW at that time, personally. Also, wasn't his idea to name TNA? As in Tit n' Ass Wrestling? And what was with all the idiotic acronyms and play on words? Hugh G Rection? Sports Entertainment Xtreme? Lance Storm's "Saskatchewan Hardcore International Title?
So many wrestling talents/figures that were actually in this business for years, and many that are not in WWE or TNA, have been huge critics of his for years. Don't you think maybe they're on to something? Don't you think they know more about this subject than we do?
Yeah, I guess the fact he was removed from power in January of 2000 isn't important, right?
He was reinstated in the spring, but alongside Eric Bischoff. However, JBL's comments that he jumped from WWE to WCW and WCW died is so ridiculous it's amazing people actually believe it. Russo signed with WCW at the first of October, and the first show he was there did a 2.6 rating. Three months later, on January 10th, WCW did a 3.5 rating. That's nearly a full point jump. Then, once champions Hart and Jarrett were both injured, he had to think of something fast, which was to put the title on Tank Abbot to draw media attention. He got fired before that could happen, because of politics behind the scenes.
People just don't know what they're talking about, but that has never stopped them from making ridiculous comments.
And Arquette beat Eric Bischoff, another non-wrestler to do it, and did it for publicity reasons.
As has Vince McMahon, problems there?
Didn't seem to bother people during the Attitude Era in the WWF.
Again, see Attitude Era.
I had given up on it before he ever got there. So many people forget how fucking atrocious WCW was before Russo ever got there.
I don't think so, considering Russo wasn't working for TNA when they first started.
Not really. Anyone in the wrestling business can tell you wrestlers don't have respect for anyone whose not a wrestler. Vince Russo was a writer, who worked his way up from WWE magazine to writing shows. Wrestlers don't trust those types of people, which is the same reason Jerry Jarrett keeps saying that stupid stuff about Russo. Wrestling is, and always has been, a good ole boys club and if you're not part of the club, then they'll run your name in the ground so fast it'll make your head spin.
I don't know where you live, but I don't think I've met anyone under the age of 60 that doesn't have cable.
Well a a few things, how many interviews are out there where Hogan or Flair or Bischoff say "we're gonna be hitting higher ratings by X" or "we're gonna get x.x ratings we just need some more awareness andi t's growing etc..." They clearly want to move forward, and it's not working. But fair enough, it's in its younger stages right now so I'll give you that one, we'll see if it pays off.
True enough, but WWE has pulled ratings spikes much bigger than TNA has, same with PPV buys. I'm not talking about overall numbers, we all know WWE is higher, but I'm talking about the spikes. WWE has brought in more viewers, granted they LOSE those viewers, but that's another discussion.
Finally, there's one thing you're not taking into consideration: WWE = making profit, TNA = not.
Now I'm not a financial analyst and I don't know this for fact and sure as shit don't have time or the desire to try and dig it up, but it was reported many times that TNA hasn't made profit and that was BEFORE Hogan, Bischoff and company came along. So take that for what it's worth. But yes I see your point, wrestling is generally dead, but you have to admit at some point you have to make money.
So, if TNA wasn't making a profit before Hogan, Bischoff and company came along, and I could prove they are now, then would you say that the team of Russo, Hogan and Bischoff are doing a good job?
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/17/jeff-jarrett-says-tna-has-been-profitable-for-years-shares-go/
If you read that, and there are several different stories about it, TNA is profitable. There have been other reports over the last couple of years which notes TNA is making more money each month than they are spending. Such as this one:
http://allwrestling.com/Content.aspx?ID=38439
So, with that in mind, are we going to say that Russo, Bischoff and Hogan are doing a good job?
RatedR1979
Dark Match Jobber
I look at TNA and I see WCW 2.0. I know it has been said before, but it true in my opinion. You have the old crew of 50-60 year olds trying to keep them selves in the spot light, when they don't need to, that is tna's main problem. Not wwe castoffs, or booking. I beleve that russo should be out of the job tho, he has no clue how to get the casual fan to watch on a regular basis. Not that I do, but I think there are some in TNA that might. Bischoff being one of them. I've been a fan of wrestling since I was 5, but find my self watching less and less of both TNA and WWE, because it always the same old stuff, I put on TNA I get maybe 2or3 matches with the rest of the time being filled by Hulk hogan, sting and other guys that need to retire and give the wrestling world a great gift by using there skills back stage and off tv.
I think people have gotten a little sidetracked from the question at hand. The issue here is not to what degree, if any, that Russo was a cancer back in WCW, that's a question that will never reach a consensus. The question is whether or not he is a cancer with respect to TNA, and going backup to my Chicago Cubs analogy earlier in this thread, I would say yes, he is a cancer that needs to be excised as part of the rebuild of TNA, regardless of his WCW history. But he's not the only tumorous growth that needs to be lopped off, he's actually a smaller piece of the puzzle.
While the scalpel is out, the senior citizens on the roster need to go, at least in terms of active competition. Hogan, Flair, Steiner, and any of these older and immobile guys, here we have the true cancer of the business regarding TNA. These are like the expensive contracts which are serving as nooses in my Cubs analogy. Trim the fat off the roster, and put someone new in charge, and then start the process anew. Short term pain, long term gain, but at least they may start moving in the right direction, rather than standing still or drifting backwards.
While the scalpel is out, the senior citizens on the roster need to go, at least in terms of active competition. Hogan, Flair, Steiner, and any of these older and immobile guys, here we have the true cancer of the business regarding TNA. These are like the expensive contracts which are serving as nooses in my Cubs analogy. Trim the fat off the roster, and put someone new in charge, and then start the process anew. Short term pain, long term gain, but at least they may start moving in the right direction, rather than standing still or drifting backwards.
