CM Punk hasn't lost clean since his face turn, Orton hadn't lost clean in months before Night of Champions. And the only reason he did is because they've been pushing Mark Henry for months, and are trying to reward him for 15 years of loyalty. Point is, top faces don't lose clean often, whether it's Cena or anybody else. That's how WWE is and that's how it's been for years and years. Pinpointing your general issues with the company on Cena is lame, and acting like Cena is the only culprit is even lamer.
WWE General Complaints Thread
- Thread starter Jack-Hammer
- Start date
IrishMcNaughton613
AWESOME
Then i guess the point here is that the WWE needs to make the matches more surprising. I remember the good old benoit and angle matches now those has surprise outsomes often. They didn't always have cheating or interference to effect the outcome of a heel win. Anyways champ thanks for the post back. I like the little debates with co-wrestling fans.
Sin Jackal
Occasional Pre-Show
That's how it's been since the PG era, it wasn't like that for a good while before that.
I distinctly remember The Rock losing cleanly significantly more often than Cena or Orton do now. I dare say at least 2-3x as much. Which is honestly why I found The Rock to be such an enjoyable character to watch. You weren't sure if he was going to neccessarily win the big match. There was always a "what if? factor, that is normally associated with high profile mid carders like the typical old Intercontinental champions (like Razor Ramon). You knew he'd win most of his matches, but he would lose the big one roughly half the time almost. It made him more interesting and likable.
The main problem with the WWE (for me), is this ridiculous stigma that top faces MUST win nearly 90% of the time, and the 10% of the time they lose has to be an unclean loss unless it's to another top face or a very heavily pushed heel. That is absolutely the biggest thing that sours me on WWE right now. My least favorite characters are precisely the ones who are almost always booked to win without fail, unless it is an unclean loss. They are annoying to see, because their mere presence spoils the outcome. "God, this guy again? No point in even watching the match basically except to hope someone intereferes and jumps him".
For example, Orton vs Christian. Christian is an enjoyable character to watch, but it was obvious during their fued that Christian had no chance. Hell, the announcers even REPEATEDLY said that. "Christian just can't beat Orton". "Sometimes there are wrestlers that just have your number, and Orton is that wrestler for Christian". etc etc.
Long story short, top faces don't need to win that damn much. It's an old pro wrestling cliche that it can do without. The business needs to evolve. Cena is not invincible, and his incessent booked wins have left a sour taste in the mouth for a lot of older fans. Likewise for Orton. . .I don't want to just signle out Cena. And yes, I realize this is not "their fault", I am not saying they're bad wrestlers. I'm talking about the booking being what needs to change. They need more losses. When I see Cena, I see W's. I don't see a character who I want to cheer for to succeed, because I know he's most likely going to anyway. I don't even cheer for those kinda of wrestlers to lose either. I just don't want to see them at all, because it spoils the show for me. I would rather enjoy it and not know what's about to happen just because someone's music hits and is about to have a match.
When were all these times when The Rock lost cleanly? Please give some examples, because I'm calling bullshit. He and Austin were just as protected then as Cena and Orton are today.
I can't see how anyone can complain about Cena's win/loss record when he's lost three out of his last four pay-per-view matches. Orton has also lost cleanly to Henry, TWICE. Did Rock ever lose cleanly to whatever monster WWE was pushing at the time? Didn't think so.
I can't see how anyone can complain about Cena's win/loss record when he's lost three out of his last four pay-per-view matches. Orton has also lost cleanly to Henry, TWICE. Did Rock ever lose cleanly to whatever monster WWE was pushing at the time? Didn't think so.
robinkom
With a TEAR... IN MY EEYYEEEE....
I hate the writers... they're terrible. It all gets filtered through McMahon or Steph but if that's the best they can come up with, why even have fucking writers...
I hate that for years upon years now they've been saying "This is the most historic Raw ever" or some variation. I hate that commentary doesn't actually call the fucking matches or moves in the ring. I hate Michael Cole's voice... he makes me want to kill a kitten.
Overly scripted promos are just so bland and artificial. There's nothing flowing or organic about how any of the young guys speak because the same people write everyone's dialog!! Not everyone is going to have charisma or personality, but why is it that in the 80s and 90s, even the less talented guys could still work the mic? They weren't coddled and told what to say, they had to make it up on their own within the context of the given feud.
On some level, I do prefer TNA's vignettes and promos. I don't hate or like the foul language, it's just natural for some. We're adults, these are the words we use when we're angry (or pretending to be angry). They're not PG, I like that too. I'd rather hear some more raw realistic dialog coming about between two grown men fighting over a title. I like their "hidden" camera look for the backstage segments too. Looks better sometimes than being up in their face for official interviews. They still have a long way to go overall though.
My other WWE complaints... The universal set for all TV shows. It's too busy and detracts from a lot of the performance. What ever happened to a curtain and aisle way... maybe a sign. Yeah, I'm a little old-school. But my favorite big Raw set was right at the start of the Attitude era when it was just the stage/ramp, Titantron, metal guardrails, and long curtain... and they had the long row of spotlights along the top of the tron.
