Vince McMahon's Philosophy: "I Want the WWE to be Like UFC"

[Ambiguous Turd]

Well, this explains a lot. Well, at least it does to me, anyways. But maybe I was just slow to catch on to what Vince's intentions were, and why he's made the Creative changes to the product that he has over the years.

I had dinner with a friend last night, who has made a few contacts within WWE over the years. He would occasionally head out to Louisville and OVW several times a year, when it was ran by WWE. He would typically take pictures at their events, and do some photo shoots with some of the talent for them to utilize in their portfolios and to send out to wrestling magazines.

He told me during dinner that after a TV taping they did on one Wednesday, he was in earshot of a Developmental Talent meeting Paul Heyman was holding with the OVW talent. Apparently Heyman made a wise-cracking joke about his relationship with Stephanie, but didn't bury her or anything. He also didn't speak too highly about The Great Khali.

But at dinner, we were on the topic about today's wrestling, and he said that at this meeting, Paul Heyman made one memorable quote. He said that Heyman apparently told the talent ...

"Be ready. Because in a few years, you are going to see Vince transform the WWE into becoming 'more like' UFC. Mark my words."


Keeping in mind that this OVW talent meeting occurred around the middle of 2006, and people questioning today why the WWE has transformed since that time ... I think it all makes sense now. At least to me it does, anyway. This transformation in the product pretty much relates to almost all of the critiques and posts that I see people make when complaining about today's product.






1) Lack of characters and gimmicks

Essentially, these "characters" have simply become themselves ... some with nicknames ... some with no nicknames ... in "No Gimmick Needed" personalities. Very similar to UFC fighters with their nicknames, who obviously don't have gimmicks, either.


John Cena
Randy Orton
"The Animal" Batista
"The Game" Triple H
"The Gold Standard" Shelton Benjamin

None of those guys really have what you would call "gimmicks", in the traditional sense. They are just themselves with personalities.





2) More generic "storylines" (in many cases, no storylines at all. Just wrestling feuds/challenges.)

With the exception of a couple actual storylines here and there, today's storylines have essentially become more focused on the actual matches and in-ring competition, as opposed to the "soap opera based" storylines of the Attitude and Hogan Era.

As the general rule, title shots are more so now about the title, and competing for the prestige of wearing the title, as opposed to any outside factor.

So to people that complain about the stale storylines, it isn't the fault of the writers. The issue you have is with Vince's philosophy. He wants the storylines to be as realistic as possible, that primarily revolve around the action, itself. That is why the over-the-top storylines are gone.





3) More in-ring action on the shows

In a deviation from Vince's past formula, which used to be to make the weekly shows storyline-based to sell the PPV's, he now has more action on his shows than ever before. Match times have also been increased from what they were years ago, with Raw averaging around 8 minutes or so, and Smackdown matches going over 10 minutes.

The storylines to sell the PPV's and garner interest in feuds has taken a back step to the in-ring action. And now the in-ring action is being used to sell more in-ring action for the PPV's.





4) Elimination of Face/Heel Commentators

The gimmick character commentators have been eliminated in favor of commentators who simply call the action. Again, similar to real sports, all today's commentators do is call the action, with the color commentator occasionally providing some in-depth background on feuds and talent. The color commentator no longer argues with the Play by Play announcer, as you don't see it in UFC ... or any legitimate sport.

So when you want to complain about Jerry Lawler not being a Heel anymore, or providing stale commentary ... keep in mind that this has nothing to do with Lawler. Rather, it has everything to do with Vince McMahon telling Lawler to commentate in that fashion. Very similar to Eric Bischoff telling Bobby Heenan not to act like "The Brain", but rather to act like "John Madden".

Same thing was done to Tazz and Matt Striker. Their personalities were removed and they basically became analysts.





5) Placing an Intense Emphasis on the Quality of the Wrestling in the ring, over any other factor.

I can't remember a time when Vince has been so obsesses with the actual quality of wrestling in the ring, then today. He isn't harping on the storylines, the acting, or anything else so it seems, other than the quality of the action in the ring.

Before, we saw occasional screw ups in matches. Today, if you do one screw up in a match, your job is essentially on the line ... especially more so, if you are new. The pressure is seemingly unreal not to botch even one move, or risk losing your job.

My question is, "is this really necessary?" For a long time, I kept hearing about WWE souring on Shad Gasspard because they weren't happy with his wrestling ability. In all seriousness, is threatening Shad Gasspard with termination because he is an average worker, instead of an above average worker, really going to raise ratings? Is that the decision on whether someone flips the channel ... or is one's Creative Character and what they do with that character in a storyline the bigger factor that draws the fans in?

But again, we don't see anywhere near the same amount of pressure on other Creative areas of the company, like storylines and acting ability of the wrestlers to try to get themselves over.





6) Lead Talents incorporating more submission moves, as a "Signature Move"

Take their lead and marquee star John Cena for instance, utilizing the STF as his finish move.

An even better example is The Undertaker, in using the Devil's Triangle as a submission move, and even moving around the ring like a UFC fighter, as opposed to the classic Undertaker of old.

Then, we have CM Punk and the Anaconda Vice submission.





7) Creating a Submission-Based PPV

Actually, one could look back to when WCW began the concept of the Tap Out, as an acknowledgment of UFC's popularity.

However, as just reported a few days ago, we are now looking at a Submission-Themed PPV event to be created called "Breaking Point". Yet another nod to UFC fighting, which is entirely submission-based.





8) Lack of any Emphasis on Tag Team Wrestling

Obviously, there is no proof there is a direct relation with Vince virtually eliminating Tag Team wrestling from his product, and the fact that UFC does not have "Tag Team" bouts ... but it is a comparison.

Vince wants to market Singles Stars, and only Singles Stars ... just like UFC.





9) Elimination of Ringside Managers

I believe Vince views Managers as unnecessary Comedy, and a waste of money to pay at ringside. They aren't very realistic either. UFC does not utilize manager characters at ringside, so neither will Vince do it anymore, apparently.

And the two he does have, Ranjin Singh and Tony Atlas ... you barely even notice they are at ringside and have no significant involvement in any of the matches.

Again, this can perhaps be construed as adding to the realism in wanting the bouts to be perceived as "more real", without characters like this interfering at ringside.





10) Trying to Make the Officiating More Realistic

We went through a period in time where Vince was not even telling the Refs the finishes of the matches on House Shows ... since he wanted the action to appear more realistic.

I personally never had a problem with that, and thought it was an interesting experiment. Also at TV, they were apparently told the finishes, but also told to disqualify wrestlers if they didn't break holds by 5, to count the wrestler's shoulders to 3 if they didn't kick out in time, etc. I remember seeing two botched finishes as a result of that, over the years .... one involving Marcus Corvon not getting out of the ring by the count of 5 in a Tag Match (which was clearly not the finish of the match) and another with Mike Posey counting John Morrison's shoulders to the mat after the Miz missed his spot to come into the ring and break up the count.

All to make the product look more realistic.




And because of Vince taking his product in a more realistic, toned-down direction, this allowed him to make use of another added benefit in changing his product's rating to a PG rating, which he feels is more attractive to advertisers ... and less risky.

Contrary to what many fans think, I feel that the reason the way things are today is not because of the PG rating. Rather, I think the PG rating was simply something that resulted from this (apparent) new philosophy of Vince's.

When people scream at how boring the commentators are, how stale the storylines are, complain about there being no more gimmicks or interesting characters, yelling at the Creative Team, blaming Stephanie ... none of that matters. It isn't the Creative team's fault on any of that stuff. And nor is it Stephanie's fault.

Rather, assuming Heyman was correct when he said that "Vince wants WWE to be more like UFC", all of this comes from Vince McMahon, and his Philosophy of "Making the WWE to Look Like the UFC". Despite the fact that wrestling isn't a legitimate sport, Vince wants it to look like it is one, not only in terms of the action (which I take no issue with), but rather everything about the product .... the Storyline writing and even the talent, as well.


I will chime in with my thoughts down the road, but I am anxious to hear everyone else's thoughts on Heyman's quote, and if you feel like this is on target with why things are the way they are in today's WWE ... with Vince allegedly wanting his company to "Be More Like the UFC" and more so "like a real sport"?

And if that is the case, do you agree or disagree with that philosophy?

Do you want to see Vince transform the WWE into a scripted UFC, which he appears to have now been working on doing since the later part of 2006?

I do have to throw out a rhetorical question, though. If I wanted to watch a product that is "like the UFC", why don't I just watch the UFC?

 

[attila]

I love the idea. And I can tell you right now - I have begun to watch UFC instead of WWE and TNA. IMO the UFC does a better job of hyping its matches than any other promotion right now, it is the king of PPV, and after having to overcome so much scrutiny and resistance over the years due to the old regiment they are finally moving in leaps and bounds. The product is just a lot more polished than the WWE, and personally I don't see Vince ever going that route but I wish he would. I too am interested in seeing other people's opinions as I personally have been calling for this to happen. The video packages that the UFC makes (or even 24/7 on Showtime for boxing events) is a perfect example of how to build and hype an event. Nothing that the WWE does is that engaging. Mix this in with a few in-ring and backstage fights and the like and you have a great product. Amazingly enough, UFC storylines have been more entertaining than the WWE in recent months. So much controversy and competition and personal heat between the fighters. Its fantastic - and a perfect example of how "scripted television can never be more creatively affluent than real life".

I am personally sick of having to hide my head in shame when watching wrestling, nobody apart from my immediate family know that I even like wrestling. And why? Because of the crapfest of bullshit storylines, big monster sideshow freaks like Khali and candy cane dumb-ass characters like Santina and half the TNA locker. People without a respect for the art look at you weird, like "why would anyone with frontal lobe capacity actually watch that shit". If they took a little more care to make this sport look respectable, realistic and rid itself of all the toilet humor I wouldn't have to hide in shame anymore. I love this sport and I am sick of seeing Vince piss all over it.

In terms of the difference, people who watch wrestling get bored with a UFC product. The UFC in-ring product can be slow and downright dead. Wrestling is scripted, we can guarantee that every match is fantastic and action packed with over the top moves and deadly looking strikes through the use of stiff kicks and slaps etc.

I don't think its the in-ring that needs to change so much - but more so the presentation style. Wrestling needs to evolve and be presented differently.

 

[Henry Hill]

i really like the idea of this thread, however, i have to point out some problems with what you've pointed out. while i agree that wrestling is adapting to ufc in many ways, there are also some distinct differences between the two.

first while there is a lack of distinct character as you refer to orton, cena, hhh, batista, and several of the other top stars, there are still faces and heels.
vickie guerrero for example does not come close to being an unbiased promoter like dana white. maybe vince fancies himself in that role, but still the person in charge is an obnoxious caricature of a hispanic woman. and orton and his little twink porn entourage are despised and act like wrestling heels. the same goes for big show, the miz, and especially chris jericho.

two, there are still very ridiculous animated storylines. e.g. santina/vickie and matt hardy's injury angle. i'll admit these seem more the exception than the rule, but they exhist.

three, other than taker's submission, and cena's stf the other main event guys rarely if ever use submission based moves. cm punk and chris jericho are actually no longer using these subs and using the gts and codebreaker,respectively.

now having said that i really think that its true that wrestling is making that move. and thats really bad in my opinion. not that i don't like and respect ufc, but if i don't want soccer to turn into rugby just because it's similar. i like the over the top theatrics of wrestling and i think shying away from that will kill wwe. i don't like to talk about the "business of the business" but to me it doesn't make sense for a scripted entertainment company to fashion itself to compete with an actual major athletic competition. it'd be like a scripted football league trying to compete with the nfl, if heyman says "Be ready. Because in a few years, you are going to see Vince transform the WWE into becoming more like UFC. Mark my words." i say, "be ready you are going to see the wwe be completely beaten by the ufc, they may even have to tap."

sorry about the pun there. i'm just awful.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

I think you're right on the mark with this.

