No, I will NOT give you a match or two

[Mighty NorCal]

Eirc Steins new column has him crying and whining about the lack of matches, and the emphasis on character/angle development on WWE programming as of late. He says he wants more wrestling on the weekly programs. I couldnt disagree more. For a number of reasons, which Im sure SlyFox will come in here and clarify in a much better manner than myself.


Firstly, if you get to watch tons of wrestling every week for free, then what the shit motivates you to order the shows for money?? And if the time isnt spent week to week building feuds and characters, why would one care enough to purchase the PPVs?? You wouldnt. It also seems as if Mr. Stein has never watched wrestling before the year of 2006. As far as I can see, there is actually far more "big name Vs Big name" matches on a regular basis on the weekly programming than EVER before in the WWE. In the golden age, you got a bunch of squash matches Vs local jobbers, or the very bottom of the barrel of the roster, and MAYBE a tag match involving the big guns at the end of the program, with a big name ME possibly once every month or two. And LORD knows, during the attitude era, you were LUCKY to get in two or three matches per 2 hour program.

Nowadays, you generally get 4 or 5 matches per weekly program. You used to not get more than that on fucking "In your house" PPVs. So, thats the first hole in his theory.

The second being, that its been proven time and time over, that wrestling based weekly programs dont draw. Want proof?? look up ECW's ratings. or how about WCW's PPV buy rates. WCW was infamous for giving away tons of ME's just to win the ratings war, but then couldnt sell shows. The entire point of weekly programs is to get people to invest into characters, and angles, and the most effective way to do so, is through promo's and outside of the ring interaction. He wonders when wrestling all of the sudden became soap opera, and I have an answer for him.


Around 1985.


So, what do you guys think??? More wrestling, little promo, more promo little wrestling??

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem, as I see it, is not that the WWE doesn't give enough matches, it's that the matches they do give are too much. Why do they give too much? Because wrestling fans have the attention span of a 4 year old.

Like NorCal said, if the WWE gave away big time matches on free TV, why would you pay to see them on PPV? If I got to watch Cena vs. Batista next week on Raw, why would I pay $70 to watch it at Wrestlemania? It would make no sense. But, if the WWE gave you Cena vs. Marty Jobber, then wrestling fans would quit paying attention, because they don't have a good attention span.

Finally, when we DO get quality matches, the workers (again because of short attention spans) can't WORK in the ring, they have to go 100 MPH to keep the fans from turning the channel. The days where a match could go 8 minutes, with 5 of them on the ground in submission holds are gone.

So, the WWE can't give you big name matchups, and they can't get you squashes, and they can't get you longer matches with a slower pace, so what do they do? They give you character development outside of the ring, in skits and promos. It's the only sane thing to do.

Like NorCal said, when I read that article, I thought "wow, this is tremendously stupid". Because the WWE is doing the only thing they can realistically do, while trying to make good money.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Without taking this to a purely technical, ratings and buys level... I want to ask Eric Stein how you're meant to attract fans to a product that is to all intents and purposes ROH without the high spots?

It won't work. Ok, shows without wrestling suck big time. Despite the entertainment aspect to the wrestling, I do like to watch a decent match every so often. But if it's match, followed by another match, with another match just to keep it interesting, well, I'm getting bored.

I want to actually see some development of storylines and that can only occur sometimes with the likes of backstage interaction, or an in-ring promo.

If you want a wrestling match, watch the Olympics. But the fact is that you need to strike a balance, otherwise you lose viewers. The purists go to other sources where they aren't bombarded with comedy/action/drama they could find better in their local video store.

Too much wrestling, the casual fan, the small child who is attracted to the likes of the loud noises, the spectacle, they won't watch because the Disney Channel will do the same for them with more colourful characters.

Overall, at present, while the content may be mediocre, the balance is right. So Mr Stein... all due respect, but you're wrong

 

[HBK-aholic]

I chose balance, because you can have too much of both things. A show revolving mostly around promos loses the essence of being wrestling, which it needs to keep some fans happy, and to further some storylines. Too many matches would bore people, and leave no incentives to buy the PPVs.

