Skip to main content

10 Worst Title Awardings in Wrestling History!

Saw the shoutout in your SuperBrawl VIII rant, loved the challenge. You called #1, obviously.

I am nothing if not inspirational, I guess.  Spot-on with the list, too.  


  1. I can’t trust any list without the Fingerpoke of Doom. It’s actually worse than HHH, since it killed competition in the industry.

  2. that wasn't technically a "handover", since the challenger pinned the champion. It's bullshit, obv.

  3. if you are gonna have mutual admiration society, thank the fuj for bringing superbrawl VIII back to the forefront.

    you're welcome.

  4. Fun list.

    One thing I'd like to point out from this section:

    "Geez, what is it with 1999 and ridiculous title switches? And we
    complain about the devaluation of the midcard today; 1999 wrestling on
    Monday nights was drawing a combined 10.0 rating for the mid-level to be
    full of “here ya go” scenarios, featuring supposedly valuable titles.
    But remember, things were ALWAYS BETTER in the Attitude Era."

    Do fans really have the attitude that everything was better during the late 1990s? I mean, I know people put on their rose colored goggles with anything they are nostalgic about, but I think most of us were complaining about the crappy parts back then as we are complaining about the crappy parts today.

  5. Good list. On the flipside of it, remember when Austin forfeited the IC title to Rock in late 1997? It's like the one time where a screwy title change that didn't take place in a match actually worked. It led to that fun segment where Austin throws the belt off a bridge, Austin went on to his world title and Rock had, what I think, is one of the great IC title reigns of all time. His popularity skyrocketed during that time-frame while he was doing the Honky-Tonk "lose all the time and appear cowardly but still somehow be the champion" routine.

  6. No, it didn't. It started off what would have been a perfectly good angle (having Goldberg just destroy the nWo), WCW just fucked it up, or maybe Hogan and Nash just refused to job to him or something (fucking Creative Control...). I'd say Starrcade 97 did more damage than the fingerpoke, even if the ratings didn't show it at the time, and it's a moot point anyway. WCW wasn't killed by bad booking, it was killed by bad financial management.

  7. I also hate title changes that involve pinning someone other that the champion. Notable examples would be David Arquette, and Rock at KOR 2000. This is also why I hate Triple threat matches, I did love ECW's elimination style 3 Way Dance however.

  8. To answer your question, yes.

    Even funnier is when people talk about how either the TV wrestling or the wrestling overall (counting PPVs) was better during that era. TV during that time period mastered the 2 minute match but a lot of people seem to have forgotten that. We definitely get more actual wrestling on TV now than then as hard as that is to believe.

  9. The Fingerpoke of Doom did 2 things - killed Goldberg's momentum, and killed the super over babyface Wolfpac. Fingerpoke and Arquette pinning Bischoff (not the champion) should have made the list.

  10. I was solely going for examples that happened outside of a pinfall taking place.

  11. Yeah, I imagine your perspective as a fan probably differs depending on your tastes and also whether you were WWF all the way, WCW all the way, or a blend of the two. A fan that watched the WWF PPV main events and the WCW undercards, with a smattering of "sports entertainment" from each of the TVs probably misses the old stuff the most, because with that setup you could cobble together a pretty spectacular and varied promotion.

  12. Regarding the Fingerpoke -- I think you are actually right on the nail.

    Screw Goldberg over in front of a hometown crowd --> Goldberg/Hogan on PPV in front of the biggest crowd ever in WCW? Goldberg plowing through the NWO? Goldberg getting his revenge on Nash? "Nah, let's just do Hogan/Flair again and wait till April to do Nash/Goldberg".

    It should be pointed out that the "Fingerpoke" segment outdrew Foley's title win on RAW (the only segment to do so in the head to head portion) and over the next four weeks, WCW did it's highest opposed ratings ever in the entire Monday Night Wars. The interest was there and fans wanted to see the followup -- but WCW didn't deliver.

  13. The fingerpoke itself didn't kill his momentum, how they booked him after that did. He should have destroyed Nash at Superbrawl, and then absolutely squashed Hogan at Uncensored to get the title back, and then gone on an at least 6-month reign just dominating anyone he came across. Never thought about the Wolfpac thing though, and you're right with that one. They certainly moved merch, damn near everyone I knew at the time (including myself) had the nWo red-and-black shirt.