I've said to myself for years that the future of pro wrestling is to go a more UFC-styled direction.

With the popularity that UFC and other MMA organizations have enjoyed in this decade, it was only a matter of time before pro wrestling followed suit.

Look at ROH at least in it's earlier stages (I don't really watch ROH, I just read about it, but I haven't read much about it lately so I don't know how it is now). But ROH, at least in the beginning (I don't know if they're still like this) was more like a wrestling company if it was legitimate. An organization that highlighed athleticism, sportsmanship, and competition, ala MMA and other legitimate sports. Even the idea of wrestlers shaking hands before matches (once again, I don't know if they still do that or not). That is seen more as a legitimate sport rather than a "rasslin" show.

MMA has become a phenomenon in this decade, and if it continues I think it'll eventually move past boxing, soccer, and even hockey as the most popular sports in America. Down the road we could be looking at it being right under baseball, basketball, and football, if it's not already at that level. All sports media take it seriously and give it plenty of attention.

And the thing is I don't even watch MMA. I look at it like boxing. I like the drama and emotion of a fight. I don't want to risk paying $50 for a match that ends in a 30 second knockout and is a complete let-down (the downfall of boxing and MMA). That's the argument I use to the haters of pro-wrestling, but that's another topic for another day.

But anyways, I do think and have felt for awhile now that the natural evolution of pro wrestling was to more towards a more legitimate fighting like product. Basically go back to where it started in the first place. People nowadays are moving away from boxing, and even pro wrestling, and going more towards MMA. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Vince isn't simply trying to keep up with the times. Vince has always done that. WWE has always reflected it's product based on what's popular in pop culture at the time. I've touched on this before on some of the other posts I've made on these forums.

But back in the mid '00s when TNA was more about wrestling and ROH was becoming the main popular Indy fed (I don't think it gets as much hype now, although I haven't read much about it in the last year or so), I was saying that it would only be a matter of time before WWE went in this direction. Just like they followed suit with ECW and the more edgier youth and culture that was emerging in the late '90s.

And for awhile I thought it was a good idea. I still think it's a good idea in some ways. I'm all for good in-ring action. I like the athleticism. I think it'll be healthier in the long run for the action to be more about legitimate looking wrestling and combat rather than hugely muscled up physiques with guys that look like super heroes, and about all the hardcore stunts. In the long run, if the wrestlers pace themselves better and take care of themselves, along with this style, I think will help pro-long people's careers and lives.

Notice the trend of wrestlers dying young didn't really start until the 1980's, and really start heavily in the mid-to-late '90s (in particular with Eddie Gilbert in 1995 and then Brian Pillman in 1997). Which was the era when wrestling became more about showsmanship and physiques rather than in-ring action. When it became more about storylines and entertainment rather than in-ring action. That's why the wrestlers from the 1930's til the 1970's were able to have 20-30 year careers in many cases, if not longer (Hell, Lou Thesz wrestled into his 70's). They'd wrestler into their late '40s-60's and then live for another 20 years or more. Whereas for quite a few wrestlers that have started from the '80s on, the average career is about maybe 15-20 years, and then die soon afterward or towards the end of their career (as has been the case with many of the guys that were popular in the '80s and '90s). That's because of all the steriod and other drug use, the party/rock-star lifestyle, and the hardcore stunts/spots in the ring, amongst other things.

So I think this more "realistic" approach could be healthier for the wrestlers, as long as they know what they're doing of course and live healthier lifestyles and don't party and do drugs so much. Watching good mat wrestling rather than chairshots and stunts will definitely create for less risk to concussions and brain trauma, which I think is a bigger problem in the wrestling industry than we, as fans, probably realize (I fully believe this was the main cause of the Benoit tragedy, not steriod use or "roid rage." Stupid media ).

So I think this new "UFC-like approach" could make some improvements and be good in some ways for wrestling.

But at the same time, I've read a lot of your posts on these forums, and I agree with the majority of your points actually. I'm a lot like you in that I enjoyed wrestling far more from 1991 (when I first started watching) to about 2004, then currently. I still watch it when I can (Raw's usually about the only show I can watch somewhat regularly) and I keep up on all the news and stuff, but I don't follow it nearly as much as I did back then (although age could be a reason too). But I do agree with you in that the product back then was far more entertaining than I find it to be now. (Hence why I post more often on the "Old School" thread )

The characters now are stale and lacking originality and even more importantly uniqueness. I can live with wrestlers having a gimmick that's been done before. It's difficult to create original things in pro wrestling. But one of the big problems I found with TNA in it's earlier incarnations is that with the exception of the WWE guys that were there, I couldn't hardly tell any of the wrestlers apart. As gifted and beautiful a piece of art as an AJ Styles or Christopher Daniels match was, I couldn't hardly tell them apart. Put on a brilliant piece of art all you want, but how I am supposed to set you apart from everyone else and get behind you if you look like and do the same things everyone else is doing? That's the problem with most of the young wrestlers I've seen in any company I've watched, including WWE. No one knows how to stand out and create a character or style for themselves that sets them apart.

That's also the problem with the booking or as you put it, overall vision of the company. I like legitimate looking wrestling wrestling (it doesn't get much better than watching Kurt Angle/Chris Benoit, Ric Flair/Ricky Steamboat or Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels) as much as the next guy, but would it really hurt for guys to have characters or some kind of personality that sets them apart? Doink the Clown (Matt Borne) was a damn clown for crying out loud, but he could still put on a good, legitimate looking wrestling match. But at the same time be a freaking clown. You can't stand out much more than being a clown.

Overall I don't really have a problem with this philosophy of a more realistic looking sporting event. I think it's the natural evolution of pro wrestling. That's what the general public is into now (see the huge popularity of MMA). WWE just has to find some ways in tweaking the philosophy to make it more entertaining and more pro-wrestling-like.

Because as Vince stresses all the time whenever anyone brings up the idea of the UFC being WWE's competition, UFC and WWE are two different products. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with WWE being influenced by the UFC and MMA in general at all, and there's nothing wrong with adding elements and influences of their product into the WWE and pro wrestling as a whole. Nothing wrong with that all. But Vince has to realize that pro wrestling isn't Mixed Martial Arts. The WWE is not the UFC. They are different companies that sell different products to people, and that have mostly different audiences, and thus should not be mirror images of one another. There are certain elements of pro wrestling that make pro wrestling what it is, that make it entertainment rather than pure sport. Things that work for UFC, will not work for WWE. Wrestling has it's own core audience, an audience that is different for the most part from MMA. Sure some people like both, but a lot of pro wrestling fans don't watch MMA and vice-versa. There's little elements of pro wrestling that MMA doesn't have that Vince better not get rid of unless he wants to lose his audience.

Some of those things are things you touch on in your post. Some of the things you bring up I like that WWE has changed. Others I agree with you in that they're bad changes.

I may make a post later on in which I examine your post by section and state whether I agree with each change your bring up or not.


But anyways, I agree whole-heartedly that WWE is trying to become more like MMA. It's a natural thing to do. And it could work fine, as long as WWE doesn't completely change itself into a third rate MMA organization in the process.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

9) Elimination of Ringside Managers

I believe Vince views Managers as unnecessary Comedy, and a waste of money to pay at ringside. They aren't very realistic either. UFC does not utilize manager characters at ringside, so neither will Vince do it anymore, apparently.

And the two he does have, Ranjin Singh and Tony Atlas ... you barely even notice they are at ringside and have no significant involvement in any of the matches.

Again, this can perhaps be construed as adding to the realism in wanting the bouts to be perceived as "more real", without characters like this interfering at ringside.

Only UFC fighters have camps in their corners. Cheering, urging and giving them ideas how to defeat their opponents.

They also even help them cheat, sometimes.

 

[miroa12004]

I don't think that WWE's downfall is because they are trying to make themselves like the UFC or boxing for that matter, I rarely watch a UFC show but when I watch I am thrilled with the amount of buildup and tension that they throw in their promos and packages to hype the matches which are utterly boring, imagine the WWE doing the same hype for every single match on their card, with WWE's matches (unlike UFC) an action paced 10-15 minute bout and you'll see a completly different prodcut,

As the general rule, title shots are more so now about the title, and competing for the prestige of wearing the title, as opposed to any outside factor.

I don't think that is happening right now, simply because the main aim is for the main event title and then the IC and US are all but screwed up, in the UFC HeaveyWeight title matches don't headline every PPV, while this may not work for pro wreslting, I think that should the WWE become more like the UFC, they will put more emphasize on the midcard title and give them some prestige just like what the UFC does with its undercard titles, which IMO is a good thing.

Essentially, these "characters" have simply become themselves ... some with nicknames ... some with no nicknames ... in "No Gimmick Needed" personalities. Very similar to UFC fighters with their nicknames, who obviously don't have gimmicks, either.

Santino/a Goldust, Festus and Vickie Guerrero is good example of the WWE is still working with gimmicks.

And if that is the case, do you agree or disagree with that philosophy?

I guess should the WWE become like the UFC it'll be good buissness move for now but they aren't, the media is all but frenzy about the athleticism in MMA so why not make yuor stories be told inside the ring, the easiest way is to build a feud around the title and it make the product look real, personal feuds may then stem from title matches but the title feuds should always be your main attraction.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Santino/a Goldust, Festus and Vickie Guerrero is good example of the WWE is still working with gimmicks.

Vickie really isn't a gimmick. She has a character she portrays, but she isn't a gimmick.

Santino isn't really a gimmick, either. However I would classify the Santina stuff as a gimmick.

Goldust is a gimmick. Not really used on TV very often, either. Rarely given speaking roles. This week was the first time I know he's spoken since ... well, I couldn't tell you.

And Festus is a gimmick.


However, with that being said, are you going to imply with a straight face that virtually the entire roster of WWE talent still has gimmicks?

The truth is that only a very small percentage of talent actually has gimmicks anymore. Sure, they are out there. But they are very few and far between, compared to what it used to be.

I don't think that is happening right now, simply because the main aim is for the main event title and then the IC and US are all but screwed up, in the UFC HeaveyWeight title matches don't headline every PPV, while this may not work for pro wreslting, I think that should the WWE become more like the UFC, they will put more emphasize on the midcard title and give them some prestige just like what the UFC does with its undercard titles, which IMO is a good thing.

You don't think that title shots are more so about the prestige of wearing the title, than anything else? What types of storylines, over the course of a year, have you seen in which the main title matches have been about something else, other than the title?

I can point to Wrestlemania 25 off the top of my head, as being the only real difference, with both the WWE and World Title matches having storylines ... but what other Title Pictures have you seen in which the storyline overshadowed the title? Let's take it from the time of Wrestlemania 24 to Wrestlemania 25.

 

[redcorleone]

I think some of these comparisons are a bit stretched and pointless, i don't really think wrestling has changed in any way to be like the UFC. There's maybe slight influences, but i'm sure the WWE have influenced the UFC as well. What would be the appeal of making a fake version of the UFC with predetermined results, people would just turn to the real thing. It'd be like having sex with a blow up doll instead of a real person.

