Linda McMahon senate primary win bad for wrestling fans

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

I would ten times rather watch the WWE today than the Attitude Era.

How the hell can you say that!???

 

[The_Reptile_]

How the hell can you say that!???

Because if the names of one of the guys involved in a feud wasn't Stone Cold Steve Austin or The Rock odds are it would be ridiculously stupid? And even that's not a complete guarantee?

 

[Danger Burger]

Gta agree, and i'm sitting through the AE right now through the miracle of Illegal downloading.

Watching endless nights of Austin stunning Santa Clause, Goldust in a Diaper and shoving people into toilet cubicles can get very boring. Farooq is the man though! Attitude Era is great for being rebelious and for the fact that the wars were going, but it was mostly shock-based one-uppery between the WWF and WCW more so than overtly compelling television.

I'd rather watch the gilmore girls.

 

[The Dewbliners]

Attitude Era was shit. It's not Linda's fault the WWE "sucks" right now. It's the internet's fault, and people getting on dirtsheets thinking they know anything at all about the business.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Funny how these always turn into AE bash fests. Calm down, boys. Money = success. Keep that in mind.

Anyhow, this means nothing. The show being PG hasn't been all that noticeable over the past couple of years, so this shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

 

[Con T.]

Funny how these always turn into AE bash fests. Calm down, boys. Money = success. Keep that in mind.

Anyhow, this means nothing. The show being PG hasn't been all that noticeable over the past couple of years, so this shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with this.
The era wasn't ALL trash.
Some, but not near all.

If it was all smut,
Would Mick Foley have become
An all time legend?

 

[Slyfox696]

We've been through this discussion before: wrestlers are not actors. Yet, the vast majority of the roster is being spoon fed their lines by creative. And creative, in turn, is not really allowed to be creative because everything they come up with is being dissected by legal, PR, etc.

Or it's because they are being asked to come up with 5 hours of national television every week, as well as a 3 hour PPV once a month.

Have you ever sat down and actually thought how much content actually fits in 23 hours of television over the course of a month? It simply is NOT possible to make every storyline "must see television".

One of the legitimately positive things that came out of that era, however was the realization that if you allow a guy to be himself with the volume turned up, you typically end up with more entertaining characters. That's gone now. The new guys come up from the FCW (excuse me, "NXT Wrestling") assembly line, they read their lines on RAW, have their matches and never develop into anything great because they've been stripped of any creative control over their own character.

That's simply asinine. Most guys who are first coming up don't have that type of charisma. Steve Austin worked for nearly 10 years before reaching a level of quality that allowed him to become the darling of pro wrestling. The Rock was a once in a lifetime talent. Triple H work for 8-10 years to become that good.

This idea of letting everyone go off half-cocked and magic will happen simply is not true.

Its not really about PG vs. Attitude, its about an entertainment product being sanitized by lawyers and PR firms because Linda McMahon has to keep a squeaky-clean image. I don't know about you, but I think that sucks.

Does your memory last longer than the first thing you remember when you awoke this morning?

Whether it was the steroid scandals of the 90s, the raunch of the Attitude Era (which saw advertisers constantly pulling their support), the rash of wrestler deaths in the mid to late 2000s or the Chris Benoit murder/suicide, pro wrestling had a FOUL stench with the American public, to the point Congress was considering investigating the WWE to evaluate whether or not the WWE should be shut down.

By going to a more family friendly approach (which the WWE had done for the majority of its existence anyways), the WWE worked to build back a positive reputation in mainstream culture. And it's worked, they are constantly featured on various mainstream television programs, magazines, etc. And the WWE's revenues and profits related to their wrestling business have done nothing but increase since 2005, even as worldwide economies have been on the brink of ruination.

If you think this is directly related to Linda McMahon, then you simply aren't paying attention.

How the hell can you say that!???

Because I watched both and I realize the wrestling product is much better today?

 

[J-Dogg]

Look at some of the edgy and dramatic things that have happened in WWE over the past couple of years in the PG Era, they werent shock value things they have been compelling enough to keep people entertained and fork out money which in turn is success. Heck look at the many moments of great wrestling some of its been the best its been in years.

Politics is being used as a scapegoat when it shouldnt be, Vince pushed the company into a family friendly kind of product that doesnt need an overload of smut and blood just to entertained and keep people coming back for more. Look at some of the edgy and even reality based storylines and events, Vince and co have catered to people who want that plus corny comedy that makes us long time fans have a laugh. We don't need 90s style shock value just have a good product.

And this year i've continued to see some of the best wrestling i've seen in years from WWE, so thats saying something.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Because I watched both and I feel the wrestling product is much better today?

That's better. We really need to work on your idea of an opinion

 

[Slyfox696]

That's better. We really need to work on your idea of an opinion

If it's my opinion, it's a fact.