I read a column a while ago which made the point WWE isn't up against other wrestling shows on Monday nights, it's up against entertainment, such as Family Guy. And in order to win those viewers, they need to focus a lot more on entertaining people, getting that laugh out of them that a match doesn't. Times are changing, and the WWE realise that. However, as NorCal pointed out, it's been the same for a very long time.

 

[Marquis]

I see nothing wrong with how the WWE is running the current product. Sly put it better then i ever could hope to. There really is nothing else they can do. To many main event caliber matches on the weekly show means the PPV's wont be that interesting since you already saw the match. There's only so many times you can see a wrestler squish some Jobber. So what does that leave? Promos and character/angle development. Promos and Angle development helps make the matches on the PPV more interesting, So the more of that the better.

I think what stein failed to notice is. Just because he wants to see more wrestling does not mean everyone else wants to. The WWE has to make their product as balanced as they can to keep everyone happy.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Hmm, let me see. It'll be hard to add something to this discussion that already hasn't been said. I'll try. Bear with me as I incoherently ramble, please.

So we've got down that if you've seen a match already on free TV, you're unlikely to buy it if it features on the next pay-per-view. This was classically misinterpreted by WCW. I suppose they considered TV ratings to be more important than PPV buyrates. I guess you could make that argument but I believe that a lot more revenue is generated by buyrates than ratings, at least directly. TNA's fallen into a similar trap, giving away matches like AJ Styles vs. Booker T (what? That is a main event match for TNA) on free TV but expecting people to care once they start selling their second rematch (so third match overall) on PPV.

But then again, you don't want to be too anti-wrestling. I mean, then you turn into Marty, fast-forwarding through matches so you can get to the promos. I appreciate that promos are also an important part of wrestling but - not to sound like the classic cliche that is the smark - but isn't the point of wrestling, y'know, the wrestling? What people will pay up for at the end of the day. Promos and similar, uh, "things" are there to enhance feuds and build anticipation for matches and events, not be the main draw - don't think for a second I'm saying they're unimportant though.

So yeah, you want a good balance. That doesn't mean equal amounts though. You use your television shows to build up your upcoming PPVs and the matches and feuds therein, but you also can't have a wrestling show without wrestling.

Is Mr. Stein right or wrong? The fuck should I know, I didn't read his article.

 

[Thomas_Argyle]

The downfall to Paul Heyman as booker was giving away too much wrestling on free TV. Not that I was complaining. As a fan being able to see Angle/Lesnar in an Iron Man, or Angle/Guerrero on free TV multiple times was a treat.

Your top stars should rarely wrestle on free TV. The champion should NEVER wrestle on free TV. You should have to pay to see the top draw defend his belt.

Top stars should only wrestle to determine number one contenders on free TV. Free TV should be to get younger guys over, while using non wrestling appearances by top stars to keep the ratings up. This doesn't mean it has to be more promos than wrestling, but the wrestling should be matches with guys who are either fighting for a title match on PPV, or are guys who aren't established enough to be on PPV yet.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Actually, I think Mr. Stein makes some good points. And, I would like to elaborate on two points within this post. One made by Mr. Stein, and one made by a few forum members in this thread.

In regards to Mr. Stein, I think some people have misconstrued what he complains about. He is not asking for a show that is pure wrestling; he is asking for a show that contains more wrestling than what is shown currently on Raw and he also asks for better character/storyline development. And, quite frankly, I agree with him on both points. On average, you get about five matches on Raw a week. And, on average, two of these matches are noteworthy while three of them are terrible, forgettable, and pointless, whether it be because they are squash matches between main-eventers and purported mid-carders that do nothing but create a big void between WWE's main-eventers (about 10% of the roster) and everyone else, or because they are Diva or Santino matches that only last for three minutes (which really hurts their credibility as being entertainers). Furthermore, Raw fails to even utilize the majority of its already deep roster. Instead of providing variety to the fodder they feed to their main-eventers, they either use the same people (e.g., Snitsky and Kane) or they bring in people from their other brands (e.g. Miz and Morrison). Moreover, while they have an opportunity with the other 75% of their Raw airtime to really develop feuds and characters, they instead fill this time redundant promos or segments that have potential but which are never resolved or which come back when a hundred other storylines have failed (granted, this only takes about three weeks).

