[Official] Disco Nation

[Zandrax]

Owned by Glenn.. however.. i didn't read zandrax's posts. Glenn. this guy had a huge debate with me on another forum and lost so badly.... it was hilarious.. there was talk on buyrates, he thinks Russo doesn't amount to anything, yet when i showed him that Russo boosted the ratings/buys in WWF, he couldn't reply.

You know damn well I responded to you.

He wants a show similar to the LockDown hype.. where Angle/Joe are in a wrestling-esque storyline only and promos are done the same as Global Impact.. and there is lack of entertainment.

Usually when I watch wrestling, and my friends walk by, they usually just chuckle and shake their heads as Zandy watches his silly wrestling again.

When Global Impact was on, they would stop and watch for a bit, asking "is this one real?"

If that's not enough evidence for what is appealing to a 21st century audience, then I can't help you.

The long argument was whether high ratings contribute to higher revenue/buys. It went for 20 pages and he was obliterated.. I think i sent you a link to the thread I don't remember.. but i dont want to rehash that entire argument

The only one claiming "obliteration" was you. Yet when I offer take the opinion of who won to the other posters, you claim I'm "admitting defeat".

If you want to recreate the drama for a whole new audience, I'm your huckleberry.

I agree that he didn't get into any specifics about what is needed, and he wouldn't know because TNA is making money right now.. WWE is doing 150,000 buys with 3 shows and 3.5 rating..

I'm saying talk to your fans. Why is that such a hard concept?

And those buyrate numbers are double that usually.

He also used the UFC does 1.0 and 400,000 buys and TNA has 1.0 and does only 35,000 buys many times... You already addressed the UFC point as did I months ago..

Zandrax has no knowledge of how much TNA is making.. and has no idea what the masses enjoy or why each of the 35,000 peopel buy PPVs. Even when WWF was doing 7.0 and the buys were through the roof, do you honestly want to ask each person why they bought the PPV vs the time when they were doing 1.9 and the buys were miniscule compared to what they were doing by the end of Russo's WWF reign?

When you're making money hand over fist and have hundreds of thousands of people buying your show, you're doing something right.

When you have well over a million people watching and only 30-50,000 people buying, you;re doing something wrong.

It's pretty obvious: higher ratings (visibily higher) leads to higher potential to earn money. hence the reason people advertise on superbowl

Going by your earlier argument, we shouldn't compare football to wrestling because one is real and one is fake.

 

[gg inferno]

You know damn well I responded to you.


Usually when I watch wrestling, and my friends walk by, they usually just chuckle and shake their heads as Zandy watches his silly wrestling again.

When Global Impact was on, they would stop and watch for a bit, asking "is this one real?"

If that's not enough evidence for what is appealing to a 21st century audience, then I can't help you.


The only one claiming "obliteration" was you. Yet when I offer take the opinion of who won to the other posters, you claim I'm "admitting defeat".

If you want to recreate the drama for a whole new audience, I'm your huckleberry.


I'm saying talk to your fans. Why is that such a hard concept?

And those buyrate numbers are double that usually.


When you're making money hand over fist and have hundreds of thousands of people buying your show, you're doing something right.

When you have well over a million people watching and only 30-50,000 people buying, you;re doing something wrong.


Going by your earlier argument, we shouldn't compare football to wrestling because one is real and one is fake.

when your friends asked if Global Impact was real, what did you tell them?

 

[Zandrax]

when your friends asked if Global Impact was real, what did you tell them?

I told him no.

 

[gg inferno]

I told him no.

sorry, Zandrax, but sometimes when people argue on this message board, their arguments need to be squashed like jobbers in a Road Warrior enhancement match.

you said, "Usually when I watch wrestling, and my friends walk by, they usually just chuckle and shake their heads as Zandy watches his silly wrestling again.

When Global Impact was on, they would stop and watch for a bit, asking "is this one real?"

If that's not enough evidence for what is appealing to a 21st century audience, then I can't help you."

but now you're just telling me it was ONE FRIGGIN' GUY??? It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that's NOT enough evidence for what's appealing to a 21st century audience, and it is now painfully obvious that NO! YOU CAN'T HELP ME! lol.

 

[klunderbunker]

I remember a few months ago you were on a tour of New Zealand. I was wondering if you were going to be back in the ring anytime soon on indy shows, and if so if you knew who you would be working with.

 

[Zandrax]

sorry, Zandrax, but sometimes when people argue on this message board, their arguments need to be squashed like jobbers in a Road Warrior enhancement match.

you said, "Usually when I watch wrestling, and my friends walk by, they usually just chuckle and shake their heads as Zandy watches his silly wrestling again.

When Global Impact was on, they would stop and watch for a bit, asking "is this one real?"

If that's not enough evidence for what is appealing to a 21st century audience, then I can't help you."

but now you're just telling me it was ONE FRIGGIN' GUY??? It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that's NOT enough evidence for what's appealing to a 21st century audience, and it is now painfully obvious that NO! YOU CAN'T HELP ME! lol.

Well, believe what you wish, it's a free country. But the fact that you seem to question the logic of listening to the fans for feedback on what could be done better really says something as to whether we're going to agree on anything.

 

[Motown Revived]

but now you're just telling me it was ONE FRIGGIN' GUY??? It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that's NOT enough evidence for what's appealing to a 21st century audience

This is true, but is there evidence to the contrary? I'm curious as to what research or surveys you know of (either from TNA or WCW) that back up what you say about casual fans wanting storylines over the actual wrestling. If so, I'm curious as to what kind of storylines they like (and I believe this is more important than not), and how old the surveys/research is. I'm not calling you a liar, I am just wondering how you can be so certain of what I like in a wrestling product.