    One I thought should have made the list, and I mentioned it yesterday, was the whole Nash/Flair/Jarrett fiasco in 2000. Why just hand someone a title only to have him job it the same night? That's some Cornette face shit right there.

  14. Of course the 90s were better than today. Austin > Cena. Nuff said.

  15. I feel the exact same way, I HATE, with a passion, any multi-man match that's first fall wins, unless it's just an opener with lower card guys to heat up the crowd or something like that. And for title matches it HAS to be elimination rules. Otherwise you might as well call the show "WWE Bullshit Finish 2013".

  16. Yeah, it's funny because what tends to make money in wrestling seems to be the very simple, straightforward stuff, but the organizations themselves become so large and complex that it really gets in the way of paying off what would seem to be easy home runs.

    With WCW the politics and creative control seemed to so often push them right off the path where the money is just sitting around waiting to be picked up. With the WWE now, they have so many different masters to please, they struggle to really satisfy any one of them for maximum effect.

  17. Yeah that is way too wacky for my tastes too. For me, it's sort of in the same department as "win a tag team title by yourself and gift it to you partner after the fact!"

  18. I get the WCW part in the second paragraph (and totally agree), but you'll have to elaborate further on the WWE part.

  19. The biggest difference is we get more in-ring wrestling but it's mostly boring. Boring competitors, boring looks, boring movesets. The wrestling may have been subpar in the late-90s, but it certainly wasn't boring.

  20. Oh I just mean right now, by virtue of their expansion outward, they are pulled in so many directions -- they don't really have the autonomy (or low risk aversion) to make changes in the direction of the company in a quick fashion to improve or even shake up things.

    They have to appease the hardcore wrestling fans, they have to appease the target demographics for their network, run by TV executives that see wrestling as semi-scripted reality TV. They have to spend time getting over whoever is going to be in the next WWE film, they have appease their stockholders and wall street analysts by running up the stock and paying their dividend. They gotta do all of it without pissing off their very important sponsors like Mattel and everyone else they are in bed with.

    I think all of those influences have lead to a very narrow vision for what they can and can't do, what pro-wresting is and what it isn't. They're fairly successful at making money, at least in spurts, but a lot of fans aren't super pleased with the product and a lot of investors aren't overjoyed with the results either.

  21. No fucking question about #1. That's one of the things I'll point to when folks on the other message boards try to wax nostalgia about how WWE was SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER in 2002.

  22. does anybody read the pre-reqs?

    I hate wrestlecrap and at least I read it.

  23. doesnt meet the pre-reqs of the list.

  24. id agree with you but... Goldberg was well on his way to gaining some power and that angle was to kill him dead.

    It wasnt set up to succeed. it was set up to fail.

    Notice how Nash always says after the fingerpoke, goldberg got injured.

    never happened. he got injured in 2000.

    thats nash's way of "placing the blame" and nobody calling him out on it.

  25. also, how did it kill his momentum when he was still a ratings draw in 1999?

    it hurt his momentum, and was a dumb (smart) move but him turning heel and getting injured in 2000 killed his momentum.

  26. it wasnt about money... they had money.

    it was about power. Goldberg was gaining it in short order. and with him being a jew, he would have locked everyone out.

  27. you know this might be a funny tidbit, but i dont even think Austin is the Number 2 wrestler in terms of making money now...

    It might just be Cena.

    thats 9 years of continuous merch sales... subpar ppv gates but its 9 years of it.

    People might not wanna hear it cuz im going against their beloved attitude era hero, but... lets call a spade a spade...

    Cena or Austin: who made more money?

  28. That's what I meant when I said "fucking Creative Control..." But does anyone have proof of this?

  29. OK, I see what you mean now.

  30. Cena, because he's been on top since 2005, and Austin was on top from 97-02 and that's being very generous, and also kind of forgetting there was a full year that Austin was out.

    But "makes more money" doesn't mean "better."

  31. 2002 was almost like two different eras of wrestling with Austin leaving and the company changing names. IMO, the Ruthless Aggression time period sucked worse than the New Gen era

  32. Cena has made more money, however, ratings slowly go into the toilet more and more the show revolves around John Cena. The guy is even getting "Boring" chants now.

