Skip to main content

Going public


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Samuel Hough"

Scott,
         How much of the WWE's problems stem from being a publicly traded company? I know that there are some posters (flair4dagold jumps to mind) with more knowledge of business than I but it seems like some of the stagnation stems from that. The WWE is still turning a profit (?) and in a distressed economy I assume that's enough to keep them from taking chances. My thinking is that before it was only the McMahon family that the WWE had to answer to, now there are shareholders. Any truth to this?

---------------------------

I never thought anyone thought otherwise, in fact.  Obviously it's 100% the reason for the state of affairs today. 

Comments

  1. I would add Linda's bizarre Senate aspirations. They could get away with more edgy content if it made them money, because that's all investors care about. But with her in politics, they have to be PG.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's less that they are answerable to all powerful stock holders, and more that they think "publicly traded" means "no longer a carnie enterprise."  From what I hear, they could run their company any way they damn well please and would not get any blowback investor wise.

    I think the public trading thing matters in that they think they have to act a certain way, and that they are too good for the things that got them to global level to begin with.  I think Vince has always been conflicted as wrestling ws his ticket to the big time, but he always resented being associated 

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alex Shelley!!!

    I really hope he does as well as Punk and Bryan have, he's every bit as talented (and maybe even more so) than they are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some advertisers, yes, but there will always be others to take their place. If the program is popular and profitable, that's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can be edgy and "adult" without losing advertisers - look at other cable programming such as Mad Men, The Walking Dead, or Sons of Anarchy - they all push the limit of what can be done on standard cable without drawing much flack from the public or advertisers.  The key is to be edby but mature about it, not tawdry and trashy like so much programming on VH1. 

    Of course, this would be impossible for the WWE creative staff under the current direction of Vince, Dunn, Gerwitz, Stephanie and Hunter, who mostly favor childish humor.

    They'd benefit greatly if they hired a showrunner(s) who could sit down and logically map out a year's worth of storylines at a time for the major characters while the rest of creative worried about filling time for the midcarders and NXT/Superstars.

    Also, simply changing plans because a group of fans figure them out and post them on a message board is asinine.  You don't see the casts of shows getting called back at the last minute to re-shoot the finale just because spoilers arise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's cool, I'm a mark for both guys, especially Matt Morgan. That guy just screams "superstar" to me- great look, naturally huge, good mic skills. I'd be more excited about Shelley if this was 2005/06. He gives off a "damaged goods" vibe to me, but I'm sure if I'll love him if he gets a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like Shelley as much as the next guy; but no way is he as talented as Punk and Bryan.  First off, he only has one style in the ring.  He reminds me more of Justin Gabriel but with more charisma.  The "Paparazzi" segments are still some of the best stuff TNA has ever done.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought the Revolution videos were for Morgan? I saw a screen cap of his face in one of the videos.

    ReplyDelete
  9.  It's risky though.  And unnecessarily risky.  Why lose certain money to maybe get equal money from another source?  Because the fans want it?  They're still buying PPVs and merchandise.  Green is green.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wonder if anyone has made any serious offers to buy WWE since Ted Turner's bid way back when. Obviously the McMahons wouldn't sell but like a certain Vince creation said once, "everybody's got a price." Especially in this day and age of media conglomeration.

    ReplyDelete
  11.  I think that was either to throw people off the scent or to tease people with the idea of Morgan coming to WWE. The video is allegedly being shown to people in advance of E3. This is all according to ewrestlingnews.com by way of the Observer, etc, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, this is the big thing people overlook while bashing PG (I mean, I don't like it either). The 80s were _fun_--dudes in leather and bright colors named Axe and Koko B. Ware. The current product is joyless and bland--dudes in identical trunks with identical tans and identical builds and identical movesets named Tyreen Smoke and Mac Duggard.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would say 100%.  There are so many things that being a publicly traded company prevents a wrestling company to do.  Of course, it was always Vince McMahon's intent to expand from being a wrestling company to being an entertainment company, with wrestling being just one small piece of the pie, and to that end, going public was inevitable.

    Vanilla ice cream isn't flashy, but it remains the number one seller for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It did indeed allow him to roll those dice.

    Vince has gotta do what he wants, not what we want.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So that big revamp they did with WWE 12 only lasted a year.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't know how old you are, but I'm going to assume you were younger back in the 80s. The way you talk about Koko and Ax is the way kids today will talk about Santino and Kofi 20 years from now.