 

[JenovasWitness]

If Vince is thinking of moving the WWE in the direction of being a reasonable facsimile of the UFC, I fear that it will be a terrible failure. If we take the drama out of wrestling, the screwjobs, the storylines, the dynamic characters that COMPLIMENT a quality in-ring product, we are going to be left with just that: a facsimile. And no one will care as everyone knows that the finishes are predetermined. Whereas if you want to see a mixed martial arts contest that is legitimate, you would just order a UFC pay per view.

WWE needs to remain separate from the UFC to remain competitive. Otherwise, just like Vince's XFL trying to compete with the NFL, the idea will go down in flames.

Also, just as a side note and not to nitpick, but CM Punk hasn't used the Anaconda Vice hold since the first year or so that he has been in the WWE and has since been using the GTS as his finish.

 

[miroa12004]

You don't think that title shots are more so about the prestige of wearing the title, than anything else? What types of storylines, over the course of a year, have you seen in which the main title matches have been about something else, other than the title?

I can point to Wrestlemania 25 off the top of my head, as being the only real difference, with both the WWE and World Title matches having storylines ... but what other Title Pictures have you seen in which the storyline overshadowed the title? Let's take it from the time of Wrestlemania 24 to Wrestlemania 25.

Summerslam 2008 is supposedly WWE's second biggest PPV and the mainevents weren't title matches, the main feuds about SummerSlam was between Edge and UnderTaker on SD! while on RAW was between Cena and Batista, and I don't need to tell you that for the biggest part of the summer the feud between Jericho and Michaels didn't involve any title.

The fact is that I got misunderstood by you, I didn't say that building feuds based on heated rivalry instead of titles is a bad thing, all I was saying was that if the WWE was really going in the direction of the UFC they wouldn't only put emphasize on the main event titles and don't care about the midcard ones, they would give credibilty to every title they have like what the UFC does, this way they can build feuds around the titles and then make personal feuds stem from there by having X(the champion) screw Y by hiring Z to do his dirty work creating a personal feud between Y and Z, etc.. Its much easier to book feuds that way instead of some compicated storylines that nobody cares about.

 

[AndarielHalo]

I don't think this is a good idea because then Big Show and Undertaker would just killswitch EVERYONE with punches because they have such big fists and they're good at punching. Why even bother to compete if Big Show is gonna drop you in a minute with his big fists?

 

[Greenlight13]

When I first read the title of this thread I thought absolutely no way, how have you come to that conclusion? But that was a pretty well-thought out, well-constructed arguement you made and there are a lot of points in there that I didn't really consider that fit well to what you're saying... but I still personally disagree.

1) Lack of characters/gimmicks - A man named the Undertaker makes lightning strike, disappears from caskets, and is referred to on-screen as having come back from the dead. He rarely speaks and when he does he says he's going to take people's souls. Vladimir Kozlov is dressed as a member of the Soviet Union's army. Umaga is a savage Samoan tribal beast. Khali is the Punjabi Playboy. Kung Fu Naki. MVP. John Morrison. The Miz. Kane. These men all have gimmicks. Interesting to note here is that besides Undertaker the top level talent are more "gimmick-free" and that is probably because they are over and don't need one to get them over. But they do have clear personalities and traits and identities and are marketed consistantly in such a way.

2) Genuine Storylines - Jeff Hardy was mysteriously attacked and later nearly run down. His girlfriend was involved in "an accident". Matt Hardy then revealed he was behind the real life fire that destroyed Jeff's home. Randy Orton openly said he was only chasing Triple H's title because it was "the McMahon coat of arms", their feud was a personal one and it saw Triple H breaking into a hired house to beat the hell out of Randy and after being arrested he was released in a week. WWE do ridiculous things on a weekly basis. If it was about the prestige of the title we would see more random match-ups. Number 1 contender matches are between the same 4 people time and time again. Batista, Undertaker and Edge were involved in every smackdown main event for nearly 2 years or something.

3) More In Ring Action - What show are you watching? Raw features nothing but promos and vignettes. The entrances and post-match ramifications take longer than the actual matches. They tend to gives us one decent length match a week, I concede that, but there is no way the average Raw match averages 8 minutes. ECW features the most in-ring time of the three per hour and it's the least watched, though likely because it has no stars. Smackdown has more wrestling than Raw and more stars than ECW but doesn't do that incredible a rating. There is more focus on story than wrestling.

4) Commentators - I think they've eliminated the heel/face bit because they don't want them to detract from the content. J.R. is probably more over than half of the Raw roster and that isn't a good thing. And they do NOT focus more on the action than the story, they've been asked to sit back and not name the moves but instead keep telling us over and over again about why this is so personal. That's why there are longer periods of silence on commentary.

5) Emphasis on in-ring wrestling - Also not true. While it is true that they fire people over a botch when they wouldn't before (Colt Cabana), when was the last time they called someone up because they could wrestle? They bring in people when they feel they can market them. Otherwise Low Ki would have debuted on TV immediately. Half the guys at FCW have been wrestling for a long time, in ring ability is not the issue, they need to teach them how to talk and act. In a match they spend half of it in rest holds, striking in the corner, getting in and out of the ring etc. If they had emphasis on the action we would have a cruiserweight division.

6) Submissions - What the hell? Name me every wrestler in the WWE who wins by submission on a semi-regular basis. John Cena, Edge, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Natalya. Of those how many win more by submission than they do pin? Natalya. Punk had the Anaconda Vise taken away from him. Edge doesn't even do the Edgecator anymore. Khali does the Khali Bomb instead of the Vise Grip. Undertaker had his choke banned. I'm willing to bet that Undertaker began using the Choke because of his real-life love of MMA rather than Vince saying "I want you to have a submission move", hence why it was later removed. Angle and Benoit are gone and we don't have any submission wrestlers anymore.

7) Submission PPV - Seems more of a gimmick than anything to me, but you have more of an arguement here.

8) Tag Teams - Vince doesn't believe people care about tag teams and wants to make individual stars. Whether or not that holds true (people cared about the Hardy Boyz and hated Edge and Christian) is not for debate. MMA doesn't have tag teams sure, but WWE doesn't for a different reason.

9) Managers - Not enough who are talented enough to do it. Tony Atlas was resonsible for almost every Mark Henry victory when he was champion. Khali's translates because does a man that is 7'3" need help physically? Managers are for talking and helping to draw heat and they just don't have enough men that want to do it. Who grows up saying "I wish I could be a manger"?

10) Officiating - This is one where your arguement has a major case. My only issue is that in the case of the ref getting fired in the Miz/Morrison match, if there was a focus on in ring ability and realistic officiating wouldn't Miz get punished for failing to break the ref count? I mean the ref is a ref, he just counts, why would he be fired for the faults of the performers?


Overall I think your arguement was well thought out like I said but I personally disagree with it whole-heartedly. Shane is a well-known UFC fan and has reportedly asked to make the WWE do some sort of similar venture, but never has Vince said he wants to be like UFC. Mr. Kennedy did an interview where he said that Vince doesn't see UFC as competition, he sees American Idol and Survivor as his competition, and that UFC's competition was boxing. Vince wants to make a soap opera, he does not want to make a hardcore combat sports promotion. ROH are closer to being UFC than WWE and even they aren't that close. The most fundamental problem with your suggestion is that A) It was the suggestion of Paul Heyman, it didn't come from Vince's mouth, and B) UFC is as far from family viewing as you can possibly get and Vince has self-imposed a PG rating.

 

[Greenlight13]

I forgot to mention the most obvious storyline, which was that of Shawn Michaels and Chris Jericho. Michaels hasn't been a title contender in years, unless his personal rival has the belt (Jericho, Orton, Triple H), with the exception of John Cena, but even that was more about the prestige of the wrestlemania main event than the belt. There are certain guys that are over without going near the belt.

And one final major point I forgot to mention was that why don't they do ref stoppages and knockouts in the WWE if they want to be like UFC?

 

[Coco]

This thread needs a boat load of corrections.

Vince is not on record anywhere saying what is in quotes in the title. Rather, you are going by some speculation Paul Heyman may or may not have had. News flash: this is VERY old if it was ever true at all. Also, Heyman is not the end-all-be-all authority on wrestling. Just because he says something, doesn't mean Vince McMahon falls in line with it.

In the time since this quote likely took place, we have seen:
-The debut of Umaga w/Estrada
-The debut and end of Fake Kane
-The debut of Hornswoggle
-The rise of King Booker
-The debut of Shannon Moore with his Outsider gimmick
-The debut of Kevin Thorne

This is not a step in the direction of a realistic UFC-like product. Rather, all of your complaints can be explained by lazy booking where anything will be effortlessly thrown at the wall to see what sticks. Breaking Point will be yet another example of this.

Then again, UFC is more popular than the WWE. So if this were true, would it really be a step in the wrong direction?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

When I first read the title of this thread I thought absolutely no way, how have you come to that conclusion? But that was a pretty well-thought out, well-constructed arguement you made and there are a lot of points in there that I didn't really consider that fit well to what you're saying... but I still personally disagree.

I, and many others, have seen WWE go through quite a transformation in the past couple years since 2006. That, was when Heyman made this quote to the Developmental Talent to watch out for this. That year, after July, was when I feel Vince also began his gradual move towards PG television.

My motivation is getting in Vince's head on where he wants to take the product, and determine why he is making the decisions he has over the years. I was just informed that Heyman made that quote. And I have seen major changes in WWE programming since that time. Let's examine what has all transpired and see if there is a potential fit."

But let's go through some of your arguments.

1) Lack of characters/gimmicks - A man named the Undertaker makes lightning strike, disappears from caskets, and is referred to on-screen as having come back from the dead.

First, of all, are you going to agree or disagree that we have seen a move away from gimmicks such as The Undertaker over the years? We've seen the concept of the gimmick severely reduced, and instead, the concept of personalities take over.

Secondly, how often do you see Undertaker make lightning strike anymore? Once in a blue moon? Same with the whole "disappearing from caskets" routine. If you recall, during the Michaels/Taker feud, after Michaels searched the casket ... Taker wound up simply hiding under the table. We have not nearly seen the special effects used with Taker over the years, compared to the early to mid 90's.

Also, when Taker enters the ring, once the bell rings, he immediately ditches the Undertaker persona and becomes a UFC fighter? Does he or does he not? I have seen many, many posts on that very topic and making that same observation.

Plus, they were really pushing his Dragon Triangle as a Finisher, as well.

He rarely speaks and when he does he says he's going to take people's souls.

Psyche out ploy. He's said that for years. Fact of the matter is that the Undertaker is one of the last few gimmicks left in the WWE.

Vladimir Kozlov is dressed as a member of the Soviet Union's army.

On the company's most least-watched program. How long did he go without the suit? I'm all for the suit, but how long did he exist as just plain and simple black trunks Vladimir Kozlov?

Umaga is a savage Samoan tribal beast.

Who just spoke English last week.

Khali is the Punjabi Playboy.

Who is rarely seen on TV anymore. This is a personality, more so than a gimmick.

Plus, what was he before this character? He was simply The Great Khali, a large man from India who went around demolishing opponents.

Kung Fu Naki.

Is this a gimmick or a personality?

MVP.

A gimmick or a personality?

John Morrison.

A gimmick or a personality?

The Miz.

A gimmick or a personality?

Kane.

Kane is a gimmick, I give you that. However, this gimmick has also been severely toned down over the years. He is no longer the beast who was burned in his parents home and accidentally set on fire by the Undertaker. He rarely gets a victory, receives no significant push.

These men all have gimmicks.

No, they really don't. There is a difference between gimmicks vs personalities. Today, we have personalities for the most part. Not gimmicks.