On the other hand I am more than sympathetic to the fact that WWE has monthly PPVs and that this constitutes a significant portion of their revenue. But, they can't even sell me their PPVs properly. I should feel like they are giving me some of the best food I have ever had in my life and they just yank it away from me after only the first bite. Instead, with nothing more to offer than a few measly crumbs of something bland, they ask me both to pay up front and to have faith in the fact that they have something better to offer but for which they must currently exclude me from.

Now, in regards to what some forum members have said about giving away matches on television that can be main-events at PPVs, I will have to both agree and disagree. Unlike WWE, WCW faced different incentives. Nitro was an in-house production for TNT/Turner Broadcasting Systems; it wasn't a production that was contracted out, like Raw is for USA. And, it is my understanding that WWE sees little, if any, of the advertising revenue for Raw. Thus, whereas WCW, as a part of Turner Broadcasting Systems, had two significant sources of revenue (advertising and PPVs), WWE, with USA, only has one (PPVs). Therefore, I agree with posters here when they say that the current WWE product is what it is precisely because of the fact that they rely so heavily on PPVs. However, I disagree with respect to the belief that things could not be changed for a more optimal result; I don't see how better character and storyline development could hurt them at all. Furthermore, I do not see how more matches with mid-carders vs. mid-carders or curtain-jerkers could harm them.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

I think the WWE has a healthy balance right now between the # of matches and the # of promos, but there are three faults that annoy the hell out of me when it comes to the overall product presented to us.

1. I'm so, so sick and tired of the reruns. When Cena was returning, we saw roughly 8 video packages...and all of them were shown 3 times a week. That is such a hair pulling process. Those DX commercials being shown now? I leave the room. I can't take it. But the worst out of the bunch is when they show the recaps of the Raw/Smackdown episodes. If you want me to be interested in what happened, why are you going to show me half the episode? Show a quick 1-minute glance at what happened. Chances are, people watch all 3 shows, not just one or two, so they already know what happened, but even so, if you just showed a quick 30-60 second clip rather than 4 minutes, it might pique someone's interest. Less is more. By showing all these recaps of stuff you've already seen during the week, at such an extensive amount, it makes it so you don't even need to watch Raw or Smackdown cause you're practically shown the "most interesting" stuff on the other shows anyway.

2. There are far too many matches that are still garbage. Sure, you can count DJ Gabriel vs. Jobber as a match, but its useless. They need to quit trying to build up people by having them defeat no-names that get zero reaction. As soon as you see someone that doesn't get an entrance, you already know, 100%, that that person is going to lose, so there's no point in even showing it. Stop the squash matches. A two minute domination of some wrestler against a jobber is nothing to be proud of and shouldn't even be counted as a match that was on the card...neither should be ABYSMAL women's division matches that come out. If its a good one, ok, but how rare is that? You show me an hour's worth of Smackdown that includes a crappy Diva's match, a squash match, and a bunch of commercials, I'll show you a sleeping NoFate.

3. Just because you have matches that look good on paper doesn't mean they always deliver. Is that the WWE's fault 100% of the time? No. Sometimes its just the people involved. But take for instance Mysterio/Miz. I was looking forward to it. Then they go ahead and ruin it by having Knox come out and "injure" Mysterio, but he still pretty much destroys The Miz? Way to make the Miz look like he's inadequate by not being able to beat a guy who's older than him, smaller than him, and has an injury that - suspension of disbelief aside - should put him in so much pain that he can't even lift his arm. The very first time that the Miz yanked on that arm, Mysterio should've been tapping out, but no, he beats Miz like he was some local yuppie ******* lol. The match itself was laborious, complete with Mysterio's "oh give me a break" setups, and it ends with something that shouldn't have happened, so while that was a match, and while it was better than just having Kane come out and chokeslam Hacksaw for a pin in 4 seconds, the way the match came out left a totally sour taste in my mouth and when it was followed up by a lackluster Kane/Cena match...which by all means should have ppv potential...Raw ended with me in a worse mood than when I started watching it. We all know that Raw, Smackdown, and ECW should end with you wanting to see more, not being ticked off at what you saw lol.