The Spinner belt is atrocious also. For fucks sake, can we get a normal centerplate please? I was extremely pleased to see Cody Rhodes sporting a new version of the classic 80s/90s IC title... a step in the right direction.
It enrages me that WWE hires models and dancers for the women's division also (I refuse to use the term "Diva"). About the one thing TNA does do better than WWE is women's wrestling. I could just be spoiled though after watching Japanese women's wrestling for so many years. These chicks can't measure up to the likes of Bull Nakano, Megumi Kudo, or Akira Hokuto. They'd literally kill them.
Lastly, the worst thing Vince McMahon has ever done was purchase WCW. It's been said before and it'll be said again. Because of a decade of no viable competition, the entire industry has slumped, all so he could acquire their film archives and trademarks. Too many wrestlers on the market, not enough feasible employment opportunities beyond the indie circuit. This is why no matter how bad TNA might do, I sincerely hope they and ROH can make a run of their TV deals and grow their business. We need it.
I hate that for years upon years now they've been saying "This is the most historic Raw ever" or some variation. I hate that commentary doesn't actually call the fucking matches or moves in the ring. I hate Michael Cole's voice... he makes me want to kill a kitten.
Overly scripted promos are just so bland and artificial. There's nothing flowing or organic about how any of the young guys speak because the same people write everyone's dialog!! Not everyone is going to have charisma or personality, but why is it that in the 80s and 90s, even the less talented guys could still work the mic? They weren't coddled and told what to say, they had to make it up on their own within the context of the given feud.
On some level, I do prefer TNA's vignettes and promos. I don't hate or like the foul language, it's just natural for some. We're adults, these are the words we use when we're angry (or pretending to be angry). They're not PG, I like that too. I'd rather hear some more raw realistic dialog coming about between two grown men fighting over a title. I like their "hidden" camera look for the backstage segments too. Looks better sometimes than being up in their face for official interviews. They still have a long way to go overall though.
My other WWE complaints... The universal set for all TV shows. It's too busy and detracts from a lot of the performance. What ever happened to a curtain and aisle way... maybe a sign. Yeah, I'm a little old-school. But my favorite big Raw set was right at the start of the Attitude era when it was just the stage/ramp, Titantron, metal guardrails, and long curtain... and they had the long row of spotlights along the top of the tron.
The Spinner belt is atrocious also. For fucks sake, can we get a normal centerplate please? I was extremely pleased to see Cody Rhodes sporting a new version of the classic 80s/90s IC title... a step in the right direction.
It enrages me that WWE hires models and dancers for the women's division also (I refuse to use the term "Diva"). About the one thing TNA does do better than WWE is women's wrestling. I could just be spoiled though after watching Japanese women's wrestling for so many years. These chicks can't measure up to the likes of Bull Nakano, Megumi Kudo, or Akira Hokuto. They'd literally kill them.
Lastly, the worst thing Vince McMahon has ever done was purchase WCW. It's been said before and it'll be said again. Because of a decade of no viable competition, the entire industry has slumped, all so he could acquire their film archives and trademarks. Too many wrestlers on the market, not enough feasible employment opportunities beyond the indie circuit. This is why no matter how bad TNA might do, I sincerely hope they and ROH can make a run of their TV deals and grow their business. We need it.
akrassikauda
#Evil Empire
I know there is a WWE complaints thread on the site but I feel because this is breaking news from the main site there needs to be a separate thread for this topic.
Just read on the main page that WWE creative will listen more to internet fans complaints.
That's a good thing but let's not go overboard with it because some complaints are warranted and unwarranted.
One of my complaints is too many PPV's at $50. If it's not the big 4 drop the price to $40.
Another one is John Cena no no no Cena haters put your tongues back in your mouths it's not a hate thread I'm a Cena guy, but I would like him to freestyle more. Bring back the Doctor Of Thuganomics. When Cena came back at the Rock even Cena haters had to love that the old Cena promo came back don't change Hustle Loyalty Respect but let him do what he used to do. In those old freestyle raps the crowd was into it that led to Cena getting over
Michael Cole has to do 1 show. Put JR back on Smackdown to work with Booker T hey the guy worked with Tazz and Paul E. and made those guys good at the table.
Finally have title reigns last the max 90 days. There are too many title changes. How is Del Rio suppose to get heat after losing then gaining the title in 2 weeks have someone chase the title. The chase is more fun.
Anyone else have REASONABLE complaints.
This is not a hate thread. Come with real articulate responses
Just read on the main page that WWE creative will listen more to internet fans complaints.
That's a good thing but let's not go overboard with it because some complaints are warranted and unwarranted.
One of my complaints is too many PPV's at $50. If it's not the big 4 drop the price to $40.
Another one is John Cena no no no Cena haters put your tongues back in your mouths it's not a hate thread I'm a Cena guy, but I would like him to freestyle more. Bring back the Doctor Of Thuganomics. When Cena came back at the Rock even Cena haters had to love that the old Cena promo came back don't change Hustle Loyalty Respect but let him do what he used to do. In those old freestyle raps the crowd was into it that led to Cena getting over
Michael Cole has to do 1 show. Put JR back on Smackdown to work with Booker T hey the guy worked with Tazz and Paul E. and made those guys good at the table.