Here are examples of gimmick characters:

Big Boss Man- former prison guard
John Cena (when he was a rapper)- white rapper
Gangrel/Kevin Thorn- gothic vampires
Boogeyman- demon creature
Honky Tonk Man- Elvis impersonator
Akeem- white man who thinks he is from Africa
Sgt. Slaughter- drill instructor
Million Dollar Man- wealthy, arrogant man out to prove everyone has a price
Tugboat- friendly, docks worker
Slick- sleazy pimp who is also a wrestling manager

Interesting to note here is that besides Undertaker the top level talent are more "gimmick-free" and that is probably because they are over and don't need one to get them over. But they do have clear personalities and traits and identities and are marketed consistantly in such a way.

Or is it because Vince wants to shy away from use of gimmicks? There is no sense in taking away Undertaker's gimmick, as he's had it his entire 19 year career with WWE. However, all new characters pushed to the Main Event are very much gimmick free.

Before, pretty much all of the Main Event talent still had gimmicks, so one has to ask themselves "Why is there a move away from gimmick characters, and a move towards personalities?" Again, my answer is that Vince appears to want his product appear more realistic. To which I also have to ask, "Where is he getting these ideas from to make his product more realistic? What is he being influenced by?"

2) Genuine Storylines - Jeff Hardy was mysteriously attacked and later nearly run down. His girlfriend was involved in "an accident". Matt Hardy then revealed he was behind the real life fire that destroyed Jeff's home.

Okay, well first of all, all of that together was one storyline. And true or false, storylines like this are the exception to the norm? Also, did you notice that this only happened when it was time to lead up to Wrestlemania?

Randy Orton openly said he was only chasing Triple H's title because it was "the McMahon coat of arms", their feud was a personal one and it saw Triple H breaking into a hired house to beat the hell out of Randy and after being arrested he was released in a week.

Yep. And again, what was the difference? It was because it was a lead up to Wrestlemania.

I challenge you to come up with an entire list of actual storylines used from the time in between Wrestlemania 24 and Wrestlemania 25, and let's see what we come up with. And compare those storylines to the amount of storylines used in, let's say the year 2000.

If it was about the prestige of the title we would see more random match-ups.

Says who? It can be about the prestige of the title with the same superstars fighting each other week after week.

Number 1 contender matches are between the same 4 people time and time again. Batista, Undertaker and Edge were involved in every smackdown main event for nearly 2 years or something.

That's precisely my point. And how many times have these guys feuded, where it has simply been over the title?

3) More In Ring Action - What show are you watching? Raw features nothing but promos and vignettes.

One can not deny that the Raw of today is more wrestling-based as opposed to storyline-based ... from it's prior years. Raw does have more promos and what not than Smackdown, but it is still more wrestling-based as opposed to trying to tell stories to sell PPV's.

And of course, we discussed Smackdown, which is very much wrestling-based these days, and Jim Ross admits as such. Matches on this show have gone from 6-8 minutes on average to well over 10 minutes. So the show has become a much more wrestling-based show.

And ironically enough with Smackdown, despite the fact that it is the more wrestling-based of the two major shows, it's ratings continue to deteriorate each week. Last week's episode did a 1.6. So I know people like you get upset when I say that there is too much wrestling and not enough storyline on the shows, but I tell you, the ratings prove me right time and time again, that more wrestling on the weekly shows is NOT the answer.

Rather, more emphasis on intriguing storylines and interesting characters IS the answer. More wrestling on the weekly shows is NOT the answer. More wrestling on PPV's IS the answer.

Superstars is very much a wrestling-based show. Also, ECW as you pointed out.

So there is definitely more in-ring action on each of these shows than the years prior, where the storylines came first, which served to sell the PPV's.

The entrances and post-match ramifications take longer than the actual matches. They tend to gives us one decent length match a week, I concede that, but there is no way the average Raw match averages 8 minutes.

I maintain that the average Raw match lasts an average of 6-8 minutes. Time the matches next week, and see what you come up with. I have sworn off Raw as of this past Monday, and I plan on sticking to my guns for that one. I've seen enough of it for the past year, and especially the past couple months to know that I am not happy with what I am getting. Therefore, I am not going to make a chore out of watching it like I used to. Therefore, I have turned all of the WWE's shows off and will only follow the newsboards.

ECW features the most in-ring time of the three per hour and it's the least watched, though likely because it has no stars. Smackdown has more wrestling than Raw and more stars than ECW but doesn't do that incredible a rating. There is more focus on story than wrestling.

I disagree 100% on that statement, with respect to today's product.

Now, in regards to Smackdown, it does have more wrestling than Raw, and their matches tend to go over 10 minutes per show. You also admitted that ECW is also more wrestling-based then the other shows. However, I would argue that Superstars is probably the most wrestling based of all the shows ... however I only base that opinion on reading the results and seeing what Vince McMahon said his intentions of the show were to make it "the most wrestling-oriented of all of the shows."

Clearly, there is much more focus on the in-ring action on average, then there is a focus on storyline.

4) Commentators - I think they've eliminated the heel/face bit because they don't want them to detract from the content.

And it hasn't been that way in decades. What changed Vince's mind and what influenced him to feel that people can't be entertained, and still watch the show at the same time? Today's announcers more so resemble the announcers of a "real sport". The personalities are gone.

I can be entertained with comedy from the announcers, and still concentrate on the action in the ring at the same time. It's kind of like the old adage of walking and chewing gum at the same time. So again, where is Vince's influence coming from in changing the style of his commentators?

J.R. is probably more over than half of the Raw roster and that isn't a good thing. And they do NOT focus more on the action than the story, they've been asked to sit back and not name the moves but instead keep telling us over and over again about why this is so personal. That's why there are longer periods of silence on commentary.

It has been reported that Vince does not want his commentators doing anything over the top anymore or getting excited about things as much anymore. Ross even admitted that.

According to these reports, he's told them to simply have a conversation with each other, and put over the action in the ring. And that is what primarily happens.

Again, where is this coming from? I look at other sports, and that is what I see their announcers doing as well. Long pauses, as you point out, happen frequently in other sports. Ironically enough, completely contradictory to Vince McMahon's own personal style of commentary he used as a Play by Play announcer.

BTW, the long pauses aren't for the viewers to reflect upon the storylines, like you implied. The long pauses are used for the viewers to reflect upon the action in the ring.

5) Emphasis on in-ring wrestling - Also not true.

I'm sorry, but it absolutely is 100% true. Again, this kind of coincides with the point made about the shows featuring more in-ring action, as opposed to storyline ... but if you looked at the quality of wrestling over the past two decades, you would never have seen the amount of emphasis placed on the wrestling skills today, as opposed to back then.

Are you going to argue with me and say that you don't feel that today's quality of actual in-ring wrestling is the best it has ever been? I certainly feel that way. Not that I think that is a bad thing, but I have a problem when Vince nitpicks over Shad Gasspard because perhaps he is an average worker, while he pays no attention to getting the gimmicks over, or putting the talent in interesting storylines.

I think it plain and simply is nit-picking, and I personally don't feel that the general public analyzes matches to the extent that people like you do. Rather, they just want to go to a show and see a nice mix of action, interesting characters, and intriguing storylines that make people care about the characters ... and ultimately be entertained.

Vince is giving the audience the quality of wrestling. No arguments from me on that one. But the problem is that he isn't giving them anything else. Rather, he would rather jump down a wrestler's throat because of one spot that perhaps didn't come off good on TV, and not worry about any of the other Creative elements on his show, whatsoever .... ironically enough, the things that really sell his product.

While it is true that they fire people over a botch when they wouldn't before (Colt Cabana), when was the last time they called someone up because they could wrestle? They bring in people when they feel they can market them. Otherwise Low Ki would have debuted on TV immediately. Half the guys at FCW have been wrestling for a long time, in ring ability is not the issue, they need to teach them how to talk and act.

They've been wrestling for a long time because Vince is Hell-Bent on making sure their wrestling skills are those of sheer perfection, in his eyes. Honestly, who speaks on the Roster anymore other than pretty much the Main Event? Santino? Fine. Exception to the rule. His purpose is comedy, so they allow him to speak. Now, how many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak every week on TV? How many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak at all on TV anymore?

In a match they spend half of it in rest holds, striking in the corner, getting in and out of the ring etc. If they had emphasis on the action we would have a cruiserweight division.

Well, I am all in favor of a Cruiserweight Division and have proposed as such in the past, if that means giving us more quality storylines and characters on Raw and Smackdown, but that apparently doesn't appear to be the case.

But you also perhaps inadvertently proved another point of mine. I said that today's matches last longer, and they do. Before, during Attitude Era times and thereafter, there were very few if any rest holds at all on weekly tv. The action was much shorter, and this in turn, gave more time for concentration on storylines.

Today, however, the matches are longer, and they have simply incorporated more rest holds into the matches to take up time. So that saps the time allotted in the rest of the show, to be used towards storylines, or other matches.

6) Submissions - What the hell? Name me every wrestler in the WWE who wins by submission on a semi-regular basis. John Cena, Edge, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Natalya. Of those how many win more by submission than they do pin? Natalya. Punk had the Anaconda Vise taken away from him. Edge doesn't even do the Edgecator anymore. Khali does the Khali Bomb instead of the Vise Grip. Undertaker had his choke banned. I'm willing to bet that Undertaker began using the Choke because of his real-life love of MMA rather than Vince saying "I want you to have a submission move", hence why it was later removed. Angle and Benoit are gone and we don't have any submission wrestlers anymore.

Are you saying that the Dragon Triangle was banned from the Undertaker? I haven't seen Smackdown in some time, however I know enough about the show from seeing it a few months ago that nothing much has changed. So yeah, I look at Marquee stars John Cena, Undertaker, and Chris Jericho as using submission holds ... with Undertaker's Dragon sleeper and his "style" in the ring as being the most blatant. But let me know if Taker stopped using the Triangle.

Now, as far as Taker simply having a "love of MMA" ... that is besides the point. Vince isn't going to allow Taker to simply alter his Dead Man gimmick and style in the ring simply because Taker enjoys following it when he isn't wrestling. All of that has to be approved by Vince, obviously. Taker can't just do it on his own. So again, that is yet another nod to UFC fighting in Vince's show.

Wrestling and UFC should be apples and oranges. You shouldn't even see anything resembling UFC on a WWE program. Yet, you do.

7) Submission PPV - Seems more of a gimmick than anything to me, but you have more of an arguement here.

Well, it isn't a major argument, but I do look at it in just being one more factor with respect to Paul Heyman's statement.

8) Tag Teams - Vince doesn't believe people care about tag teams and wants to make individual stars. Whether or not that holds true (people cared about the Hardy Boyz and hated Edge and Christian) is not for debate. MMA doesn't have tag teams sure, but WWE doesn't for a different reason.

I view this as the weakest of the arguments, however, in making comparisons with respect to fighting, UFC doesn't produce it, so neither does WWE, apparently.

But as far as Vince eliminating Tag Teams to try to groom more Singles stars, has that experiment truly worked? I personally think it has been a miserable failure. Tag Team wrestling may not sell on its own, but what it did was provide a breather to fans, to give them something different to look forward to, in between singles bouts.

9) Managers - Not enough who are talented enough to do it. Tony Atlas was resonsible for almost every Mark Henry victory when he was champion. Khali's translates because does a man that is 7'3" need help physically? Managers are for talking and helping to draw heat and they just don't have enough men that want to do it. Who grows up saying "I wish I could be a manager"?