OK well he still came back at some point, so that's still more than 3 months. Saying it was 3 months was misleading.
OK fair enough, but how did it go over? He might've had good intentions, but that doesn't mean anything. You have to admit it's one of those things that are constantly referenced as a low point in wrestling (and booking)
The problem there is I never said anything about "WWE being better" or "VKM never did it", when you're trying to debate in favor of one thing over another, you should argue for it based on its own merits, not just because "But they did it too!" I totally agree with you, Vince McMahon did it too and that's also a low point in wrestling and booking (also when he won the ECW title)
No it didn't, but it DID seem to bother WCW's viewership. SO maybe WWF was doing something right, I don't know I wasn't working there.
Well with a quick search I found this
http://www.twfnews.com/news/headlines/307769224.shtml
Also he apparently said it in his book which I haven't read, maybe someone else can confirm?
Yeah, well, what I ACTUALLY said was...
Not really sure how that is misleading...
Better than Bischoff's idea to bring in Kiss and a Kiss style wrestler?
Well...yes it does. It means everything. It means he took his shot. It may not have hit, but it was a shot worth taking to try and get people to watch WCW again, after they had left in record droves under Bischoff's regime.
It is, and it's far from Austin vs. McMahon gold, but if you look at the situation which surrounded it, it really isn't nearly as bad as people want to make it seem.
The point I was making is that in the same basic time frame Russo booked himself as champion, McMahon did the same thing, and the WWF was as hot as it had ever been. The point I'm making is that the booker making himself champion is not to be automatically considered bad business, because as we saw when McMahon did it, it was very good business.
Not under Russo's reign it didn't. This is another misconception. Ratings NEVER went down over a sustained period of time under Russo, and in fact, many times went up. I already pointed out how Nitro's ratings jumped a full point during his first run, and when he came back in March, ratings were hovering around a 2.5 (yes, they dropped a full point in the three months Russo was gone). Russo last worked for WCW on television on September 25th, where he sustained the concussion which basically ended his WCW run. That September 25th show did a 2.9 rating.
So, no, Russo's booking didn't seem to affect WCW's viewership NEARLY as much as Bischoff's and Sullivan's booking did.
I've read his book, and he does mention it, but I didn't remember if he had named it or not. I just took an educated guess.
OK I stand corrected, they're making a profit. However,
Double J says "we turned that corner 4 or 5 years ago". So that means they were turning a profit before Hogan et al came along. So you know damn well that their spending has gone way up since then, and you can't say it's BECAUSE of them that they're now making a profit. One COULD argue that he could just be saying it because he wanted to make the company look good, knowing that there was no way to check if he was lying, but I digress.
So now what? Again, TNA personalities are always talking about "getting there", they do want to move forward and they haven't. Jarrett even talks about it in that same article. After everything they've tried, including the overseas tours, they still haven't.
So are you saying that if wrestling is dead, therefore they're not bringing in any new viewers and they're (maybe, maybe not, neither of us know) making a profit, that they're just destined to stay exactly where they are? Can TNA last long term exactly where they are? I guess that's a different discussion.
Double J says "we turned that corner 4 or 5 years ago". So that means they were turning a profit before Hogan et al came along. So you know damn well that their spending has gone way up since then, and you can't say it's BECAUSE of them that they're now making a profit. One COULD argue that he could just be saying it because he wanted to make the company look good, knowing that there was no way to check if he was lying, but I digress.
So now what? Again, TNA personalities are always talking about "getting there", they do want to move forward and they haven't. Jarrett even talks about it in that same article. After everything they've tried, including the overseas tours, they still haven't.
So are you saying that if wrestling is dead, therefore they're not bringing in any new viewers and they're (maybe, maybe not, neither of us know) making a profit, that they're just destined to stay exactly where they are? Can TNA last long term exactly where they are? I guess that's a different discussion.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
LULZ if Russo was what killed WCW, and took their programming from good to bad, why the fuck was he brought in in the FIRST place? 
of course WCW was trash before he got there, if they werent, and hadnt been losing for a long time, there would have been no reason to go get him in the first place.
Not really debatable that TNA is making progress, they are turning a profit and taking Impact on the road in the coming months. Ratings are stable, and they just earned a big sponsorship deal.
of course WCW was trash before he got there, if they werent, and hadnt been losing for a long time, there would have been no reason to go get him in the first place.
Not really debatable that TNA is making progress, they are turning a profit and taking Impact on the road in the coming months. Ratings are stable, and they just earned a big sponsorship deal.
And most importantly, are STILL making a profit.
You said it, not me.
Their spending has gone up, because their revenue has gone up. It's basic business.
One could just as easily make the argument the people who try to say TNA isn't making money are doing it with absolutely no knowledge of the situation and are just blowing smoke out of their ass.
No, they haven't. They haven't reached their goal, but that doesn't mean the company is doing bad.
If I want to make 1 million dollars selling popsicles this year, but I only make $500,000, does that mean I had a bad year?
I refuse to even acknowledge your scenario considering TNA is averaging their best ratings for Impact ever this year, and the people who actually know what they are talking about say TNA is making money.
Shh.....you're using common sense. Common sense in TNA threads, especially ones about Vince Russo, is not allowed.LULZ if Russo was what killed WCW, and took their programming from good to bad, why the fuck was he brought in in the FIRST place?
of course WCW was trash before he got there, if they werent, and hadnt been losing for a long time, there would have been no reason to go get him in the first place.
