WWE General Complaints Thread

[californiachef84]

First off, Henry got injured so they did what they could in the cage match.

But I think you're going way overboard with this.

The ratings are in fact, improving as they just got a 3.5 for the first time in a while. The Jericho angle isn't done yet for all we know. What politicking are you talking about?

The WWE still builds toward every PPV and usually it takes 2-3 PPVs for a story to finish. They have the important stuff on PPV, the fallout on TV and then finish it on PPV. Just because YOU didn't like the Rumble, doesn't mean everyone didn't like it. But in wCw, 99% of people hated the crap they were doing.

Onto the titles.
wCw - David Arquette world champion. Title changed at least once every month.
WWE - CM Punk is the WWE champ and has been so for three months. Daniel Bryan has been the World champ for 2 months and has played his role perfectly. He finds ways to keep the title on him by any means necessary. Seems like he cares about holding the title. Rhodes just finished a feud with Booker T that was (kind of) about the IC title. After EC, he will probably defend it more. The US title was doing really well with Ryder/Ziggler/Swagger but right now it's not a focal point. I'm guessing it will be after Ryder finishes with Kane. The Tag Team division will take a while too fix. The WWE just lost Air Boom, so they really only have 2 tag teams. It is very weak now, but it will take a few years to fix this not a few weeks. Yeah the Diva division sucks but at least it's better than the 1999 Divas division.

But to answer your question, no the WWE is not anywhere near wCw. This past Raw was great and the WWE has been on a big roll as of late where as wCw rarely ever had a great show.

I love the face that you are 17 years old and feel like you can speak for WCW in the 1990's. You said "99% of the people hated the crap they were doing." That is really interesting because at the end of Nitro's run it was pulling the same rating that Raw pulls now. Just because you may have watched the "Rise and Fall of WCW" dvd, that does not make you an expert on that time period as many of us actually lived through it. WISE UP!!!

WWE is not WCW when WCW was at its end. WWE is WORSE than WCW was. I have not watched WWE programming since the whole Nexus angle happend. They have nothing but generic, cookie-cutter/ all cut from the same mold, boring, un-inspiring, mid-card TOOLS they call "sports entertainers". Jericho is back I hear... he is good. CM Punk is good. Nobody else on the roster is worth watching. BORING, BORING, BORING!!!

I will not watch WWE again until the develop some characters. Generic, boring "superstars" are people like Miz, Swagger, Santino, R truth, Ziggler, Zack Ryder, etc... There is no talent in today's crop. It is worse than the New Generation of the early 1990's. They do not let the characters develop themselves and, as a result, everyone talks the same, walks the same, looks the same, etc.

This is why I say that the WWE is worse than WCW was. The only reason that people watch WWE is because it has become part of "Americana". WWE is a brand name much like the NFL. People will tune in to watch the Superbowl no matter who is playing. People will also purchase Wrestlemania regardless of who is on the card. That is the only reason the WWE stays in business on a national level.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I love the face that you are 17 years old and feel like you can speak for WCW in the 1990's. You said "99% of the people hated the crap they were doing." That is really interesting because at the end of Nitro's run it was pulling the same rating that Raw pulls now. Just because you may have watched the "Rise and Fall of WCW" dvd, that does not make you an expert on that time period as many of us actually lived through it. WISE UP!!!

Good point. He had to have been around 6 when WCW ended.

WWE is not WCW when WCW was at its end. WWE is WORSE than WCW was. I have not watched WWE programming since the whole Nexus angle happend. They have nothing but generic, cookie-cutter/ all cut from the same mold, boring, un-inspiring, mid-card TOOLS they call "sports entertainers". Jericho is back I hear... he is good. CM Punk is good. Nobody else on the roster is worth watching. BORING, BORING, BORING!!!

I will not watch WWE again until the develop some characters. Generic, boring "superstars" are people like Miz, Swagger, Santino, R truth, Ziggler, Zack Ryder, etc... There is no talent in today's crop. It is worse than the New Generation of the early 1990's. They do not let the characters develop themselves and, as a result, everyone talks the same, walks the same, looks the same, etc.

This is why I say that the WWE is worse than WCW was. The only reason that people watch WWE is because it has become part of "Americana". WWE is a brand name much like the NFL. People will tune in to watch the Superbowl no matter who is playing. People will also purchase Wrestlemania regardless of who is on the card. That is the only reason the WWE stays in business on a national level.

I agree with pretty much everything here, except that I'd like to point out that WWE is getting better. They have been developing character for Cena, Kane, Ryder, Truth, Brodus and some others. They are getting a little edgier and there is that very very slight element of suspense. Overall it is still pretty crappy, but things have actually picked up since the ending of Nexus.

 

[Headman]

I love the face that you are 17 years old and feel like you can speak for WCW in the 1990's. You said "99% of the people hated the crap they were doing." That is really interesting because at the end of Nitro's run it was pulling the same rating that Raw pulls now. Just because you may have watched the "Rise and Fall of WCW" dvd, that does not make you an expert on that time period as many of us actually lived through it. WISE UP!!!

WWE is not WCW when WCW was at its end. WWE is WORSE than WCW was. I have not watched WWE programming since the whole Nexus angle happend. They have nothing but generic, cookie-cutter/ all cut from the same mold, boring, un-inspiring, mid-card TOOLS they call "sports entertainers". Jericho is back I hear... he is good. CM Punk is good. Nobody else on the roster is worth watching. BORING, BORING, BORING!!!