I got news for you. As a kid, I grew up wanting to be a manager. I went to two different wrestling schools to try it out and see how I liked it. Unfortunately, where as I have the mouth and the stage presence, I do not have the wrestling ability. And at both of these locations, one of them being Afa's school, they train you right along with the wrestlers, and expect you to be in the same physical condition as the wrestlers. I will NEVER been in the physical condition of a wrestler, and I vehemently disagreed with their philosophy on this, but at the same time, Afa knows what Vince wants. And since then, the male manager has been eliminated, anyway.

However, I only view the manager as having to be able to talk, get over, get his talents over, and take bumps, which I was more than willing to do. However, today Vince wants all of people standing at ringside to be able to wrestle. Hell, he even wants someone like Vickie Guerrero to wrestle. That never was the case years ago. The manager played the part of the manager. The manager did not double up as a Part Time wrestler, as well.

I vehemently disagree that there are no longer managers today because "there aren't any quality managers around". Rather, there aren't any managers around today because Vince doesn't want them around.

If you listened to Who's Slamming Who, Jim Cornette said he had a conversation with Vince about managers and the elimination of male managers around the Attitude Era. He said that Vince told him that he had a new philosophy and that managers should primarily be "gorgeous women, nowadays".

So, we've gradually seen the Male Manager eliminated, as a result, and the emergence of the Female Valets like Sunny, Sable, Marlena, Ivory, and so forth over time. Then, they have gradually been eliminated, as well, and replaced with only women who can wrestle: Katie Lea Burchill and Natalya.

And nobody is referred to as a manager by name, anymore. I find that interesting.

And again, when you look at UFC, they don't have manager characters at ringside. I see this as yet another example of Vince moving his product in the more "realistic" approach, similar to them.

10) Officiating - This is one where your argument has a major case. My only issue is that in the case of the ref getting fired in the Miz/Morrison match, if there was a focus on in ring ability and realistic officiating wouldn't Miz get punished for failing to break the ref count? I mean the ref is a ref, he just counts, why would he be fired for the faults of the performers?

I completely concur, and it baffles me as well. Wes Adams in interviews, said his side of the story in which he was told during his days officiating for WWE, that if someone didn't kick out, then he was to count their shoulders to the mat.

Scott Armstrong was another official, who did the exact same thing.

I've spoken to Jack Doan before, and he has also testified to there being a time when the refs were not told the finishes, because Vince wanted the officiating, and therefore the match, to appear more so like a real bout. And therefore, they wanted everyone on their toes.

I think them canning Adams was an absolute crock of shit, since he was only essentially doing what they told him to do. If anyone should have been chewed out in the back, it should have been The Miz.

Overall I think your arguement was well thought out like I said but I personally disagree with it whole-heartedly.

And you are more than welcomed to disagree. All I did was take a look at some of the changes I've seen going on in WWE over the years, and then compared that to Heyman's quote. And I think some of the transformations has something to do with Vince wanting his product to appear more realistic, and more like a real sport. So what Heyman said made sense to me, given some of the changes I've seen.

Shane is a well-known UFC fan and has reportedly asked to make the WWE do some sort of similar venture, but never has Vince said he wants to be like UFC.

Well, realistically speaking, you are never going to hear Vince come out publicly and say "yes, I want to be like the UFC." Rather, those conversations are going to take place behind closed doors.

And where as Vince has been asked by shareholders over time if he has an interest in pursuing a UFC venture, he has denied that he has any interest in getting into MMA. However, he never made any comments that he "didn't want his organization to resemble UFC." Like I said, though, you aren't ever going to hear him say these words in public. One simply has to draw their own conclusions on whether or not he is taking a step in that direction by watching the product.

Mr. Kennedy did an interview where he said that Vince doesn't see UFC as competition, he sees American Idol and Survivor as his competition, and that UFC's competition was boxing. Vince wants to make a soap opera, he does not want to make a hardcore combat sports promotion.

At one point, I did see Vince making WWE like a soap opera and that was during the Attitude Era. Now, Vince is making the WWE like something else. And what that is, I have been trying to put my finger on for some time now. There is a reason for why there are basically no gimmicks, why the storylines are very few and far between, with most of the storylines that actually do take place, severely toned down. Why the announcers act like real sports announcers who simply call the action, and so forth which we covered in this thread.

ROH are closer to being UFC than WWE and even they aren't that close.

I made a quote in another thread that I view today's WWE as a cross between WCW and the original Ring of Honor. And that is what I see when I watch today's WWE. It is something completely unrecognizable from the product that I fell in love with. And when I watch all the shows, I simply feel that they are now more action-oriented than ever before.

I personally have no problem with the Realism in the ring aspect. However, at the end of the day, when I get done watching WWE, I want to feel as though I was entertained by watching an Action/Drama with a plethora of interesting characters and storylines. I don't want to feel like I am watching a show that can be somewhat compared to a scripted UFC.

The quality of storylines, the drama, and the gimmicks/characters are just as important ... if not more important to me, than the quality of the wrestling itself.

The most fundamental problem with your suggestion is that A) It was the suggestion of Paul Heyman, it didn't come from Vince's mouth,

No, because the problem as I stated is that Vince is never going to admit publicly on camera, that "he wants his organization to be like the UFC." I mean, let's get real, here. As soon as he says that, he mine as well slit his throat with the amount of negative press he'll receive from the Sports Media, as well as Dana White who will essentially laugh him off, and make a fool out of him on his programs.

and B) UFC is as far from family viewing as you can possibly get and Vince has self-imposed a PG rating.

Paul Heyman's quote was that "Vince will transform the WWE into being MORE LIKE the UFC". He never said Vince wants to completely duplicate the UFC in every way. Therefore, Vince wants to make his product look more real in every way ... from storylines, to the in-ring action, to the talent, etc.

Nice post, as well, btw. Very well thought-out, too.

This thread needs a boat load of corrections.

Vince is not on record anywhere saying what is in quotes in the title. Rather, you are going by some speculation Paul Heyman may or may not have had.

Already addressed that in the last post. Comments like that take place behind closed doors and aren't said publicly in front of a microphone. However, Heyman had absolutely zero reason to lie to the talent. What did that accomplish, really? Obviously, that comment came from somewhere, and I am willing to bet it was in creative meetings that Vince was having with his writers.

In the time since this quote likely took place, we have seen:

-The debut of Umaga w/Estrada

Estrada was canned a long time ago, and Umaga spoke English for the first time, last week.

-The debut and end of Fake Kane

Who is long gone.

-The debut of Hornswoggle

Who is kept around because he is a cash machine for the little kids.

-The rise of King Booker

Who is long gone.

-The debut of Shannon Moore with his Outsider gimmick

How is his Outsider gimmick "UFC" or related to real-fighting? Anyway, also long gone.

-The debut of Kevin Thorne

And another one who is long gone. They even eliminated his vampire gimmick and tried to bring him back, at one point, as just Kevin Thorne.

This is not a step in the direction of a realistic UFC-like product.

It is definitely a step in the direction of a more realistic product in almost every way. From the characters, to the storylines (or lack thereof), to the actual action in the ring. Whether you feel that UFC is an influence or not, however, is up for debate on where Vince is getting his ideas from in changing his product over the years.

Rather, all of your complaints can be explained by lazy booking where anything will be effortlessly thrown at the wall to see what sticks. Breaking Point will be yet another example of this.

Well, I think the booking comes across as lazy, as well, but Vince clearly wants it this way for a reason.

Then again, UFC is more popular than the WWE. So if this were true, would it really be a step in the wrong direction?

I think it is a step in the wrong direction, absolutely .... IF it is going to be done all the way around. I have no problem with making the action more realistic inside the ring. I take no issue with that whatsoever.

My primary issues are:

The amount of matches and the lengths of some of those matches that are given away for free on weekly TV, thereby decreasing everyone's interests in the PPV's (which are the shows that really count)

The lack of quality storylines, and the toning down of most of them. Making the storylines simply about the titles or #1 contendership.

The lack of gimmicks or interesting characters.

The elimination of ringside managers.

The elimination of entertaining broadcast teams (Face/Heel) in favor of broadcast teams that act more like sports commentators. This has taken a huge enjoyment factor for me away from the product.

Those are the biggest issues I take with this new "realistic" direction Vince has moved in.

Vince had a niche business. I think it could be suicide, and Vince walks a very fine line here if he wants to make his product like a scripted UFC. If one wants to watch something that looks like the UFC, then why not simply watch the UFC itself? I think Vince is risking sending his own fans away, who want a traditional wrestling product, and that much is clear with each passing year. Vince can only keep raising his prices on his audience base for so long, before they have enough of him and bolt. And that is what I see happening today.

Raw's ratings are down to a 3.2/3.3. Mark my words, they will go down below a 3.0.

Smackdown just scored a 1.6, down from a 2.5 range on MyNetwork TV.

ECW's ratings are going down from a 1.4 average, to a 1.2 average.

It's getting ugly, and I think I see the writing on the wall. It just doesn't look good.

 

[ScottySummers]

Before, we saw occasional screw ups in matches. Today, if you do one screw up in a match, your job is essentially on the line ... especially more so, if you are new. The pressure is seemingly unreal not to botch even one move, or risk losing your job.

What is your basis for making this statement? Are there any verified examples of a wrestler losing his or her job after screwing up?

a Submission-Themed PPV event to be created called "Breaking Point". Yet another nod to UFC fighting, which is entirely submission-based.

That is completely inaccurate to say UFC is entirely submission based. Have you watched the UFC? Although that is one frequent end to a match, it seems just as often the referee steps in when someone is knocked out or otherwise unable to defend themselves. I believe I have even seen the corner throw in the towel in the past.

 

[instantkarmaVA]

Vince wants the wwe to be like the ufc. I look at that statement like this- In the 80's Coca Cola wanted their product to be more like pepsi. So they changed the formula. The result was failure. Don't become New Coke Vince...

 

[Dave]

Right now, Vince could do a whole lot worse than model his bussiness on the UFC. The UFC is taking off right now. I watch every event that comes along in both promotions, that is the WWE and the UFC and I have to tell you that I find the UFC to be doing slightly better in my humble opinion. I enjoy watching the UFC and I am taking aback with how well they promote there events. I also do not have to pay for the UFC events because I live in the UK, so I guess that give the UFC the edge really. Although I am a huge WWE fan, they need to do something to spice it up a bit and this could do it.

 

[gd]

This is very well though out and you make some good points, but I still don't totally agree with you. You argue that most of the big names have gimmicks, but they don't really need them. They are already over and in the main event, so a gimmick will just take away from their matches.

As for more in ring action, I think that may actually be a good thing. Perhaps Vince thought that fans wanted to see more matches than talking. In actuality, there are only about 2 matches per Raw and SD that are over 10 minutes. There is still a fair share of promos and other segments.

As for the reffing, I kind of agree there. It shows that Vince wanted the company to seem more legitimate. But, was that so it could be like the UFC or for some other reason?

I can see where you're coming from on a lot of your points, but I think it's a lot of speculation. I agree that the company may be chaning, but I'm not so sure it's just because of the UFC.

 

[falconsault]

That is completely inaccurate to say UFC is entirely submission based. Have you watched the UFC? Although that is one frequent end to a match, it seems just as often the referee steps in when someone is knocked out or otherwise unable to defend themselves. I believe I have even seen the corner throw in the towel in the past.