Not really debatable that TNA is making progress, they are turning a profit and taking Impact on the road in the coming months. Ratings are stable, and they just earned a big sponsorship deal.
Because when you say
you're suggesting people said that company died in just those three months, I didn't see anyone say that (but I didn't read every post) I think generally people feel his entire stay was a debacle. Anyway, that's semantics.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
I think it's a cop out to say you can't blame the guy because he "took his shot" That would never work in ANY working environment "Gee boss, I know my mistake cost the company, but it's not my fault because I had the company's best interest at heart and I took my shot" God damn I can't even imagine saying a line like that to my boss.
Come on, I'm no booker but getting "emergency ratings"... there's gotta be a better way than that. I mean if you want to start talking about others, I'm sure other bookers have thought of something other than "let's put our title on an actor". In fact, looking at the situation surrounding it, I think that makes it an even worse idea because WCW was already considered a joke, and when someone, like a fan that stopped watching WCW prior, hears that Arquette has the title, they wouldn't (and didn't) tune in.
You're right, and I DON'T think that a booker making himself champ is automatically bad business, but apparently there is a right way and wrong way. VKM and co. did it right, Russo and co. did it wrong.
Maybe... but WCW in August and September of 99, pulled a couple 4 pointers. In fact, the months leading up to October 99, the ratings were 3 and 4s for the most part. Then he took over, his first show was a 2.6, next was a 3.3 and then it stayed in the mid to lower 3s in his first three months, then yeah it dipped a bit around the time he left, but it sure as shit never went up (for more than a week, maybe two at a time) either. So looking at the big picture, ratings overall went down when he started with the company, and regardless a tiny and short spikes here and there, generally never went back up either. This doesn't speak highly of him at all.
Neither of us know that they're revenue has gone up, and niether of us know how much Hogan and Bischoff (and other legends that have came and went) signed for.
True, but that doesn't discount what I said.
But they haven't shown signs of reaching their goal either. In relative terms, few people are watching and they've been lying stagnant for a while now.
It's not "my scenario" I was asking a question. Further, your link shows that they've been pulling lower 1s all year. That's what I've been saying. Besides, how long have they been doing that? Since 06? 07? Yes, their average is higher... by what .1 points? .2 points? *shrug*
You're completely ignoring the context of the statement.
WCW was fading fast. They were losing money hand over fist, ratings were dropping like a stone, and the overall impression fans had of the company was awful and the impression the corporate suits had was even worse. And all of this happened before Russo ever got there.
So Russo's job was to create interest in a product which had none, and to make money selling a product which was costing millions of dollars a year. It's not a copout to take a shot at turning around a dying company. That's like saying if I'm a doctor and try to treat someone who is dying with cancer by injecting them with HIV and it doesn't work, then it was stupid to try in the first place and a copout to say we at least tried. I'm sorry, but I just do not agree with that statement.
Like what? When you have a roster that has not been developed in years, exactly how else do you try to pop interest in your product?
How was it wrong? Did it negatively affect business? No? Then how was it wrong?
Talk about misleading. They did two weeks of ratings of 4, and they were complete anomalies from the rest of the summer. In fact, those two weeks of 4.0 and 4.1 ratings saw a 2.9 and a 3.3 as their bookends. Furthermore, if you look at Raw's ratings for that night, they are the lowest two ratings they did the entire year (by a significant amount), which makes me think Raw probably came on at a later time, which is what led to better WCW ratings.
Fine...let's just go with what you said. It never went up.
It also never went down, so please explain how Russo's booking turned away WCW's viewers, which is what you insinuated when you said:
I'm confused on this whole "ratings went down" thing. You know, since the truth doesn't corroborate your statement.
Well...we do know TNA was making a profit before Hogan and Bischoff, and we know they are making a profit after Hogan and Bischoff. We also know you insinuated Hogan, Bischoff and company are quite expensive from your statement:
So if they were making a profit before, making a profit after, and we agree their expenses have gone up, doesn't it make sense to say their revenue has gone up?
Yes, but it does tend to put it into perspective, does it not? We can either take the word of the man who co-founded the company, or we can take the word of people who have never worked for TNA, or even the wrestling business, a day in their life.
Which one seems more credible?
More people are watching now than they ever have before.
No, what my link shows is the highest average Impact has ever done. If you go browse through previous year ratings, which is why I really posted the link, you'll see Impact is doing it's best ratings ever.
Well, in 2005 they did a .79 rating. They're now up to a 1.19 rating (so far this year). By contrast, in 2005, Monday Night Raw did a 3.8 rating, and so far this year, they're averaging a 3.3.
So, with that in mind, speaking strictly of ratings, which side would you rather be on? The one that has improved by .4, or the one that has dropped by .5?
Kitten Cutter
Pre-Show Stalwart
First off...let me begin by saying I was a staunch TNA viewer for nearly a year until April. After the Jeff Hardy debacle and the Immortal storyline going a mix of different directions, plus my job at the time keeping me busy Thursday nights and the odd difficulty in finding TNA online, I stopped watching.
I picked back up last week to see what's happened, and I'm not impressed. I can honestly say I have no idea who the TNA champion is, nor do I know who's even the TV champion after watching an episode without reading the spoilers.
But, I digress. I've never been a fan of Russo ever since his racist comments involving Mexican and Japanese wrestlers, his desire to hire actors over actual wrestlers just to put over his storylines and the crash TV style that was apparent in both the WWF and WCW. Let it be known that I don't give Russo full blame for WCW's demise, but I have no respect for the man since he doesn't respect the business.