    Hell, in one of the other threads there's people advocating for a Vince Russo return!

    Everything looks better in the rear-view mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This?  http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/239210/WWE-Teasing-TNA-Wrestler-Return?-%28POTENTIAL-SPOILERS%29.htm

    I think it looks like Matt Hardy.

    If Morgan does come back, I want someone who might have been around during his last run to compliment him on his progress with his stuttering.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eh, I think Morgan just comes across as too angry and intense. Looking back, his flirt with main event status a few years ago (right after 10-10-10) didn't really amount to much.

    And he needs a new haircut.  Badly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well it was worth it. Didn't going public allow him to fund both the WWF World restaurant and also the XFL?

    I really hope there's some inherent sarcasm in there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kofi and Santino are definitely two good things going right now, and I think virtually everyone on the board agrees with that. Each of them has less going on in terms of programming and planning than Demolition though.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maybe they just need different shareholders, and I say that half-jokingly.  As the Baby Boomers start to be phased out, maybe the younger and less stodgy investors will be more willing for WWE to take chances.  Sponsors sure didn't have a problem with the Attitude era, and if something else that's not entirely investor-friendly really makes a dent, don't you think Vince would be like, "Fuck the investors, I'm getting mad sponsor money."

    ReplyDelete
  22. That's definitely Morgan. The beard gives it away.

    ReplyDelete
  23. wtf are you talking about? it would cost them the advertisers they have now...and they would just replace them with other advertisers.

    ratings are ratings. do advertisers flee from south park because they're edgy? does mad men not have advertisers because it gets an MA rating now & then?

    the notion that the WWE needed to go PG to attract advertisers is a myth the WWE created to explain it. They went PG to get the government off their back after Benoit. The WWE has never, ever, ever, ever had a problem with advertising.

    Im pretty sure they were doing just fine when Austin was drinking beer, throwing up middle fingers and drawing 8-10 million viewers a week.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LIke the people you might have "grazed" while they were crossing the street!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Risky is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting things to change. The notion that the WWE is making money hand over fist is another WWE created myth...the stock is at $8.

    The WWE as a company is worth HALF of what it was in 2010. Things are going BAD for the company.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How would everyone like this. We start some kind of campaign to get former Community show-runner Dan Harmon hired as head of WWE creative. If it works he would last a month tops, but the content would be insane

    ReplyDelete
  27. And what Flair held! :P

    But really, how does Shane factor in these days? And HHH for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think there may just be the faintest bit, yes. I live in NYC and actually was very excited for the World to open up. I thought...I'll go here on Thursdays and order a Steveweiser and a Smackdown burger or something but no dice. Magic Hat will make you whatever type of beer you want and you could call it whatever you want. But they didn't do that.

    No specialty burgers. No J.R.'s BBQ chicken sandwich. Not even shots with WWE superstar names. Very little in the way of memorabilia. Just lots of televisions. THAT could have been their museum and a mini hall of fame. But no. Just a carbon copy of the ESPN sports bar down the street. I always sort of felt that was the reason they failed. Also they went with steak fries and...just...I don't know man. I just don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  29.  Do you have any examples of stuff they specifically can't do? (not meant as snarky)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steak fries are awesome when done right.  Just the perfect amount of crisp?  Mmmmmm......

    ReplyDelete
  31. I would blame the PG stuff on Linda McMahon's political aspirations. An opponent recently mentioned the "Kiss My Ass" club. Linda would get destroyed (worse than she already is) if WWE was mature and edgy currently. That would be like weekly cannon fodder. I am in the camp that beleives PG is ruining the product, particularly I feel it really nueters the heels.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Russo coming back would rock. With Vince's filter he was great. Don't get it twisted he was terrible without McMahon.

    - Wild heel turns
    - Edgy charachters
    - bullet point interviews
    -

    ReplyDelete
  33.  That's Conor O'Brien.  100% sure on that.

    ReplyDelete
  34.  In what way?  Aside from the occasional Satanic sacrifice or Live Sex Celebration, what great heel from WWE's past wouldn't work today?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shane sold his stock. I'd have to look at WWE's SEC filings to see if Hunter owns any stock, but it's a safe assumption that any stock interest he holds is through Stephanie.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of fries other than steak.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Vince lost his min- I mean his filter a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh man, that name. Which one was the worst: Conor O'Brien, Bam Neely, or Kenny Dykstra?