I will not watch WWE again until the develop some characters. Generic, boring "superstars" are people like Miz, Swagger, Santino, R truth, Ziggler, Zack Ryder, etc... There is no talent in today's crop. It is worse than the New Generation of the early 1990's. They do not let the characters develop themselves and, as a result, everyone talks the same, walks the same, looks the same, etc.

This is why I say that the WWE is worse than WCW was. The only reason that people watch WWE is because it has become part of "Americana". WWE is a brand name much like the NFL. People will tune in to watch the Superbowl no matter who is playing. People will also purchase Wrestlemania regardless of who is on the card. That is the only reason the WWE stays in business on a national level.

I was around and remember WCW quite well. I can safely say that everything the WWE is doing now was 100 times better than anything WCW was doing it's last few years. WCW was a hot mess. Storylines just vanished into thin air right after being introduced. Chucky the killer doll threatend to kill Rick Steiner if he didn't leave his brother Scott alone. Booker T wrestled as GI Bro at the start of a ppv and ended the same ppv as Booker T winning the world title. The moment Bret Hart restarted the main event of Starcade 97 after the world's slowest fast count WCW became the joke of the wrestling world. For some reason now days there is this segment of our community who have tricked themselves into thinking WCW was all rainbows and sunshine filled with Chris Benoit and Jericho main events. It wasn't like this at all. The WWE may blow some things now, but they have nothing on WCW.

 

[therockiswwf]

I love the face that you are 17 years old and feel like you can speak for WCW in the 1990's. You said "99% of the people hated the crap they were doing." That is really interesting because at the end of Nitro's run it was pulling the same rating that Raw pulls now. Just because you may have watched the "Rise and Fall of WCW" dvd, that does not make you an expert on that time period as many of us actually lived through it. WISE UP!!!

WWE is not WCW when WCW was at its end. WWE is WORSE than WCW was. I have not watched WWE programming since the whole Nexus angle happend. They have nothing but generic, cookie-cutter/ all cut from the same mold, boring, un-inspiring, mid-card TOOLS they call "sports entertainers". Jericho is back I hear... he is good. CM Punk is good. Nobody else on the roster is worth watching. BORING, BORING, BORING!!!

I will not watch WWE again until the develop some characters. Generic, boring "superstars" are people like Miz, Swagger, Santino, R truth, Ziggler, Zack Ryder, etc... There is no talent in today's crop. It is worse than the New Generation of the early 1990's. They do not let the characters develop themselves and, as a result, everyone talks the same, walks the same, looks the same, etc.

This is why I say that the WWE is worse than WCW was. The only reason that people watch WWE is because it has become part of "Americana". WWE is a brand name much like the NFL. People will tune in to watch the Superbowl no matter who is playing. People will also purchase Wrestlemania regardless of who is on the card. That is the only reason the WWE stays in business on a national level.

I have never seen the Rise and Fall of wCw. Yes wCw was really really bad towards the end, it was just awful.

Now you say wCw was pulling the same ratings but that is actually not true. Less people had TVs back then so if something got a 5 back then it would get a 3 now. How can you have any say in this if you have not watched for 2 years? People like Cena, Orton, Ziggler, Rhodes, Bryan, Henry and many others have no talent? How can you say that? There is no way the the product today is worse than wCw in 2000-2001, the product today is far better.

PS- I did watch wCw and I remember it very well. It was bad, really bad.

 

[californiachef84]

I was around and remember WCW quite well. I can safely say that everything the WWE is doing now was 100 times better than anything WCW was doing it's last few years. WCW was a hot mess. Storylines just vanished into thin air right after being introduced. Chucky the killer doll threatend to kill Rick Steiner if he didn't leave his brother Scott alone. Booker T wrestled as GI Bro at the start of a ppv and ended the same ppv as Booker T winning the world title. The moment Bret Hart restarted the main event of Starcade 97 after the world's slowest fast count WCW became the joke of the wrestling world. For some reason now days there is this segment of our community who have tricked themselves into thinking WCW was all rainbows and sunshine filled with Chris Benoit and Jericho main events. It wasn't like this at all. The WWE may blow some things now, but they have nothing on WCW.

You COMPLETELY missed the whole point of my argument... Read it again, and maybe you will understand. The point is, that nobody would watch WWE right now if it was not for the history/ culture of the company itself. People watch WWE because it IS the WWE. In the 1990's people watched based upon what wrestlers were in certain companies, and how storylines were playing out. People don't care about that anymore. They watch the WWE because it is the WWE. Foley, Booker T, & Kevin Nash were all working for TNA and every WWE fan said , " Oh who cares? Those guys are all washed up." Now those guys work in the WWE again and all the WWE fans love them again. This is the point to my argument. WCW was indeed bad for the last couple of years. However, people had another wrestling company that they could watch back then. WCW still pulled similar ratings and had as much of a fanbase as the WWE currently has, and WWE DOESN'T HAVE ANY COMPETITION! This is why WCW at it's end was still better than WWE is today.

By the way, after Starrcade 1997 is when Nitro really started kicking Raw's ass. I think your timeline might be a little off.

 

[californiachef84]

I have never seen the Rise and Fall of wCw. Yes wCw was really really bad towards the end, it was just awful.

Now you say wCw was pulling the same ratings but that is actually not true. Less people had TVs back then so if something got a 5 back then it would get a 3 now. How can you have any say in this if you have not watched for 2 years? People like Cena, Orton, Ziggler, Rhodes, Bryan, Henry and many others have no talent? How can you say that? There is no way the the product today is worse than wCw in 2000-2001, the product today is far better.

PS- I did watch wCw and I remember it very well. It was bad, really bad.

Dude you were SIX FREAKING YEARS OLD at the very end of WCW's existence. You have no credibility when you can tell me that "you remember it well". That is just complete BS and you KNOW IT! At WCW's peak you would have been 3, maybe 4 years old. Just spare us of your stupidity.