So while I think the WWE needs tweaking, its not necessarily that they don't have a proper balance of wrestling and storyline, its that the wrestling that they're showing us isn't up to par and the storylines are suffering as a result of that. I can't get behind a storyline that seems to build towards just a bunch of poorly executed random crap, you know?

 

[Thomas_Argyle]

To elaborate on my last post, here's how I would book WWE heading towards the Royal Rumble under the format I proposed.

John Cena would not wrestle at all on RAW. Instead he would appear each week in non televised segments. Same thing with Edge and Hardy. We'll assume the three of them still hold their brands respective belts.

Since the Royal Rumble only has 3-4 matches on the undercard it is only necessary to build up a World Championship match for each brand, along with one special attraction match. For the special attraction match, I'd do something like Hardy VS HHH in a Street Match with the winner advancing to the final spot in the Rumble. Both these men are favorites to win the Rumble, so their qualifying match is a legit draw to purchase the PPV.

Otherwise, you'd have 60 Royal Rumble qualifying matches spread along each brand. You have six weeks of television between Armmageddon and the Royal Rumble. This works out to about 10 qualifying matches a week spread out between the three brands, which is very doable. This way, we get a lot of free TV matches, but everything happening on TV has a purpose, to directly build up to the Royal Rumble match. It also puts the match over as more important because everybody in the match would have done something to earn the spot in the match itself.

The other free TV matches that must take place would be some sort of affair to determine who takes on each champion at the PPV. After the contenders are chosen, they can spend 4-5 weeks building it up into an actual feud using promos.

As stated before, none of the champions should wrestle on free TV. You should have to pay to see them.

With this kind of format, there is direct build up to the PPV along with storyline development and solid free TV matches that won't hurt the buy rate of the PPV. Everything happening would have a distinct purpose, and the fans would have to pay to see the champion (in essence the top draw) wrestle at the PPV.

 

[grahambrown]

Your top stars should rarely wrestle on free TV. The champion should NEVER wrestle on free TV. You should have to pay to see the top draw defend his belt.

Good lord, this is why the wrestling community is in such a strong backlash against WWE.

I think I want to just address the overall tone of this thread. Everyone keeps harping on, "Well, you can't have wrestling all the times because then you can't sell the PPV's" and yeah, that's true, but that's not the question that was originally asked. We all know that wrestling is a business and we all know how that business works, but let's let Vince be Vince and actually talk about the direction the sport is headed, not its financial statements.

Mr. Stein wasn't saying that WWE's accountants should want more wrestling. He was saying that he, a fan, wanted it, and I couldn't agree more. That's what we come for, that's why we tune in, that's why we buy tickets. Wrestling. And to call a fan wrong for wanting more of it seems ludicrous.

Why be content to put up with an organization that is driven by the bottom line. We are the fans. We deserve to see good wrestling without having to wait for three hours a month. Maybe that means we see champs wrestle on Monday nights, maybe it doesn't, I don't know. But I do know this. WWE is getting massively upstaged by a lot of indy organizations around the country. I understand that these little guys will never usurp the power that WWE has commanded, but if WWE doesn't start thinking about growth and progression, it will be stagnant and eventually die.

If you want to talk business, that's it. No one keeps a competitive advantage forever, so WWE has to look for ways to reinvent itself. When it can't rely on wrestling, it turns to tired storylines and when it can't rely on promos it turns to meaningless matches. Effective business management hinges on the fact that there are no weakest links, that every aspect of the business is running as efficiently and productively as possible. To say that RAW is only a set-up, essentially an extended commercial for the PPV's may be true, but it can never be sustaining.

People see through the smoke screens. We're smarter than that. And eventually, people won't want to watch two hours of filler. WWE, I propose, will find itself in a crisis if it doesn't rethink the way it presents its material to fans.