    Tough call. I'd vote Dykstra.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dammit. The Guns were one of the bright spots about TNA.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Basically any heel from 97 - 2008. Imagine Triple H's 2000 run without the blood every month. The original DX without the gratuity. Lesnar not wiping Hogan's blood on his chest. The edgy heel characters were a huge part of WWE's success. Heels of today are watered down. The list is endless.

    ReplyDelete
  41. THREAD JACK: This is goes out to Princess or anyone who can help me... I dont know when you posted this Princess but it was a youtube clip of Austin on Livewire where he was just rambling and he started talking about Stu Hart. Ive been trying to find the post and havent had any luck on the blog. Can you re link that for me? Or anyone for that matter? Ive found one Austin livewire clip but thats not the one. Thx in advance, Buttfucking flairforthegold

    ReplyDelete
  42. Baby Boomers not stepping aside is what is really destroying the US economy.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The McMahons have always had a majority interest in WWE, and for the past few years have been using surplus cash to buy back shares. We also had Billy & Chuck, Katie Vick, the Kiss my Ass Club, Al Wilson and many other forms of Wrestlecrap after the company went public...I don't think they've given a rat's ass about their public image, until Linda decided to run for the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh, I'm not saying that it's not a risk, or that Vince should even take one - if he's content with how the company is doing, then it's a moot point.

    However, Vince has built his empire by taking risks, and he's certainly seen that all of his biggest pay-offs came when he rocked the boat instead of just skating by on what had previously been successful. There's no reason that he COULDN'T do it again, it's just a question of if he WANTS to. Green may be green, but there's always the possibility of more.

    ReplyDelete
  45. He's pretty damn good in the ring, and is one of the best mic-workers I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  46.  Thanks for saying that as I was thinking along the same lines.  However, screw you for putting the images of Vick, Vince's ass, and Al Wilson back into my head. #shiver #teamHashtag

    ReplyDelete
  47. I really don't think it has much to do with them being public.  I know it was the tail end of the Attitude Era, but WWE still did an awful lot of risque stuff when they first became public in 1999. And I'm not entirely convinced that the clean image is centered around Linda's Senate dreams either.  I think it's a combination of Benoit, their deal with Mattel, the Senate campaign, and them finding their niche in the family entertainment market.  There are a lot of companies that are public and less than savory.  I'm sure a lot of those shareholders care more about money than morals.  If they developed an edgy product that proved to be profitable, I don't think they'd have a big problem with that.

    And for what it's worth, the PG image isn't a problem ether.  It's crappy writing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. They always say that the business is cyclical, so much so that it doesn't surprise me when they accidentally make it so. I think the "stagnant" product is an exact repeat of the child-friendly marketing of the 80's, we were just to young to realize how repetitive Hogan being on top no matter who had the title really was.

    - In the the 1980's WWF marketed to the baby boomer's children by putting Hogan over everyone over and over again.

    - In the 1990's WWF marketed to those same kids, now teenagers, with tits and middle fingers and beer.

    - In the 2010's WWE markets to those same kids, now adults *with* children, by putting Cena over everyone over and over again.

    Couple that idea of building another generation of fans with getting shitloads of money from Mattel and other sponsors that like advertising to kids, and the Senate campaign, and the desire not to have any more employees brutally murder their families, it's easy to see why they're trying to go legit.

    If they kept being assholes a government that already loves nonsense investigations to distract from their approval rating would surely get giddy at the idea of hounding Vince McMahon. As it is, it doesn't look good to attack a kid-friendly TV show that tells kids to BE A STAR.

    It's a horrible thing to sit through most of the time but I can see why they think this is the best course of action. Vince doesn't want to be too in debt to any big corporation, he saw what happened with WCW. The only other step available to him is to become that giant I guess. It seems like he sees it that way anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Except that Kofi and Santino are unique characters that stand out from the rest.

    Describe me the difference between Kofi and Santino. Easy right? One's a high flying guy from Ghana, and the other is a goofy Italian with a bad haircut who butchers the English language. 

    Now try doing the same with guys like Tyler Reks, Curt Hawkins, Michael McGillicutty, Jack Swagger, Wade Barrett, Heath Slater, Justin Gabriel, Darren Young, and Titus O'Neil.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The first name of Bam automatically gets the vote from me. I hate Bam Margera and anyone associated with him.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well, we need WWE 13! The same broken game that Smackdown vs. Raw was with a new title!