I love your fuzzy math and how you just present things as facts like a "5 rating would have been a 3 back then because not as many people had tvs". NEWSFLASH!!! 12 years ago was NOT the stone age! We all had televisions, and I do not know of a single person who didn't have a tv.

Cena, Orton, Ziggler, Rhodes, Bryan, and Henry have all been working for the WWE since the Nexus angle happend. I know these characters very well, so yes I can comment on them. Cena & Orton have been working there for nearly ten years. Henry has been there since the AE.

You say the product is "far better today". Really? If WWE had competition from another wrestling company, how would they be doing today? Probably not so good... WCW, as bad as it was, had direct competition and still pulled decent ratings.

 

[satchmokilnt]

Great to already see such varied responses. and not just people having a bitch fest because of someone's opinion.

In response to therockiswwf's jibe that "Just because YOU didn't like the Rumble, doesn't mean everyone didn't like it." Well, i never said such. as i pointed out many times in my op, it is my opinion. i know first hand many that didn't like it/didn't mind it/were completely apathetic to it. its a broad spectrum of opinion. as others have already pointed out, to then turn around and say "99% hated wcw." is that so? because to say such seems to fly in the face of the point you were trying to make. But hey, its your opinion. you're entitled to it. you think wwe's on a roll, others think its floundering badly, and then others think its m.o.r. And then even more have just turned off over the years.

Personally, i feel people would need to have their heads checked if they're happy to shell out for ppvs that so constantly don't deliver. and the first thing that sprung to mind when this has been happening has been the 'for the monday night ratings' way that wcw used to book many of their ppvs back in the day. back in wwe's heyday you used to have a majority of your pay off at ppv. that rarely seems to happen nowadays. its got to the point now were i feel i might aswell just wait to watch the raw after ppv, rather than the ppv itself. it used to be a case were you could maybe miss a raw or smackdown (sd is barely useful for ppv build at all these days) but you wouldnt dare miss the ppv. those days are over.

One of the other points i was going to bring up in comparison is, the hotshotting of storylines. either botched badly or completely dismissed with no ending. it makes me feel like wcw did at times. either we're the butt of the jokes, or there's alot of inept people in powerful positions at wwe.

I also often see apologists stating "well, if they did what you wanted you'd be complaining it was too predictable." erm.....no, i certainly would not. id probably commend them for making the logical choice, to progress a story in a structured manner. something which has worked over the history of the industry. and will work again. wasn't just making surprises for the sake of screwing with the audience, a big reason for wcw failings in their latter years?

People have gotten so used to backing wwe like their sports team, that i feel many are now blinding themselves to the reality that wwe is going nowhere good anytime soon. there may be a bright spark every now and then, but it never seems to be truly capitalised on. its a sorry state of affairs when anything good that happens is down to the talent, in spite of creative. i cant remember the last time creative truly hit the ball out of the park. for what is supposed to be the highest echelon in the business, i find that scary.

and just one more wcw to wwe comparison.......the sledgehammer ladder match. need i say more.(no shock to see nash involved in that clusterfuck.)

 

[Steve001]

In my eyes the ball has been dropped on far too many occasions over the last few years. and well, the shark has truly been jumped over with a regularity that would make vince russo blush.(haha. ok, probably not)

Firstly, without Vinnie Ru, there would be no WWE for you to be such a mark for.
Biased WWE DVD and book releases are geared towards tearing Russo down and playing down his incredible accomplishments in the business.

Hell, in 1999, when Russo was flying high with his rejuvenated WCW product, Vinnie Mac even went as far as to 'pay off' sheet writers like Bill Apter to trash Russo at any given opportunity.

Also, in defence of Russo, If he is so terrible and was incapable of contributing to the WWE again, why oh why did Vinnie Mac try so hard to bring him back in 2002!?
Only for Russo to be blocked by 'Honker' Hearst Helmsley and the Underweartaker, who at the time, felt their position on the cards would be under threat if Russo regained his rightful post at the very top of Creative.

But in wCw, 99% of people hated the crap they were doing.

...the WWE has been on a big roll as of late where as wCw rarely ever had a great show.

As someone else has stated, I also find it highly amusing that you can state with such certainty that 99% of people "hated the crap they were doing".

Ugh, this is one of the biggest issues among members of the "IWC" (Man, I hate that self-glorifying term as well!)
WCW was never how WWE has portrayed them in their rubbish DVD releases! As a fan who watched Nitro, every week on TNT (and later TCM) from February 1996 right until the bitter end, The factual inaccuracies contained in said releases, going as far back as 2004's "Monday Night War" DVD, are enough to make any long-term fan's blood boil!

The editing of WCW content on the discs as well is horrific! Pyro sounds diminished or removed entirely, crowd pops/chants removed, Entrance and TV Opening themes edited along with commentary being removed also has created a pretty bleak picture of WCW in younger fans' minds.

With that said, I can't blame you for some of the opinions you've got, it's just that they're way off the mark pal...

As for your claim that "WCW rarely ever had a great show"...I laugh. Off the top of my head, In no particular order:

SuperBrawl II
Spring Stampede 1999 [Which many contest was WCW's last great PPV]
The June 5th, 2000 Nitro broadcast was great.
Mayhem 1999
Wrestle War 1990
Fall Brawl 2000 [Which Scott Steiner and Goldberg brutally suplexed and stiffed the hell out of each other, and thus giving us Goldy's greatest ever in-ring performance]

There's six great events, which took me a grand total of 11.3 seconds to think of, imagine If I really put some thought into it!? hehe

Anyway, onto the main topic at hand:

I do feel that lately WWE has made some right moves, However, the well discussed 'bad' moves they have made are not as catastrophic as some that dubya-see-dubya allowed themselves to make.