  33. Good distinction to make. For pure economics, I'd figure in inflation too. Even still, Austin burned very bright of course but for a brief period. As far as who had the highest absolute peak money wise though, I wouldn't be that surprised if it was Austin.

  34. I felt like I was watching a wrestling show during the Attitude Era, even with all the goofy sex and gimmick characters. The announcers talked about the matches, while colorful characters had motivations, even the lowest guys on the totem pole, while the guy the show was focused had the crowd eating out of his hand.

    Today? I'm watching a show where the announcers talk about touts and tweets while bland characters not named Dolph Ziggler, CM Punk, Brock Lesnar, and the Rock wrestle with nothing at stake, while the guy the show revolves around is hated by a large portion of the audience.

  35. As much hate as the Triple H gifted title is, it at least made sense.

    The week before there was a number one contender's match between Taker and Triple H for the right to face Lesnar. Triple H won the match, so he was the #1 contender. Brock ends up exclusive to Smackdown, so Raw doesn't have a champion anymore. So the #1 contender to the title becomes the champion automatically when the new belt is created..

  36. That's an interesting thought actually regarding Russo and Bischoff -- never really thought about that.

    Given how much TV has changed since the 1990s and the way wrestling is viewed has changed, do you think fans would be more or less tolerant of a 'reboot' nowadays?

  37. Also, is Cena the reason 70,000K have been showing up for every WrestleMania since 2007? I think it has more to do with the compelling nature of the event itself, the Hall of Fame, that's it's THE WEEKEND for wrestling and Cena happens to be the guy on top for better or worse. He's the top face despite getting booed most of the time because he's Vince's cookie-cutter face. In the end, he's going to get credit for making more money. But is he making money or he just the face of the WWE machine that could have been Batista or Randy Orton or Edge if that was the guy Vince decided would be "the guy."

  38. Good question... For starters, no fan would accept all the champs being stripped of their belts, no matter what. Outside of that, if Vince said "We need to make some changes, give us a couple weeks" I think it would draw money like crazy if they did it right now, even if it was just kayfabe. So yes, they would be more tolerant, and they should seriously consider doing it.

  39. Not technically a handover, but HHH "beating" fellow D-X member Shawn Michaels for the Euro Title in 1997 fits in pretty well with some of these as well. And hell, a couple of months later, Owen Hart won the title by beating Goldust, who had dressed up as HHH.

  40. This. It's no different than what would happen in regular sports in most cases- and even if you say it's equal to a non-sport match, that drops it to around Nash or Ziggler's 4-5 [two other angles where a wrestler's declared the World champion apparent reason, they just ARE, okay?) Putting it that much further than the comparable ones, with less reason, is just blind HHH hatred.

    On the same point- no Lockbox Challenge? It was inducted- it belongs as well.

  41. Yeah, that's why I decided to emphasize the organization itself rather than either guy, because it's impossible given the information we have to go on to really make an assessment of each guy's contributions fairly.

    The environments were so different too -- the WWF depended on Hogan doing the house show tours and drawing big numbers and when he wasn't included on the show, more often than not they didn't draw as well. In 1998-2000 the WWF drew really well with and without Austin, even though he was certainly a huge ratings boon if you look at his quarter hours. Nowadays as you said, WrestleMania itself is a 'thing'. The other buyrates during the year used to give you a pretty good indication of where WrestleMania was going to land, where now they can have a so-so year on PPV in general but do great numbers for the big show.

  42. If you discount WrestleMania and comapre Cena's buyrates to Austin's, it's Austin and it's not even close, I'd bet.

  43. Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it before, but your mentioning of it put the idea in my head haha. I think it would be an interesting experiment with the way I imagine wrestling is viewed by younger fans especially.

  44. Yeah, if we're just talking "peaks", I don't feel uncomfortable say it's absolutely not Cena.

    If we're talking cumulative, I think he's probably in the discussion though. That would be fun to look at though, I'll have to dig up some numbers and play around with that.

    Discounting WrestleMania would be necessary too, since Austin's contributions occurred almost entirely in a domestic market, where Cena's are in a worldwide market. WM XV drew like 950,000 buys all North America and Puerto Rico -- last years WrestleMania, as the most bought WrestleMania ever, available to more than 25 or 30 million more people didn't even come close to that domestically.