That's a fact.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

If it's my opinion, it's a fact.

That's a fact.

You are truly skilled in the art of trolling. I say that with love and affection.

 

[Slyfox696]

You are truly skilled in the art of trolling. I say that with love and affection.

 

[nbda1997]

Or it's because they are being asked to come up with 5 hours of national television every week, as well as a 3 hour PPV once a month.

Have you ever sat down and actually thought how much content actually fits in 23 hours of television over the course of a month? It simply is NOT possible to make every storyline "must see television".

But why is that even necessary? Why do we need to come up with a full-fledged television script for pro-wrestling? Why not give the performer a short list of bullet points you want him to hit on, and some guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable to say, and then let him build his own promo? Isn't that one of the skills a pro wrestler is supposed to develop? Giving engaging, entertaining promos that gets you excited about what might happen next?

That's simply asinine. Most guys who are first coming up don't have that type of charisma. Steve Austin worked for nearly 10 years before reaching a level of quality that allowed him to become the darling of pro wrestling. The Rock was a once in a lifetime talent. Triple H work for 8-10 years to become that good.

Fair enough. Not every performer can be a diamond in the rough like Steve Austin. I think someone would have stepped up by now who is on his same level if the young guys had the same opportunities to develop. This is completely off-topic, but one of the key benefits of the territory system is that, as a performer would be forced to essentially start from scratch & rebuild their character with a new audience every time he moved from one territory to another. Nowadays, guys go right from training camp to FCW to WWE without all that precious experience. I don't really have a point about that, its just a shame.

Whether it was the steroid scandals of the 90s, the raunch of the Attitude Era (which saw advertisers constantly pulling their support) the rash of wrestler deaths in the mid to late 2000s or the Chris Benoit murder/suicide, pro wrestling had a FOUL stench with the American public, to the point Congress was considering investigating the WWE to evaluate whether or not the WWE should be shut down.

By going to a more family friendly approach (which the WWE had done for the majority of its existence anyways), the WWE worked to build back a positive reputation in mainstream culture. And it's worked, they are constantly featured on various mainstream television programs, magazines, etc. And the WWE's revenues and profits related to their wrestling business have done nothing but increase since 2005, even as worldwide economies have been on the brink of ruination.

Again, I'm really not an apologist for reviving the Attitude Era, and I think your logic is sound here. Although, I think WWE had been using scripts and such for quite some time before the Benoit incident.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[Alastor]

Arguing that the PCness of the 80s and now is different thus PG will bring the quality down compared to the 80s while failing to acknowledge the amount of smut and violent content available now compared to the Attitude Era has exploded exponentially has changed the environment too. PG-haters amuses me.

 

[Slyfox696]

But why is that even necessary? Why do we need to come up with a full-fledged television script for pro-wrestling? Why not give the performer a short list of bullet points you want him to hit on, and some guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable to say, and then let him build his own promo?

That isn't really what I'm referring to, though I will answer your question in a second.

You were talking about how creative doesn't do a good job producing a good show. Ignoring for a moment that creative isn't the people who write the television show (that would be the writers), even giving bulleted lists for wrestlers to use doesn't change the fact creative/booking STILL has to come up with 23 hours worth of entertainment every month.

The problem with the creativity isn't lawyers, PG or Linda, it's the fact you simply cannot provide unique, original and engaging television 23 hours every month, year after year.

As for one reason why giving wrestlers bullet points to hit is not a good idea, we don't have to look much further than AW's comments two weeks ago which referenced Kobe Bryant.

Fair enough. Not every performer can be a diamond in the rough like Steve Austin. I think someone would have stepped up by now who is on his same level if the young guys had the same opportunities to develop.

They have. Punk delivered one promo sitting at the top of the ramp, and hasn't left the main-event since. John Cena has made his claim as one of the 5 greatest WWE superstars in history (Bruno, Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena).

Those who are truly talented in the business of pro wrestling will be successful. Reading a script will not hold down the truly talented.

This is completely off-topic, but one of the key benefits of the territory system is that, as a performer would be forced to essentially start from scratch & rebuild their character with a new audience every time he moved from one territory to another.

Yes and no. While they would have to re-introduce the character in different places, they could also reuse the same material. If Ric Flair had three promos, Promo A, Promo B, Promo C, he could cut all three promos in North Carolina, work in St. Louis and deliver all three promos again. Drive back down to Florida, and use promos A, B and C again.

It wasn't the rebuilding from scratch which sharpened their skills, it was working for years in front of a live audience, 5 or 6 times a week which sharpened their skills. Working a live audience is so much different than working a television audience, especially in today's world of professional wrestling.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The OP is not a moron.