All of my friends who either watch wrestling casually or not at all tend to say that the storylines are what prevent them from watching. To be fair there are also friends who call the wrestling aspect "gay" (for both MMA and Pro Wrestling), but they're not going to watch your product regardless.

I genuinly believe that storylines CAN attract casual fans, but only the right kind of storylines, you know? The general audience (especially the youth) tend to go towards what's "cool" and that ultimately triumphs over anything else. Hell, I'd argue that what made so many people tune into wrestling during the 90's was the fact that they knew when they got to school or work the next morning that's what would be water cooler stuff. They watched because they knew everybody else is watching.

I realise the UFC/TNA comparisons might not register well with a lot of people, but I believe there's merit to it. The people who talked wrestling at the water cooler in the 90's have gone on to other things like MMA. MMA is the new wrestling. UFC is the new WWF/WCW. The UFC guys are the NEW guys who can walk into any club and everybody knows who they are. I hate to say it, but if wrestling wants to stay relevant, they need to follow a simular pattern of promotion that UFC uses to adapt to the new form of audience.

So you have to ask what has changed since then. Has WWE REALLY hurt things so badly that the wrestling buisiness has lost more than half the viewers? Has WWE really changed? Has the buisiness really changed THAT much? If not, then maybe what's changed isn't the buisiness, but the audience. Would you agree? If not, I'm curious to why they stopped watching.

I think, in all, what should be analysed here is not the small things like how many minutes should be devoted to fake fighting or how many minutes should be devoted to fake storylines. The questions that need to be asked must be on a much larger scale. We're looking at things from a micro-perspective instead of a macro-perspective. Think big picture.

The real questions should be "where did wrestling's fans go", "why did they go?", and "how do we get them back?". I don't hate Vince Russo. I own his book Forgiven, and I think he's a good human being. With that said, his current storylines and booking (or at least TNA's storylines and booking, however many of those were his doing) have yet to bring those fans back. That's a fact, and I wish it weren't.

So where did they go? If they, as human beings, have matured, do they go to a more "mature" product like MMA? Can wrestling re-brand itself into something more mature to get that generation of fans back? Because clearly this generation of fans is not willing to tune in like the last generation, nor are they willing to fork over money for a PPV like the last generation.

If it does mean making wrestling more "mature" does this mean less storylines? You see, what I'm getting at here is that wrestling must evolve with what is "cool". Wrestling in the 90's was "cool", but it was ONLY cool because it had the nerve to evolve with it's audience from a reserved, family oriented show, to a counter-culture, edgy style that at the time was seen with things like South Park. Wrestling was a perfect symbol for entertainment of the 90's. But wrestling today is still stuck in the 90's. It hasn't continued to evolve with it's audience or the evolve in time to bring in a new audience.

Wrestling today is dieing for what Vince Russo helped do in the 90's. To re-define wrestling and throw it smack dab in the center of what society is. Much like what Vince did to take a wrestling product stuck in the 80's and bring it to the 90's, wrestling needs somebody to take what's stuck in the 90's and bring it to the new millenium. In a fit of irony, they have to change Russo's work to do so.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd like you to tell me WHY I'm wrong. I have no problem being educated by somebody if I'm truly in the wrong.

 

[BallsBallsBalls]

UFC's in your backyard Glenn and your watching it at a sports bar?

 

[Marty2Hotty]

That zandrax guy is totally clueless Glenn. He never knew what he was talking about. I squashed him on the other forums and you can do the same on these forums. Back during the ATtitude era days, peopel would talk about the segment where McMahon was hit with a frying pan, Sable's tits, Val Venis, all the comedy, Stone Cold thrown off a cliff.. All the entertainment segments, everyone would talk about during school. They may talk about Goldberg squashing his opponents, but never would they talk about a great 20 minute workrate match

The only time they praised a match was King of the Ring 99 when Mankind got thrown off the cage onto the tables.. and through the cage from a chair by the Undertaker.

That's what the average person talks about. Buyrates shot through the roof because WWF was the talk of the town. Nobody is going to think wrestling is real in the 21st century unless you have stupid fans on the net who want to think it's real.

People want to generally be entertained when they watch television: this includes comedy, great drama, good dialogue, sex appeal. That's wrestling. that's the difference between a Russo show vs a WWE show..

Nobody is going to talk about wrestling if you're giving them fake long wrestling matches that look fake and dont have anything worth talking about.

 

[highly_evolved_03]

That zandrax guy is totally clueless Glenn. He never knew what he was talking about. I squashed him on the other forums and you can do the same on these forums. Back during the ATtitude era days, peopel would talk about the segment where McMahon was hit with a frying pan, Sable's tits, Val Venis, all the comedy, Stone Cold thrown off a cliff.. All the entertainment segments, everyone would talk about during school. They may talk about Goldberg squashing his opponents, but never would they talk about a great 20 minute workrate match

The only time they praised a match was King of the Ring 99 when Mankind got thrown off the cage onto the tables.. and through the cage from a chair by the Undertaker.

That's what the average person talks about. Buyrates shot through the roof because WWF was the talk of the town. Nobody is going to think wrestling is real in the 21st century unless you have stupid fans on the net who want to think it's real.

People want to generally be entertained when they watch television: this includes comedy, great drama, good dialogue, sex appeal. That's wrestling. that's the difference between a Russo show vs a WWE show..

Nobody is going to talk about wrestling if you're giving them fake long wrestling matches that look fake and dont have anything worth talking about.