  45. I think most people, around here at least, acknowledge that '99 was terrible but '97, 2000, and to a lesser extent '98 were pretty damn good. From a WWF PoV, at least.

  46. I think it's a good ploy to use SOMETIMES. Gives a heel a great chance to demand a rematch with the "I've never been pinned!" line. But, you're right, the angle is way too abused at this point.

  47. "if you in it for anything other than money, you're an idiot"

    -gorilla Monsoon

    We're not talking about better. We are talking about money.


    Let me say it again... Money.

    Everything you said after "Cena" is irrelevant.

  48. "But remember, things were ALWAYS BETTER in the Attitude Era."
    Ha ha! Exactly! If any era needs a critical reassessment it's this one.....
    I was expecting to see the AWA World title being given outright to Bockwinkel when Verne Gagne retired somewhere on the list, or was that regarded as one of the occaisions when it was justified? I know Bockwinkel had been champion a couple of times before that...

  49. Again... i never said who made more money for the WWE.

    I said who made more money... in the WWE?

  50. Just gotta make anti Semitic rasslin comments.

  51. "cena has made more money"

    i dont care about anything else you said. it doesnt matter

    but IF IT DID... at least he still gets a response. Im not worried.

    when he comes out to crickets... on a continuum... then ill be worried

  52. im sorry, who are you again?

    Now Im making anti-underskill blog comments.

    let me make one more.

    piss off.

    Somebody call Equal Opportunity on me. I have a problem,

  53. IMO the Reboot storyline only "worked" (and by worked I mean wasn't immediately turned on by everyone alive) in WCW because people who were discerning fans/customers had already bailed. The Russo Reboot came at a point where the product was completely and totally in the toilet.

    I know I was like "eh, this is retarded but last week was just as dumb so whatever maybe they won't screw this one up". When the product gets to be that bad, any kind of change is seen as a positive.

    We aren't anywhere's near that point today so people would definitely rebel harder.

  54. Well actually, *I* was talking about better, since I was answering the question, which was really better, the Attitude era or today, and my logic was that Austin was in mor compelling stories for the period.

    I don't dispute Cena has "made more money," but I don't think it would be close if Austin had been able to be on top of the WWF for as long as Cena has been on top of WWE.

  55. lol... But *I* didnt ask who was better in the *my* question, so *you* just had to throw that in... just to establish something that *we* already know.

    Austin also beat his girlfriends/wives.

    See what I mean?

  56. Naw... nobody is gonna come out and say "yea... we fucked goldberg to keep him down."

    its just smark logic

  57. Yeah, I can see it from that perspective too. I mean, that's why they did the reboot -- because things couldn't get any worse. I just wonder if it'd be possible to get over in better times. What about like a wacky, bizarre-world week though, is wrestling far enough removed from kayfabe that it'd work as a gimmick for a week, the way the old school RAW's do when were supposed to suspend disbelief long enough to buy an old-timer getting the best of some young guy?

    To be clear, I'm not advocating that they should do it, just wondering if anybody thinks it could be pulled off haha. I'm not sure what it would even consist of -- Sheamus coming out as the Undertaker? lol

  58. No doubt Cena could eclipse Austin. Like you said Austin's money drawing years lasted what 5 years? Cena has been on top for double that. So yeah it's not crazy to think total Cena has made the company more money.

  59. It's something that just naturally happens for a lot of people. I remember not enjoying Raw in 2008 all that much but I look back now and realize there was some good stuff. It's easier to see the bad in the present and easier to see the good in the past.

  60. Nash has a comic book style sliding timeline.

  61. With how WWE treats their product like a TV show now I would honestly not be surprised to see a reboot. I'm also surprised they don't do "seasons" just so they can hype season finales

  62. Paul Heyman said it best when he said that wrestling companies try to outsmart themselves with fancy gimmicks and storylines and are getting away from "Who are these two guys, why are they fighting, why should I care?"

  63. My biggest beef with Triple H being awarded the title is that they had the Elimination Chamber 2 months later anyways. Why not make that a bigger deal by building to the winner being crowned inaugural champion? I think Triple H getting handed the title is placed higher because of who he was and his rep.