There are similarities though and the biggest in my mind is the often baffling lack of resolutions to major feuds. Which was commonplace in WCW from late '98 through to October '99...until Russo tried to salvage things.

Another worrying trend (actually, since around 2003) has been the ever expanding 'glass ceiling' that seems to crush WWE mid-carders beneath it more and more every year, much like, WCW.

Wrestlers won't get over, unless someone higher on the food chain puts them over! It's that simple.
The "Big Ten" (as frustrated WCW mid-carders called them at the time) not only refused to put over a younger competitor nipping at their heels, even when they did, many didn't know how, or refused to put younger Wrestlers over the "right way".
In an ideal match, both guys get over with the crowd, even the loser.

In Today's WWE, John Cena much like the "Big Ten", cannot accomplish that feat. His no-selling of opponents moves and his no selling of injuries are a big problem as well. He generally has been more of a hindrance when attempting to develop new stars, for the reasons mentioned above and more.

All in all, as weak as some aspects of it look on television, the WWE is still making pots of cash and the McMahon family coffers are filled to the brim! The WWE has been repeating some of WCW's errors for many years now, However, there is no end sight to the McMahon juggernaught.

 

[ECW Dan Selby]

In short, like many have said, no. It is not 'turning in to WCW'.

And again, like many have said, you probably need to do a little more research on what WCW was before comparing today's product to it.

WCW was on fire in 1998, but then politics began settling in and dictacting, leading to many of the workhorses wanting to jump ship, and storylines fizzling out without explaination (but hey, we've seen enough of that in WWE, too).

But I have to say, 'not as many people had tv's then' is one of the funniest comments i've read on this forum

 

[thrashtastic]

As someone else that was around and saw WCW in its peak and in its death, I don't think WWE is as bad as the dying days of WCW. At all. I loved WCW at its peak, but I couldn't watch towards the end because it was just bad. Plus, most of the guys I really liked had already jumped from the sinking ship anyway.

These days, I can sit down, watch Raw, and enjoy it overall. Last Monday was great in my opinion. The CM Punk/Daniel Bryan match alone was gold. Sure, it's not perfect, but I don't expect it to be. Even the Attitude Era that everyone seems to love so much (myself included) had some awful stuff. It is what it is.

For the record, I don't watch WWE because it's part of "Americana" or whatever. I didn't watch WWE for five years for various reasons. I watch now because there are guys to watch that are exciting to me and make me want to watch. It's no different than why I watched WWF, ECW, and WCW back in the day.

 

[Dynamitekid2012]

First off, love the fact that we're getting such varied opinions. Finally seems like we've found a topic that people don't just immediately jump on the bandwagon and regurgitate the same things after someone made one good point.


Anyway, back on topic...


There are some similarities. However, I believe there are some differences.

Similarities

1. Lack of payoffs. In this regard, WWE is worse than WCW was. I can remember WCW giving some pretty decent ones, but then again, they gave us some real stinkers too. With that said, WWE seems to drop the ball with all major feuds, and I can't remember the last time a feud that ended well. Hopefully that will change with the buildup to WM, but yeah, it's been a good year or so.

2. Cookie-Cutter guys and product. Remember the "New Blood" when WCW was trying to finally push and build new stars but they just kept pushing the guys with the same look? Yeah, WWE has been guilty of this for the past few years. The majority of their stars all look the same and we know nothing about any of them or their character besides them being this guy with generic name A or generic name B... Makes me miss pre-debut vignettes! But I digress...

3. PPVs don't seem special. It's hard to get invested in the product enough to shell out fifty bucks when you have the two previously mentioned problems going on, but even still, PPVs have become nearly meaningless, and that is very WCW-like.

4. Lack of Detail. The WWE booking doesn't make sense enough or insults our intelligence all too often. Am I supposed to believe that the Miz doesn't know there's a camera in front of him when he talks to R-Truth backstage when he just acknowledged the camera in an interview he did earlier in the night? Are we supposed to forget that pieces of the storyline don't add up or don't make sense? This is by far the biggest problem they have. It's not that this has never happened before, but it's never happened as prolifically as it is now... Or as it became in WCW at a point.


Differences

1. Investment in product. No competition and a fan loyalty that is rather remarkable. We all complain constantly about WWE, and yet continue to watch weekly or bi-weekly. This was not the case with WCW unfortunately.

2. The in-ring product is much better WCW. I still think they're missing some star performers, ala HBK, Ric Flair, Kurt Angle, types, but guys like Punk, Ziggler, and a few others are doing fairly well for carrying that aspect.

3. Production. I know this one seems like a cop-out but production values do matter more than we think. WWE's production is incredible at this point. No entertainment show, wrestling or anything else, even compares to their sets. WCW couldn't match them then in that regard even then, and would be no where close now.

4. WWE Makes New Stars. While I will agree that WWE has pushed some guys a little too soon and failed to fully utilize others, you can't negate the fact that WWE's biggest asset over the years is the fact that they always churn out the next star or at least try to. WCW failed to do this and this was their greatest weakness. I think WCW tried at the end, but it was way too little way too late.



Anyway, that's my brief analysis.

Also, for anyone that believes WCW completely sucked, they're full of it! WCW kept up with WWE, and was better than them for a long time. In fact, I believe in the years from 1992-1997 WCW had a superior product. Everyone talks about the NWO and how WCW ruled that time. While the NWO got people talking and more people started watching, the better wrestling in those years was going on in WCW.