    ReplyDelete
  52. They'd get new ones, like beer brands, or Playboy.

    ReplyDelete
  53. THREAD-JACK: The Sequel

    Im actually having an argument on wrestlezone about Vince McMahon creating Hulkamania.

    Me: Hulkamania started in the AWA. Im just saying. Mcmahon didnt create Hulk Hogan. Mcmahon Sr. gave him the Hogan surname cuz he wanted an Irish wrestler to tap into the irish demo up north, but he came up with the Hulk persona while in Memphis. So really, Hogan created himself, Mcmahon Jr. just marketed him and pushed him to the moon.Just wanna clarify that.

    ---A lil douchey but those WZ posters are like a step up from Mongoloids.

    Retard #1: McMahon Sr. might have created the name but the character was created by Vince Jr. He's the one that gave Hogan his persona and made him a superstar. Before that, he was just a blonde Irishman. In fact, McMahon Sr. fired Hogan for going mainstream with movies.

    --Second part correct. First part totally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The Cena/Hogan comparison is pretty obvious, and the two of them cancel each other out when comparing the eras. So, I'm honestly curious as to how the undercard of today compares to the 80's.


    From my view, the Rock & Wrestling undercard was superior if only because wrestlers were more unhinged and full of personality. Randy Savage was allowed to go on wild, spacefaring tangents like he was Freddie Mercury. The Ultimate Warrior was given full reign to preach his incomprehensible gospel. Jake Roberts was allowed to be crueler and scarier than the Undertaker on his best day. Roddy Piper was allowed to be Roddy Piper.

    Today, the writers regulate the hell out of everyone except Cena and the veterans, to where everyone else- including post-summer CM Punk- have no emotional range whatsoever. Aside from Santino (who would have killed it in any era) and Brodus Clay (who's also one-note, just a different one), there's just no measurable difference in any promo not given by John Cena. It's gotten so bad that I'd rather watch John Zandig completely lose his mind over a routine beatdown rather than have to endure Randy Orton smolder with generic rage over winning the title for the 10th time.

    This is something I'm honestly interested in seeing people smarter than me debate. 80's undercard vs. 10's undercard. Is is just nostalgia that makes today's product look like stale pudding?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Maybe this, about 12 minutes in.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf8bbw_stone-cold-steve-austin-on-wwf-live_sport?search_algo=1

    ReplyDelete
  56. well there's were soggy. As are almost all steak fries. You'll forgive me. I was raised in Belgium...Frites are a sort of religion all their own.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You sir, are a scholar and gentleman. I thank you.

    "I whipped his ass for 30 minutes, put him in the sharpshooter for 10 minutes! then Stu hart comes down 'Ah Steve let go of Bret'"

    *Bookmarked*

    ReplyDelete
  58. Whose going to do the insurance ommercials now?

    ReplyDelete
  59.  Curt Hawkins has a cane!  A CANE!

    ReplyDelete
  60.  I look at Hulkamania the same as I do the Undertaker. Vince had an idea, found a guy who was suited to play his idea, and it took off from there. The success and longevity of the characters have a lot to do with the talent/charisma of the guys playing them, but Vince created it. As opposed to Steve Austin - Vince saw him as a midcard "worker" and had no interest in developing any type of character for him. He took it upon himself to do it. Vince gave him the freedom to do it and then put his creativity behind him once it took off, but he didn't create Steve Austin the way he did Hulk Hogan.

    ReplyDelete
  61.  This is more of a tangential argument of the initial post but still worth thinking about.  I don't want this to become another endless debate with "everyone was a caricature back then with a second job as a gimmick" or "at least Russo gave a crap about the undercard" that always seems to come up.

    With that being said, I think the undercard battle would reach a stalemate.  The guys of the 80's were allowed to be colorful and had a lot more diverse experiences because of the territory system.  However, could they wrestle?  The Rock n Wrestling WWF had a lot of personalities and names, but some were past their prime (take JYD or John Studd for example) and others were just bodybuilder types  with extremely awkward wrestling ability (take Hercules or Warlord).  Still, the WWF had guys like Steamboat, Savage, Tito, and the vast majority of their tag teams to really light it up.