I'm not saying your not partially right, because you make a lot of good points. But My uncle who had never watched a wrestling match in his life was at my house hanging out when i ordered the victory road ppv. He couldn't believe the shit that the x division guys were doing in the x division cup match with the 4 teams (the opening match). That match had him sitting and watching the entire ppv because he was hoping he could see stuff like that in the rest of the matches. If you put on wrestling that good I actually think it could draw.

I was loosing my mind at some of the shit speed/muscle were doing and I thought I had pretty much seen it all when it comes to wrestling.

The episode of impact leading in after the Slammiversary ppv was the best wrestling show I have seen since the attitude era. Not because of any backstage segments. I can't even remember any of the backstage segments. It had Kaz vs Somoa Joe for the world title as the OPENING MATCH. Every single match on the episode was awesome. There wasn't a boring moment in any of the matches. IT HAD GOOD WRESTLING.

My room-mates worship anything WWE and never miss a RAW OR SMACKDOWN, but wont even watch 5 minutes of impact because of all the 'knockoff' gimmicks (Abyss, Eric Young, Sharkboy, Jay Lethal, Petey Williams). It gives the impression your watching a 'second rate' league. if you've got wrestlers trying to rehash what was sucessful in the 80's and 90's, it just looks lame. The storylines TNA come up with are turning people off. You've got the best wrestler in the world Kurt Angle. You shouldn't need to put him in any storylines. Just give him an hour and let him put on a match his way. Just like the x division cup match drew my uncle in. If the wrestling is that good people will become hooked. If TNA had AJ and Angle do the match they had for hard justice but put it on an episode of impact. People would be going apeshit in their loungerooms. That match was insane. It had the best storytelling I've seen in a long time. If TNA built up a reputation for having matches of that quality every week, the ratings would climb. TNA don't need to be spending crazy amounts of money on Foley, Sting, Nash or Team 3d. They need good wrestlers.

The ratings haven't gone up for a long time. Early this year impact was rating 1.3. Now it's rounded up to 1.1 on a GOOD week. The storylines are more redicilous than ever before. The 1.0 is TNA'S core audience who have proven they will pretty much watch every week. TNA should try and go after the wrestling fans, not the soap opera viewers that may happen to be channel surfing. They can't do any worse than they've been doing right?

 

[Marty2Hotty]

Yeah, even Vince Russo marks out to some of the x division guys. I mark out to some of AJ's moves too. But the match has to be paced in a way that is exciting with lots of stuff going on to make the action worth noting and talking about. Some of it is good, but the stuff that gets people talking are the other stuff. I'm talking about the people who watch TV for TV and not for wrestlin gmatches

Vince has said this before. How many times can you watch the same match before you have already seen it before. what Russo tries to always do is do different characters, stories that people haven't seen and lure the people who would never be seen watching wrestling - and getting them enjoying it

The people that say they like wrestling now are closet wrestling fans because it's the same predictable bullshit. We all have seen the same wrestling match over and over again. What Russo wrote in WWF with Austin, Rock, and just the entire direction was take it to the adult direction and nobody was ashamed to say they liked wrestling anymore. It was liked by everyone and people understood it was a soap opera and everyone embraced the direction it took... It was so controversial that people would question the content on the show, but it got people talking - the characters, what they did, what they said.. every week they pushed it further and further and it was the talk of the town

Even the nWo didn't get everyone talking to that extent and it worked. I'm not sure what wrestling needs but it needs people talking.. and the same shit we have seen and trying to fool people who know its fake and make them go it's real is NOT going to work because nobody is going to believe it. it's not going to get people talking.. if it's just a serious wrestling show where the wrestlers are just talking about wanting the belts. It's the same old same old.

I dont think the best RoH-type X DIvision matches will get the masses talking. Nobody apart from the people online will give a shit because to the masses, it is still boring bullshit that doesn't amount to anything. Sure they're atheletic but people will jsut be thinking, why do i care about the stuff in between if this entire match is scripted. We want to see the outcome, what happens, what the characters will do or say. If the emotion is so high for a story, yeah, the match may have a lot of heat and fans would react. But if it's just x diviison guys fighting for the sake of it, nobody is going to care man

My room-mates worship anything WWE and never miss a RAW OR SMACKDOWN

Wait.. Back up.. your roommates don't represent the masses.. Most of the poeple that used to watch wrestling back in teh 90s dont watch anymore. The fact that your roommates watch Raw/Smackdown make them the loyal die hard fans. I think you'd have to pay me to sit through an entire Raw or Smackdown. Or I would have to have absolutely nothing better to do.

The funny thing is I won't watch any of Raw or Smackdown and would watch Impact over any of it. I dont think TNA has any "second rate" aspect. I mean, you have Sting, Kurt, Christian, Rhino, 3D, VKM, Booker T, Steiner, Nash, Jarrett for the recognizable names. You have AJ, Abyss, Joe, PJB (who are entertaining), RnR, and so many other guys that have good talent

Of course you have to put wrestlers in storylines. Why would you just make Angle anotehr wrestler when he's the highest paid guy on the roster than can cut the mic, entertain comedy/serious and wrestle. What makes a "wrestling match" good? The actual bookings and what happens. It's not just put two wrestlers in the ring for 20 minutes and let them work it out themselves, because contrary to what you think, the masses are not going to sit through a long match just because some people online worship Yugi Nagata vs Kurt Angle.

If TNA built up a reputation for having matches of that quality every week, the ratings would climb.

Have you been watching/ They build to their main event all the time. And what you said is bullshit... ratings won't climb just based on wrestling matches.. even good wrestling matches.. People don't watch just for the wrestling matches otherwise, as a reporter once said, RoH would be selling out arenas and would be extremely profitable by now.