Yes, I will take a match or two, and let's try to make them good this time.

 

[Rusty]

Well, it's going to be hard to add something new here but I'll try my best.

Quite frankly, both wrestling and promos both play their role in wrestling. Both are vital to a successful wrestling business, such as the WWE. The promos are what makes the viewer feel emotion throughout the show. For example, if John Cena and Triple H were going to have a match at the upcoming pay per view, if the WWE didn't show promos involving the two, the viewer just wouldn't care about the match because the superstars would be wrestling just for the sake of it, and not for an actual purpose or reason.

Promos help hype up the match as well as getting people interested in the upcoming 'big' match. Promos should occur in every single WWE program, every week. Without promos there's no storylines, no characters and no emotion in wrestling. Promos are basically just as important as the matches. But when there's too many promos, it can be overkill and can possibly lose viewers. I mean, who wants to see nothing but promos for an hour? Also, promos help develop a character. Do you think Ted DiBiase Jr would have gotten a push straight away if it he didn't present that brilliant first promo? Well, one could argue he would have because of his father but my point is that promos help build characters and is a vital part in the development of any wrestling character.

However, when Raw or Smackdown ends with a 15 minute promo, that really annoys me. Promos are vital to wrestling, but the whole reason why we watch wrestling is to see the actual matches between superstars who we have seen develop a feud through various promos and segments on a weekly basis. Unless it is really important, why would anyone want to tune in until the end of the show only to see a promo? Matches should be the main focus of the show, but I'm certainly not implying that they are more important than the promos. I think Sam mentioned that.

So while both are important the a wrestling company, giving away too many matches or too many promos is a negative thing. I think it's best to have a balance between the two. As mentioned before in this thread, if you give away too many good matches on free TV, why would people want to buy the pay per views? Also, I see people complaining about that the matches of free TV aren't of "good quality". Tell me this: What do you expect from a free show? The WWE purposely doesn't give away many good quality matches on free TV in hope that you buy the pay per view to get your fix of good quality matches.

I think the WWE does a good job in balancing out promos and matches. Yeah, sure we've seen many good matches on free TV as of late, but the only reason why the WWE is doing that is because their ratings have dropped in general. If people expect free TV matches to be very good on a frequent basis, then they clearly don't know the purpose of pay per views. 5 matches on a two hour show is enough for me, and the amount of promos the WWE provides us is a great amount too. So no need to change a good thing.

 

[grahambrown]

Tell me this: What do you expect from a free show? The WWE purposely doesn't give away many good quality matches on free TV in hope that you buy the pay per view to get your fix of good quality matches.

I will keep posting in stark opposition of this mentality. This is from my blog TheTagRope.com...

The discussion of this thread centers around one main idea. You can't have big names or significant matches on weekly programming because then no one would buy pay-per-views. The weeklies, it has been said, are just to entice fans, to develop storylines and whet appetites for title matches and big finishes. This is what makes money, we seem to have concluded, so this is how it has to be.

I completely agree. Directing audiences toward pay-per-views is how wrestling makes money. At $40 for three hours, it's easy to see that this is where the money comes in. But why have we, as fans, adopted and accepted the mentality of accountants? When did we become complacent toward compensation trumping entertainment? Why are we alright with answering a question about how we feel with an answer about what makes the most money?

I do not care what makes Vince McMahon money. I mean, I'm interested in the economics or wrestling, but it's not what makes me tune in, ever. I've never sat down on the couch, picked up the remote, and thought, "I think I'll make someone rich today." We are fans, and although we are also consumers, we shouldn't let ourselves be defined by it. Our opinions should be shaping the business decisions of the sport, not the other way around. When we throw our hands up in the air and say it doesn't matter how things could be, because this is how they're going to be, we've cheated ourselves and we've cheated wrestling. Both deserve more.