Finally have title reigns last the max 90 days. There are too many title changes. How is Del Rio suppose to get heat after losing then gaining the title in 2 weeks have someone chase the title. The chase is more fun.
Anyone else have REASONABLE complaints.
This is not a hate thread. Come with real articulate responses
First comment on that article:
Not to say they shouldn't have angles that appeal to fans on the 'net. But let's not overdo it, because as evidenced by the Punk angle people are going to find reasons to complain anyway. They need to keep the internet fans drawn in without making their complaints the focus. As with everything, it's a balance. But if we're going to tip the scales to one side, I say keep them tipped towards the side that is much more easily satisfied.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Not to say they shouldn't have angles that appeal to fans on the 'net. But let's not overdo it, because as evidenced by the Punk angle people are going to find reasons to complain anyway. They need to keep the internet fans drawn in without making their complaints the focus. As with everything, it's a balance. But if we're going to tip the scales to one side, I say keep them tipped towards the side that is much more easily satisfied.
rockyrocky11
Occasional Pre-Show
This shows how biast you are for today's stars. Rock put Lesnar and even Goldberg over cleanly. THE ROCK LOST TO THE HURRICANE! The Rock even lost his first match in the undisputed championship ppv. Lesnar and Goldberg were clean. Cena didn't lose any of those matches cleanly. You are being redicilous..
S.J. Maximus
Championship Contender
Time and time again fans on this site have created threads bashing the PG era and praising the Attitude Era. Each time I've seen it happen, the majority of responses have been critical of the OP and some went on to call the Attitude Era terribly overrated. That was the title of another thread, which was also criticized by most of its respondents to no end. People say that today "isn't that bad" and that before had "no in-ring action" but let's look at the facts:
- Every buyrate of 2011 (excluding WrestleMania) has been the lowest it has been for that month in years
- The average ratings in 1998-2002 are more than double the average ratings in 2009-2011
-Wrestling was a big part of American culture in the 90's and now is looked at as stupid and uncool
-Stars such as The Rock, Steve Austin, Mick Foley, and Triple H appeared on some of the most popular shows in the U.S. at the time, such as Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, Celebrity Deathmatch, Boy Meets World and nothers
-Apart from Cena, Miz and Edge are really the only ones to appear on a TV show, Miz on Psych and Edge on Haven, both of which aren't top shows
So what is causing these facts? Is it the PG vs. TV-14 battle? Is it the quality of the talent? Is it the creative team? I'm going to assemble a list of things that I particularly enjoyed in the Attitude Era that I don't see today to help you make an argument but I want to know why you think wrestling is nowhere near as popular now than it has traditionally been.
TV-14 vs. PG - This is a big argument that I don't like to join but it seems to a lot of people that this is the key to success. In 1999, curse words were as common as ring names and people were often busted to up to express the severity of an attack. Before 2011, we never heard curse words and I don't think we've seen blood since Flair bladed himself in early 2009 during a Jericho attack. Although I'm not a fan of cursing, I think blood is a very effective way to put over brutality and a beneficial part of wrestling.
Lack of "Star Power" - Stone Cold Steve Austin was RAW in 1998-99, just as the Rock was RAW from the remainder of 1999 and 2000. WWE took advantage of their star power and helped ratings soar. Today, John Cena is seen as the only true star in the WWE but the show hasn't always been built around him (Randy Orton loves the spotlight). I don't like this argument because I don't think stars are just magically born (popular belief says they are) and I do believe that with the right promotion, a lot of people can become stars (Ultimate Warrior), therefore they should've been able to create more stars to give Cena some competition just like there was a lot of competition in 2001 between Rock, Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, RVD, and Booker T.
Solid midcard - Although Rock remained in the main event for all of 2000, we saw Triple H, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show, Chris Benoit, and many more fluctuate between main event and midcard for the stake of putting each other all over. This method helped put Kurt Angle into the main event, helped Rikishi be a viable top guy (until Austin buried him), and made matches like Rock vs. Shane for the WWF title solid draws. Below them we had credible guys like Val Venis, Road Dogg, Eddie Guerrero, and more battle for the IC title that actually put over the holder as a great champ. Today, our midcard champs mean nothing and besides from the champs who get weekly air-time, people like JoMo, A-Ri, and Santino Marella seem interchangeable and are sporadically given air-time.
Solid Tag Teams - Believe it or not, during the Attitude Era there were non-title tag team matches on pay-per-views! Back then, tag teams would feud just as regularly as single stars do, and it would draw nice reviews as many tag teams partook in the feuding concept. Just like singles stars, the tag titles would be defended at every pay-per-view in addition to those other tag team feuds. Today, there are only 2 legitimate tag teams with names (Usos and Air Boom) and they haven't even feuded or anything yet.
Managers - This may be more applicable to the 80's but there were still some decent managers from 1998-2002. At the top of the list has to be Stephanie McMahon, who managed 3 world champs during this time (HHH, Angle, Jericho) and drew massive heat during her run. There was also Shane (Test, Big Show, Benoit, Booker T), Paul Bearer, Terri Runnels (Hardys, E&C, Perry Saturn), Lita (Hardys), Stacy Keibler (Dudley Boys), Steven Richards (Right To Censor) and many more who added a whole new dynamic to matches. Today Vickie Guerrero is the one and only manager in the WWE, yet she's probably the biggest heat magnet in the entire company.