Go watch Spring Stampede 1994. The most underrated PPV of all time. Fantastic wrestling throughout the entire card! I'll put that show right up there against any wrestling card of that era and that includes all Wrestlemanias. WCW was much better than people give it credit for!


Anyway, like the OP said, it;s all a matter of opinion. I just choose to not have mine skewed by the WWE machine and their lack of appreciation for other companies.

 

[GameOver]

I have never seen the Rise and Fall of wCw. Yes wCw was really really bad towards the end, it was just awful.

Now you say wCw was pulling the same ratings but that is actually not true. Less people had TVs back then so if something got a 5 back then it would get a 3 now. How can you have any say in this if you have not watched for 2 years? People like Cena, Orton, Ziggler, Rhodes, Bryan, Henry and many others have no talent? How can you say that? There is no way the the product today is worse than wCw in 2000-2001, the product today is far better.

PS- I did watch wCw and I remember it very well. It was bad, really bad.

Less people had tv's back then? wtf
it wasn't the dark ages lol. almost every home woulda had a tv, whether they'd be watching wrestling or not is pure speculation, but the global financial situation was alot better then and more people would have money to waste away on frivilis entertainment

More people can watch shows on phones, tablets, Ipad types, computers aswell as TV's. that's the difference.

agree with everything else you said. WCW at the end was dismal, nothing was good, infact as a near middle ages person WCW during the monday night wars other then the cruiserweights and mid card titles was barely watchable most of the time and even worse (atleast in Aus) it wasn't even shown each week alot just Nitro repeats for weeks on end. It was very much like what we all (that do) bitch and moan about TNA but WCW had the money to throw at big name stars and still use them and they still fucked it up.

WWE now is not awful, it's discombubilating (ooo there's a big word) and it doesn't appeal to bloodthirsty fans but it's certainly still has shades of brilliance and there is talent it's just few and far between atm with almost all the really big of the last 2 decades gone and only new green stars left, and Cena. So if anything it's like WWF was when WCW started winning the ratings war, the WWF new generation v2.

 

[Miakisaki]

Rise and Fall of wCw

WCW. NOT wCw.

It annoys the hell out of me every time I see anyone use "wCw" because I know it means the only real exposure to the brand they got was from when Vince decided to kick the dead horse around with the invasion angle or the faux WCW match between Bagwell and Booker T at the end of a Monday Night RAW at one point.

Now, the topic at hand.

I was a huge WCW fan between 1995 and the last Nitro in 2001. I cringed whenever I saw Russo and watched the company I grew up with and loved crash and burn in a new-blood covered crapfest thanks to him. Knowing all this, I can without a doubt say that WWE is NOT turning into WCW. Vince and his writing team may write terrible television most of the time, but Vince is still captain of the WWE ship. In 1999 I don't think anyone could really point the finger at someone in charge of WCW at the time. Wrestlers were booking themselves into matches, people weren't getting paid, ratings were falling faster than a Flair flop, and storylines were largely incoherent and very hard to follow. The WWE on the other hand is and always will be a very organized and established mass media corporation that learned how NOT to spend money maniacally. Although I didn't follow as much of the Attitude Era as I wanted to, I did eventually go back and learn to appreciate it and the fact that the McMahons know what they're doing. The only way the WWE can ever end up like WCW is if every McMahon suddenly died somehow and threw the entire company into disarray. Even then, they'd still probably recover because of the organization. WCW as you can see, never recovered.

The only event in WCW that I'll ever cite as the day of decline is the Nash/Hogan "Fingerpoke of Doom" event. I had as much problem with David Arquette winning the WCW title as I did Vince winning the WWF and ECW titles, that being none.

 

[Headman]

You COMPLETELY missed the whole point of my argument... Read it again, and maybe you will understand. The point is, that nobody would watch WWE right now if it was not for the history/ culture of the company itself. People watch WWE because it IS the WWE. In the 1990's people watched based upon what wrestlers were in certain companies, and how storylines were playing out. People don't care about that anymore. They watch the WWE because it is the WWE. Foley, Booker T, & Kevin Nash were all working for TNA and every WWE fan said , " Oh who cares? Those guys are all washed up." Now those guys work in the WWE again and all the WWE fans love them again. This is the point to my argument. WCW was indeed bad for the last couple of years. However, people had another wrestling company that they could watch back then. WCW still pulled similar ratings and had as much of a fanbase as the WWE currently has, and WWE DOESN'T HAVE ANY COMPETITION! This is why WCW at it's end was still better than WWE is today.

By the way, after Starrcade 1997 is when Nitro really started kicking Raw's ass. I think your timeline might be a little off.

There's no need to read it again. I doubt it would make any more sense a second time. Actually I chose to argue with the only point you made that could be debated with examples. Everything else you said was opinion and some accusation of why people watch WWE that you couldn't possibly know. You assuming that I watch WWE because it's part of some deep seeded culture is about as stupid as the other kid saying we didn't have tv's in the 1990's. You start off by saying you had to be old enough to remember what went on and then when someone tells you what went on you start talking ratings. Wrestling was hot back then. Stupid crap got huge ratings. You can talk about your opinions of how WCW at it's end was better than WWE is today, which is fine if you actually believe that. It just makes it hard to understand how someone with such a high tolerance for bad television could have such a problem with the current product. A product that you don't even watch so really have nothing to go on besides a botched angle from two years ago.

 

[therockiswwf]

Firstly, without Vinnie Ru, there would be no WWE for you to be such a mark for.
Biased WWE DVD and book releases are geared towards tearing Russo down and playing down his incredible accomplishments in the business.