In a sense somewhat, UFC is actually entirely submission based. You can gain a submission victory from strikes, as has happened on few occasions that I've seen. Also what more is a knockout than a submission of the senses and bodily functions? Being unable to defend one's self is nearly the same as submitting because you're not fighting back, you've submitted to defeat and such. But in full reality most would only consider a submission victory being a tap out or throwing in the towel, because when a towel is thrown by your corner, its technically the same as submitting in being that it is forfeiture.

Sure I'm taking it a bit too literal honestly, or looking into the situation a bit too much, but it's really just a thought that UFC could in fact be entirely submission based if you were to look at the whole picture.

As far as the WWE being more UFC like, I personally don't like it. You're average wrestling fan, wants to see wrestling, if they wanted to watch MMA then they'd watch UFC or Pride or something, they'd get their fix. I'm kind of put off on the fact that Vince want's WWE to be more like someone else's product. That's my opinion.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I can see where you're coming from on a lot of your points, but I think it's a lot of speculation. I agree that the company may be chaning, but I'm not so sure it's just because of the UFC.

Sure, it's speculation. I never said it wasn't, as I don't work for Creative or WWE at all, and certainly don't have access to Vince.

All I know is that my friend who routinely went out to Louisville overheard a conversation that Paul Heyman had with the Developmental talent sometime in the Middle of 2006 stating that Vince had intentions of making the WWE "more like" UFC. I think the key words that should be emphasized there are "more like". The quote was never that Vince wanted his company to be another UFC. So, obviously that leads to speculation (which is all that we are doing here) in what we have seen since that time period and compare it to the changes we have today, since then.

It is clear that Vince does want a more realistic product. I've made my thoughts pretty clear that I have absolutely no problem with this, and nor do I have a problem with Vince focusing on the wrestling. What I do have a problem is with him only focusing on the wrestling, and not seeming to put anywhere near the amount of emphasis on anything else, from a Creative standpoint. I seriously doubt that Casuals could care less if Talent A was still a little slow in the ring, as opposed to caring more about characters and storylines that appeal to them. Fact is that wrestling is NOT a legitimate sports competition and nor should it even be compared to one.

Therefore again, no problem with realistic in-ring action. I do, however, have a problem with trying to make completely realistic storylines and eliminating virtually all gimmick-type characters in favor of wrestlers simply being themselves, and trying to simply market their personalities. Those characters were what appealed to me to start watching wrestling in the first place, to even care about the in-ring action.

When gimmicks and characters are removed in favor of personalities, combined with realistic in-ring action, you are then essentially becoming similar to a completely realistic, scripted, wrestling bout.

So where I see Vince wanting his company to be "more like" the UFC is in regards to making his product seem more so like a real sport, that just happens to be scripted. To that I reply, "if I wanted to see that, then why don't I just ditch WWE and watch UFC?" I stuck with wrestling, over UFC, for a reason. But those reasons over the years have been taken away from me. Maybe I will start watching UFC, since all I do with WWE anymore is read the newsboards.

 

[Coco]

He didn't say Vince intended any such thing, if your opening post is to be trusted.

"Be ready. Because in a few years, you are going to see Vince transform the WWE into becoming 'more like' UFC. Mark my words."

That sounds like Heyman speculating as to the next step the business will take. Saying that Vince had this long term plan cooking in 2006 based off of that quote is pure BS as we haven't seen a dramatic change since 2006. In fact, just recently we had the Edge-Show-Vickie saga, the Jericho-HBK saga (heavy on talk on weekly TV), and the Orton-McMahon saga as the top feuds. That doesn't seem like a company trying to move away from storylines. If anything, WWE is going back towards them recently with stuff like Matt-Jeff.

This is just another thread designed for Vince hating and arguing against long matches. In actuality, more wrestling on weekly TV means that creative just isn't putting effort into building matches and using more wrestling to fill the time. Besides, your opinion on this can be seen as heavily biased considering you've said before that you want to see shorter PPV matches... You just don't like the wrestling side of things and are trying to justify your opinion

And fuck the numbers you're using to compare Raw to the other shows. Raw is on a network more widely available than the other networks. Faulty logic on your part.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

He didn't say Vince intended any such thing, if your opening post is to be trusted.

Don't insult me. As long as you've known me, I am not going to come on a Forum and make up some crock-shit quote. I take a little more pride in my posting, than that.

However, what is up for interpretation is what he meant by it and IF you've seen any changes since 2006, when he made that quote to OVW Developmental.

That sounds like Heyman speculating as to the next step the business will take.

And that could be. However, being that he was close to Vince and part of the Creative team before that, I am sure Heyman has an idea of Vince's philosophies.

Saying that Vince had this long term plan cooking in 2006 based off of that quote is pure BS as we haven't seen a dramatic change since 2006.

Who said the changes had to be "dramatic ones". It's called tweaking your product into being something "more real". Tweak something about your product one year. Tweak something else, the next.

I feel like some of those tweaks that he has made, is being influenced in some ways by UFC.

The funny thing is that the position I see people like you wanting to argue is that you "acknowledge that the WWE has made a couple changes over the years ... and you acknowledge that some of those changes have been in the name of making the WWE product more realistic ... but you simply don't want to say the words that UFC has anything to do with it".

Honestly, what's the big deal in admitting that UFC has something to do with it or not? Are we all that big wrestling marks and that big Vince marks, that we can't admit that Vince is influenced by things outside of his own product?

In fact, just recently we had the Edge-Show-Vickie saga, the Jericho-HBK saga (heavy on talk on weekly TV), and the Orton-McMahon saga as the top feuds. That doesn't seem like a company trying to move away from storylines. If anything, WWE is going back towards them recently with stuff like Matt-Jeff.

What I would like you to do is run down a list of storylines that were done from right after Wrestlemania 24 up to Wrestlemania 25 ... in other words a full year .... and only list the storylines and who was involved, that did not have anything to do with the title. In other words, if you have two people competing for a title or are involved in a #1 contendership storyline, in which the storyline wasn't primarily about the title, hen don't list it. The storylines you listed were done for Mania, and I don't recall very many actual complex storylines the rest of the year.

If you are willing to take the effort to produce a list, then I will do the same for a prior year, so we can compare.

This is just another thread designed for Vince hating and arguing against long matches.

Yeah, yeah. Blah, Blah, Blah. God forbid Vince be criticized for legitimate criticisms, and we have his PR team come rushing to the scene. We've heard it all before.

I don't call what I do "Vince hating". Clearly, anyone that criticizes your idol is a "Vince hater", evidently. To put it simply, the Vince McMahon I knew back in the 80's and 90's has different philosophies from the Vince McMahon I know today. And like I have stated many times, individual performances are judged in the "here and now" ... not what Vince accomplished back in the 80's and 90's.

So if Vince does something I don't like today, and I can point to data that reinforces my opinions ... then, I'm not going to say "but, he's Vince McMahon and Vince McMahon is a genius. Just look at what he did for wrestling!" Sorry, but I don't play those games.

In actuality, more wrestling on weekly TV means that creative just isn't putting effort into building matches and using more wrestling to fill the time. Besides, your opinion on this can be seen as heavily biased considering you've said before that you want to see shorter PPV matches... You just don't like the wrestling side of things and are trying to justify your opinion.

No, sir. I made pretty clear that I don't mind the wrestling side of things, but feel that the wrestling side of things needs to be equally balanced with the other aspects of the business.

You see, right now if we had a scale with the 1) In ring wrestling ... on one side and 2) Emphasis on Characters and Quality Storylines ... on the other ... the scale we have right now is heavily lop-sided in favor of the in-ring wrestling. You can not lopside the scale, and expect to have your product performing at it's peak. You need a perfect blend of BOTH. WWE had that at one point. Now, they don't.

Look, people like you and Industry enjoy virtually every thing you see on today's WWE TV. And you don't like people criticizing what you enjoy. On that same token, it appears as though that you don't want to even acknowledge that there are fans out there that have different tastes in their wrestling programming then you. It seems that you want everyone to be happy enjoying exactly what you enjoy, so we can continue having the same product we have today. Basically, you want to live in your own little bubble.

And you don't want to negotiate views, either. You want to see what you want to see ... and you want it on every single wrestling show on the air today, without exception.

And fuck the numbers you're using to compare Raw to the other shows.

Ah yes. Whenever the evidence is presented that others out there also see the same problems that I see with the product, and begin tuning out, this is the candid response. "Fuck the ratings. They don't mean anything." And very similar to what I've said, this is an example of you wanting to live in your own little bubble.

And make no mistake about it. I am not thrilled with Raw either. Raw's ratings aren't great either ... and Raw's ratings have also been dropping. The whole product is actually suffering right now, and people like you don't want to acknowledge why ... because you are marks for this particular product that is on the screen right now, and you don't want to see it go away.

Let me ask you a question. I am anxious to see your threshold. How far do the ratings need to drop amongst each of the shows, for you to acknowledge that there is a problem somewhere?

What number for Raw? What number for Smackdown? What number for ECW?

Let's put yourself in the position of being a businessman and tell me if you were running the company, at what point do you acknowledge that you need to do something?

Raw is on a network more widely available than the other networks. Faulty logic on your part.

Like I said, I never said Raw's ratings were all that great, either. They aren't. It's simply that Smackdown's ratings have had a much higher drop than Raw's.

 

[Greenlight13]

Also, when Taker enters the ring, once the bell rings, he immediately ditches the Undertaker persona and becomes a UFC fighter? Does he or does he not? I have seen many, many posts on that very topic and making that same observation.

True, when he actually gets in the ring he is Mr. MMA, but the commentators still talk about him like a supernatural being. He still says he's going to take your soul. He pulls the stunts less often, but they are still there from time to time.


On the company's most least-watched program. How long did he go without the suit? I'm all for the suit, but how long did he exist as just plain and simple black trunks Vladimir Kozlov?

They've put him there because being plain and gimmickless didn't get him over, now they've moved him elsewhere to get over with a gimmick and be squashing smaller competitors and then they'll doubtlessly move him back. I could buy that he could legit beat down 90% of the wrestlers in the company, they may have wanted to convince the audience of that, but it's clearly fallen flat on its face. This may play into your hands that Vince wants to push realism, but it also shows he will cave to tradition and slap a ridiculous gimmick on a guy.


Who just spoke English last week.

This is true. But he went to the Hall of Fame ceremony a couple of years back in a white suit, shades, hair slicked back, looking all suave and yet he wrestles barefoot and acts like a savage. I haven't actually heard what he precisely said, but I would doubt it was that eloquent.


Who is rarely seen on TV anymore. This is a personality, more so than a gimmick. Plus, what was he before this character? He was simply The Great Khali, a large man from India who went around demolishing opponents.

He's a married man and isn't braindead. Now he's taking women and laying moves on them, when it's far removed from their real personality and has a title with a "the" in front of it, it's a gimmick to me.


Kung Fu Naki. Is this a gimmick or a personality?

Have you seen him? He wears a karate outfit and does exclusively martial arts moves. It's a complete stereotype (even if he did come up with it himself). He lives in Texas.


MVP. A gimmick or a personality?

I don't see how Cena "the white rapper" is a gimmick, but MVP being a Terrell Owens style sports star he claims he constructed based on Stephon Marbury isn't.


John Morrison. A gimmick or a personality?

When he was Johnny Nitro he was gimmickless. Then his music, look and attitude became more aloof as a clear parody of Jim Morrison. I grant you that he has since pretty much just made it his own, but he was given the gimmick and ran with it just as most have in the past.


The Miz. A gimmick or a personality?
I'd argue it's a gimmick of an obnoxious Cali party boy/reality star but it's debatable I guess


No, they really don't. There is a difference between gimmicks vs personalities. Today, we have personalities for the most part. Not gimmicks.