Gang Warfare (Stables) - 1998-2002 was all about stables. In 98 we saw DX, The Ministry, The Corporation Nation of Domination, Truth Commission and more all feud with one another for various reasons. 2000 brought us the McMahon-Helmsley regime, the climax of Too Cool, Right To Censor, The Radicals, and other groups that intensified singles matches because we didn't know who would interfere when. Today, there are almost no groups, and there haven't been group battles for a long time. The groups we've seen emerged have always attacked 1 man, which I don't think is ever a good idea. La Familia vs. Taker, Legacy vs Triple H, and Nexus vs. Cena are all unrealistic to me and I think it would've been cooler to see them battle each other.
Gimmicks vs Realism - This is my choice right here. One thing that separated WWF from all of its competitors in the 80's/90's was the absurdity of some of its characters' names, such as Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, Diesel, Razor Ramon, Stone Cold, The Rock, and Triple H. These were all gimmicks that gave you a sense of the character and personality before you even met them. It's entertainment (it's in the name) so let them entertain us with gimmicks and larger-than-life personalities. Trying to mimmick UFC and Boxing by using real names is just dishonest, pretending it's real but everyone (especially mainstream media) knows it's not. Calling your guys McGullicuty and Ted Dibiase (with no moniker) isn't fooling anyone. Remember when everyone had a moniker like "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes and "Ravishing" Rick Rude? Calling Triple H Paul onscreen doesn't increase ratings, it just ruins the suspended disbelief that we're supposed to have.
Lack of Authority Figures - In 1998 there was an established hierarchy in the WWF/E. Vince was Chairman, Linda was CEO, and Sgt. Slaughter was commissioner. That eventually became Shawn Michaels, then Foley, the so forth. When GMs came in, Vince was SD and Flair was RAW. Then Bischoff came in and Steph came in, and so forth. Having onscreen authority figures adds a whole dynamic and it's a hell of a lot easier to build up rebels and anti-authority personalities. In 2009-2011, RAW has been ruled by a plethora of individuals thanks to the Guest Host concept. Seeing Chavo feud weekly with each host did NOTHING for me and nothing for his career. The anonymous GM storyline was stupid and now they've magically dropped it from our consciousness. There was almost "free reign" on RAW for years but not they're finally bringing it back as Vince was fired and Triple H is COO.
Gimmick Pay-Per-Views - I personally think this was one of the dumber things WWE has done in recent years. I like Extreme Rules because the matches can change from year to year but we're always guaranteed intense matchups. I'd like Money in the Bank if there was only one match containing guys from both brands, but all this Hell in A Cell, TLC, and Elimination Chamber bullshit has to go. Like Kevin Von Erich said on an article here, these big matches shouldn't be used randomly to start feuds and what-not, these matches need to occur as a final result of a big feud or storyline. That way, we as fans are treated to see the gimmick match and each match is that much more special.
So that's my list, sorry for taking so much of your time if you did take the time to read it. What do you think is the main difference between 1998-2002 and 2009-present?
- Every buyrate of 2011 (excluding WrestleMania) has been the lowest it has been for that month in years
- The average ratings in 1998-2002 are more than double the average ratings in 2009-2011
-Wrestling was a big part of American culture in the 90's and now is looked at as stupid and uncool
-Stars such as The Rock, Steve Austin, Mick Foley, and Triple H appeared on some of the most popular shows in the U.S. at the time, such as Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, Celebrity Deathmatch, Boy Meets World and nothers
-Apart from Cena, Miz and Edge are really the only ones to appear on a TV show, Miz on Psych and Edge on Haven, both of which aren't top shows
So what is causing these facts? Is it the PG vs. TV-14 battle? Is it the quality of the talent? Is it the creative team? I'm going to assemble a list of things that I particularly enjoyed in the Attitude Era that I don't see today to help you make an argument but I want to know why you think wrestling is nowhere near as popular now than it has traditionally been.
TV-14 vs. PG - This is a big argument that I don't like to join but it seems to a lot of people that this is the key to success. In 1999, curse words were as common as ring names and people were often busted to up to express the severity of an attack. Before 2011, we never heard curse words and I don't think we've seen blood since Flair bladed himself in early 2009 during a Jericho attack. Although I'm not a fan of cursing, I think blood is a very effective way to put over brutality and a beneficial part of wrestling.
Lack of "Star Power" - Stone Cold Steve Austin was RAW in 1998-99, just as the Rock was RAW from the remainder of 1999 and 2000. WWE took advantage of their star power and helped ratings soar. Today, John Cena is seen as the only true star in the WWE but the show hasn't always been built around him (Randy Orton loves the spotlight). I don't like this argument because I don't think stars are just magically born (popular belief says they are) and I do believe that with the right promotion, a lot of people can become stars (Ultimate Warrior), therefore they should've been able to create more stars to give Cena some competition just like there was a lot of competition in 2001 between Rock, Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, RVD, and Booker T.