Now, it's one thing for JBL to say something about Russo. After all, JBL was practically a non-descript tag team wrestler in the Ministry while Russo was around in the WWF. However, doesn't it mean something when Jerry Jarrett, even if he is a bitter old man, hates the man that has booked his son better than anyone? If anyone remembers, Jarrett was pretty big in the WWF when Russo took over (several IC title reigns, plus his misogynistic character turn), and faded when he left. All of Jarrett's 5 WCW title reigns came under Russo's watch. Russo helped Jarrett with TNA's transition from the NWA. And, if Russo really is the head creative guy currently, notice how Jarrett is seemingly booked as near impossible to beat, as shown by his continuous storyline with Kurt Angle that dragged on forever yet was one of the main event focuses. If the guy's father hates his guts, doesn't that say anything? I don't hear Ted Dibiase Sr. saying how much the WWE sucks because his son is following a chicken-legged version of Quasimodo.
The arguments that Russo killed WCW are flat out wrong. There's a lot of blood to go around the hands of many people. Still, even if TNA is doing better in mkaing money, isn't that more a business end than a creative end? Just because TNA has more revenue doesn't mean creative has struck gold. Getting commericals and endorsements only means there's increased revenues, which is great for business, but creatively, how much has TNA really grown? Where has TNA really prospered on that end?
I picked back up last week to see what's happened, and I'm not impressed. I can honestly say I have no idea who the TNA champion is, nor do I know who's even the TV champion after watching an episode without reading the spoilers.
But, I digress. I've never been a fan of Russo ever since his racist comments involving Mexican and Japanese wrestlers, his desire to hire actors over actual wrestlers just to put over his storylines and the crash TV style that was apparent in both the WWF and WCW. Let it be known that I don't give Russo full blame for WCW's demise, but I have no respect for the man since he doesn't respect the business.
Now, it's one thing for JBL to say something about Russo. After all, JBL was practically a non-descript tag team wrestler in the Ministry while Russo was around in the WWF. However, doesn't it mean something when Jerry Jarrett, even if he is a bitter old man, hates the man that has booked his son better than anyone? If anyone remembers, Jarrett was pretty big in the WWF when Russo took over (several IC title reigns, plus his misogynistic character turn), and faded when he left. All of Jarrett's 5 WCW title reigns came under Russo's watch. Russo helped Jarrett with TNA's transition from the NWA. And, if Russo really is the head creative guy currently, notice how Jarrett is seemingly booked as near impossible to beat, as shown by his continuous storyline with Kurt Angle that dragged on forever yet was one of the main event focuses. If the guy's father hates his guts, doesn't that say anything? I don't hear Ted Dibiase Sr. saying how much the WWE sucks because his son is following a chicken-legged version of Quasimodo.
The arguments that Russo killed WCW are flat out wrong. There's a lot of blood to go around the hands of many people. Still, even if TNA is doing better in mkaing money, isn't that more a business end than a creative end? Just because TNA has more revenue doesn't mean creative has struck gold. Getting commericals and endorsements only means there's increased revenues, which is great for business, but creatively, how much has TNA really grown? Where has TNA really prospered on that end?
AngryCenaFan
Pre-Show Stalwart
Russo may have good ideas, but they need a STRICT filter. Giving this guy so much power has been BAD for TNA, Hogan or Bischoff need to step in and TAKE CONTROL.
This is exactly what Cornette said would happen, Russo is a cancer to professional wrestling
This is exactly what Cornette said would happen, Russo is a cancer to professional wrestling
Alex
King Of The Wasteland
People have been saying that Russo's been shit for years. If he was truly as shit as people make him out to be then surely TNA would have gone under by now and/or most of their top talent would have gone elsewhere. Yes Russo does some ******ed things at times, but so do the WWE writers and I don't see threads dedicated to their stupidity.
Yes TNA could do better but their not doing bad, they've been around for nearly ten years, thats good and the mere fact that they are seen as the number two promotion (no matter how far second) is an achievement.
Yes TNA could do better but their not doing bad, they've been around for nearly ten years, thats good and the mere fact that they are seen as the number two promotion (no matter how far second) is an achievement.
This is a curious statement. What leads you to say he doesn't respect the business? Does he believe in booking a wrestling show the same way it was done back in the 60s and 70s? No, but what television show today is like the 60s and 70s? That's what I don't understand. How exactly does Russo not respect the business?
Furthermore, if Russo doesn't respect the business, who can blame him? Do you understand how the wrestling business works? Are you aware of all the con artists, the low lifes, the backstabbers, the drug addicts and such which work in pro wrestling? I mean, anyone who respects the pro wrestling business, and isn't a wrestler, is just delusional. The pro wrestling doesn't deserve the respect of intelligent people, never has.
But let's get back to your assertion Russo doesn't respect the business. If you had never seen the Vince Russo character on TV (which I'm convinced most of his hate comes from, because people can't separate TV from reality), what would make you say he doesn't respect a business he's worked in for nearly 20 years, which put his family out numerous times, which he used to spends hours and upon hours and upon hours working for? The guy has been dedicated to wrestling, hardcore dedicated, for almost 20 years. What makes you say he doesn't respect the business?
Not really, but he hates Russo the same reason he'd hate you if you walked in tomorrow as a member of the writing team. Because Russo isn't a "wrestling guy". You can read about it in Russo's book, you can read about it in Bischoff's book, and I'm sure there are others. Guys who come in, and aren't "wrestling guys" get very little love in the pro wrestling business.