    The undercard of today's WWE is fascinating.  I think you could build a wrestling company around a roster of Kofi, Truth, Ziggler, Miz, Henry, Clay, Swagger, Ryder, Santino, Christian, Primo, Cody Rhodes, Tyson Kidd, and especially Daniel Bryan... and you'd never miss for a moment the likes of Cena, HHH, Lesnar, Big Show, Kane, or Orton (I don't blame all of these guys for a monotonous product, but they normally clock in the most air time). And if you watch some of NXT, you can see loads of potential, too.  With the mid-card names mentioned, you have plenty of diversity, ability, and personality in  the times they were able to show some.

    However, these guys are not really allowed to break free from the system.  Back in the day, wrestlers would line up for one-on-one meetings with Vince at a TV taping and they could discuss their character and fight for their worth. Now writers deliver scripts to the wrestlers, agents try to break things down for the wrestlers, and then they go through rehearsals before the show.  Now, some of the mid-card have been able to steal attention from time to time, but it seems like they're either punished for it or the writers don't want to build off of that attention.  Or there's situations like R-Truth's, where he was developing a round and entertaining character, but he's had zero development for about five months.

    The wrestlers have to accept some of the fault, but the majority of the fault goes to the system they have in place.  Guys are picked young where they have not created a successful gimmick for themselves (or if they did, the WWE ignores it). Then, decisions are being made for a wrestler without consideration of the guy's strengths and personality.  AND guys are not given air time to give consistent amounts of promos.  But at least we have those "moments ago" replays 7 times per show.

    I think a defining moment for the mid-card came when JTG started wearing something out of the Miz's closet, who changed his look to become more like Jericho and Randy Orton.  They're all becoming derivative and bland.  Ultimately, though, I still like the current under-mid-card guys more because there's significantly less hellacious ribbing and hardcore drugs, most of them have tremendous ability, and they entertain me when they're given more than four minutes.  That doesn't mean I don't watch the Macho Man DVDs more than anything else, though.

    ReplyDelete
  62.  No.  But they have advertisers now, they've built their "brand" over the last seven years around being PG.  Yes they could get new advertisers, yes they could rebrand themselves.  But why?  Why is Playboy better than Hasbro?  Why is Coors Light better than Super Soakers?  Green is green.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I"m not saying there isn't good reasons to change.  But there are also bad ones.  This isn't a black and white scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Apple might make more money as a laundry truck company.  Pizza Guys might make a great law firm.  Yes, those are exaggerations.  But I fail to see how going "edgy" is automatically going to mean more money.

    ReplyDelete
  65.  Okay, I'll grant you DX.  But I never really took blood as being a major part of Triple H's rise.

    And blood (as we've seen with Lesnar last month) can still be within a PG rating.  It's only excessive blood that isn't.  Your problem really isn't with "PG," it's more with WWE trying its hardest to be TV-Y7 sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yeah, but isn't that sort of stuff while they eventually convinced themselves they had to go PG? Because it wasn't as easy to get away with risque stuff as it once was when they were just a private company?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Even with Vince's filter, he was often bad. A lot of the Attitude Era (in my view) is garbage looking back.

    ReplyDelete
  68. When they went back to the USA, Vince said in an interview they were going to make the product even more racy. Obviously that didn't work out for them they way they wanted it to.

    The PG is the problem people annoy me to no fucking end. The best stuff in the attitude era either would work in the PG environment or was actually broadcast PG. The WWF was PG until early 1999.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Did Shane really sell his stock? That's interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  70. i only went there once, but I remember thinking the food was decent and the general look of the main restaurant was pretty fun.  The area where they sold merchandise was pretty barren though as I recall.

    The other thing I recall is making the weirdest wrestling memorabilia purchase ever of one of their menus in a leather case.  Seriously, it was $30!  Road Dogg signed the back of it though the night I was there, so has to be worth at least $30.50 by now.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yeah, I think people are fooled a little bit by all the large numbers, the WrestleMania success and the annual reports, where they shift numbers around to paint the nicest possible picture.  The stock is in the toilet, ratings and buyrates have been trending down for years now, with the exception of the WrestleMania blip. 

    They aren't in trouble or anything, but it's also not really the case that they are just trucking along making a barrel of money either.