TNA has gotten highest demos in 18-49M a month or two for 2 hour show, but yeah, they're at 1.5 million viewers and have been for quite some time. In other ratings news, WWE Raw this week has dropped to 3.0.

The 1.0 is TNA'S core audience who have proven they will pretty much watch every week. TNA should try and go after the wrestling fans,

What the hell are you talking about? The 'wrestling fans" are already watching every single damn week.

The way to expand your audience to get people who aren't necessarily watching for the wrestling to get them to enjoy your productg. That's why TNA has turned a profit in teh past year. Their TV show helped them sell many tixat house shows, PPVs outside orlando and merchandise. They couldn't do any of these in the asylum.

Wrestling fans will watch to see a sting or angle.. and they watched throghout the attitude era and wcw/nWo. What made the attitude era skyrocket in ratings and buys and every revenue stream they had at the time was their product.. and the word of mouth..

TNA needs the same type of publicity and word of mouth.... and a direction that catches on to the masses in 2008

---

In regards to Glenn's most recent column from 9/9/2008:

http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.php?articleid=223015176

His new article didn't do much for me. but i liked the paragraph:

*Jeff Hamlin should be fired from his job reviewing Impact! from wrestlingobserver.com. He thinks that the angle is already blown because the fans cheered Sting the first two weeks. Here's a news flash, Mr. Hamlin. Maybe every single fan that watches wrestling doesn't surf the insider news sites or subscribe to the dirt sheets. Maybe they don't get the spoilers. Maybe the first time they know anything about what's going to happen on Impact is when they turn the tv on at 9 pm thursday night. Maybe they don't want Sting to turn heel. Maybe when he gave those promos they cheered because he's been a baby face for so long that the fans still want him to be a good guy. Maybe if you wait to fully turn him it will mean more. Critics should never speak for the fans, because they're not fans. They're just people that think they're smarter than the bookers.

I totally agree with that about Sting. I mean, i didn't read Hamlin's review.. but the guy must be an idiot if he doesn't get the fan reaction for Sting for an angle that has started. I know if I was there live, I'd still cheer.. and be kinda surprised "hmm... i'm intrigued at where this is going....." i agree that critics think they're smarter than the bookers.. when they dont know shit. this applies to Wade "Kevin Nash's 2 minute segment in a 15 minute quarter lost 24,560 viewers, which is why Kevin Nash should not be on the show anymore" Keller and Meltzer.

Glenn's a big fan of 24 i guess. 24 has been on and off for me... I think the first 13 episodes of 24 Season One represents what 24 is about - the best stuff. Season 5 was very strong too with the president logan..

*Wow! Almost forgot to talk about UFC! There's really no analyzation to be made about Evans-Liddell. When two bare knuckle fighters stand up and throw, someone's bound to get their head taken off. But how about Brock Lesnar getting ready to become the UFC's biggest draw after he beats Couture? UFC really is nothing like wrestling. When two guys wrestle you cheer, and clap, and chant "This is Awesome!" and other things, but when two guys fight your heart races. As long as UFC hangs around, it's going to be very difficult for fans to FEEL emotion for professional wrestlers like they FEEL for the guys in the octagon. It was truly sad watching Liddell get knocked out. The sports bar i was at just felt like the energy got sucked out of it. The closest thing I've ever seen to that reaction was when Booker T beat me for the TV title, and Disco fans across the globe hung their heads in shame.

UFC is pretty hot right now. I don't really watch... but wrestling had all that emotion when Austin would be in the ring with McMahon, or Hart Foundation cut their Canad apromos.. Hell, even WCW 2000's new blood storyline got the fans riled up and did it well...

 

[Zandrax]

I admit that I personally think realistic matches paired with human drama storylines will work, but I am only one opinion. That's why I'm saying reach out to the fans that watch and get their opinion on what it would take to get them to purchase PPVs.

 

[TheRottingCorpseofWCW]

Disco, you're the worst kind of person. You come on the Internet, bash the audience you're trying to reach and then expect everyone to kiss your ass. While that may work for the Marty2Hottys of the world, it doesn't for the sane human being. You and your personall troll flame Zandrax and anyone else for offering to help your company. Christ, if you didn't want the feedback, then why the holy hell did you sign up for these boards? To bask in the glow of your public? If you're just going to belittle everyone who has an idea on how to improve TNA, then shit, you should have just stayed in your ivory tower with your Vince Russo WWF ATTITUDE shrine and pomade.

Re: people telling you how to do your job. Sure, you can come tell me and everyone here how to do our jobs. But the question is... do you know anything about what all of us do? That's the difference. You wouldn't know jack shit about what I or most other people here for a living, but we know a little something about what you do for a living. We all watch WRESTLING and we all know what we like. We're also not dumb. We've seen what has drawn money over the course of the business' history, not just for a few fleeting years between 1998 and 2000. Yeah, we may not know everything of what goes on backstage, but unlike you, we don't refuse to see the writing on the wall. You mock Zandrax's anecdotal evidence, but I bet you everyone here arguing with the brick wall that is you could provide something like that as well. I know I can. We know more than you think we do, and I'm willing to say we know more than you do about what might make money.

Oh, but that's right, we don't know how much money TNA makes. Oh yeah, but what we do know is that you guys draw 0.9-1.0 ratings for Impact and get something like 50K buys for your PPVs (and that's generous). If you're happy with that, fine, but when you look out there and you see that the WWE is STILL getting in the 3s for ratings (while low, it still triples yours) and getting AT THE VERY LEAST 300K buys for their PPVs. Let that sink in for a second. Shouldn't the goal of a company the size and scope of yours want to have comparable numbers to the market leader instead of being happy with 1.0 and 50K? Unless your ticket prices are that much higher and yoru PPV rates are that much higher, you can't be making as much money. Shit, with the contracts you're throwing around, I'm wondering how much profit is being brought in.