No one ever watched a TV show and said "This show sucks, but it's ok because they're just trying to get us to buy the DVD with all the bonus features at the season. I'll sit through it for now, something better will happen in three or four weeks, maybe." Letting wrestling become PPV-centric will be debilitating. NOTHING can survive when it's only good one out of five times. The idea of new fans will become a joke, it's hard to get people hooked on a TV show that either is lousy or costs forty bucks a pop. The weekly shows are what draw people in, and a recession of interesting matches and big name talent on these shows will also mean a decline in the new fan population.

If weekly shows are interesting, PPV sales won't be an issue. Wrestling fans are willing to spend money, they just need a reason to. Turning weeklies into consistently compelling TV shows will bolster the brand (WWE) and create even more anticipation for the big things that can happen at pay-per-views.

Wrestling fans deserve for weekly shows to be entertainment, not commercials. Settling for what WWE tells is financially necessary is unacceptable. Accountants don't know the first thing about wrestling. Fans do. Fans control the sport, and we can't forget that.

I know that the McMahon family is smiling somewhere. Pro wrestling has become a thriving industry and they've devised a system to get into the wallets of fans. No matter how much I write, or we complain, no matter how many indy shows we attend to try and break the cycle of profit-driven wrestling, they know our efforts are futile, and they just keep on smiling. I hate smiling rich people, they ruin everything.

 

[Rusty]

Our opinions should be shaping the business decisions of the sport, not the other way around. When we throw our hands up in the air and say it doesn't matter how things could be, because this is how they're going to be, we've cheated ourselves and we've cheated wrestling. Both deserve more.

See I disagree here. The WWE can't base everything on the opinions of their fans. If that was the case, CM Punk would have never won the World Title, the Miz would have been fired by now and Triple H wouldn't have been champion in 2008. The WWE lays out the storylines, the characters and the matches. Everyone knows that. They don't base their entire shows around the opinions of their fans. Sure, they may listen to the fan reactions a couple times, but they don't and they should never base their whole product around us.

Every single WWE fan has a different opinion on the WWE. For example: Not every fan likes John Cena and not everyone hates Jeff Hardy. The WWE can't change a heel character into a face merely because he got cheered a couple times. They base it around what they think is going to work best for the business. The WWE shapes our opinions on the show. The WWE is no different to a comedy sitcom in this situation. If people think Kramer should be the lead character instead of Jerry, the show writers aren't going to change that just for us. We aren't in charge, as we are only viewers and nothing more.

If weekly shows are interesting, PPV sales won't be an issue. Wrestling fans are willing to spend money, they just need a reason to. Turning weeklies into consistently compelling TV shows will bolster the brand (WWE) and create even more anticipation for the big things that can happen at pay-per-views

No, if the weekly shows are so interesting, why would people want to pay to watch another interesting show when they can watch a great show 3 times a week, for 52 weeks a year? I'm not saying the WWE has to be a complete bore every week. What I am saying is that more people want to see the pay per view to receive a good solid show full of wrestling without commercials, promos and other segments. They also want to see the continuation or conclusion of the recent interesting feuds. If they saw Batista vs John Cena on Raw that was a near 5 star classic match, why would they want to pay $40 to see it again?

When we do receive great matches on free TV, we as fans should see it as a bonus. We shouldn't expect that every week but we should be thankful for that match that was given away for free. Also, an interesting show doesn't have do be interesting consisting with only matches of high quality. An interesting weekly show could consist of interesting promos and storyline development. The Pay Per Views need to be of much higher quality (in terms of matches), than the weekly shows. Otherwise, the WWE wouldn't be selling enough pay per views as the fans could get an interesting show with great matches without even paying a cent every single week.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

i read this particular post and very much agreed, however there are some more specific points i want to make. Everything that Eric mentioned i apply to Raw and Raw alone. There's nothing wrong with Smackdown's formula and it's hard to compare a 1 hour show with 2 2 hour shows so i won't mention ECW.

My view point is not that we should be having Main Event guy vs Main Event guy every single week, nor that we should get PPV matches for free, but we should still get decent matches every Monday.