Exactly.
Well, that's kind of a narrow way to look at it. Why would sponsors sign on if the booking team wasn't appealing to a demographic the sponsor is trying to target? Why would sponsors attach their name to a failing product? Getting commercials and endorsements is very much indicative of what the booking team has done. Making money is all about booking, at least in a company like TNA, where there are no active wrestlers with a claim to be a good draw.
Also, unless something has changed in the last couple of years, last I heard Vince Russo wasn't even part of the creative team, he was the writer. Like I said, that might have changed since Hogan and Bischoff got there, but last I heard he didn't do the booking, he just wrote for television what the booking team wants.
Kitten Cutter
Pre-Show Stalwart
I say he doesn't respect the business for 3 reasons:
1. He thinks more of the acting and promos than he does about work rate and in-ring ability. Would Bret "Hitman" Hart really have fit into the Attitude Era? True, Bret Hart won a WCW title under Russo's first reign, but what was the result? An NWO rehash? Countless injuries that knocked out nearly all of his top draws?
Russo flat out said (and it's proven fact) that if someone doesn't speak English they can't draw. That statement is untrue, seeing as Yokozuna was WWF Champion for a near solid year and never said a word except "Bonzai! In his mind, Tank Abbott, who could barely do a move without injuring someone, was a better World Champion than any of the guys who paid dues even in minor league systems. Tank Abbott, David Arquette and Vince Russo himself were World Champions, while employed wrestlers like Billy Kidman, Shane Douglas, Buff Bagwell, and Shane Helms never came close. All of those guys I could make a credible argument to be WCW Champion over the above. How many Monday Nitros were dominated by backstage vignettes over in-ring action, which to a live fan is awful to sit through.
2. Think of the characters that Russo created. One of his claims to fame was "Oklahoma," a shameless and disgusting parody on Jim Ross. Tank Abbott became a dancing fool. Screamin' Norman Smiley was the wimpiest Hardcore champion ever. The Harris Brothers were the Men in Black. Meng was a 70's Disco reject. True, he struck gold in 1997 helping create Austin vs. McMahon and the beginnings of The Rock, D-Generation-X, Kane and Foley, but we all know he was filtered and the process was still a team effort. In WCW, he saw Mexicans and Japanese wrestlers as useless jobbers and he saw women as useless sex objects. The proof is in the booking...how many more raunchy sex-themed matches happened under Russo's watch in both companies. Both companies had great female wrestlers that had excellent matches before Russo took over, and the WWF used the Divas in more respectful manners after he was gone for a long time until Trish and Lita retired.
If he was the one who booked the TNA Knockouts during their Awesome Kong times, I'll give him a little credit since that was a high point in women's wrestling.
3. Just because he's worked in wrestling for 20 years doesn't mean he respects it. Does he care about tradition? Probably not, but I'll hearken to your point that a lot of guys don't respect it either. Still, that's like saying because I work at Verizon I respect them as a phone company. Or because a receptionist works for an unscrupulous lawyer she respects him. He works in wrestling because it pays the bills that accustoms his lifestyle. If Russo had to make a choice between staying in wrestling and writing storylines or working as an accountant and starting from scratch, I know what choice he'd make every time.
Every business has con artists, low lifes, backstabbers, drug addicts and such who don't respect the business. Any professional sport (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, hell, even the Post Office!) for instance has plenty of all of the above. Russo is one of the lucky people in wrestling who doesn't know or truly appreciate the hard work it takes to even become a wrestler. The sacrifice and the toll financially, physically, psychologically and all points else. Maybe he's different now, but I've seen nothing to change my mind.
And as for intelligent people respecting the business, yeah, I do. I have friends who are wrestlers, and I'm a teacher and actor-combatant of stage combat and swordplay, so I respect anyone who's an amazing athlete and can do the things wrestlers do in the ring 4 times a week for little to no money because they're following a dream. It's choreography comparable to Broadway and movies, only they do more extreme versions night in and out and risk far more injury.
Good point. Still, he flat out targeted Russo. Not Bischoff, who barely even counts as a wrestling guy. Not Dixie Carter. Not anyone else. Just Russo. As you said, he's been around for nearly 20 years. His tenure is almost as long as Bischoff's. He's "won" more titles than Bischoff. Why target Russo? Why call him a cancer? That's a deep-seeded hate for one man, especially a man that gave Jerry's son the majority of his career high points.
Well, look at TNA's channel. Spike TV. They already are appealing to a demographic: men 18-35. Sponsors don't even need to care who or what TNA books; they have the Spike TV channel brand name alone to carry them. It's smarter for the sponsors to know what TNA is presenting to its fans, but it's not like it's any big shock. Spike TV shows are basically the same thought process: mature themes, scantilly clad women, a lot of violence and occasional cursing. I saw the commercial for that insurance company. It had nothing to do with booking or any one wrestler. It's multiple wrestlers in a battle royale. A person who never watched TNA wouldn't have any idea who was who.
And if Russo's a writer, he's part of the creative team. It goes hand-in-hand. If he's not in charge, then he writes a script and hands it to the heads of the creative team. You really think he's just a mindless writer and innocent in all of this? If that were the case, that means he was demoted, and thereby innocent in TNA's creative process, and that gives Jerry Jarrett no grounds to say anything about him. I can't imagine Jerry being that dense to blame Russo if he were demoted and doing nothing but typing and passing.