Some of the insulting comments that came after were reactionary and showed that people really didn't pay attention to the OP.

The inner workings of WWE's change to a PG product isn't "common knowledge".

If you think Linda's campaign has no effect on the product than you are a moron.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

Gta agree, and i'm sitting through the AE right now through the miracle of Illegal downloading.

Watching endless nights of Austin stunning Santa Clause, Goldust in a Diaper and shoving people into toilet cubicles can get very boring. Farooq is the man though! Attitude Era is great for being rebelious and for the fact that the wars were going, but it was mostly shock-based one-uppery between the WWF and WCW more so than overtly compelling television.

I'd rather watch the gilmore girls.

And do you think current WWE is compelling television? AE did have its bad parts sure but it was leaps and bounds above today's WWE.

Because I watched both and I realize the wrestling product is much better today?

I watched both too. I honestly can't believe anyone who's watched both would say that. I'm sorry

 

[Con T.]

The OP is not a moron.

Some of the insulting comments that came after were reactionary and showed that people really didn't pay attention to the OP.

The inner workings of WWE's change to a PG product isn't "common knowledge".

If you think Linda's campaign has no effect on the product than you are a moron.

Did I ever say it has NO effect? It's a reason; it's not the end all be all reason that many (including OP is a moron) have made it out to be. And in fact, it is common knowledge; F4W has reported on multiple occasions that the main reason for WWE's direction is, in fact, Mattel. You can take it as you want, but I trust Meltzer's word a fuckton more than OP is a moron. They're as close to pro wrestling journalism as we're going to get; and yeah I take credence in that than the self fulfilling explanations you'll find on wrestling forums, this one included. In 2010, in a Wrestling Observer Radio mailbag question, Meltzer argues that WWE would be little different based on the results of the 2010 election, and that it would be far more likely for the WWE to not be PG if Mattel were to back out of the deal.

OP's still stupid
His main point's really baseless
And always has been.

 

[Slyfox696]

I watched both too. I honestly can't believe anyone who's watched both would say that. I'm sorry

Well, if you enjoy storylines which magically appear and disappear without any explanation (GTV), two women sending a black man to buy tampons for them, a wrestler who is so terrible he is only is on television because a train of strippers come to the ring with him, etc., then I suppose I could understand why you prefer the Attitude Era.

Why did I include those examples? Because I'm sure you can easily find equivalents to them today. Do you know what the difference is? While both eras feature undercard storylines we wish we could forget, the actual wrestling today is far superior to what it was in the Attitude Era. Throw in the fact that I don't have to be embarrassed to be a wrestling fan anymore, and the fact I can relate with my younger students through pro wrestling because their parents will actually let them watch it now, and it's easy to see why I'd much rather watch wrestling today than 10 years ago.

The main-event of the Attitude era was great. Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Foley were all phenomenal workers and all were highly entertaining. But outside of them? It was pretty lackluster programming.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Did I ever say it has NO effect? It's a reason; it's not the end all be all reason that many (including OP is a moron) have made it out to be. And in fact, it is common knowledge; F4W has reported on multiple occasions that the main reason for WWE's direction is, in fact, Mattel. You can take it as you want, but I trust Meltzer's word a fuckton more than OP is a moron. They're as close to pro wrestling journalism as we're going to get; and yeah I take credence in that than the self fulfilling explanations you'll find on wrestling forums, this one included. In 2010, in a Wrestling Observer Radio mailbag question, Meltzer argues that WWE would be little different based on the results of the 2010 election, and that it would be far more likely for the WWE to not be PG if Mattel were to back out of the deal.

OP's still stupid
His main point's really baseless
And always has been.

This thread sucks so bad that Haiku had to break kayfabe.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Did I ever say it has NO effect? It's a reason; it's not the end all be all reason that many (including OP is a moron) have made it out to be.

If it's a reason than the OP has a point that is worth discussing. And I miss where he says it is the end all be all reason.

And in fact, it is common knowledge; F4W has reported on multiple occasions that the main reason for WWE's direction is, in fact, Mattel. You can take it as you want, but I trust Meltzer's word a fuckton more than OP is a moron.

Common knowledge? Yes, dirt sheets and Dave Meltzer are always right and everyone should be reading them. I thought the current trend was to bash the dirt sheets? Do you really think that Linda and her campaign team want it to get out that her campaign effects the product? No, so the PR people put out a message about the other reasons (namely money). People can somewhat rationalize money far easier than they can political gain. The opinions of politics and politicians in this country has been declining for the last 15 years.

They're as close to pro wrestling journalism as we're going to get; and yeah I take credence in that than the self fulfilling explanations you'll find on wrestling forums, this one included. In 2010, in a Wrestling Observer Radio mailbag question, Meltzer argues that WWE would be little different based on the results of the 2010 election, and that it would be far more likely for the WWE to not be PG if Mattel were to back out of the deal.