Solid midcard - Although Rock remained in the main event for all of 2000, we saw Triple H, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show, Chris Benoit, and many more fluctuate between main event and midcard for the stake of putting each other all over. This method helped put Kurt Angle into the main event, helped Rikishi be a viable top guy (until Austin buried him), and made matches like Rock vs. Shane for the WWF title solid draws. Below them we had credible guys like Val Venis, Road Dogg, Eddie Guerrero, and more battle for the IC title that actually put over the holder as a great champ. Today, our midcard champs mean nothing and besides from the champs who get weekly air-time, people like JoMo, A-Ri, and Santino Marella seem interchangeable and are sporadically given air-time.
Solid Tag Teams - Believe it or not, during the Attitude Era there were non-title tag team matches on pay-per-views! Back then, tag teams would feud just as regularly as single stars do, and it would draw nice reviews as many tag teams partook in the feuding concept. Just like singles stars, the tag titles would be defended at every pay-per-view in addition to those other tag team feuds. Today, there are only 2 legitimate tag teams with names (Usos and Air Boom) and they haven't even feuded or anything yet.
Managers - This may be more applicable to the 80's but there were still some decent managers from 1998-2002. At the top of the list has to be Stephanie McMahon, who managed 3 world champs during this time (HHH, Angle, Jericho) and drew massive heat during her run. There was also Shane (Test, Big Show, Benoit, Booker T), Paul Bearer, Terri Runnels (Hardys, E&C, Perry Saturn), Lita (Hardys), Stacy Keibler (Dudley Boys), Steven Richards (Right To Censor) and many more who added a whole new dynamic to matches. Today Vickie Guerrero is the one and only manager in the WWE, yet she's probably the biggest heat magnet in the entire company.
Gang Warfare (Stables) - 1998-2002 was all about stables. In 98 we saw DX, The Ministry, The Corporation Nation of Domination, Truth Commission and more all feud with one another for various reasons. 2000 brought us the McMahon-Helmsley regime, the climax of Too Cool, Right To Censor, The Radicals, and other groups that intensified singles matches because we didn't know who would interfere when. Today, there are almost no groups, and there haven't been group battles for a long time. The groups we've seen emerged have always attacked 1 man, which I don't think is ever a good idea. La Familia vs. Taker, Legacy vs Triple H, and Nexus vs. Cena are all unrealistic to me and I think it would've been cooler to see them battle each other.
Gimmicks vs Realism - This is my choice right here. One thing that separated WWF from all of its competitors in the 80's/90's was the absurdity of some of its characters' names, such as Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, Diesel, Razor Ramon, Stone Cold, The Rock, and Triple H. These were all gimmicks that gave you a sense of the character and personality before you even met them. It's entertainment (it's in the name) so let them entertain us with gimmicks and larger-than-life personalities. Trying to mimmick UFC and Boxing by using real names is just dishonest, pretending it's real but everyone (especially mainstream media) knows it's not. Calling your guys McGullicuty and Ted Dibiase (with no moniker) isn't fooling anyone. Remember when everyone had a moniker like "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes and "Ravishing" Rick Rude? Calling Triple H Paul onscreen doesn't increase ratings, it just ruins the suspended disbelief that we're supposed to have.
Lack of Authority Figures - In 1998 there was an established hierarchy in the WWF/E. Vince was Chairman, Linda was CEO, and Sgt. Slaughter was commissioner. That eventually became Shawn Michaels, then Foley, the so forth. When GMs came in, Vince was SD and Flair was RAW. Then Bischoff came in and Steph came in, and so forth. Having onscreen authority figures adds a whole dynamic and it's a hell of a lot easier to build up rebels and anti-authority personalities. In 2009-2011, RAW has been ruled by a plethora of individuals thanks to the Guest Host concept. Seeing Chavo feud weekly with each host did NOTHING for me and nothing for his career. The anonymous GM storyline was stupid and now they've magically dropped it from our consciousness. There was almost "free reign" on RAW for years but not they're finally bringing it back as Vince was fired and Triple H is COO.
Gimmick Pay-Per-Views - I personally think this was one of the dumber things WWE has done in recent years. I like Extreme Rules because the matches can change from year to year but we're always guaranteed intense matchups. I'd like Money in the Bank if there was only one match containing guys from both brands, but all this Hell in A Cell, TLC, and Elimination Chamber bullshit has to go. Like Kevin Von Erich said on an article here, these big matches shouldn't be used randomly to start feuds and what-not, these matches need to occur as a final result of a big feud or storyline. That way, we as fans are treated to see the gimmick match and each match is that much more special.
So that's my list, sorry for taking so much of your time if you did take the time to read it. What do you think is the main difference between 1998-2002 and 2009-present?
I think alot of it has to do with "What you still watch wrestling"? What was once the cool thing to watch on tv no longer applies... Too many PPVs lack of star power excluding orton and cena there is no star power anymore!! The tag team division has been dead along time!! I dont mind the PG era whatever makes the kids happy although there gonna hear curse words in school anyway. The reason i think wrestling has dropped off is MMA and well lack of star power and too many stupid gimick matches! EC and Hell in a cell where once cool came around every so often but now there once a year theres no longer that special match! Wrestling has become unrealistic at times and not enough story developing!!
drk_knight
Dark Match Winner
If you made this thread in 2007-2010 it would make alot more sense.