Here are examples of gimmick characters:

Big Boss Man- former prison guard
John Cena (when he was a rapper)- white rapper
Gangrel/Kevin Thorn- gothic vampires
Boogeyman- demon creature
Honky Tonk Man- Elvis impersonator
Akeem- white man who thinks he is from Africa
Sgt. Slaughter- drill instructor
Million Dollar Man- wealthy, arrogant man out to prove everyone has a price
Tugboat- friendly, docks worker
Slick- sleazy pimp who is also a wrestling manager

So Honkey Tonk being an elvis impersonator is a gimmick, but Morrison being a Jim Morrison impersonator isn't one? Cena being a white rapper is a gimmick but MVP being an overpaid sports star isn't? To me a gimmick is a character. If the company talk about you for anything but your ring skills it's a gimmick. Jeff Hardy is someone who doesn't have a gimmick. Santino Marella does because in real life he's a legit tough guy and is from Canada, but he talks like a stereotypical Italian and is made to look goofy.


Okay, well first of all, all of that together was one storyline. And true or false, storylines like this are the exception to the norm? Also, did you notice that this only happened when it was time to lead up to Wrestlemania?

Well... I guess... but they were laying the groundwork from like November which is a bit early for Mania build-up to me but still.


Yep. And again, what was the difference? It was because it was a lead up to Wrestlemania.

So they bring in stories for 3 months and then the rest of the year they're all about the action?


I challenge you to come up with an entire list of actual storylines used from the time in between Wrestlemania 24 and Wrestlemania 25, and let's see what we come up with. And compare those storylines to the amount of storylines used in, let's say the year 2000.

That would take a very long time. But if you reallllly want me to go and sit down with a jotterpad and scribble down every storyline they had in a year I will. The one that jumps out is the Chris Jericho/Shawn Michaels feud. In MMA and boxing boughts are arranged around title contendership. Sure once the matches are announced they'll take jabs at each other and it will become personal, but never does one fighter say "I don't like you as a person and therefore I want to fight you" Jericho spent most of the year critiquing Shawn's character.


One can not deny that the Raw of today is more wrestling-based as opposed to storyline-based ... from it's prior years. Raw does have more promos and what not than Smackdown, but it is still more wrestling-based as opposed to trying to tell stories to sell PPV's.

If that were true I'd still be watching every week. I may even still have some old episodes of Raw on tape somewhere to actually prove this point, but going purely from my memory there was way more wrestling in Raw years ago than there is now. J.R. expressed his disappointment over this many times.


And ironically enough with Smackdown, despite the fact that it is the more wrestling-based of the two major shows, it's ratings continue to deteriorate each week. Last week's episode did a 1.6. So I know people like you get upset when I say that there is too much wrestling and not enough storyline on the shows, but I tell you, the ratings prove me right time and time again, that more wrestling on the weekly shows is NOT the answer.

Firstly don't say "people like you", you're branding me an internet wrestling fan and I assure you sir I am not. It's possible to like actual wrestling and to go on wrestling sites without being one of those guys that wants them to put the title on mid-carders that are never going to get there.

Secondly you're backing up my own arguement. MAYBE Vince wants it to be more real, but if that's the case why does his flagship show Raw focus on stories and draw the biggest rating whilst the B-show features more wrestling and does worse? "Real" isn't selling to the fans and whilst Vince tries to dictate, he can't force-feed them something they fundamentally don't want.


Superstars is very much a wrestling-based show. Also, ECW as you pointed out. So there is definitely more in-ring action on each of these shows than the years prior, where the storylines came first, which served to sell the PPV's.

Vince doesn't give a damn about Superstars or ECW. I doubt he even pays attention to either. That's why Christian is there, he has famously been quoted to not believe in Christian as a star, so he puts him on the show he views as meaningless. ECW gets one match per PPV if that, the rest is all just throw-away wrestling. I like it, but it's meaningless.


I maintain that the average Raw match lasts an average of 6-8 minutes. Time the matches next week, and see what you come up with. I have sworn off Raw as of this past Monday, and I plan on sticking to my guns for that one.

I'm not going to time it because I also grew sick of watching it a LONG time ago, but when I occasionally YouTube something I find intriguing I find that the matches are generally shorter than that.


According to these reports, he's told them to simply have a conversation with each other, and put over the action in the ring. And that is what primarily happens.

I'm not asking them to name every move that the two guys pull off, I know what they're called, but if you actually listen they spend the entire time telling us why we should care about this match, why it's taking place, why it's personal, everything that's happened between them up until now.


Are you going to argue with me and say that you don't feel that today's quality of actual in-ring wrestling is the best it has ever been?

110%. I think it's gotten better, but it isn't anywhere near to what it once was. Bret Hart used to put on wrestling clinics every week. There have been some phenomenal matches over the years but I began watching regularly in 2000 and I have to say what I saw from 2000 to 2001 to me was the best in-ring action it has ever been. Benoit, Angle, Eddie, Jericho, Austin, Rock, Triple H, RVD, Booker, The Hardyz, E&C, Dudleyz etc etc etc


I think it plain and simply is nit-picking, and I personally don't feel that the general public analyzes matches to the extent that people like you do.

I wouldn't claim that they do and this is precisely my point. I would like a more realistic action based product, the general audience would not. I can do without the soap opera stuff, I'd be fine with nothing but wrestling, but that wouldn't sell to the WWE audience so they keep things over the top and story-driven. It's entertainment, not action.


Honestly, who speaks on the Roster anymore other than pretty much the Main Event? Santino? Fine. Exception to the rule. His purpose is comedy, so they allow him to speak. Now, how many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak every week on TV? How many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak at all on TV anymore?

Right... but how do you get to the main event? Talent? Sure. Vince liking you? Helps more. Vince dictates who gets to be a top dog in the company. How many main eventers get there without speaking? When they debut someone they try and make them talk in a vignette or a backstage interview or on ECW one of those little boxes pops up on tv with a 30 second promo. Then when you graduate to mid-card status they want you to try and cut promos, look at Shelton Benjamin, he was getting over on pure ability, then he became the Gold Standard and he began talking CONSTANTLY. Brian Kendrick began his whole thing with microphone time. MVP has been talking since he arrived. Kennedy also. Neither of these two men walked into their spot, they climbed the ranks and had they not been able to talk they wouldn't have been able to flirt with title shots. If you don't talk or have a major gimmick you cannot become a main eventer in the WWE, fact.


But you also perhaps inadvertently proved another point of mine. I said that today's matches last longer, and they do. Before, during Attitude Era times and thereafter, there were very few if any rest holds at all on weekly tv. The action was much shorter, and this in turn, gave more time for concentration on storylines.

I didn't say the matches were longer, I said they were more boring and there was less actual action. When they spend their time in rest holds, getting in and out of the ring, psyching each other out, striking in the corner, they're detracting from the action of a match that could last exactly as long. Look at TNA vs WWE. In a match of the same length you will see twice as many moves in the TNA product. (I'm not saying it's a better company, just they do less of the rest holds and slowness)


Are you saying that the Dragon Triangle was banned from the Undertaker? I haven't seen Smackdown in some time, however I know enough about the show from seeing it a few months ago that nothing much has changed. So yeah, I look at Marquee stars John Cena, Undertaker, and Chris Jericho as using submission holds ... with Undertaker's Dragon sleeper and his "style" in the ring as being the most blatant. But let me know if Taker stopped using the Triangle.

Yeah, they pushed the move for a few weeks, then Vicki Guerrero banned him from using it. As far as I know he only began using it on TV again against Shawn Michaels, but he was doing it against Big Show on house shows and he may have done it occasionally on TV. But they push the Tombstone more than the choke. Cena wins more by Attitude Adjustment/FU than he does STFU. He also doesn't work his opponent's body over to set the move up. Jericho wins by Codebreaker more than Walls of Jericho, in fact for a few months he didn't even use the move. Even if we count these guys, that's 3 out of how many?


Now, as far as Taker simply having a "love of MMA" ... that is besides the point. Vince isn't going to allow Taker to simply alter his Dead Man gimmick and style in the ring simply because Taker enjoys following it when he isn't wrestling. All of that has to be approved by Vince, obviously. Taker can't just do it on his own.

Undertaker is the joint most powerful superstar in the WWE along with Triple H. He will have a job for as long as he wants it and he is listened to by writers and wrestlers alike. He is given more freedom than most people, he chooses his feuds, he is allowed to do a Piledriver as a finisher. I'm not saying he turns up to work and dictates to them what he's going to do, but Vince will meddle with him far less than he would other wrestlers.


But as far as Vince eliminating Tag Teams to try to groom more Singles stars, has that experiment truly worked? I personally think it has been a miserable failure.

I never said it worked, I was just saying that's why there is less emphasis on tag team wrestling, not because they're trying to be like UFC. I love a properly done tag team match because you have more possibilities for storytelling and a greater selection of potential moves.


I personally have no problem with the Realism in the ring aspect. However, at the end of the day, when I get done watching WWE, I want to feel as though I was entertained by watching an Action/Drama with a plethora of interesting characters and storylines. I don't want to feel like I am watching a show that can be somewhat compared to a scripted UFC.

I agree to an extent. ROH's tv show is my personal favourite because to me this is the best wrestling you're going to see on a weekly basis. TNA normally put on 1 or 2 fantastic matches but the rest is absolute garbage. ECW puts focus on real wrestling but they also waste precious time on overly-long beggining segments. Raw to me is too full of garbage stories and too many promos. Smackdown is my favourite WWE show because you get ECW's wrestling and Raw's stories in equal measure, a little of both. I don't claim to be the WWE's target audience because I like the action more than the stories, but this i anything proves my point, they're marketing to the people that like the stories more than the action.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Also, when Taker enters the ring, once the bell rings, he immediately ditches the Undertaker persona and becomes a UFC fighter? Does he or does he not? I have seen many, many posts on that very topic and making that same observation.

True, when he actually gets in the ring he is Mr. MMA, but the commentators still talk about him like a supernatural being. He still says he's going to take your soul. He pulls the stunts less often, but they are still there from time to time.


On the company's most least-watched program. How long did he go without the suit? I'm all for the suit, but how long did he exist as just plain and simple black trunks Vladimir Kozlov?

They've put him there because being plain and gimmickless didn't get him over, now they've moved him elsewhere to get over with a gimmick and be squashing smaller competitors and then they'll doubtlessly move him back. I could buy that he could legit beat down 90% of the wrestlers in the company, they may have wanted to convince the audience of that, but it's clearly fallen flat on its face. This may play into your hands that Vince wants to push realism, but it also shows he will cave to tradition and slap a ridiculous gimmick on a guy.


Who just spoke English last week.

This is true. But he went to the Hall of Fame ceremony a couple of years back in a white suit, shades, hair slicked back, looking all suave and yet he wrestles barefoot and acts like a savage. I haven't actually heard what he precisely said, but I would doubt it was that eloquent.


Who is rarely seen on TV anymore. This is a personality, more so than a gimmick. Plus, what was he before this character? He was simply The Great Khali, a large man from India who went around demolishing opponents.

He's a married man and isn't braindead. Now he's taking women and laying moves on them, when it's far removed from their real personality and has a title with a "the" in front of it, it's a gimmick to me.


Kung Fu Naki. Is this a gimmick or a personality?

Have you seen him? He wears a karate outfit and does exclusively martial arts moves. It's a complete stereotype (even if he did come up with it himself). He lives in Texas.