Oh, absolutely. Who do you think was writing for the WWE during the awesome Hart heel turn in '97? And acting and promos are easily more important in building a fanbase than some abstract notion of work rate (which most people don't even understand the true definition of in the first place) and in-ring ability.
When you look back at the nWo era, was it awesome because Nash and Hall were out putting on five star classics with Harlem Heat every night? Was the Attitude Era on fire because Austin was having a mat classic with Vince McMahon? Of course not. Those angles, Rocky's interviews, the DX segments...all the things we remember from the Attitude Era was acting and promos, not matches.
So, I suppose you can say he doesn't respect the business if you want, but I'd argue that trying to make the most money is the most traditional value of the wrestling business, and Vince Russo does everything to further than end.
He said they can't draw with American fans, ESPECIALLY the southern fans of WCW. And he's absolutely right. That's not racist, that's just stating facts.
And he was working arenas with 800 people in them and doing so in the northern states, not the southern.
Completely untrue. Russo had plans for Souled Out that never included Tank Abbot, but after Jarrett was injured and Hart was knocked silly by Goldberg, Russo knew he had to do something to make people pay attention. He talks about it in his book. If I owned it, I'd tell you what he said, but I just borrowed it.
Actually, Tank Abbot was never a champion. And Arquette and Russo never pinned or submitted a wrestler for their titles.
That's because those guys were fucking horrible. And by fucking horrible, I mean some of the worst wrestlers WCW had.
David Arquette taking a dump in 2000 would draw more fans than the guys you just mentioned.
And how many times has it been proven over the years, that TV shows which feature mostly wrestling simply don't draw? Even the fantastic Cena vs. HBK match from Raw a few years ago lost viewers as the match went on.
Wrestling fans don't have the attention span to sit through long matches. But you can't have 8 short matches on a card, otherwise you ruin the believability of the show (after all, people will start to suspect something is up when TV matches only last 3 minutes and PPV matches last 10), not to mention you want people to PAY to watch the matches, not give them away for free.
I'm afraid you're looking at wrestling through the same eyes as Jerry Jarrett. What worked in 1975 simply does not work today.
And yet, all of those guys you mentioned were doing nothing before Russo got there. They were mired in the midcard, doing nothing. Did those gimmicks work? No, but then again, wrestling gimmicks fail all the time. But at least he tried to give everyone on the roster something to do.
You're right, the proof is in the pudding. Excluding Rey Mysterio, how many Mexican and Japanese wrestlers have ever drawn in America? How many women wrestlers have drawn?
You want to talk about proof, there's your proof. Those guys and girls DON'T draw. It's not a racist statement, it's just the truth. Hell, the two women who actually got women on TV in the WWF in prominent roles were Sunny and Sable, and they both drew attention only because they were hot and showed skin.
No one cares about women's wrestling, and outside of Rey Mysterio (who was born in California, mind you) Japanese and Mexican wrestlers have never drawn in America.
Uhh...what? I think your nostalgia is kicking in a LITTLE too hard right now.
If I remember correctly, Dutch Mantell was in charge of the Knockouts. Russo wasn't booking back then, he was just the writer. In fact, I'm not sure if he books now.
Considering the garbage a person has to go through, especially a "non-wrestling guy" like him, I find it very difficult to believe. But you're welcome to your opinion on that.
Yes, but they tend to be the exception, not the rule. In pro wrestling, the reverse is true.
I think you should read his book. I think your opinion of Vince Russo would change dramatically. It's not a crappily written book either, it's very well done.
http://www.amazon.com/Rope-Opera-Killed-Vince-Russo/dp/1550228684
I'm not being sarcastic, I really believe you should read it. A lot of the things you're saying now, you wouldn't be saying.
Then I respectfully submit you are naive.
From what you said here, you respect the show, not the business. There's a difference.
Think about what you just said. Does the fact Jerry thinks Russo is a cancer but doesn't say anything about Bischoff not strike you his comments being more personal in nature, and lacking any type of objectivity?
I mean, Bischoff deserves all the credit in the world for the heights he led WCW to in the mid 90s...and deserves a lot of the blame for the downfall of WCW. When Russo took over, WCW was hemorrhaging money, ratings had dropped in half in a little over a year's time, he was stuck with a roster of main-eventers who didn't trust him, and an undercard that had been underdeveloped for years. And yet it's Russo's fault WCW died?
WCW was in it's coffin before Russo ever got there. The fact Russo is the cancer because WCW died just screams personal issues between Jerry and Russo, and I tend to not take those comments seriously at all.
Yes, but why did the insurance company pick TNA to run their commercial for? Why not the other shows Spike has? Because TNA gets the best ratings on SpikeTV. No other show, now that UFC left, gets better ratings than TNA. None. That's a fact.
TNA gets sponsors because they have done nothing but increase their viewership since they got on TV. They went from .3 ratings on FSN back in 04/05, to averaging a 1.2 rating in Thursday primetime, which for a long time was the strongest night of television (and I think still is). I just don't see how anyone can say TNA has done anything but be successful over the course of their existence, and that includes the time Russo has been there.
No...no, no no no. They are COMPLETELY different. Yes, many times promotions double up tasks on Staff. So many times writers, bookers and the creative team are shared amongst the same people. However, they are not the same things.
Creative: Develops the ideas for the shows, what wrestlers could do, names, ideas for television, angles, etc.
Bookers: Takes the idea, and plans them out in the way they want. They're the people responsible for giving the "okay" to what goes on TV. They are the group which makes the ideas "official".
Writers: These people take what the bookers book, and make a television script out of it. They provide the dialog and make it all flow.