We don't need to see Jericho vs HBK in a street fight on Raw. Or Cena v Batista instead of at Wrestlemania. You could just as easily have Jericho vs Shad Gaspard for 10 minutes if you wanted, or HBK vs Ziggler if you're going to book the match properly.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when Cody Rhodes stepped in for Orton to face Batista? Now that started out as an interesting match, and resulted in a typical 5 minute Batista squash, except the difference was, that Rhodes actually got some offence in! Why could that not have been a 10 or 15 minute match? Why do we not see matches of the same calibur as Jeff Hardy vs THE Brian Kendrick on Raw when you're pretty much guaranteed to see at least 2 matches of that calibur on Smackdown EVERY week? Instead we get the ME guys squashing the mid-card guys repeatedly, sometimes even several of them at once, or guys from other brands appear, and there's a lot of Raw talent that don't even get mentioned on Raw. Paul Burchill is a good example. D'lo Brown has dropped off the face of the earth again, and the list goes on. Guys like Matt Hardy and Miz and Morrison sometimes end up doing treble shifts in a week instead of letting Raw talent appear on TV once. Is that a sensible way to develop that brands talent? By using another brand's talent all the time? I don't think so.

A lot of guys have talked about the need for character development through promos and segments. I couldn't agree more. It should just not be done the way they're doing it on Raw these days.

Do you remember the days on Raw where there were maybe 2 or 3 segments maximum per episode? And more often than not, they were Mcmahon, Austin and The Rock segments, with maybe someone else in there as well. Spending 5 minutes talking about whose asses were going to get kicked, and maybe a brawl at the end of it. Anything else was done backstage and took 2 minutes max. These were also the days when the likelyhood of the title changing hands on Raw were equaly to the chances of it changing on PPV. Hottest period for WWE involved PPV matches on television.

They sure as hell didn't superstars of yester-year dancing in the ring for 5 minutes. They certainly weren't showing Punjabi Giants kissing fat girls were they? It wasn't Santino explaining the Honk-a-Meter for the 50th time instead of an Intercontinental title match was it?

The matches on Raw just need improving and a little less time devoted to talking, that's all. As a wrestling fan i am entertained by wrestling, not talk. My vote goes towards balance, but leaning slightly more towards more wrestling than talk.

 

[grahambrown]

See I disagree here. The WWE can't base everything on the opinions of their fans. If that was the case, CM Punk would have never won the World Title, the Miz would have been fired by now and Triple H wouldn't have been champion in 2008. The WWE lays out the storylines, the characters and the matches. Everyone knows that. They don't base their entire shows around the opinions of their fans. Sure, they may listen to the fan reactions a couple times, but they don't and they should never base their whole product around us.

I agree with what you've said. None of us know the business well enough to run the show or try and guess what will sell and what won't. We're fans, so let's leave the logistics up to the big guys. The point I was trying to make is this: why not hope for something better? Why be content with waiting for PPV's (remember, we're fans, not accountants). I completely understand the business side of wrestling, but when fans start settling, the result will eventually be overly formulaic and unoriginal.

There are LOTS of well written, well received shows on cable and network TV. All of those are free as well. None of them have to do big episodes once a month to make money. Sure, this statement has flaws (such as the exponentially higher production costs for a WWE show), but why settle? I'm a fan and I want consistently good wrestling. Five star wrestling. If you're trying to sell me on a product that wants me to watch eight hours of commercial to get three hours of entertainment, it won't work.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

It seems like a lot of people are arguing that you shouldn't give 5-star matches for free on TV all the time because you wouldn't want to buy the ppv if you were getting it so often.

While I do agree with that, there's something that isn't being addressed clearly:

If the WWE doesn't give us 5-star matches on the PPV either, why are we going to buy them? And if we consistently get squash matches or matches that are cut from the same exact cloth as all the others (how many tag team matches end the same exact way?) then why are we going to be excited about the ppv?

Think about it outside of the WWE's terms. For example, the trailer for the first Saw movie had me intrigued. I saw it for free, because I didn't know for sure whether or not it was going to be worth my 8 bucks. I thought it was pretty good. When they announced a sequel, I wanted to see it, because the previous one showed me that they could present a worthwhile product for my money's worth. So this time, I spent the 8 bucks to see it in the theatres. Decent, not as good as the first. When they announced #3, I spent 8 bucks to see it in the theatres, and I thought it sucked, bad. So what happened when #4 came around? I didn't see it. I read the synopsis online, and I'm glad that I didn't waste my time and money. For the 5th installment, I didn't even read the synopsis. For the 6th one, I probably won't even check out the trailer.