Yeah, but continue to act like none of us know what we're talking about. Jackass.

The point is your company is imitating what the market leader did OVER 10 YEARS AGO to get on top and your numbers, quite frankly, blow donkey balls. Meanwhile, that same market leader has gone ahead and gone back to a more traditional booking style. Sure, they've kept elements, but they're still LEADING THE MARKET. Meanwhile, you keep sitting there behind your computer and shooting down everyone here for their ideas. Here's an idea, why don't you listen? If not to us, then why not take the time to get a sampling of what YOUR AUDIENCE thinks? What they WANT to see? Because God forbid a company ever think about the people who line their pockets. Coke, Pepsi, Microsoft... every fucking big company out there that makes your profit margins look like absolute jokes, use surveys and feedback to help shape their decisions... why not TNA? Because you think you know much more than us? Hello, elitism? That's the quickest way to quick bankruptcy.

But once again, what do I know? I'm just a snooty-Internet fan. Christ. If you hated us so much, why come into our arena? You're a joke and a disgrace, and the only person in this thread more pathetic than you is your ass-clinging dingleberry Marty2Hotty.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Ive read quite a few posts on here bashing the WWE because of their ratings going down or staying still the last few years. I think thats unfair to the WWE because they lost so much talent due to various things unlike TNA. When they were drawing those high ratings they had Austin, The Rock, Foley, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Christian and Booker T among others so you got to expect a ratings drop and a few of those actually went to TNA. They lost all that talent yet still have good ratings(in comparable to other cable shows) and as far as I know they draw solid attendence figures. They also didnt add any household names since then other then HBK(Im counting him because he really wasnt around from 98-01 because of injury). Every other wrestler that has really made an impact that wasnt around in the Attitude era has been made by the WWE. Its not like they are or were going out and signing proven household names the last few years to try and boost ratings unless you want to count Jericho last year. So I think that shows that the WWE is doing something right and still appeals to alot of fans. They have done especially well pushing new talent the past few years. Sorry I know this post isnt about TNA I just figure I would chime in and stick up for the WWE.

 

[gg inferno]

This is true, but is there evidence to the contrary? I'm curious as to what research or surveys you know of (either from TNA or WCW) that back up what you say about casual fans wanting storylines over the actual wrestling. If so, I'm curious as to what kind of storylines they like (and I believe this is more important than not), and how old the surveys/research is. I'm not calling you a liar, I am just wondering how you can be so certain of what I like in a wrestling product.

All of my friends who either watch wrestling casually or not at all tend to say that the storylines are what prevent them from watching. To be fair there are also friends who call the wrestling aspect "gay" (for both MMA and Pro Wrestling), but they're not going to watch your product regardless.

I genuinly believe that storylines CAN attract casual fans, but only the right kind of storylines, you know? The general audience (especially the youth) tend to go towards what's "cool" and that ultimately triumphs over anything else. Hell, I'd argue that what made so many people tune into wrestling during the 90's was the fact that they knew when they got to school or work the next morning that's what would be water cooler stuff. They watched because they knew everybody else is watching.

I realise the UFC/TNA comparisons might not register well with a lot of people, but I believe there's merit to it. The people who talked wrestling at the water cooler in the 90's have gone on to other things like MMA. MMA is the new wrestling. UFC is the new WWF/WCW. The UFC guys are the NEW guys who can walk into any club and everybody knows who they are. I hate to say it, but if wrestling wants to stay relevant, they need to follow a simular pattern of promotion that UFC uses to adapt to the new form of audience.

So you have to ask what has changed since then. Has WWE REALLY hurt things so badly that the wrestling buisiness has lost more than half the viewers? Has WWE really changed? Has the buisiness really changed THAT much? If not, then maybe what's changed isn't the buisiness, but the audience. Would you agree? If not, I'm curious to why they stopped watching.

I think, in all, what should be analysed here is not the small things like how many minutes should be devoted to fake fighting or how many minutes should be devoted to fake storylines. The questions that need to be asked must be on a much larger scale. We're looking at things from a micro-perspective instead of a macro-perspective. Think big picture.

The real questions should be "where did wrestling's fans go", "why did they go?", and "how do we get them back?". I don't hate Vince Russo. I own his book Forgiven, and I think he's a good human being. With that said, his current storylines and booking (or at least TNA's storylines and booking, however many of those were his doing) have yet to bring those fans back. That's a fact, and I wish it weren't.

So where did they go? If they, as human beings, have matured, do they go to a more "mature" product like MMA? Can wrestling re-brand itself into something more mature to get that generation of fans back? Because clearly this generation of fans is not willing to tune in like the last generation, nor are they willing to fork over money for a PPV like the last generation.

If it does mean making wrestling more "mature" does this mean less storylines? You see, what I'm getting at here is that wrestling must evolve with what is "cool". Wrestling in the 90's was "cool", but it was ONLY cool because it had the nerve to evolve with it's audience from a reserved, family oriented show, to a counter-culture, edgy style that at the time was seen with things like South Park. Wrestling was a perfect symbol for entertainment of the 90's. But wrestling today is still stuck in the 90's. It hasn't continued to evolve with it's audience or the evolve in time to bring in a new audience.

