ROH isn't trying to be the next big wrestling promotion. They have steadily gained new fans by staying the way they are. Only if they are trying to compete with some other company like the WWE or TNA for ratings should they try to incorporate more entertainment. Seeing how that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, there is no reason to drastically change anything up.
So, what you are saying is that ROH want to be in debt, want to have next to no audience? Because that is the status quo. The company is not beinging a new product to new fans, it isn't making money and it has no company loyalty. You said your self that wrestlers leave as soon as they are good enough to go elsewhere. Why? If the company was good they would stay. ROH is an abject failure no matter how you want to look at it. Your saying that ROH shouldn't change, because to do so would make it more successful, which is ridiculous.
Entertainment does have a place in wrestling and ROH gives their fans a different kind of entertainment. One that feels unique compared to your typical WWE or TNA type of entertainment. And Taker is not all about entertainment. He is a great wrestler as well as an entertainer. His 5 star matches are probably rated that high due to his great wrestling ability and not because he is a "deadman in a hat".
But that is precisely my point. Undertaker is a juxtaposition of good wrestling and good entertainment, and he headlines shows watched by millions of people. Nigel McGuinness is all about the wrestling and headlines shows watched by a thousand people. The distinction is obvious. A good wrestler is one that has entertaining matches and who is entertaining to the audience, ROH do not have suh wrestlers, or do not utilise them cleverly, and end up having nobody in the audience.
ECW was the first promotion to drop in the Monday Night Wars because the majority of the wrestling fans wanted to see real, pure wrestling and not watching performers use anything and everything they could get their hands on to use as weapons.
That is literally the most wrong statement in history. ECW failed because it was badly run, and because it wasn't pushed by its network. ECW lasted for as long as ROH has now, and it had significantly more of an impact on the industry, on the ratings and on the audience. If ROH collapsed tomorrow, nobody would be talking about it in 9 years. Nobody would be talking about it in 9 months, in all likelihood.
People wanted pure wrestling? Is that what they were getting on WWF which was winning at the time? Beaver Cleavage, was that pure wrestling? Undertaker "marrying" Stephanie, was that pure wrestling? Steve Austin wrecking the bus, was that pure wrestling? Nobody has wanted pure wrestling since the early 1980s, ask the NWA and AWA.
Maybe TNA is on national television because TNA has the old, memorable names that people grew up with like Sting, Foley, Jarrett himself, Angle, Taz, Booker T, Nash, the Dudley Boyz, and Scott Steiner that the people at Spike knew people would watch regardless if they were entertaining or not. ROH did not have the established stars to become as big as TNA.
Except Sting, Foley, Taz, Angle, Booker T, Nash, Scott Steiner and the Dudleys weren't members of the TNA roster when they signed their TV deal with Spike. So, either you are attributing Jeff Jarrett with having the drawing power to get a TV deal, or you have to accept that TNA was just a better product.
They did start from similar backgrounds but I feel that a big difference was who was running each promotion at the time. Rob Feinstein, the owner of ROH at the time, made a living selling ECW DVDs and making appearances as a part of the Blue World Order but didn't wrestle. Whereas Jarrett had runs in both WCW and the WWE, giving him much more knowledge and experience than Feinstein. Jarrett also had the money Feinstein did not
Right, so the Jarretts, who know what they are talking about when it comes to wrestling, went down the entertainment avenue. The Jarretts didn't have money, that's why they had to sell the company, but because they set the foundations for an entertainment based company that was very sellable. As it is, ROH has nothing worth buying, because you could start a wrestling company that nobody was arsed about from scratch.
Making your superstars more popular is not a bad thing but, it will lead to more superstars asking for money that ROH won't be able to afford. That would lead to either the superstar in question leaving the company for the money he feels he deserves or he becomes a disgruntled member for the company who starts to become a cancer to the entire locker room thus hurting the program more than helping it.
But you are completely missing the point. If the wrestlers are more popular, ROH will be able to spend more on bringing in new talent and on keeping the talent they have. The popularity of AJ Styles meant TNA could afford to bring in Rhyno. The popularity of Rhino eant they could bring in Sting. The popularity and success of Sting meant they could bring in Angle... The list is endless. Essentially, TNA has successfully managed to deliver a product that people want to see, so it can afford to keep its wrestlers. ROH cannot even afford to keep its wrestlers, because nobody wants to watch them. An unpopular product is useless in all respects. If one wrestler gets too big for his boots, thats a price worth paying, but there isn't much of a precedent, to be honest.
Well, in reality, the WWE has been the only company to find the "correct" balance between entertainment and wrestling. TNA's ratings continue to slip and now barely beats WWE Superstars in terms of ratings. Their model is not a failure if more people tune in and take notice. Just because it may never pass the level of the third promotion doesn't mean that it will be the failure you claim it is.
TNA's ratings continue to slip? Why is it that their average for 2009 is 1.19 and for 2008 it is 1.05? Thats an increase. Up, the numbers go up. The ECW rating average for 2009 is 1.22, so practically the same, while the Superstars average rating is 0.91, so like I said TNA is competing with ECW, and it is nowhere near Superstars, which is what you said. If we're talking ratings do you think ROH even has 10% of the Superstars audience? Because I don't.
It seems to me like your only argument is that ROH will lose some of its uniqueness if it adds entertainment. While it may be true, it is irrelevant. ROH is a business, and if it wants to give its consumers what it wants and make money, it needs to add entertainment. ROH may have a small fan base, but loyalty to the fans will get you nowhere. They have to at least try to broaden their horizons, or they will fail. Its all well and good having a hardcore of 1,000 fans, but unless you start to rip those fans off, you need more of them through the gate and buying your merchandise. The ROH way doesn't add fans, so it has to change or die.
If it wants to be a martyr and be unique, then power to it, but its going to go out of business sooner rather than later. WWE and TNA are making huge profits and TNA is growing at a huge rate, ROH is losing money hand over fist, and it isn't going to get better unless it changes. Nobody wants pure wrestling as the demise of the NWA and AWA have shown us. To get with the times, ROH has to encorporate an entertainment aspect, otherwise it will go down the tube in a few months.