But ever since CM Punk's tirade, WWE has drastically improved with most of the things you have listed. It can only get better from here.
But ever since CM Punk's tirade, WWE has drastically improved with most of the things you have listed. It can only get better from here.
Lack of talent. You can't compare today's roster to back then; it's laughable. Where are the Benoits, Angles, Jerichos, D-Los, Blackmans, even the Hollys, Al Snows and Gangrels? But since I can't vote for 2, 3 and 4, I'll vote for lack of good stable battles. They gave midcard folks things to do and were entertaining. TV ratings and managers aren't the furthest from the problem(Smackdown and Heat were TV-PG during the AE, and there weren't many good managers back then).
False, there's always been swearing, it was just toned down a bit in 2007. Plus there was blood in late 2009 and parts of 2010, it was the hard way and cleaned up by doctors lol.
Lowdown
Ooh baby I like it roooaaaaw!
You bring up interesting points. But its the period that wrestling is in. There are still die hard fans that still watch or want to watch. It depends on their individual perceptions. The talent is there in their midcard, like Kofi, Evan Bourne, I'll even throw in Sheamus. IMO WWE was trying to do too much to fast over the last couple of years like putting the title on unproven stars like the aforementioned Sheamus and Jack Swagger. But I also think that they're trying to appease the number of fans that demand that younger talent be built up. The folks that want the Attitude Era to resurface basically want what was present during the Monday Night Wars. The problem is like I mentioned on another thread is that WWE doesn't have direct competition to keep them on their toes. Also, think about this; back in the 80's when Hogan was the champ for 3 or 4 years, WWF was PG then. No cussing, very few bloody matches, and most of the focus was centered around building up the characters little by little without long soliloquies. Most of the major stars brought a little of themselves into what they portrayed in the ring. I can't suggest to WWE what they should do since I'm not in the business. It's true that I'm not a fan of what they're doing now. But the wrestling biz evolves at slow and fast paces. Somewhere down the line there might be something better than the Attitude Era but not as risque so to speak. Only time will tell.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
It's pretty much pointless to compare eras. Times change and with that changes taste. It's not that the ratings have started going down just now, they have been declining since 2002 the time at which the hottest era in wrestling, the Attitude Era ended. It was a fad that was great for a while and then people just grew out of it. Also you have had the Benoit murders and that turned a lot of people off wrestling. From what I have heard Raw is still one of the top weekly episodic shows in the US ranking fourth or fifth in terms of TV ratings so you cannot really say that wrestling is doing too badly.
However I did go through your list and the only thing that I do agree with to an extent is the lack of starpower. I think that WWF in the Attitude Era had about 5 guys who would be ranked among the top 10 or 15 wrestlers of all time. As far as this generation goes, and if I consider only the work they have done till now, only Cena would get in that list. Orton was just average till 2007 till he started kicking people in the head. Batista peaked early into his main event career and could rarely give an equivalently good performance. Edge was a good foil to guys like Cena and Taker but I did not care much for his feuds when he was not involved with them. Mysterio has a specific fanbase to whom he appeals but apart from kids not a whole lot of adults bond with his character. In comparison, I think that Austin, Rock and Foley were universally liked at all points in the Attitude Era while HHH was universally hated. Guys like Undertaker, Jericho and Angle were not as big in that era but great foils to the likes of Austin and Rock.
However I did go through your list and the only thing that I do agree with to an extent is the lack of starpower. I think that WWF in the Attitude Era had about 5 guys who would be ranked among the top 10 or 15 wrestlers of all time. As far as this generation goes, and if I consider only the work they have done till now, only Cena would get in that list. Orton was just average till 2007 till he started kicking people in the head. Batista peaked early into his main event career and could rarely give an equivalently good performance. Edge was a good foil to guys like Cena and Taker but I did not care much for his feuds when he was not involved with them. Mysterio has a specific fanbase to whom he appeals but apart from kids not a whole lot of adults bond with his character. In comparison, I think that Austin, Rock and Foley were universally liked at all points in the Attitude Era while HHH was universally hated. Guys like Undertaker, Jericho and Angle were not as big in that era but great foils to the likes of Austin and Rock.
Great Post and a well chosen selection of poll options. I went for the lack of tag teams. Clearly, they figure that the draw of tag teams is not worth the investment of stars who could potentially become main event singles wrestlers. Personally, I have always looked at the tag team division as the best way to reach the top of your game. The likes of Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Jeff Hardy, Edge, Christian and many more all reached the peak of their talents with tag team experience. More importantly, it provides the guys who don't neccesarily have the ideal look of physique to get over and to prove that they deserve a spot for a great work rate.
Whats more, tag team matches used to steal the show all the time. It is the oppurtunity to provide poetic mayhem in and around the ring, whilst also creating original characters, who thrive simply because they don;t have the same pressures that the top spot guys have.
This latest attempt to revitalise the tag team division seems sadly hollow. The belts mean next to nothing these days, when they were once so hotly contested.
Whats more, tag team matches used to steal the show all the time. It is the oppurtunity to provide poetic mayhem in and around the ring, whilst also creating original characters, who thrive simply because they don;t have the same pressures that the top spot guys have.