Hell, in 1999, when Russo was flying high with his rejuvenated WCW product, Vinnie Mac even went as far as to 'pay off' sheet writers like Bill Apter to trash Russo at any given opportunity.

Also, in defence of Russo, If he is so terrible and was incapable of contributing to the WWE again, why oh why did Vinnie Mac try so hard to bring him back in 2002!?
Only for Russo to be blocked by 'Honker' Hearst Helmsley and the Underweartaker, who at the time, felt their position on the cards would be under threat if Russo regained his rightful post at the very top of Creative.



As someone else has stated, I also find it highly amusing that you can state with such certainty that 99% of people "hated the crap they were doing".

Ugh, this is one of the biggest issues among members of the "IWC" (Man, I hate that self-glorifying term as well!)
WCW was never how WWE has portrayed them in their rubbish DVD releases! As a fan who watched Nitro, every week on TNT (and later TCM) from February 1996 right until the bitter end, The factual inaccuracies contained in said releases, going as far back as 2004's "Monday Night War" DVD, are enough to make any long-term fan's blood boil!

The editing of WCW content on the discs as well is horrific! Pyro sounds diminished or removed entirely, crowd pops/chants removed, Entrance and TV Opening themes edited along with commentary being removed also has created a pretty bleak picture of WCW in younger fans' minds.

With that said, I can't blame you for some of the opinions you've got, it's just that they're way off the mark pal...

As for your claim that "WCW rarely ever had a great show"...I laugh. Off the top of my head, In no particular order:

SuperBrawl II
Spring Stampede 1999 [Which many contest was WCW's last great PPV]
The June 5th, 2000 Nitro broadcast was great.
Mayhem 1999
Wrestle War 1990
Fall Brawl 2000 [Which Scott Steiner and Goldberg brutally suplexed and stiffed the hell out of each other, and thus giving us Goldy's greatest ever in-ring performance]

There's six great events, which took me a grand total of 11.3 seconds to think of, imagine If I really put some thought into it!? hehe

Anyway, onto the main topic at hand:

I do feel that lately WWE has made some right moves, However, the well discussed 'bad' moves they have made are not as catastrophic as some that dubya-see-dubya allowed themselves to make.

There are similarities though and the biggest in my mind is the often baffling lack of resolutions to major feuds. Which was commonplace in WCW from late '98 through to October '99...until Russo tried to salvage things.

Another worrying trend (actually, since around 2003) has been the ever expanding 'glass ceiling' that seems to crush WWE mid-carders beneath it more and more every year, much like, WCW.

Wrestlers won't get over, unless someone higher on the food chain puts them over! It's that simple.
The "Big Ten" (as frustrated WCW mid-carders called them at the time) not only refused to put over a younger competitor nipping at their heels, even when they did, many didn't know how, or refused to put younger Wrestlers over the "right way".
In an ideal match, both guys get over with the crowd, even the loser.

In Today's WWE, John Cena much like the "Big Ten", cannot accomplish that feat. His no-selling of opponents moves and his no selling of injuries are a big problem as well. He generally has been more of a hindrance when attempting to develop new stars, for the reasons mentioned above and more.

All in all, as weak as some aspects of it look on television, the WWE is still making pots of cash and the McMahon family coffers are filled to the brim! The WWE has been repeating some of WCW's errors for many years now, However, there is no end sight to the McMahon juggernaught.

Probably should of made myself more clear. I was talking about 2000-2001 wCw not the stuff before that. I have not seen much of any wCw before 1999 (I have tapes of Nitro from 1999-2001 because my Bro and I always watched Raw and taped wCw. I know what happened before 1999 just have never watched it). I thought he was talking (he being the OP) about WWE failing and turning into wCw in 2000 when it really started to be on a downward spiral.

 

[Jackal960]

I have never seen the Rise and Fall of wCw. Yes wCw was really really bad towards the end, it was just awful.

Now you say wCw was pulling the same ratings but that is actually not true. Less people had TVs back then so if something got a 5 back then it would get a 3 now. How can you have any say in this if you have not watched for 2 years? People like Cena, Orton, Ziggler, Rhodes, Bryan, Henry and many others have no talent? How can you say that? There is no way the the product today is worse than wCw in 2000-2001, the product today is far better.

PS- I did watch wCw and I remember it very well. It was bad, really bad.

The way ratings are calculated are not as you think, even if your arguement of "there were less TV's" would have been true. The number of followers of WCW in 2000 (the crap show) was the same as the number of followers of WWE today (the show with great talents). If 99% of the viewers thought it was complete crap, than 1% would watch it. Was that the case? No. If WCW bought WWE and made a DVD about WWE's fall, don't worry they would find enough material to make you think WWE was the benchmark of being crap. The fact is this: WCW was bad, but not as bad as you think. It wasn't great but it was good enough. So why there is no WCW today? If WCW had a problem, it was financial than anything else, it wasn't profitable anymore with the huge salaries they got. Otherwise a program that can make 4-5 million people follow every week is good enough to keep (see: WWE 2012). However when the expenses are too high there is no point. It doesn't make the show "the most crap wrestling show in the world". It just makes it losing money. More money than you can earn in a lifetime. I love it when people read others opinions and become an expert of the wrestling 10-15 years ago

 

[Raiden46]

For me, this is a very simple answer - TOO MANY PPVs.

This entire problem can be blamed upon one man - Eric Bischoff. When he was running WCW, he increased the number of PPVs per year to 7. WWE soon followed. Bischoff later increased it to 10 and WWE soon followed. Finally, he just made it one PPV per month. WWE, of course wanting to stay competitive, mirrored WCW and went with one PPV per month. This, right here, is the main reason that buildup to PPVs is more often than not subpar.