They are not the same jobs.
You have your work flow chart backwards. Assuming there are three distinct groups in a promotion (which rarely, if ever, happens) bookers go to creative and tell them they want Hogan vs. Sting at Bound For Glory. Creative pitches different ideas of how to end up with Hogan vs. Sting at Bound For Glory. Bookers take the ideas they like best, put them together, and plan out the path to Bound For Glory. They then hand the booking plans to the writers, whose job it is to come up with a television script the wrestlers follow when they are on screen.
When he was hired back in 2006, I believe his job was simply a writer. He MIGHT have been a creative consultant (which there's your filter you talked about) but I think his official job was as a writer.
Again, you seem to be fairly naive about the wrestling business.
CactusJack
Dark Match Jobber
Jarret is right - TNA is suffering from a lot of good ideas being done badly.
And one really bad idea being done to it's usual low standard - Hogan.
And one really bad idea being done to it's usual low standard - Hogan.
Kitten Cutter
Pre-Show Stalwart
Awesome heel turn? You mean the one that Bret was against from day one, and basically pushed him out of his spot and out of the company in 6 months? If not for the Montreal Screwjob, Bret would have been jobbing to Vader or Ahmed Johnson by Wrestlemania 14. Bret is a great wrestler anyway and could have made anything he was given work. He was the top guy for years, so don't sit here and say Russo made Bret any better.
What's sad is that by your argument, there's no point to being a wrestler. If acting and promos are all that matters, why bother hiring wrestlers? Why not hire Shakespearean actors or Broadway actors? NYC is full of actors pounding the pavement who work for free.
Russo values acting and promos over in-ring ability, but it's about EVERYTHING. The Rock, Austin, D-X, Foley, Hart, Taker, and the like all could still deliver in the ring. Fine, segments were valuable, but so were the pay-per-views matches they had. I can clearly remember more matches than segments. Sure, DX invaded WCW with a tank, but I also remember Taker vs. Shawn in an incredible Hell in a Cell match. That's what TNA started with. A bunch of segments, interviews and vignettes, but in the end, the pay-per-views HAVE to deliver. WCW's pay-per-views stunk up the joint a lot, and it helped lead to their downfall.
I was wrong on Tank Abbott. I was on a roll and missed that fact. And I'm glad you think David Arquette would be a much better champion than an actual wrestler because he draws. However, his tenure in the company was a goddamn joke that turned off a lot of people. This one you're wrong on because the proof is fact: ratings went down and WCW was a laughingstock. You may tune in to watch, but you'd be in the sparse minority.
And yeah, all 4 guys I mentioned would have been much better. At that time, Shane Douglas was out of shape, Buff Bagwell had attitude problems, Shane Helms was up and coming, and Billy Kidman came out of a Hogan feud and still had some credibility. And I still would have been happier than David Arquette holding up the WCW Championship on a technicality. And yes, I was against Vince McMahon holding it, and I was against Russo holding it.
By your logic, the guest host general manager thing should have worked better for the WWE, since actors are better draws.
Well, TNA did mostly vignettes and just 3 matches before and they ended up with far lower ratings. I am not against vignettes and segments and interviews. I'm saying there should be a balance. Guys talking to each other isn't always fun, especially for 2 hours. Fine, fans can't sit through long matches on free TV. They also can't sit through watching the video wall for 20 minutes and listening to Ric Flair stumble around like a drunken moose. The world is different but people still want action. What's the point of having a ring in the middle of the arena if the people want interviews and segments?
I'm glad you condone racism. If the truth is racist, it makes it racist. I guess you've never heard of Eddie Guerrero, either. By the way, it doesn't matter where they're born. And by your logic, what's the point of African-American wrestlers then? Since the South is so racist, Booker T should have never done a thing. The Rock should have never made it because he's a half-breed. R-Truth should be picking cotton somewhere and The Pope should be Vince Russo's footstool so he can have a better role. If only white guys draw, why hire other races to be there?
Maybe if said race-different wrestlers were given a shot, they could have proven him wrong. And to Russo's credit, under his watch Booker T got his first World Title, and Ron Killings was the first African-American NWA champion. Maybe he should have thought before he said such things.
And as for women, maybe no one cares except for the women who watch the show. Oh, I'm sorry, it's a male sport so females aren't allowed. Also, when the women wrestle well, it makes the WHOLE show better. Sure, women could be eye candy and wear tight outfits and bounce around, but why not have them show off some athletic ability as well? Otherwise, why not just hire ring girls to walk around in thongs for no reason?
Alundra Blazye\Medusa, Bull Nakano, Zero, Akira Hoketo (sp?) and several of the women when WCW had its women's title tournament, Mona (Molly Holly), Luna Vachon. Any of those names ring a bell?
Yep, wouldn't be a TNA forum without someone calling someone else names. Then I respectfully submit you're being a dick. I'm glad you're the authority on the wrestling business. Are you a failed wrestler or something?
I never said TNA wasn't a successful business. If they're not leaking money and going out of business, they're doing well. (Even though apparently they're having problems paying the talent lately) And as for why the sponsors of the commercial chose TNA and not another show, the answer is simple...TNA has the most characters to choose from. Deadliest Warrior has 3 main guys and a bunch of co-stars. MANswers and 1,000 Ways to Die don't even have a constant on-camera personality. TNA actually has faces to use for their commercials.
OK, I am not as knowledgable about the wrestling business as you are (in your humble mind), but it doesn't make me naive. It angers me when people assume I'm an idiot because I don't agree with them, and why I rarely post on this forum. It turns into a flame war that I refuse to take part in.