MVP. A gimmick or a personality?

I don't see how Cena "the white rapper" is a gimmick, but MVP being a Terrell Owens style sports star he claims he constructed based on Stephon Marbury isn't.


John Morrison. A gimmick or a personality?

When he was Johnny Nitro he was gimmickless. Then his music, look and attitude became more aloof as a clear parody of Jim Morrison. I grant you that he has since pretty much just made it his own, but he was given the gimmick and ran with it just as most have in the past.


The Miz. A gimmick or a personality?
I'd argue it's a gimmick of an obnoxious Cali party boy/reality star but it's debatable I guess


No, they really don't. There is a difference between gimmicks vs personalities. Today, we have personalities for the most part. Not gimmicks.

Here are examples of gimmick characters:

Big Boss Man- former prison guard
John Cena (when he was a rapper)- white rapper
Gangrel/Kevin Thorn- gothic vampires
Boogeyman- demon creature
Honky Tonk Man- Elvis impersonator
Akeem- white man who thinks he is from Africa
Sgt. Slaughter- drill instructor
Million Dollar Man- wealthy, arrogant man out to prove everyone has a price
Tugboat- friendly, docks worker
Slick- sleazy pimp who is also a wrestling manager

So Honkey Tonk being an elvis impersonator is a gimmick, but Morrison being a Jim Morrison impersonator isn't one? Cena being a white rapper is a gimmick but MVP being an overpaid sports star isn't? To me a gimmick is a character. If the company talk about you for anything but your ring skills it's a gimmick. Jeff Hardy is someone who doesn't have a gimmick. Santino Marella does because in real life he's a legit tough guy and is from Canada, but he talks like a stereotypical Italian and is made to look goofy.


Okay, well first of all, all of that together was one storyline. And true or false, storylines like this are the exception to the norm? Also, did you notice that this only happened when it was time to lead up to Wrestlemania?

Well... I guess... but they were laying the groundwork from like November which is a bit early for Mania build-up to me but still.


Yep. And again, what was the difference? It was because it was a lead up to Wrestlemania.

So they bring in stories for 3 months and then the rest of the year they're all about the action?


I challenge you to come up with an entire list of actual storylines used from the time in between Wrestlemania 24 and Wrestlemania 25, and let's see what we come up with. And compare those storylines to the amount of storylines used in, let's say the year 2000.

That would take a very long time. But if you reallllly want me to go and sit down with a jotterpad and scribble down every storyline they had in a year I will. The one that jumps out is the Chris Jericho/Shawn Michaels feud. In MMA and boxing boughts are arranged around title contendership. Sure once the matches are announced they'll take jabs at each other and it will become personal, but never does one fighter say "I don't like you as a person and therefore I want to fight you" Jericho spent most of the year critiquing Shawn's character.


One can not deny that the Raw of today is more wrestling-based as opposed to storyline-based ... from it's prior years. Raw does have more promos and what not than Smackdown, but it is still more wrestling-based as opposed to trying to tell stories to sell PPV's.

If that were true I'd still be watching every week. I may even still have some old episodes of Raw on tape somewhere to actually prove this point, but going purely from my memory there was way more wrestling in Raw years ago than there is now. J.R. expressed his disappointment over this many times.


And ironically enough with Smackdown, despite the fact that it is the more wrestling-based of the two major shows, it's ratings continue to deteriorate each week. Last week's episode did a 1.6. So I know people like you get upset when I say that there is too much wrestling and not enough storyline on the shows, but I tell you, the ratings prove me right time and time again, that more wrestling on the weekly shows is NOT the answer.

Firstly don't say "people like you", you're branding me an internet wrestling fan and I assure you sir I am not. It's possible to like actual wrestling and to go on wrestling sites without being one of those guys that wants them to put the title on mid-carders that are never going to get there.

Secondly you're backing up my own arguement. MAYBE Vince wants it to be more real, but if that's the case why does his flagship show Raw focus on stories and draw the biggest rating whilst the B-show features more wrestling and does worse? "Real" isn't selling to the fans and whilst Vince tries to dictate, he can't force-feed them something they fundamentally don't want.


Superstars is very much a wrestling-based show. Also, ECW as you pointed out. So there is definitely more in-ring action on each of these shows than the years prior, where the storylines came first, which served to sell the PPV's.

Vince doesn't give a damn about Superstars or ECW. I doubt he even pays attention to either. That's why Christian is there, he has famously been quoted to not believe in Christian as a star, so he puts him on the show he views as meaningless. ECW gets one match per PPV if that, the rest is all just throw-away wrestling. I like it, but it's meaningless.


I maintain that the average Raw match lasts an average of 6-8 minutes. Time the matches next week, and see what you come up with. I have sworn off Raw as of this past Monday, and I plan on sticking to my guns for that one.

I'm not going to time it because I also grew sick of watching it a LONG time ago, but when I occasionally YouTube something I find intriguing I find that the matches are generally shorter than that.


According to these reports, he's told them to simply have a conversation with each other, and put over the action in the ring. And that is what primarily happens.

I'm not asking them to name every move that the two guys pull off, I know what they're called, but if you actually listen they spend the entire time telling us why we should care about this match, why it's taking place, why it's personal, everything that's happened between them up until now.


Are you going to argue with me and say that you don't feel that today's quality of actual in-ring wrestling is the best it has ever been?

110%. I think it's gotten better, but it isn't anywhere near to what it once was. Bret Hart used to put on wrestling clinics every week. There have been some phenomenal matches over the years but I began watching regularly in 2000 and I have to say what I saw from 2000 to 2001 to me was the best in-ring action it has ever been. Benoit, Angle, Eddie, Jericho, Austin, Rock, Triple H, RVD, Booker, The Hardyz, E&C, Dudleyz etc etc etc


I think it plain and simply is nit-picking, and I personally don't feel that the general public analyzes matches to the extent that people like you do.

I wouldn't claim that they do and this is precisely my point. I would like a more realistic action based product, the general audience would not. I can do without the soap opera stuff, I'd be fine with nothing but wrestling, but that wouldn't sell to the WWE audience so they keep things over the top and story-driven. It's entertainment, not action.


Honestly, who speaks on the Roster anymore other than pretty much the Main Event? Santino? Fine. Exception to the rule. His purpose is comedy, so they allow him to speak. Now, how many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak every week on TV? How many Mid-card to lower guys actually speak at all on TV anymore?

Right... but how do you get to the main event? Talent? Sure. Vince liking you? Helps more. Vince dictates who gets to be a top dog in the company. How many main eventers get there without speaking? When they debut someone they try and make them talk in a vignette or a backstage interview or on ECW one of those little boxes pops up on tv with a 30 second promo. Then when you graduate to mid-card status they want you to try and cut promos, look at Shelton Benjamin, he was getting over on pure ability, then he became the Gold Standard and he began talking CONSTANTLY. Brian Kendrick began his whole thing with microphone time. MVP has been talking since he arrived. Kennedy also. Neither of these two men walked into their spot, they climbed the ranks and had they not been able to talk they wouldn't have been able to flirt with title shots. If you don't talk or have a major gimmick you cannot become a main eventer in the WWE, fact.


But you also perhaps inadvertently proved another point of mine. I said that today's matches last longer, and they do. Before, during Attitude Era times and thereafter, there were very few if any rest holds at all on weekly tv. The action was much shorter, and this in turn, gave more time for concentration on storylines.

I didn't say the matches were longer, I said they were more boring and there was less actual action. When they spend their time in rest holds, getting in and out of the ring, psyching each other out, striking in the corner, they're detracting from the action of a match that could last exactly as long. Look at TNA vs WWE. In a match of the same length you will see twice as many moves in the TNA product. (I'm not saying it's a better company, just they do less of the rest holds and slowness)


Are you saying that the Dragon Triangle was banned from the Undertaker? I haven't seen Smackdown in some time, however I know enough about the show from seeing it a few months ago that nothing much has changed. So yeah, I look at Marquee stars John Cena, Undertaker, and Chris Jericho as using submission holds ... with Undertaker's Dragon sleeper and his "style" in the ring as being the most blatant. But let me know if Taker stopped using the Triangle.

Yeah, they pushed the move for a few weeks, then Vicki Guerrero banned him from using it. As far as I know he only began using it on TV again against Shawn Michaels, but he was doing it against Big Show on house shows and he may have done it occasionally on TV. But they push the Tombstone more than the choke. Cena wins more by Attitude Adjustment/FU than he does STFU. He also doesn't work his opponent's body over to set the move up. Jericho wins by Codebreaker more than Walls of Jericho, in fact for a few months he didn't even use the move. Even if we count these guys, that's 3 out of how many?


Now, as far as Taker simply having a "love of MMA" ... that is besides the point. Vince isn't going to allow Taker to simply alter his Dead Man gimmick and style in the ring simply because Taker enjoys following it when he isn't wrestling. All of that has to be approved by Vince, obviously. Taker can't just do it on his own.

Undertaker is the joint most powerful superstar in the WWE along with Triple H. He will have a job for as long as he wants it and he is listened to by writers and wrestlers alike. He is given more freedom than most people, he chooses his feuds, he is allowed to do a Piledriver as a finisher. I'm not saying he turns up to work and dictates to them what he's going to do, but Vince will meddle with him far less than he would other wrestlers.


But as far as Vince eliminating Tag Teams to try to groom more Singles stars, has that experiment truly worked? I personally think it has been a miserable failure.

I never said it worked, I was just saying that's why there is less emphasis on tag team wrestling, not because they're trying to be like UFC. I love a properly done tag team match because you have more possibilities for storytelling and a greater selection of potential moves.


I personally have no problem with the Realism in the ring aspect. However, at the end of the day, when I get done watching WWE, I want to feel as though I was entertained by watching an Action/Drama with a plethora of interesting characters and storylines. I don't want to feel like I am watching a show that can be somewhat compared to a scripted UFC.

I agree to an extent. ROH's tv show is my personal favourite because to me this is the best wrestling you're going to see on a weekly basis. TNA normally put on 1 or 2 fantastic matches but the rest is absolute garbage. ECW puts focus on real wrestling but they also waste precious time on overly-long beggining segments. Raw to me is too full of garbage stories and too many promos. Smackdown is my favourite WWE show because you get ECW's wrestling and Raw's stories in equal measure, a little of both. I don't claim to be the WWE's target audience because I like the action more than the stories, but this i anything proves my point, they're marketing to the people that like the stories more than the action.

I will go through all this a little later on, but let me just say that in response to this last part ... you and I are the biggest two breeds of fans out there.

1) I think I view myself as more of a traditional wrestling fan who enjoys the total product wrestling has to offer: from the entertainment, to the storylines, to the characters, to the wrestling, to the comedy ... etc. I like Tag Team wrestling. I miss the Ringside Managers. I miss the Face/Heel Broadcast teams. So, I view myself as more of a traditional fan.

2) I view fans of today's wrestling as more so the Modern breed of fan. These are the fans that could watch nothing but actual wrestling from the start of the show, until the end of the show (almost as if it is a real sport with real athletic contests) ... which you basically admitted. You say you disagree in that you don't think you are Vince's target audience, but I think fans with your ideologies actually are Vince's target audience. People that want the wrestling over anything and everything else.

So, I can see where a fan like you would like Smackdown ... and where you feel a fan like me should like Raw, being that I am the more storyline-driven of the two of us.

But here's the catch ... I hate Raw. I hate just about everything about Raw. So clearly, something still isn't working, if the goal of Raw (in your mind) is to appeal to people like me.