Are You Serious? There are a lot of people who care for most of the characters in the wWe. your wondering how they get people in those seats? They get people in the seats because people are drawn in by their favourite characters that they want to see. If nobody cared for the characters, WWE would be out of business. If you watch Raw you'll see that JBL gets a lot of heat from the crowd. CM punk sure does get a reaction. Have you watched Raw lately or are you just assuming these things?
There's a "core" audience that will always be with WWE, and WWE is doing a "decent" enough job to retain those viewers. The last time I saw CM and JBL, they didn't get any reaction. Same with taht rhodes/diebiase team (world tag champs)
I probably saw a few snippets of Raw where Cole was beat up at the end of a match. very lame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty2Hotty
Latest column by Glenn Gilbertti is up 8/2/2008:
http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.ph...leid=219730350
I've read a bit about "Bryan Danielson", have never seen this guy wrestle. If he can't entertain on the mic or do great segments, he's worthless in North America, with the exception of people online. If they paid Glenn enough money, I think he would have done it. It would piss off a lot of online fans if you beat this guy haha
Glenn Gilberti just proved that internet fans like you will believe ANYTHING that's written or said on the internet.
What do you mean? I just said I never seen this danielson guy wrestle and with my knowledge of fans online loving RoH, if this guy can't entertain, he won't draw a dime to the mainstream fans.
I dont know if Glenn is telling the truth about the RoH calling him up or not.. but it doesn't sound farfetched that roh would want him to job and have glenn shake the winners' hand
but their opinions can be so overanalyzed and overinflated (they really do make things sound much worse than they really are) that their critiques start to become ridiculous
I think Glenn's column on how meltzer/keller would critique a show like Lost just nailed it. It seems as htough they over analyze the TNA ratings more than Raw, SD, ECW quarters - they're just out to crap on Russo/TNA lol
Not to sound like a TNA nuthugger, but can't they just watch these shows like a normal fan and not some internet smart mark.
The answer is no. Would you honestly take a column that gives star ratings to wrestling matches seriously?
I mean, while TNA's ratings haven't grown much, they have kept their audience so I can assume that the 1.0 to 1.2 million people watching on a weekly basis are actually entertained by TNA Impact. I hear that pwtorch.com is the worst as far as critiquing and dissecting TNA. I went to their site before and saw many "Why I Don't Watch TNA Impact" headlines.
That is the main reason I dont read their bullshit, or if i'm reading some "newz", i dont take them seriously at all because quite frankly i disagree with what they think.. and think the masses just dont think teh same way either. they invest time on talking/writing about TNA and talking about it every week.
YOu will never see me in a WWE section talking about their shows, because i can't sit through a full wwe show bcause it's so bad. To have me sit through a full raw/sd, i think someone would have to pay me. I think Russo was writing for 1wrestling (when he wasn't at TNA) and said he was getting paid to critique raw, he was going to write weekly columns about it. the column was so controversial, they had to take it down and he never wrote a raw column again.
They probably crapped on the attitude era based on the content they did every week, but that era quadrupled the ratings, buys, attedance ..
I just want to paste the entire paragraph that Gilbertti wrote on hamlin's "review" of the show
*Another fascinating Impact review from Jeff Hamlin of wrestlingobserver.com:
"The Big News: It was a Russo wet dream with enough angles to pound a normal man into submission."
"SUMMARY: Good lord was a cluttered show. Just trying to recap all of this makes me feel like Miguel Cotto in the 11th round Saturday night. There’s simply no way an ordinary fan can keep up with all of these angles."
I've been waiting for someone that writes for a pro wrestling insider website to actually go on record and try to speak for the "ordinary fan." Jeff Hamlin has obliged, and doesn't realize how condescending he has made himself sound. Jeff Hamlin thinks that wrestling fans that aren't "smart" must be morons, because there's no way that they can keep up with a show that has so many angles. Now we're talking about professional wrestling, not 24, CSI, or Law and Order.
Here's the problem with the Mr. Hamlin's of the world. I guess they want to be treated like Ebert with a certain degree of crediblity, but the bottom line is that they don't speak from an expert's point of view, because they really don't know that much about the business. There is no way that you can present a logical and reasonable argument to me that a guy that writes for an internet website that smartens up the fans for free, reveals spoilers, tells stories with partial accuracy, has never had a match, has never taken a bump(i'll stand corrected if he has) hates one of the writer's whom he's never had a conversation with or met(i'm assuming), or even knows one angle that he's responsible for on the show, that he would have any clue whatsoever what an "ordinary fan" can or cannot comprehend when they watch the wrestling show. The main problem is that most "ordinary fans" suspend disbelief when they watch wrestling. Most writers on internet websites can't suspend disbelief. Especially when they're watching it and assuming that the people that are won't be able to understand it. It'd be like watching Batman and half way throught the movie saying, "How's an imbecile supposed to understand the joker's plots? This movie is way overbooked."
Seriously, some of these guys just need to understand that they have no pulse on what the ordinary wrestling fan likes. And they also need to understand how stupid they sound when they can't watch a wrestling show without falling into a mindless state of confusion. I'd love to see Jeff Hamlin's review of an episode of 24: "WTF? The opening 8 minutes had 6 angles! Are these guys f'in kidding? Who could understand this?"