I will submit this: for my lack of knowledge in the business, you have a pessimistic view of it. Why should ANYONE be a wrestler? According to you, there is nothing but criminals and losers looking to screw you at every turn, just for a less-than-nothing chance, IF you're a white male, to become a superstar and make it. If everyone took your take, CM Punk should have blown his brains out 3 years ago when he was stagnant in ECW. Steve Austin should have hung himself from a tree because he got screwed hardcore by Bischoff.
By your logic, Vince Russo is a savvy survivor who deserves all the credit in the world for lasting nearly 20 years as a non-wrestling guy in the sleazy, bitter, and trashy world of professional wrestling, scrapping, struggling, and crying his nights out writing storylines and angles just to feed his family, and Jerry Jarrett is the mean old-man who should have been tossed on an ice floe 10 years ago who is attacking a poor, innocent man who has done nothing but enhance that old man's less-than-talented son and who only throws out his modern-thinking ideas for a new wrestling audience. That sound about right?!
Wow, that's some of the most ridiculous interpretations from a comment I have ever seen.
The Hart heel turn was awesome, as was the summer long feud. Ratings started in the low 2s at the beginning of the year and around Wrestlemania, and popped up to mid 2s and low 3s by the time Hart was forced out. It also led to the explosion which was Steve Austin.
So yes, awesome heel turn, despite what Hart may have initially been against.
Because the promos are what sells the action. Not sure where you're having difficulty. If I have a wrestling match in my backyard right now, how many people are going to show up? None, right?
Now what if I advertise it? What if I cut a few interviews in the local papers, and my opponent and I say bad things about each other and he then sneak attacks me at work, forcing me to want my revenge. Before the match has even began, there will be more people in backyard then there was when I just started wrestling.
The wrestling is the payoff to the story. Without a good story people want to see the payoff to, the matches aren't going to sell. This is basic wrestling 101.
Tell me this. If I told you I could give you a tape tomorrow of a great match, but you have no idea why they're wrestling, don't know who it is, don't know why you should care about them, etc...would you pay $45 for that match? If so, let me know, because you and I could do a lot of business together.
When you say "ratings", as in the plural form, you're just barely accurate. Arquette wasn't even champion for 2 weeks. Don't you think WCW MIGHT have had bigger problems than David Arquette as champion?
I never said that. Pay attention to what I did say.
I said promos and angles are what draws. The reason for this is that they gives us the reason these two guys are fighting. If Friday night, the WWE sends Curt Hawkins out to wrestle Primo Colon, who is going to care? Why should we? We don't know who these guys are, we cannot connect with them, we don't have emotional attachment to them.
But we know who Rey Mysterio is. We know what he's gone through over the years, we've grown up at the same time as his career. We have that emotional attachment to his character. We also know that Albert Del Rio did a bad thing by hurting Mysterio's knee to the point he can't wrestle anymore. We hate Del Rio because he injured a great guy (because he's babyface) and someone we care about. So when Rey comes back and wants his revenge, we'll pay money to watch Rey give Del Rio what he deserves.
That's what pro wrestling is about. It's all about giving fans a reason to be emotionally invested in the wrestlers and in the story behind the match. Sending two guys no one cares about to wrestle in a match that has no meaning is never going to draw.
We cheered Austin, because we could relate to having an authority figure in our lives who pissed us off. We could allow ourselves to live vicariously through him as he knocked out his boss and drank beers over his prone form. If Tyler Reks comes out and lays out Teddy Long and has a beer bash over him, is anyone going to give a damn?
Bullshit. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word racism. You seem to have an improper understanding of the term.
You mean the guy who became Smackdown champion when ratings were at a 3.5, and lost the championship when ratings had dropped to a 3.0? That guy?
No, it matters how wrestling fans will accept them.
You know, I'm trying this thing where I try to post politely without ripping into people, but you're really trying my patience.
Do me a favor. Look at the list of people who held the NWA championship, and then when WCW broke away, who held the WCW championship. Please point out all the champions who do not fit within the stereotypical white culture.
Let me ask you this question. If I said that a white American is not likely to ever be considered the best basketball player in the NBA, is that racist too? Or is it just the truth?
Isn't that what you just said Russo did?
Nope. Like most other wrestling fans, I was turning the channel to see what the other show was doing during those segments.
Yeah...I'm pretty certain you don't understand the meanings of words. Do yourself a favor and look naive up. Then get back to me.
It's almost like you're trying to say the stupidest stuff you can think of at this point. Yes, that's me calling you an idiot. NOW you can say I've called you a name.
Calling someone naive is not a flame, anymore than if I had called you ignorant. Learn the meaning of a fucking word before you get all huffy.
I have a reality based view. I don't see pro wrestling as the noble endeavor so many other idealistic wrestling fans on the Internet do.
They shouldn't. I tell people on this forum all the time when someone asks about becoming a wrestler. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are guys out there who do it, because I enjoy it, but the wrestling business is so dirty and so full of crooks, no one in their right mind should ever want to do it.
So wait...you agree McMahon and Bischoff, the two guys responsible for the two biggest companies in America screw their own wrestlers, in one case a guy who had previously taken less money to stay loyal to McMahon (Hart) and in the case of Austin, Bischoff fired Austin over the phone as he was recovering from an injury.
How exactly is that not proof positive of what I'm saying about the wrestling business being a backstabbing, lying and manipulative business that doesn't give a damn about the wrestlers?