Wrestling today is dieing for what Vince Russo helped do in the 90's. To re-define wrestling and throw it smack dab in the center of what society is. Much like what Vince did to take a wrestling product stuck in the 80's and bring it to the 90's, wrestling needs somebody to take what's stuck in the 90's and bring it to the new millenium. In a fit of irony, they have to change Russo's work to do so.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd like you to tell me WHY I'm wrong. I have no problem being educated by somebody if I'm truly in the wrong.

you nailed it on the head. trust me, and this comes from someone who worked during the attitude era, and works behind the scenes now. back then, the guys were just way more cool and charismatic than the workers today. i'm there when we're backstage cutting promos. alot of the guys with in ring talent just do not have that "IT" factor, and the casual fan that wants to connect with them can tell. the story lines have toned down, also, because wrestling got scared when advertisers started pulling out of shows where wrestlers started getting their dicks chopped off, even though the arenas were packed with parents and their kids. wrestlings right back where it was before the monday night wars, so we may just look back at the boom period as an anomoly.

 

[gg inferno]

UFC's in your backyard Glenn and your watching it at a sports bar?

i'm in orlando

 

[absent]

you nailed it on the head. trust me, and this comes from someone who worked during the attitude era, and works behind the scenes now. back then, the guys were just way more cool and charismatic than the workers today. i'm there when we're backstage cutting promos. alot of the guys with in ring talent just do not have that "IT" factor, and the casual fan that wants to connect with them can tell.

For me, it's great talkers that make a great weekly TV show and make me want to tune in the next week. But then it's great wrestlers who deliver on those build ups that make great PPVs.

And I guess that's where great managers can fill the gaps for the guys that aren't great talkers. I remember Bobby Heenan saying how TV matches in the old days used to be the toilet brakes for viewers and it was the interviews that people wanted to see whilst watching TV. Maybe too many good matches on TV these days makes the promos the toilet brakes and this even detracts from building the storylines in a viewers attention 'cos of that. It could never go back to only squash matches on TV, but he does have a good point on how in that format they could hold a viewers attention over months of a fued without the two guys hardly every coming face to face.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

you nailed it on the head. trust me, and this comes from someone who worked during the attitude era, and works behind the scenes now. back then, the guys were just way more cool and charismatic than the workers today. i'm there when we're backstage cutting promos. alot of the guys with in ring talent just do not have that "IT" factor, and the casual fan that wants to connect with them can tell. the story lines have toned down, also, because wrestling got scared when advertisers started pulling out of shows where wrestlers started getting their dicks chopped off, even though the arenas were packed with parents and their kids. wrestlings right back where it was before the monday night wars, so we may just look back at the boom period as an anomoly.

I don't particularly agree that people don't have the 'It' factor right now. Because The Rock had no talent when he started as Rocky Maivia.. he was a goof that smiled all the time and tagged the fans. Even when Russo started writing him as heel in the Nation, his FIRST promos were atrocious. With great writing and situations written for him, he started getting better, cockier, and BECAME "The Rock". I watched it all. He was brutal

Guys like AJ Styles. Did you see him when he was between Kurt and Christian? He was entertaining as hell. Joe is all serious, but maybe some Austin-esque humour can have him be liked a little more. I think it all comes down to the writing and how far you're willing to push the characters

Even the way Lance Storm in WCW was booked. HE was a boring guy but when you gave him good situations, 3 titels, and the Canada gimmick, he got a SUPER huge pop when he came to Canada. Normal canadians with no gimmicks wouldn't get that.

Positively Kanyon was just Mortis before.. when he was positive.. he was entertaining. Even The Cat, he was hilarious.. and gets huge pops because he was entertaining.

It's all about letting these guys focus on being more entertaining, and writing good stuff for them to interact with the fans. Most of the entertainment TNA is doing is done via pre-tape now for the most part. but if you let these guys just go out there, and do more in-ring segments, interact with teh fans, in time they'll get better. They also need Russo just guiding these guys and making them cooler and more charismatic. It doesn't happen overnight.. and with good writing and badass dialogue/situations, everyone can be a star (for the most part). I remmber russo did interviews that he had trouble getting someone like Sargeant AWOL over.. but he never blamed the wrestler.. he said anything like that should be blamed on the writer. Some guys are more difficult to get over.. but yeah, i think people need to talk like normal people. Attitude era: DX, Austin, they talked like normal people. Now, wrestlers talk like how you'd expect a pro wrestler to talk when they're on the mic. it's predictable adn fans have difficulty relating

I dont know what it'll take to bring wrestling back up but I agree that wrestling is back to what it was before the monday night wars.. and the direction the online marks want will take it back a decade - which is bad

 

[Motown Revived]

you nailed it on the head. trust me, and this comes from someone who worked during the attitude era, and works behind the scenes now. back then, the guys were just way more cool and charismatic than the workers today. i'm there when we're backstage cutting promos. alot of the guys with in ring talent just do not have that "IT" factor, and the casual fan that wants to connect with them can tell. the story lines have toned down, also, because wrestling got scared when advertisers started pulling out of shows where wrestlers started getting their dicks chopped off, even though the arenas were packed with parents and their kids. wrestlings right back where it was before the monday night wars, so we may just look back at the boom period as an anomoly.

That's actually a perfectly acceptable arguement in my opinion.

But if we're living in a post-Janet-Superbowl world where advertisers and censors are a little on edge. If we're living in a post-Rock/Austin world where wrestlers would rather learn a 630 splash through a flaming barbed wire table than how to cut an effective promo. If we live in that world, then why not change the product to better utilize this generation of wrestler's better qualities, and try to hide their weaker qualities? Why not change the product to successfully avoid an advertiser's annoying complaints or threats?