Now apply that to the WWE. If the WWE shows me something good for free, I'll be more likely to spend money on it. So if the Raw/Smackdown/ECW shows are consistently entertaining me, there's a much better chance I"ll buy a ppv. But if you give me crap on TV, I have no faith in your product. Why would I spend 50 bucks on a ppv when you've shown me that you don't currently have your head on straight? Hence why I watch the live streams. Its free. And you know what? I'm very, very, very rarely ever convinced that the ppv was worth 40-50 bucks, and I'm always glad that I watched the stream for free instead. I forget which PPV it was, but we actually got a 2 minute DQ finish to Henry/Hardy, and then 2 days later on ECW we had an actual match between the two. Why should I have paid to watch the ppv give me nothing just to show it on TV...but more importantly...if they showed that 2-minute DQ finish on TV, it would NOT have made me more interested and made me want to buy the PPV to watch the real match. The point is, when its crap, its crap no matter what lol. The Royal Rumble is my favorite ppv of the year along with WrestleMania. The match is guaranteed to be entertaining. But the only way I'm going to spend money on it is if I get a bunch of friends together and we all chip in a few bucks. They're certainly not getting 40-50 bucks from me alone. Why? Well, two reasons: 1) Too much money for me to just give away for 2 or 3 hours worth of watching something. 2) You can pretty much guarantee that the undercard will be filled with crap, including a terrible divas match lol. Not exactly worth the money.

Sure, you can make the argument that its illogical to "waste" your best stuff on TV, but that doesn't translate to "crap on TV and mediocre on ppvs" being the miracle ticket. Why can't it be good, solid wrestling on TV and promos that support the feuds (rather than pointless promos), with extremely minimal recap and advertisement plugs, building interest up so that you want to buy the ppv because you know it'll deliver and capitalize on that interest, rather than fall flat?

A 2 hour Raw that showcases advertisements for WWE.com, WWE Mobile, WWE Shop, Prince of Persia, a stupid Khali kissing people and Kung Fu Naki dancing segment (which served no purpose as it wasn't even funny), and then a handful of squash matches isn't going to make me want to PAY to see more, and until I see better programming that leads to better ppvs, I'll be watching the streams for free. Supply and demand. I demand higher quality for my cash, and if they don't supply it, they simply don't get my money. Simple as that.

 

[Shocky]

It wouldn't hurt to have some wrestling on you know, a wrestling show. Such a foreign concept all in it's own. This is where the brand extension has killed the WWE, too much talent spread out too thinly on three different shows. Why not just go Nitro and have one three hour show a week if the network is willing to give it to you?

The thing that made Nitro great, and I think better at times then Raw was in it's entire existence, the variety. You had cruisers and mid to lower card guys all on the card on Monday Night putting on great matches, and promos from the main eventers scattered. You might have had one, maybe two heavy hitters in a match on a particular night, but people were intrigued and watched the entire time.

Far too often on these forums we go with wrestling is for entertainment and story telling purposes. This is true, to an extent. There are just as many people that are watching due to teh magican effect the business has, the "how'd they do that" factor. Some people don't like the WWE Soap Opera heavy shows they get, and miss the athleticism of the wrestlers in the ring, oh sorry, entertainers.

From what I can tell...
There are 28 male wrestlers on Raw, with 8 female.
There are 26 male wrestlers on Smackdown, with 7 female.
There are 15 male wrestlers on ECW.

If you combined all the shows and had 69 wrestlers and 15 active female wrestlers.

Each week you can have just one wrestler face a different wrestler each week, and face 12 different wrestlers on pay per view, and still have 5 wrestlers to spare. The giving the match away free argument is weak in my opinion. Sure you don't match up Batista vs. Cena, but you can have Cena face a new opponent every week if need be.