Think about it. Wrestlemania is at the beginning of April. 3 weeks later, there is ANOTHER PPV. How can you effectively buildup a story or feud with only that much time? It's very difficult, if not impossible to pull it off. This leads me to another point. PPV matches are rehashed.

Since I started watching WWE again this past summer, I have noticed that WWE is rehashing the same competitors in their title matches. Take this example for instance. From MITB to Hell in a Cell, Punk and Cena were involved in the title picture. From Hell in a Cell to TLC, Punk and Del Rio were in a title feud. Ever since Big Show returned from injury, he has been involved in a feud for the world title with Henry. It gets old, fast.

Here's another reason. Why would anyone want to buy the PPV when they have seen the same matchups on Raw/SD a million times before? I can't give a better example of this than CM Punk and Dolph Ziggler. Those two guys fought each other 3 times in (I believe) consecutive weeks prior to the Rumble. We had already seen what those guys were capable of numerous times. Why would we tune in to see the same thing all over again? Granted, Punk/Ziggler are phenomenal athletes, but they are the exception and not the rule. You see where I'm going with this, though.

I'm flabbergasted that WWE (or TNA for that matter) can't figure this out. If you cut back the PPVs and hold the good matches for PPV only, the buy rates will go up. Yes, you will see a short-term loss in profit in the 1-2 months you cut those meaningless PPVs, but it will be made up over the long-run.

 

[jrichardson25]

For me, this is a very simple answer - TOO MANY PPVs.

The number of PPVs now is 12. Not 14 like WWE has had in the past several years. Granted WWE rehashes a lot of matches to keep a feud going longer than 4 shows... Just a thought.

This entire problem can be blamed upon one man - Eric Bischoff. When he was running WCW, he increased the number of PPVs per year to 7. WWE soon followed. Bischoff later increased it to 10 and WWE soon followed. Finally, he just made it one PPV per month. WWE, of course wanting to stay competitive, mirrored WCW and went with one PPV per month. This, right here, is the main reason that buildup to PPVs is more often than not subpar.

Can't blame Bischoff. The WWE didn't have to push that far. There wasn't an immense pressure on them for it (even though they were struggling for survival). Money talks just like it did then.

Think about it. Wrestlemania is at the beginning of April. 3 weeks later, there is ANOTHER PPV. How can you effectively buildup a story or feud with only that much time? It's very difficult, if not impossible to pull it off. This leads me to another point. PPV matches are rehashed.

THAT is the problem right there. Rehashing of matches... but you can do best of 5 or best of 7 matches and get a hell of a lot of excitement out of it. Which quite frankly would be epic... but the same match for the same prize multiple times does take the air out of the balloon so to speak.

Since I started watching WWE again this past summer, I have noticed that WWE is rehashing the same competitors in their title matches. Take this example for instance. From MITB to Hell in a Cell, Punk and Cena were involved in the title picture. From Hell in a Cell to TLC, Punk and Del Rio were in a title feud. Ever since Big Show returned from injury, he has been involved in a feud for the world title with Henry. It gets old, fast.

Who else is ready really? You're not going to see Zack Ryder or Heath Slater in the WWE or World title pictures... They aren't enough of a draw at this point (in Slater's case... didn't know he was still around...)

Here's another reason. Why would anyone want to buy the PPV when they have seen the same matchups on Raw/SD a million times before? I can't give a better example of this than CM Punk and Dolph Ziggler. Those two guys fought each other 3 times in (I believe) consecutive weeks prior to the Rumble. We had already seen what those guys were capable of numerous times. Why would we tune in to see the same thing all over again? Granted, Punk/Ziggler are phenomenal athletes, but they are the exception and not the rule. You see where I'm going with this, though.

Money. PPVs are for money. They're trying to entice the audience...

I'm flabbergasted that WWE (or TNA for that matter) can't figure this out. If you cut back the PPVs and hold the good matches for PPV only, the buy rates will go up. Yes, you will see a short-term loss in profit in the 1-2 months you cut those meaningless PPVs, but it will be made up over the long-run.

I'm willing to bet when the WWE Network launches the PPVs that aren't the big four will be moved over (supposedly going to happen) There does need to be hype. I can agree on that but the hype for the clash can't take away from TV time. They need to incorporate. The guys that can go off of bullet points on the stick need to be pushed to do as such.

To reply to the OP:
They have too much going on it seems. A lot of things are lost in the mud so to speak. The announcers are STILL fighting one another. They need to banter but they can't detract from show quality. They need to push it as much as well as the competitors. Those that are pushing to a match at a PPV need to give it hype. Not a recycled "I'm going to beat you at [insert PPV name here]" but something that raises stakes but also not gimmicky.

Just my thoughts...

 

[californiachef84]

There's no need to read it again. I doubt it would make any more sense a second time. Actually I chose to argue with the only point you made that could be debated with examples. Everything else you said was opinion and some accusation of why people watch WWE that you couldn't possibly know. You assuming that I watch WWE because it's part of some deep seeded culture is about as stupid as the other kid saying we didn't have tv's in the 1990's. You start off by saying you had to be old enough to remember what went on and then when someone tells you what went on you start talking ratings. Wrestling was hot back then. Stupid crap got huge ratings. You can talk about your opinions of how WCW at it's end was better than WWE is today, which is fine if you actually believe that. It just makes it hard to understand how someone with such a high tolerance for bad television could have such a problem with the current product. A product that you don't even watch so really have nothing to go on besides a botched angle from two years ago.