This latest attempt to revitalise the tag team division seems sadly hollow. The belts mean next to nothing these days, when they were once so hotly contested.
The overall change is society is whats hurting the WWE. Things are just drastically different than they were 13 years ago. Wrestling was never cool because of the in ring action, it was cool because it was a young mans fantasy world. People loved the idea of telling your boss to fuck off and yelling suck it while hot women were all over you. It was the athletic version of "crash TV" that made Jerry Springer so popular.
I think reality TV and MMA have hurt pro wrestling the most.
What could the WWE do to top what everyone see's on reality TV? Drinking, drugs, fights, swearing, and sex are what people see every week on shows like Jersey Shore. How the hell is someone flipping Vince off supposed to compete with that.
The UFC is probably most responsible for beating the shit out of pro wrestling. UFC doesn't make wrestling fans stop watching the WWE, but it keeps casual fans from ever starting. Wrestling just isn't cool in the mainstream anymore. The WWE always beat MMA in ratings until the UFC changed their approach. Once they started upping their production and interviews, they started killing pro wrestling. People were seeing real fights with real people and they ate it up.
In a nutshell, it just isn't cool to be a wrestling fan anymore.
I think reality TV and MMA have hurt pro wrestling the most.
What could the WWE do to top what everyone see's on reality TV? Drinking, drugs, fights, swearing, and sex are what people see every week on shows like Jersey Shore. How the hell is someone flipping Vince off supposed to compete with that.
The UFC is probably most responsible for beating the shit out of pro wrestling. UFC doesn't make wrestling fans stop watching the WWE, but it keeps casual fans from ever starting. Wrestling just isn't cool in the mainstream anymore. The WWE always beat MMA in ratings until the UFC changed their approach. Once they started upping their production and interviews, they started killing pro wrestling. People were seeing real fights with real people and they ate it up.
In a nutshell, it just isn't cool to be a wrestling fan anymore.
MaxPlastic
The Fantastic Captain
I voted "Other" because honestly the current WWE would be more interesting if it had more legitimate competition. The only reason it seems boring is because they have no reason to out-do themselves. I don't miss the overt sexuality of the womens' division, or the stupid sophomoric humor of stables like DX, or excessive blood and violence (I love ECW, but WWE is ECW and shouldn't try to be)... But I do think some of those things in moderation can benefit the E. I don't really miss The Attitude Era for any of the content per se, but I miss the competition that spurned it and caused all wrestling companies to rise to the challenge
WWE needs competition..now they are ONLY concentrating on those litle kiddy fans who buy merch and generate more revenue ...if there's a competition like WCW they would be compelled to make the show more edgier and unpredictable!
and also please turm Hogan 2.0 Cena Heel.
and also please turm Hogan 2.0 Cena Heel.
FearMyBeard
Occasional Pre-Show
1.) Hell in a Cell as the "Match that ends all matches in a feud" status has been lost. Now competitors are just booked in Hell in a Cell just for the sake of saying "Ohhhhhhhh they iNsiDe dA CeLl!!!! Ohhhhhh NO!!!!!!111, it DANGERs! DANGERs! I tells ya!"
Hell in a Cell should be reserved for big time, high profile feuds that has received tremendous built-up. Not just a random triple threat match for the title. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on the Punk vs. Cena vs. Del Rio match itself, but the built for that match didn't justify the usage of the demonic structure known as Hell in a Cell.
2. So, Punk's the voice of the voiceless.... Guess that would make Johnny boy Laurinatis the voice of the talentless? I don't like the fact that the guy is an on-screen character with mic time. Hell, I'm cool with having heel authority figures but at least make sure that the one who they'll pick is able to talk and talk good because that's their main role anyways.
Hell in a Cell should be reserved for big time, high profile feuds that has received tremendous built-up. Not just a random triple threat match for the title. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on the Punk vs. Cena vs. Del Rio match itself, but the built for that match didn't justify the usage of the demonic structure known as Hell in a Cell.
2. So, Punk's the voice of the voiceless.... Guess that would make Johnny boy Laurinatis the voice of the talentless? I don't like the fact that the guy is an on-screen character with mic time. Hell, I'm cool with having heel authority figures but at least make sure that the one who they'll pick is able to talk and talk good because that's their main role anyways.
These few weeks we had seen improvements on WWE's storyline, which is suppose to be good. Probably I'm nitpicking here, but despite seeing these improvements, something disturbing also arises as well in my opinion.
Things happened on RAW outside of scripts reported almost every week, and frankly speaking, it isn't a good thing. As an amateur screen-writer myself, probably I tend to look at that perspective and understand that it's really hard to come up with ideas within a short one week of deadline, which is why WWE gets a team to do the job.
Scripts shouldn't be re-written once it's out. First of all, it doesn't reflect professionalism, and second, how is there possible to have communication if the scripts are re-written?
Recent reports such as JR felt embarrassing over his "firing" and even to the extend of having JL hurt showed the implications of what happen when scripts are not fulling finalized before the show starts.