    ReplyDelete
  72.  depends on what your criteria is. characterwise, the 80s are miles ahead of the WWE of today. wrestling-wise though, today blows just about everything the company did back then out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  73. and you could also easily make a point that them standing out is the REASON for them being more popular than just about everybody else you mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  74. btw: seeing how that generation of "indie darlings" turned out (Punk and even Bryan becoming stars, Low Ki getting a huge push but himself deciding to call it quits) I can't help but feel sorry for Samoa Joe.

    considering the success of the others, I am very positive he would have been become a huge name in the WWE as well if he had made the choice to jump in 2006 or 2007 (when did that TNA contract run out again?).

    ReplyDelete
  75. you can't get any better fries than the ones inside the Benelux.

    ReplyDelete
  76.  It would culminate in a dreamatorium match.

    ReplyDelete
  77. God that would be awesome. He'd end up doing whole shows that were a tribute to British sci-fi or have all the matches done in the style of Warner Bros. cartoons or something, but it'd be memorable.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Having grown up in the Hulk Hogan era, there's a lot of factors that make it different from today, some of which you pointed out. Aside from the over-regulation and over-scripting of guys nowadays,  Guys were more memorable for a bunch of reasons:

    - You didn't see every guy every week - when Hogan appeared on Superstars on Saturday, you knew shit was going to go down. There's a reason that the Hogan-Andre rematch on Saturday Night's Main Event in February of 1988 did an 11.6 rating. I guarantee that a lot of those 1980s guys would've flamed out if they had to appear on TV each and every week for two hours.

    - Guys had a more unique look; they weren't the cookie-cutter, long-haired, body-builder types that are pumped out of FCW nowadays.

    - Guys were allowed to get over by, you know, wrestling. There were still the squash matches galore on TV, but you could always find tapes around that had killer matches on it. I sometimes pine for the days of WWF and Coliseum Video, where you could see matches from overseas tours and other random spots that weren't televised anywhere.

    - The backstage interview - this is something that really needs to make a comeback for the undercard guys, IMHO. The vignettes of the wrestlers scheming and talking to each other isn't cutting it. I'd rather hear from why a guy wants to go over for the Intercontinental Title or wants to climb the ladder. It doesn't have to be a twenty-minute Raw in-the-ring promo, either, just a quick thirty second spot.
     

    ReplyDelete
  79. Sigh... If the guy was doing the same gimmick a WHOLE YEAR before he left the AWA, Vince had no part in creating the gimmick.

    Is he part of the reason of the success of Hulkamania? Yes.
    Did he market and promotoe the shit out of Hulkamania? Yes.
    Did he make Hulkamania a brand/ household name? Yes.

    Did he create Hulkamania? NO! Emphatically No. Its clear as fucking crystal.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Yeah I agree, it seems silly to suggest otherwise -- he was doing the exact same gimmick in the AWA, complete with the "Eye of the Tiger" theme music.  Vince just presented him on a bigger stage and with good booking.

    ReplyDelete
  81.  He'd definitely round out the characters at the very least. And instead of his usual babyface promos Cena can close each Raw with a Winger Speach

    ReplyDelete
  82.  Maybe Morgan can come back with turrets syndrome instead of stuttering?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh, I'm totally agreeing with you - it's not automatic, that's why I referred to it as a risk.

    I firmly believe that blaming the current slump simply on the company's desire to be "PG" is faulty - it's not the lack of sex and blood that's the problem, it's the writing. There is plenty of quality PG-rated entertainment out there (including that whole "Hulkamania" pro-wrestling boom thing), there's no reason that wanting to cater to families automatically means that the writing has to be boring and nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ehh, I know I'm in the minority, but I find Joe very overrated - granted, I've never seen his work in ROH, but he's been in TNA for almost seven years, which I think is enough of a litmus test for me to say that I never thought he lived up to the hype.

    He's good in the ring, yes, but not fantastic (he's only had a handful of great matches in TNA, and those included AJ Styles or Kurt Angle), and his promos are pretty generic yelling-at-the-camera stuff. Plus, he's got a pretty bad attitude and work-ethic.