This is NOT an opinion piece... Do your homework a little bit before you start bashing on me. WWE's numbers are the same as they were during the early 1990's. WWE did decent business in "new generation" era, and Vince McMahon was fine with that said business. However, what happened when WCW started to compete and eventually took over during the monday night wars? WWE nearly went out of business; that is what happend.

In more recent times, WWE has fallen back into that same business cycle that it was in before the Attitude Era. The difference now is that there is not any competition for the WWE. If there were competition to the WWE now, the WWE would be in some trouble. Could you imagine if even just 1/3 of Raw's audience were watching another wrestling program on Monday night? This would be horrific for the WWE. No matter how you try and spin what is going on in the WWE right now, business is not good. They have lost more than half of their viewership over the past decade. The only people left watching the WWE now are people who have some kind of "loyalty" to the WWE because they watched it as kids and just never stopped. If people were truly watching wrestling for the "in-ring product", then they would watch ROH or TNA as both of these companies have a far better in-ring product than the WWE has.

 

[Jacob]

First of all I would like to apologize if I posted this in the wrong section. Now, why I feel like WWE is dropping the ball is they keep on having McIntrye, Alex Riley, and some other young WWE talent job to superstars like Santino ? McIntrye has the perfect size, mic skills and in ring talent to make some noise. Or at least a pretty damn good mid carder.

Also, totally unrelated, but I would love to see a heel stable of McIntrye, Riley, Dibiase, Mason Ryan, and maybe Justin Gabriel(?) form because they are pissed of being thought of as jokers have McIntrye win the IC, Ryan win the US, and have Riley and Dibase have the Tag Team champions. I think if booked right, they could all change how they are thought of

Thoughts? Bash?

 

[1ToughSOB]

My biggest complaint?

to predictable, take tonight the 10 man over the top battle royal, you'd have to be a fool to not know it was going to be Big Show and Jericho as the final 2 with Jericho some how
winning the match

other matches are just as easily predictable in determining the out come, my other complaint is this? the matches that are made are generally rehashed matches of old
due to the lack of creativity and overall locker room wrestlers they have

this is why guys like Foley, Nash and even the Rock have comeback in order to make
the shows more interesting to watch

 

[Arsenal]

For me, this is a very simple answer - TOO MANY PPVs.

This entire problem can be blamed upon one man - Eric Bischoff. When he was running WCW, he increased the number of PPVs per year to 7. WWE soon followed. Bischoff later increased it to 10 and WWE soon followed. Finally, he just made it one PPV per month. WWE, of course wanting to stay competitive, mirrored WCW and went with one PPV per month. This, right here, is the main reason that buildup to PPVs is more often than not subpar.

Think about it. Wrestlemania is at the beginning of April. 3 weeks later, there is ANOTHER PPV. How can you effectively buildup a story or feud with only that much time? It's very difficult, if not impossible to pull it off. This leads me to another point. PPV matches are rehashed.

Since I started watching WWE again this past summer, I have noticed that WWE is rehashing the same competitors in their title matches. Take this example for instance. From MITB to Hell in a Cell, Punk and Cena were involved in the title picture. From Hell in a Cell to TLC, Punk and Del Rio were in a title feud. Ever since Big Show returned from injury, he has been involved in a feud for the world title with Henry. It gets old, fast.

Here's another reason. Why would anyone want to buy the PPV when they have seen the same matchups on Raw/SD a million times before? I can't give a better example of this than CM Punk and Dolph Ziggler. Those two guys fought each other 3 times in (I believe) consecutive weeks prior to the Rumble. We had already seen what those guys were capable of numerous times. Why would we tune in to see the same thing all over again? Granted, Punk/Ziggler are phenomenal athletes, but they are the exception and not the rule. You see where I'm going with this, though.

I'm flabbergasted that WWE (or TNA for that matter) can't figure this out. If you cut back the PPVs and hold the good matches for PPV only, the buy rates will go up. Yes, you will see a short-term loss in profit in the 1-2 months you cut those meaningless PPVs, but it will be made up over the long-run.

Agree 100%. When there were only the big 4 PPV's, every one of them was built up extremely well. Those 4 PPV's were like Christmas day with the excitement to see resolutions for feuds built for months. Now there's a PPV every other week it seems, and they just rehash matches they give away for free anyway on Raw or Smackdown, so they're not special anymore. Not at all. If there were only 4 or even 6 PPV's per year, I'd probably order ALL of them, whereas now I'll only order WrestleMania.

 

[1ToughSOB]

My biggest complaint is the predictability of the matches, I find it way to easy now a days to figure out the outcome of matches, before they even happen..plus the story lines are
dull, boring and recycled with very little twist to add excitement to the viewer

 

[smokeyjoe414]

Has anyone else but me come to realize that there is far to much talking and not enough action on our weekly WWE shows, i remember the good old days when Stone Cold would enter the ring, trash talk for about 2 mins, then whupp somebodys ass, this week alone i have seen rock and cena in the ring without even so much as a raised eyebrow let alone fist , and Y2J- punk whom went back and forth for what seemed like a decade, without even squaring up.
I thought this was pro wrestling not a male version of "the view"

Your thoughts wrestling fans

 

[mancpenguin]

I think its the wrong time to complain about too much chat. The time before Mania is usually full of chat and near fights/incidents. The idea generally being that by the time Mania hits we really want to see people feuding finally get the chance to get their hands on each other. I personally like the build up - most great matches are based on loads of build up and then an awesome pay off. Such as HBK/Taker Mania match - the odd Sweet Chin Music here and there but it was mostly HBK talking. Y2J/CM Punk will be a great Mania match - have some patience and it'll pay off.