And you and other posters could have said this instead of just assuming the OP is just an AE lover who wants Puppies back and hates PG.

OP's still stupid
His main point's really baseless
And always has been.

His discussion with Sly was quite a decent read. Not knowing all the inside knowledge of pro wrestling doesn't make someone stupid. It may be a sign that a person has actual important shit going on in their lives. And his point is not baseless, you've agreed that her campaign has some effect. It may not be eloquently written but find me many posts that are.

In the end, other than calling him a moron I have no issue with you poems. I take bigger issue with all the people that jumped down his throat when they clearly didn't read/digest/comprehend what he wrote.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Well, if you enjoy storylines which magically appear and disappear without any explanation (GTV), two women sending a black man to buy tampons for them, a wrestler who is so terrible he is only is on television because a train of strippers come to the ring with him, etc., then I suppose I could understand why you prefer the Attitude Era.

Why did I include those examples? Because I'm sure you can easily find equivalents to them today. Do you know what the difference is? While both eras feature undercard storylines we wish we could forget, the actual wrestling today is far superior to what it was in the Attitude Era. Throw in the fact that I don't have to be embarrassed to be a wrestling fan anymore, and the fact I can relate with my younger students through pro wrestling because their parents will actually let them watch it now, and it's easy to see why I'd much rather watch wrestling today than 10 years ago.

The main-event of the Attitude era was great. Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Foley were all phenomenal workers and all were highly entertaining. But outside of them? It was pretty lackluster programming.

What did you think of the tag division?

 

[Slyfox696]

What did you think of the tag division?

I think the tag division 10 years ago benefits from two things.

1) Lack of TV time. Until Smackdown came on the air in 1999, the WWE only had 2 hours of primetime television. In order to get more of their talent exposure, the WWE had to put together a decent tag team division. Once Smackdown came on the air, however, you gradually saw the death of the tag team division, because the WWE had more than enough time to get television exposure to the guys they wanted to give exposure to.

2) Hindsight. Obviously we look back at Edge and Christian, The Hardy Boys, Dudleys, etc., but just like so many people do with the basketball Dream Team, we look back at them for their career accomplishments, not so much for what they were at the time. The tag team division was made up of a bunch of midcarders, who on their own, didn't really draw a dime. However, through the exposure they received as tag team, they built their fanbase for the moment they were able to break off and become singles stars.


Too many Internet fans bemoan the lack of a quality tag division, but the simple fact of the matter is singles wrestlers will almost always draw better than tag teams. They are easier to market, and sports fans are interested in who is "best". If you rely on a partner, then you are not the "best". And to cut off any comparisons to team sports, pro wrestling has lived through its one on one competition, so wrestling fans know that it always determines its best through one on one competition.

Tag teams are a great way to give time to undercard workers with potential, when you have limited television time. But when you're constantly trying to find ways to fill television time, there really isn't much of a point to putting guys in a tag team.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I think the tag division 10 years ago benefits from two things.

1) Lack of TV time. Until Smackdown came on the air in 1999, the WWE only had 2 hours of primetime television. In order to get more of their talent exposure, the WWE had to put together a decent tag team division. Once Smackdown came on the air, however, you gradually saw the death of the tag team division, because the WWE had more than enough time to get television exposure to the guys they wanted to give exposure to.

2) Hindsight. Obviously we look back at Edge and Christian, The Hardy Boys, Dudleys, etc., but just like so many people do with the basketball Dream Team, we look back at them for their career accomplishments, not so much for what they were at the time. The tag team division was made up of a bunch of midcarders, who on their own, didn't really draw a dime. However, through the exposure they received as tag team, they built their fanbase for the moment they were able to break off and become singles stars.


Too many Internet fans bemoan the lack of a quality tag division, but the simple fact of the matter is singles wrestlers will almost always draw better than tag teams. They are easier to market, and sports fans are interested in who is "best". If you rely on a partner, then you are not the "best". And to cut off any comparisons to team sports, pro wrestling has lived through its one on one competition, so wrestling fans know that it always determines its best through one on one competition.

Tag teams are a great way to give time to undercard workers with potential, when you have limited television time. But when you're constantly trying to find ways to fill television time, there really isn't much of a point to putting guys in a tag team.

Singles competition draws more money than tag teams, that much is true.

However, for years now, WWE still dedicates a segment or two per week to the tag division. If you're going to go that route anyhow, give us quality programming. I and most other fans would rather have no tag team wrestling than be forced to watch four random guys split into pairs fighting over nothing.

In WWE's defense, the tag scene has been much more entertaining as of late. It has ups and downs, and right now, it's good with me.