Because if we're using a concept that's better fit for the 90's society (looser regulations on content, a better, more charismatic batch of talent to deal with), then it seems kind of unfair to keep trying to pull something out of a wrestler that isn't really there, right? It seems unfair to use a product that must conserve itself just to make it through the censors. Because then you're just throwing a watered down version of what was. Watered down "charisma" in wrestlers doing watered down storylines. It becomes diminished in force and effectiveness. If you're putting out a watered down Attitude era, then you can expect watered down attitude era ratings, no?

So what about a natural progression for wrestling? If wrestlers are better workers than talkers, then utilize that. If Chris Sabin can't cut a promo, but can throw out a match that has fans going crazy, then why put him in a position where he's forced to show his weakness and try to hide what he does well?

Onto a point I made earlier, which is the "coolness" factor. I'm a general believer that fans and viewers will not care if they watch 2 hours of the purest wrestling or 2 hours of the longest storyline segment ever, so long as it's "cool".

So what makes something cool? The clothes? If Abyss walked out to the ring with an Affliction shirt and a tapout hat, would that make him cool? How famous somebody is? If WWE hired Paris Hilton, would that make the WWE cool?

I think what it comes down to is the atmosphere. I mean, have you ever scrolled through the TV channels and found a local television sports show. The low-budget kind with crappy lighting and one or two cameras in the studio, with two old guys who sit at a table and talk about Ay-see-see football? Why don't you stop to watch it? They realistically don't say many things differently than what you find on SportsCenter, right? They say simular things, might report the same news, but nobody wants to tune in. Why? Because the atmosphere. When you watch it you think, "okay...there's no way anybody else is watching this right now" and you change the channel. You know that just from 2 seconds of seeing the atmosphere in their studio. What about a local MMA promotion? Who goes there, but MMA nuts? Your casual UFC fan isn't going to, because the local promotion isn't "cool" like UFC and doesn't have the same atmosphere. His buddies at work and school aren't going to be talking nor will they care about some local MMA promotion.

I think the same can be said for TNA iMPACT!. If your crowd looks terribly depressed and are sitting on their hands at key points to the show when they should be screaming, ooing, and aaing, then your show is basically becoming the equivelent of that small-budget, dimly lit, local sports show.

But if you look at segments like Angle's TNA debut where he headbutted Samoa Joe and the crowd went into a frenzy, you felt like you were watching something special and your show, for those 5 minutes, were the best television that a viewer could decide to watch. Nobody would watch how the fans react and say, "okay, there's something better on".

It rides on the atmosphere, and I hate to say it, but the atmosphere in the iMPACT! Zone is dull and faded on a heavily storyline influenced show. Fans don't explode for a storyline twist like they used to. Especially in a place like Orlando, where you have to entertain the same fans week in and week out. Personally, and I can only say this as a wrestling fan, I'd like to see a bit of change in the TNA product to pander to what the fans want, and I'll be honost, I think it's more geared to an aggressive style of wrestling than storylines. The change doesn't mean "fire Russo" or "fire TNA creative", I would just like to see them try something a little fresh and more up to speed with what society likes.

Just my opinion. I'd like to see if you tend to agree or disagree.

 

[absent]

I dont know what it'll take to bring wrestling back up but I agree that wrestling is back to what it was before the monday night wars.. and the direction the online marks want will take it back a decade - which is bad

Totally agree with that. And I don't know enough to even guess how it could be done. I can't really remember seeing a great match of wrestling on regular TV in the 80s (as far back as I watching, can't comment on before). All I remember is the TV shows contantly building to a confrontation between two wrestlers being and mainly comprised of squash matches and promos, but I loved it. But then I really don't want to see it go back that way. If you're not going to go back that way, there's no way you can have loads of clean finishes on regular TV and still build a fued to a "proper" confrontation. I don't really know what these "marks" expect, it would kill the TV/PPV format wrestling has become whilst replacing it with something that might work as single events/shows but would make a very bad TV "series", and making a progressing series to keep viewers week to week is all what TV is about. It's not like regular sports where people have a personal emotional investment in their home team and keep the close attachment because of that.

edit: another thought on that local home team thing.... yeah that might have been applicable in the territory days of wrestling, where you had the local guys and a rotar of other guys brought in from other territories to challange them on a locally touring show. Since mainstream wrestling went totally national, there can't be that same type of built in emotional investment. I don't see how TV wrestling could realistically go back to past ways of booking where every match is a 'proper sporting contest' with a resolute finish.

 

[absent]

Onto a point I made earlier, which is the "coolness" factor. I'm a general believer that fans and viewers will not care if they watch 2 hours of the purest wrestling or 2 hours of the longest storyline segment ever, so long as it's "cool".

I think you've made a really good point here. But I'd argue that trying to make something get big mainstream ratings and keeping some "cool" factor is in the longterm a self-defeating thing by definition. Generally "cool" equates "alternative" and as soon as it becomes so big is ceases being "alternative". And I think that's why the Attitude era could never have lasted. WWE broke attitude to the mainstream where ECW could never have because they had the slick money production values that wouldn't instantly seem alien to a mainstream audience but which would allow them a window of time where they could present to the audience an illusion that something "alternative" was happening. ROH in it's present form could never achieve that, WWE may be way to big to ever make that again. TNA is in the position however that they could try something of a similar coupe. They have the production values but they're still small enough to pull off a "cool" revolution for a period of time.

 

[BallsBallsBalls]

Glenn, what are your thoughts on Kevin Sullivan as a booker? I recently saw a in depth analysis video of Kevin Sullivan going into detail about the end of WCW as well as the booking of it. I think he has a great mind and that TNA could really benefit from him being on the booking team or as a consultant.

 

[Slack]

Ok I have to ask this. It is something that I've been wondering about since reading Disco's stuff and also Mark Madden. In one article you say that the IWC is ruining the wrestling business, then you say they don't matter. So which one is it? If they don't matter, they why acknowledge them in your articles?

