This is partially inspired by the 5-star match thread, and partially from all the rants directed at the WWE's ratings in the 90's.
Many people look back to the Monday Night Wars, or to be a bit more general, the WWE/WCW conflict of the 90's and jump to certain pivotal points that effected ratings. Hogan jumping to WCW was one. Austin's rise to the top was another. Obviously, the whole Mick Foley title win situation is yet another. I'm not looking for these specifics, but would ask that you keep them in mind for where I'm trying to take this topic.
Hogan leaving for WCW left a "void" in the WWE's main event slot. Really, they had no one that could replace Hogan. Other than arguably Austin, there hasn't been another that could replace Hogan anyway, and at this time, Austin was a while away from the main event. Hell, he wasn't even in the company. So, the WWE did what they always do, and elevated two guys to the top. I'm skipping over guys like Yokozuna and jumping straight to Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, who basically were the WWE's faces during the 90's. Yet, according to all the facts being thrown around, they were the lowest drawing champions of the time. They couldn't compare to Hogan's previous success, and couldn't even keep up with WCW, with or without Hogan.
This brings me to my point. It is during this time that all the WWE's 5 star matches took place. Two had Bret Hart in them (vs Owen, vs Austin) and two had Shawn Michaels in them (vs Razor, vs Undertaker). In retrospect, all four of these matches are widely recognized and praised as being some of the best the WWE has offered. Yet, the ratings do not necessarily reflect this.
I'm not trying to jump into specifics, such as "this" match took place on week (x). Just in general, the WWE had at least two guys (six if you count the opponents) that could deliver very high quality matches. However, the fans (as the ratings reflect) chose to watch WCW instead, favoring the big names of Hogan, Savage, Flair, Sting, and Goldberg. Does this mean that we, as fans, would rather watch a popular "star" than an absolute classic? I don't think it is that clear cut, but would ask again that you take that question to heart.
I also don't wish to look at this in a purely retrospective standpoint. The 5-star match thread is asking: when we will see another classic bout? I'm asking: is that what we really want, or would we rather have the Cenas, Batistas, and Triple Hs portrayed in the same light as Hogan used to be?
This can also be used to look at WWE vs TNA. Again, I don't want to jump too far off topic with bashing and talks of failure. However, tons of comparisons can be drawn between the 90's and now. TNA is the smaller company with some of the bigger names. The WWE isn't exactly producing five star matches right now. It sounds like a foolish question, but does the WWE really care that they aren't? Would they rather have top performers with amazing matches, or a bunch of well recognized big name stars? Even if TNA has the quality to spit out consistent four or five star matches, will this really affect the ratings?
This was just something that came to mind, and I'd be really interested to see what other people think. At no point in time am I stating that 5-star matches are bad, aren't appreciated, are overrated, or anything of the sort. I also fully realize the order of events in which they occurred (ex. WCW eventually went the way of the wind, etc.). Finally, I'm also not criticizing any superstar, entertainer, performer, from the past or present. I'm not looking for Cena, Batista, Triple H, etc. bashing. I'm just looking for honest opinions on the subject. Keep it clean guys.
I'm just asking everyone the question, what would you rather watch: A 5-star Bret vs Owen or a 3 star Batista vs Cena?
Many people look back to the Monday Night Wars, or to be a bit more general, the WWE/WCW conflict of the 90's and jump to certain pivotal points that effected ratings. Hogan jumping to WCW was one. Austin's rise to the top was another. Obviously, the whole Mick Foley title win situation is yet another. I'm not looking for these specifics, but would ask that you keep them in mind for where I'm trying to take this topic.
Hogan leaving for WCW left a "void" in the WWE's main event slot. Really, they had no one that could replace Hogan. Other than arguably Austin, there hasn't been another that could replace Hogan anyway, and at this time, Austin was a while away from the main event. Hell, he wasn't even in the company. So, the WWE did what they always do, and elevated two guys to the top. I'm skipping over guys like Yokozuna and jumping straight to Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, who basically were the WWE's faces during the 90's. Yet, according to all the facts being thrown around, they were the lowest drawing champions of the time. They couldn't compare to Hogan's previous success, and couldn't even keep up with WCW, with or without Hogan.
This brings me to my point. It is during this time that all the WWE's 5 star matches took place. Two had Bret Hart in them (vs Owen, vs Austin) and two had Shawn Michaels in them (vs Razor, vs Undertaker). In retrospect, all four of these matches are widely recognized and praised as being some of the best the WWE has offered. Yet, the ratings do not necessarily reflect this.
I'm not trying to jump into specifics, such as "this" match took place on week (x). Just in general, the WWE had at least two guys (six if you count the opponents) that could deliver very high quality matches. However, the fans (as the ratings reflect) chose to watch WCW instead, favoring the big names of Hogan, Savage, Flair, Sting, and Goldberg. Does this mean that we, as fans, would rather watch a popular "star" than an absolute classic? I don't think it is that clear cut, but would ask again that you take that question to heart.
I also don't wish to look at this in a purely retrospective standpoint. The 5-star match thread is asking: when we will see another classic bout? I'm asking: is that what we really want, or would we rather have the Cenas, Batistas, and Triple Hs portrayed in the same light as Hogan used to be?
This can also be used to look at WWE vs TNA. Again, I don't want to jump too far off topic with bashing and talks of failure. However, tons of comparisons can be drawn between the 90's and now. TNA is the smaller company with some of the bigger names. The WWE isn't exactly producing five star matches right now. It sounds like a foolish question, but does the WWE really care that they aren't? Would they rather have top performers with amazing matches, or a bunch of well recognized big name stars? Even if TNA has the quality to spit out consistent four or five star matches, will this really affect the ratings?
This was just something that came to mind, and I'd be really interested to see what other people think. At no point in time am I stating that 5-star matches are bad, aren't appreciated, are overrated, or anything of the sort. I also fully realize the order of events in which they occurred (ex. WCW eventually went the way of the wind, etc.). Finally, I'm also not criticizing any superstar, entertainer, performer, from the past or present. I'm not looking for Cena, Batista, Triple H, etc. bashing. I'm just looking for honest opinions on the subject. Keep it clean guys.
I'm just asking everyone the question, what would you rather watch: A 5-star Bret vs Owen or a 3 star Batista vs Cena?