  64. Stop Fuj stop! He's already dead! You are in some kind of mood today lol.

  65. What about when Booker T just gave Kanyon the US title in '01?

  66. Point of correction: Steiner was stripped of the US title in '99 b/c he was out with an injury and wouldn't be able to defend it. So while what Flair did with the title is a heel thing, he didn't strip Steiner of just for the hell of it.

  67. Yeah, and what point are you trying to make here then? If you agree that Austin's better, what difference does it make? Give Austin 9 years and his numbers would absolutely destroy Cena's.

  68. There's a series of hand-overs that need to be mentioned: the Flair/Jarrett/Nash/Flair deal from 2000. Flair was champ and was stripped by Russo (in reality Flair had his inner ear issue or something) and gave the belt to Jarrett. Nash beat Jarrett for the belt, and then gave it back to Flair since "Flair never lost it."

  69. There's a lot of questions but Im up for the task.

    My initial comment to jvc was a tidbit that i thought of.

    I wanted to poll with the BoD who has acquired more money in the WWE, Cena or Austin?

    Not who is better

    Nor who made more money for the company.

    Without hard facts this is smark logic, but im on the side that Cena has made more than AUstin given longevity, because theres a smattering of people here that say Austin made more than Hogan... which is clearly not sound reasoning.

    But I wanted to see what the Blog said for shits and giggles.

    Thats m point.

    YOUR POINT, and a few others is to clearly agree with me (which is cool) BUT Also point out that Austin is Better (debatable), would have made more moeny than Cena given he had Cena's time (not necessarily true) and that Austin > Cena (whatever that means)

    It seems that while you few capitulate to the fact Cena has made more, you are quick to point out the numerous ways that Austin eclipses Cena, when that was never my question in the first place cuz it satiates your feelings when confronted about your hero.

    I can agree that Austin is better but you're right, it doesnt make a difference because in the context of my question, better is irrelevant. Money is the relevancy of my question. But you are quick to rebut that give Austin 9 years his numbers would absolutely destroy cena's.

    Thats not true unless you have traveled to an alternate future.

    The reality of the situation is You dont know.


  70. Someone get this man a column.

  71. Uncensorsed seems like a shitty show to run Goldberg/Hogan. I'd do it at Spring Stampede and have him face Luger at Uncensored.

    That way he gets Hall, Nash, Luger and Hogan within four months and they are the four people that fucked him over in Atlanta.

  72. Let's not forget that Raw and Smackdown, because of Austin, helped WWF sell a fuckload of TV advertising spots. How many people watch Raw now, like 300 a show?

    I think Cena's made more money FOR HIMSELF during his run, but I don't have a clue.

    I'm willing to bet that once all is said and done, though, that Cena will make a lot less in his post-main event career/retirement than Austin has or will. People don't give a fuck about Hogan now, nor did they really in the mid '90s (until nWo). People DO still love Foley, Rock and Austin. Whoever Cena's fans are now will be embarrassed of him in the future, and kids at that point will be onto the new thing (which will be Fandango).

    I'm not even shitting on Cena. The company's burning through his worth like he's an unlimited tank of gas, whereas Austin was on the shelf for a year, was protected and wasn't overexposed.

    I'll put it like this: Austin is Led Zeppelin, and John Cena is Boston. Let's just hope he ends up like Brad Delp.

  73. Thank you, both of you.

  74. I'll order that show. I'll bet Cena loses!

  75. Changing gears for a second.

    "People dont give a fuck about Hogan now..nor they really in the mid 90s. (until NWO)"

    Revisionist history.
    2002 run.
    2005 run.
    and if he came back... people would cream their jeans for him again.

    "I'm willing to bet that once all is said and done, though, that Cena will make a lot less in his post-main event career/retirement than Austin has or will. "

    Thats a lot of royalties to be made off of Cena... And Im sure theres a bunch more money to be made off of him as well. i'd bet you on this if we could.

    " Whoever Cena's fans are now will be embarrassed of him in the future, and kids at that point will be onto the new thing"

    Lets analogize... I was a fan of Hogans growing up and when i got older i wasnt embarassed to be a fan of his looking back. Cena is this generations Hogan... I think you are making a mountain of a mole-hill.

    i dont even understand your Led Zepplin/Boston thing... I like TWO CHAINZ!

  76. I don't think that's a fair question. Austin had the single best financial year of anyone ever. Cena has been able to stay on top for close to 10 years now.