 

[Just-Dun Biased]

Glenn Like to get your thoughts on Angle's interview with ESPN

"ESPN recently picked Kurt Angle's brain on a number of subjects ranging from his early days in WWE to his current run on top in TNA. You can check out the whole thing here. Below are some highlights:

On gimmick matches in TNA: Way too many gimmick matches. There are some people in TNA who think all these gimmick matches is what makes TNA innovative. Wrestling 101 is what makes TNA innovative, though, because of the innovative styles they naturally have. They do stuff that I didn't think was possible. Let them do that. They don't need a chair or a ladder to do that, they can do that on their own. I've struggled a little bit due to the fact that we've had too many gimmick matches. We need to go back to the roots of TNA and have straight up, traditional one-on-one matches, no gimmicks, and I guarantee we'll get more viewers and the crowd will like the matches better.
On painkillers: I went through a very difficult time for painkillers and now it's behind me three and a half years and I'll never touch them again. But I had a hard time with that. It was a very difficult time for me. I was taking so many and the thing is, it didn't hurt my performance in the ring and I was making money for the company, but it hurt my marriage and I wasn't really there for my kids. I was always sleeping, passed out or on the road traveling taking painkillers to keep myself going. I backed myself into a corner and it's something I'll never do again. Then finally, when I got over it, about a year later I realized this schedule was just too hard for me. Vince couldn't book me part time, he wished he could and he really wanted to. Vince has a good heart, but he thought when he released me that I was just going to take six months off and come back. But I knew I just couldn't go back there and work that schedule.

On what he does when wrestlers hit him too stiff: I just tell them to ease up. If they do it a second time, there is no third time. I don't care what we're doing, if we're in the middle of a spot, they hit me stiff again, double leg takedown and put them in a choke hold. That's my way of letting them know they need to ease up. Then we slowly work our way out, hit the ropes, and get back to the spot. I can stop a match that quick and I will to let them know that ain't happening again. I'm alright to the guys. I don't want to be a jerk. I want them all to succeed and I want to do my best to make them all look good out there, but I'm in it for the long haul and want these guys to learn. Hopefully I can teach them"

Maybe its not just the internet marks. Says alot when one of your top stars is saying this

 

[Zandrax]

I don't particularly agree that people don't have the 'It' factor right now. Because The Rock had no talent when he started as Rocky Maivia.. he was a goof that smiled all the time and tagged the fans. Even when Russo started writing him as heel in the Nation, his FIRST promos were atrocious. With great writing and situations written for him, he started getting better, cockier, and BECAME "The Rock". I watched it all. He was brutal

The Rock always had natural charisma. Yes his material sucked early on because McMahon was still stuck in a 1985 mentality. You can only credit the "writing" so far, because the talent has to be able to pull it off. And you can't deny that Rock puts his own spin on material.

Guys like AJ Styles. Did you see him when he was between Kurt and Christian? He was entertaining as hell.

The problem with this is comedy figures don't draw on the main stage.

Joe is all serious, but maybe some Austin-esque humour can have him be liked a little more. I think it all comes down to the writing and how far you're willing to push the characters

Joe is nowhere near his potential. Joe's at his best when he just walks out, beats the shit out of people, and leaves. Oh give him the confident promo, but it was his badassedness that made him appealing.

Even the way Lance Storm in WCW was booked. HE was a boring guy but when you gave him good situations, 3 titels, and the Canada gimmick, he got a SUPER huge pop when he came to Canada. Normal canadians with no gimmicks wouldn't get that.

Yep. No way a Canadian trained by the Harts with a Canada tagline (which he had for years before WCW) would ever get a pop in Canada.

Don't forget that the response to this was to job him out cleanly not once, not twice, but three times in the same match. GENIUS!!!!*

Positively Kanyon was just Mortis before.. when he was positive.. he was entertaining. Even The Cat, he was hilarious.. and gets huge pops because he was entertaining.

Actually he was Kanyon, and had a pretty entertaining feud with Raven. Not sure why you find ripoffs of other characters entertaining.

Cat I will give you. Always loved him.

It's all about letting these guys focus on being more entertaining, and writing good stuff for them to interact with the fans. Most of the entertainment TNA is doing is done via pre-tape now for the most part. but if you let these guys just go out there, and do more in-ring segments, interact with teh fans, in time they'll get better. They also need Russo just guiding these guys and making them cooler and more charismatic. It doesn't happen overnight.. and with good writing and badass dialogue/situations, everyone can be a star (for the most part). I remmber russo did interviews that he had trouble getting someone like Sargeant AWOL over.. but he never blamed the wrestler.. he said anything like that should be blamed on the writer. Some guys are more difficult to get over.. but yeah, i think people need to talk like normal people. Attitude era: DX, Austin, they talked like normal people. Now, wrestlers talk like how you'd expect a pro wrestler to talk when they're on the mic. it's predictable adn fans have difficulty relating

I dont know what it'll take to bring wrestling back up but I agree that wrestling is back to what it was before the monday night wars.. and the direction the online marks want will take it back a decade - which is bad

Bottom line, if it's overly scripted it's going to look overly scripted. In this day and age of reality style, it has to look natural. Not a "character". And once again you are completely clueless to what you call the "marks". YOU my friend, are the one that wants to take it back a decade... though TNA does that themselves. People like myself also recognize that wrestling is in a rut, and it has to go into the 21st century. And in the 21st century, reality and believability is what's in. If it feels fake, it's not engrossed.

Curious what Glenn thinks on these statements, since it is his thread.

---------------

*no