True there are improvements with WWE's storyline(Although it's just re-using same old "cliches") but not everyone is like CM Punk, to be able to do an impromptu that easily. There's a reason why there's a need for scripts, and WWE creative team should look into that in a serious manner.
Things happened on RAW outside of scripts reported almost every week, and frankly speaking, it isn't a good thing. As an amateur screen-writer myself, probably I tend to look at that perspective and understand that it's really hard to come up with ideas within a short one week of deadline, which is why WWE gets a team to do the job.
Scripts shouldn't be re-written once it's out. First of all, it doesn't reflect professionalism, and second, how is there possible to have communication if the scripts are re-written?
Recent reports such as JR felt embarrassing over his "firing" and even to the extend of having JL hurt showed the implications of what happen when scripts are not fulling finalized before the show starts.
True there are improvements with WWE's storyline(Although it's just re-using same old "cliches") but not everyone is like CM Punk, to be able to do an impromptu that easily. There's a reason why there's a need for scripts, and WWE creative team should look into that in a serious manner.
I Don't see where you see these "improvements" at, but it's just been garbage for the last few weeks. It went from me being excited for monday to hurry up to come to see whats going to happen next, to "What the F*** are they thinking?".
Nothing has made any sense whatsoever, it's been one big cluster f*** after another, 30-40mins of talking at the beginning of the show makes me want to drop kick my tv. IMHO wwe has dropped the ball with the main storyline, and it's really heart breaking because it had potential to be really good.
The problem with the Creative Team is that they don't seem to know what they want and the direction to where they want their story to be. I can't blame them for losing that direction, I think It's management's call to change it at the last minute.
I just hope that given the push that the WWE has been receiving due to CM Punk's conspiracy promo, they won't put that to waste. They should learn from their mistakes in the pasts and make they won't commit the same ones now. Otherwise, they might end up losing that momentum.
I just hope that given the push that the WWE has been receiving due to CM Punk's conspiracy promo, they won't put that to waste. They should learn from their mistakes in the pasts and make they won't commit the same ones now. Otherwise, they might end up losing that momentum.
I'd say the main problem is the top people/person making the final discussions (Vince). In the end hes the one that decides if they have to do a re-write and decides what makes it onto TV.
Creative could come up with hundreds of good ways for one show, but if Vince doesn't like them we will never see those ideas in the show.
I think the main reason some of the big storylines involving Punk have been screwed up so bad or seem to have cut out is from Vince being afraid to losing Punk. Punk isn't someone Vince has "made" into a star. Punk came up with his character on his own and was known before coming to the WWE. I think Vince is scared of pushing him to much to where he becomes one of the top faces or heels in the WWE only to do something that pisses Punk off and have him leave. He has said that he doesn't see himself still in the WWE in 10 years from now and has made it pretty public that hes fine with leaving and doing what he was doing before. I just think Vince doesn't want Punk to turn into like the next Rock or Lenser where he loses them once they get bored with the WWE or pissed off at it and want to do other things because they know they can.
Cena really has nothing else to go to since I don't see him willing to work for any of the indie promotions where Punk would be willing to go. Thats one of the main reasons I think Vince feels so safe in keeping Cena on top (besides the sales) compared to Punk.
Creative could come up with hundreds of good ways for one show, but if Vince doesn't like them we will never see those ideas in the show.
I think the main reason some of the big storylines involving Punk have been screwed up so bad or seem to have cut out is from Vince being afraid to losing Punk. Punk isn't someone Vince has "made" into a star. Punk came up with his character on his own and was known before coming to the WWE. I think Vince is scared of pushing him to much to where he becomes one of the top faces or heels in the WWE only to do something that pisses Punk off and have him leave. He has said that he doesn't see himself still in the WWE in 10 years from now and has made it pretty public that hes fine with leaving and doing what he was doing before. I just think Vince doesn't want Punk to turn into like the next Rock or Lenser where he loses them once they get bored with the WWE or pissed off at it and want to do other things because they know they can.
Cena really has nothing else to go to since I don't see him willing to work for any of the indie promotions where Punk would be willing to go. Thats one of the main reasons I think Vince feels so safe in keeping Cena on top (besides the sales) compared to Punk.
Mustang Sally
Sells seashells by the seashore
The point here is that it isn't just Creative's vision that determines direction; management will countermand their scripts at any time during the program and the performers themselves might ad-lib actions that completely change the whole scenario, either on purpose or by accident. These are the pitfalls of a live production; they happen constantly in stage plays, even the classics in which the script was written many years ago. In the catch-as-catch-can world of pro wrestling, it will happen even more often.
Being on the Creative team in WWE has got to be one of the toughest jobs anywhere. These good folks work long hours, get screamed at by Vince McMahon, see their hard work undone at the last possible minute.......and have folks on forums like this one bitching and complaining that they're seeing nothing new from Creative.
At least this thread is a little nicer, with the OP expressing some well-deserved appreciation of the hardships these people labor under.
Personally, I think Creative is doing a magnificent job these past few years.
Hate to beat a dead horse but it has to be said. The main problem is with the IWC itself. If nothing happens it is boring and a terrible show. If a lot happens it sucks because they don't give anything time to develop. Damned if you do damned if you don't. The creativity of the show has been great lately the execution not always so much.
Similar threads