    Austin was definitely hotter.

  77. Orr... was he? Get it? No? :: Moves along ::

  78. And then Flair jobbed it back to Jarrett (I think, might have been Steiner) that same night. I don't know how that whole clusterfuck didn't make the list.

  79. It's not a fair comparison because one guy wrestled there for 6 year and the other for over 12.

  80. Or, Fuj is a condescending jerk?

  81. Hogan's in TNA, but that show isn't setting the world on fire. In '02 the nostalgia trip lasted a little while because it was such a weird novelty to see him back in the WWF. In '05 there was the match with HBK and that was about it. If we're talking people "creaming their jeans", this is hardly that.

    With Cena's royalties, it just won't be as great as Austin's. A regular kid from the Attitude Era will still buy his DVDs and shit today, and it won't be that way for Cena's fans. I'm not saying Cena won't make anything, but Austin's a juggernaut.

    You said you're not embarrassed to be a Hogan fan... LOOKING BACK. Could you actually walk around in public with a Hulkamania shirt on?

    Okay, you don't get Zeppelin/Boston. Uh... Okay, Austin is De Niro and Cena is Shia LeBoef.

  82. But that weird novelty LASTED. it wasnt some guy coming back from a sojourn elsewhere. It was Hogan the man who made the WWF what it was.

    Moved a ton of merch in that short span so ppl obviously gave a crap about him for a little while at least. Not to mention the 2004 HOF ceremony where they lost their shit. 05 they were singing his popping for him all summer long. (along with HBK)

    But Hogan is in TNA and not setting the world on fire.

    Jeff Hardy who was arguably the #2 face the WWE had upon his leaving has been there and didnt set the world on fire. So that's TNAs fault for not having the promotional machine that WWE has. This is the same company that make Ken Anderson a BIG DEAL for years and once he got to TNA.. he came out to crickets cuz he was exposed as the talentless hack ive always said he has been.

    You are right i could not walk in public with a Hulk tshirt on during some of my years. I was trying to get some pussy. That'd be like pussy repellent.

    Who the fuck is Shia LeBoef?
    Who the fuck is Renee Zellwegger?

  83. The Hulkamania nostalgia trip lasted about a year, and that's exactly what it was: nostalgia. I really don't hate the Hulkster, he may have moved a bit of merch between '02 and '03, but he didn't do jackshit for the buyrates and ratings either.

    Also, it was nostalgia for a guy who was on top during the peak of wrestling's mainstream success.


    The people who'll get nostalgic for Cena will be the 5 people that watched Raw.

    And, Fuj, exactly: it's pussy repellent. You can't even wear it ironically.

    Shia Leboef is a douche, that's all.

  84. No person is gonna sustain their popularity after a while.

    Look at the Rock, even THE ROCK was coming out to sounds of meh.

    And along with Rock theres Hogan people who transcend the business and become pop cultural icons. mainstream celebs.

    When Rock came back in 2010 (cant recall) eviscerate Cena in the first promo I was figuratively jacking it.

    By the time 2013 comes and Ive seen him... it dont mean as much.

    Same deal with Hogan in those runs. But the fact remains that he was getting the pops and recognition he deserved. Was it gonna last forever? Of course not cuz wrestling fans are fickle and want something new but also be logical and also keep it the same way and this and that and this and that....

    but whatever im off on a tangent here. Point is Hogan shirts are pussy repellent. I could wear one ironically... but im definitely planning on literally jacking it

  85. In the last eight years, I've never known anyone to consider Cena a pop culture icon.

    He's more like a Rey Mysterio x10. He's a licence to print money, but I think when it's over, it's over for good.

    Let's settle on this: The way WWE works now is that nobody will exceed expectations unless - and God willing - they allow someone creative freedom, for whatever reason. They did it with CM Punk in 2011 and even if he's hit his peak, at least he's the top heel in fans' minds and Cena's arch nemesis. Everyone else plays their role with nobody getting over except for a select few. Cena pushed through because his merch started selling like crazy in '04/'05 and he was hot at the time, but the business has been pretty stagnant for over a decade as far as mainstream acceptance and rating go (barring WrestleMania).

  86. im not the most grammatically correct person in the world, but i didnt say Cena was. i only meant rock/hogan transcending wrestling and becoming pop cultural icons.

    You read that wrong.

    Re: last paragraph.

    By "business being stagnant", you mean "creatively" because they arent losing money. In fact they are making money. Should they be making more? Probably, but the fact the remains they are making a profit.

    This isnt 1995 when they are creatively and fiscally in the shitter.

    Creatively they are in a lull but they are posting good quarters with their business model.

  87. I know you didn't say he was. My point was that Cena won't have that long lasting impact because he hasn't transcended wrestling in any meaningful way.

    Yes, they're making a profit but they're losing out on major demographics who want to watch wrestling, but the product is too shitty to watch. I honestly don't think WrestleMania's viewers are non-fans, I think WrestleMania's buyrates are somewhat representative of the number of wrestling fans that exist but are only willing to watch WrestleMania.

    To put it another way, wrestling is as big as it ever has been but there are no (or not enough) compelling characters to make it reflect in the ratings. The last time the ratings spiked huge, that I remember anyway, was Edge's Live Sex segment, which was basically because he had suddenly shaken things up so much and had overthrown Cena.

    It didn't last long, but it should have taken things into a new direction instead of Edge losing all his heat within a month and going back to the way it was. They just have no idea any more how to build sustained episodic TV, and they should be paying for it.

  88. "Losing out on major demos who want to watch wrestling."

    Your key word is WATCH. Now idk if you want to expound on that but Im gonna take it for what its worth.

    If Im Vince and Co. Id rather have 10 people PAY for wrestling than 50 people WATCH on free TV. They have a viewing audience of roughly 4 million but only 100-200K buy the PPVS monthly (discounting WM). Their business model isnt TV oriented anymore.

    Hasnt been for years. Its shill the fuck out WM and push as much merch as possible. As I have said before merch > PPV at this point. And they have been succeeding at this for years now.

    Now will it bottom out? Its possible, but unlikely at this point. When you have packed staidums for WM the last 4-5 years without a substantial papering... they might be onto something.

    "They just have no idea any more how to build sustained episodic TV, and they should be paying for it."

    Probably, but they dont have to if they keep getting paid. They are in the green damn near every Q... at the very least breaking even. And creatively they are terrible. It cant get any worse... but they are making money. Why the fuck should they rock the boat and push the bar? To satisfy you? To get your money back? How creative would they have to be (and for how long) until you became a satisfied customer? Or would u just applaud them and not reward them by parting with your cash like many of your peers?

    If Im the WWE, you arent worth it. You arent worth rocking the boat. If you have kids... maybe... but they'll give you just enough to keep you (adult fan) slightly intrigued to take your kids and spend the money on tickets.. food/beer... merch... and just like that you are in the fold through your progeny.

    Im very accepting in the fact that more than likely, WWE will never get my money again. They suck, but I also understand that since they are making money, theres no need to push the envelope anymore than they have to.

  89. Actually, I completely agree with your post. They're doing fine and they don't have to care about the consumers they've lost, and I respect that (I also haven't paid for any WWE stuff in probably 8 years).

    Again though, my only gripe is that they could easily, if they wanted (seeing as how they go out of their way to hire sitcom/soap/comedic writers) produce good television, or at least whip SD and Raw into decent enough shape to watch for 2-3 hours. Their upside is they have greater attendances, higher paying advertisers, and more reason to watch PPVs which would earn them buyrates.

    The reality is that they're firmly in cruise control and there's nearly no effort on the shows. WrestleMania as indicative of that when I watched it (for free BTW. I spent more time watching that than I have any Raw episodes I happened to watch combined in a year) because the main event, if anything, was the selling point.

    Now, I know what you're saying with "Or would u just applaud them and not reward them by parting with your cash like many of your peers?". Believe me, if they were doing Attitude Era-level numbers and I thought the shows sucked, I'd just be like "well, good for them, I guess I just don't like wrestling any more". But they're doing shitty numbers and the shows suck, when given the resources they have at their disposal they should be doing a halfway decent job whether I like it or not. I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

  90. i had a post here but it didnt take.

    Basically I put you over as a good "johnny come lately."

    Im enjoy going back and forth with you about wrestling. You get it.

  91. Likewise my friend, even when I don't agree with your point at all.

    I mean come on, Mick Foley rules.


Post a Comment