    I actually think Husky Harris could be WWE's version of Joe - he's already shown some sparks of brilliance both in the ring and on the mic during his short NXT stint, and he seems to be developing well in his new "Bray Wyatt" character. If he does well, WWE won't need Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  85. But one could easily make the argument that Hulkamania isn't a gimmick, it's a phenomenon.  And THAT is what Vince helped create.  Without the success and promotion making it a household name, what is "Hulkamania"?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Shit, look at Avatar the Last Airbender.  A tremendous show that just happened to be written for 12 year olds.  Still, a huge part of its fanbase is college students.  Good writing is good writing.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I love the Bray Wyatt character but you are out of your everlovin' mind if you think Husky's got anywhere near Joe's chops. He had lots of great matches with different people, and he's capable of working a variety of styles. Joe vs. Kenta Kobashi and his trilogy against Punk are amongst the best matches of the last 15 years. His promos only suffer because, for whatever reason, in TNA he doesn't use his natural charisma to its full effect and plays up the stupid "monster" gimmick. In reality if he just acted more like himself (which he did at times in ROH) he'd be seen as another Punk in terms of just having great smart-ass charisma.

    You know nothing of the man, clearly. But Bray Wyatt is indeed the tits.

    ReplyDelete
  88.  Yeah that's definitely Conor O'Brien. Morgan said outright in an interview he's considering returning to WWE, which is to basically say he's definitely returning.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Saying that Joe was awesome in ROH is really no different than saying that Tensai was awesome in Japan - that may be true, but that's not reflected in what they're doing now. And I'm not discrediting Joe's work in ROH, if I were to see it, it's very possible that I could be blown away by it, but that's in the past; he hasn't done anything really worthwhile in years.

    Joe has been in TNA for almost seven years, and I've yet to be really impressed with him; sure, he's been given some really stupid angles, but it's not like he's been confined to a certain style of wrestling or a certain style of promos. Again, not saying he's BAD, he's obviously a good hand, but I just never thought that he was (or could be) the huge megastar that lots of other people were trumpeting him as.

    I've said before that I'm not really as much of a "pro-wrestling" fan as I am a "WWE" fan. I don't watch anything that isn't readily available on free TV. I didn't tape-trade when I was younger, I don't watch matches on Youtube, and I've never seen a second of ROH programming. However, I was impressed with Punk the first time I saw him on (WWE's) ECW, and was impressed with Bryan the first time I saw him on NXT. Joe, though? Meh.

    Plus, Husky actually looks like he gives a shit when he's performing.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I take it you haven't seen the 3 way between Joe/Daniels/Styles from 06, or any of the Angle matches, or even some of the quick squashes he did in his early days in TNA. The whole point of Joe is that he can wrestle a hard hitting stylistic combination of Japanese strong style and American technical/indie, and he can keep up, speed wise, with the smaller guys. The guy is a phenomenal all around wrestler and got over huge both as a monster heel type and as an angry rebel type. He's been pretty unmotivated in the last year or two, I guess (I dunno because I bailed on TNA) but if you're basically admitting you don't know anything about him, then you kind of aren't entitled to make the judgments you're making. You're saying Bray Wyatt could be the new Joe but you're basing that on what, if you aren't that impressed with Joe? The fact that they're both fat? That's selling both guys extremely short. And the Bray Wyatt character is nothing like anything Joe's ever done, and he wouldn't do well to be booked like it. Bray Wyatt could be the new Raven (obviously Waylon Mercy is the general idea but he never did anything so he doesn't count); the closest comparison to Joe character wise would be Mark Henry.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I don't really get how you can say that I'm unfamiliar with him, though - I've been watching him weekly for almost seven years, I think that's MORE than enough time to form an opinion. If he was doing incredible work in ROH, fine, but that was still a long time ago; it's hard to say about any wrestler "hey, he was awesome almost a decade ago, so you shouldn't say that he's not as good now".

    The TNA matches you mentioned were definitely good, I've seen them, and even mentioned
    them in the post above (the one you just replied to). Thing is, in his
    entire TNA run, the only really good matches he's had were against AJ
    and Angle. To me, that's really not that impressive, considering the hype surrounding him. Lots of people can have good matches with AJ and Angle, as well as a few other opponents. As an extreme example, I don't think many smarks would refer to Kevin Nash as a "great wrestler" just because he had good matches with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, ya know?

    As for Husky, yeah, my comparison to Joe was based solely on being a big fat guy that can MOVE, has a hard-hitting style, and can realistically come across as either a happy-go-lucky face or a total miserable prick.

    I dunno, I just think it's kind of odd to say that I'm unfamiliar with Joe simply because I didn't watch ROH. Seven years is a long time. It only took ONE night for me to be impressed with Punk, ONE night for me to be impressed with Bryan, ONE night for me to be impressed with Benoit, Eddie, Malenko, Blitzkrieg, and a whole bunch of others. Five great matches in seven years, to me, is not impressive.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment