Skip to main content

This must be said...

Here's my take with the current Bryan conversation.  Look at it from Vinces perspective.  You've built the most dominant wrestling empire in North American history by sticking to a specific philosophy: value and position a big charismatic guy as the face of your company, protect him at all costs, build the wwe brand, and watch the money pile up.

Since they expanded in 84, there have only ever been 3 "made men" who got to carry the torch for any duration...Hogan, Austin, Cena.  When he positioned smaller "primarily workrate" guys as the face of the company, Bret and Shawn, business wasnt as good.  There were complexities in Shawns and Brets runs, but it seems that 1+1=2 in this scenario.  If you are Vince, why would you ever change from your standing philosophy?  Look at where it's gotten you...the conquering promotion of North America.

EDIT: I know Austin wasn't huge, measuring out at about 6'2.  My point was he's big enough to fit into Vinces ideal on what a main event guy should look like.  Bryan doesnt.

Do I like Bryan, fuck yea.  But for people to act like it's ABSURD for Bryan not to be positioned better or pushed into Cena spot is almost delusuonal.  Do we really think we know more then Vince freaking McMahon as far as when it comes to evaluating talent, drawing ability, long term potential, etc?

Does it suck that Bryan is being held from Cenas spot because he's 4 inches short? For people like us, sure it sucks.  But is it a STUPID philosophy as so many people are implying?  You know what...I don't know.  I tend to give someone like Vince McMahon the benefit of the doubt in making these decisions, because you know...he's only the most successful wrestling promoter.  EVER

Just one mans opinion on it.  If I'm wrong on giving Vince the benefit of the doubt on this, let me know your line of thought.


Comments

  1. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    Everyone loses their touch. It's also questionable that he even sees himself as a wrestling promoter anymore, given the newspeak they surround themselves in.


    He probably thinks he's one of the greatest entertainment moguls in Hollywood.


    And I don't mean putting someone like DB over Cena permanently, that's silly talk. I just mean the staleness and shilling and a lack of any edge. Maybe the guy was a phony in the late 90's because he had to be, but I don't feel like it's even the same person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The thing is entertainment changes in all forms and you have to adapt to stay relevant. Vince has done this in the past. Look at Austin's look compared to the huge muscular wrestlers from the 80s. Austin just doesn't fit there. Had Vince stayed with the comically over muscled guys from the 80s, he doesn't give Austin a chance.

    Now do I think Bryan will ever be as big as Cena, nope. But I think Bryan should have been given more of a chance to shine and come out on top. But who knows, he may still get that chance come Mania. Another thing Vince was great at was hiring guys behind the scenes that had great ideas and manage their ideas. For whatever reason that's happening less and less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I could be wrong but I feel a lot of the backlash is that people expected Bryan to transcend to Cenas level. I think that was "silly talk" also, but it seems that alot of people expected that

    ReplyDelete
  4. I never expected Bryan to get to Cena level, nobody is getting on that level for years to come. I did expect Bryan to be made to look strong and maybe elevated to permanent main event status.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know if you meant "edge" as in edgy tv like in the attitude era. If so I don't think that's what's needed. What's needed is something a little different to mix things up. Shake things up and try new things to get past the monotony that the WWE seems stuck in. Esspecially the mid card, that needs shaping up and progression.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Do we really think we know more then Vince freaking McMahon as far as when it comes to evaluating talent, drawing ability, long term potential, etc?"

    The Internet.
    - thinking we know more than Vince McMahon since 1989

    ReplyDelete
  7. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM

    I mean any edge. The product is very sterile. It needs to feel more real. That's the problem with say, the stupid "I bought your loan, I own your house" thing. It's not true, it doesn't work that way in real life, but since they wrote it, that's how it is. How can I relate to any of the characters if their actions aren't grounded in any kind of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree. The E's philosophy though seems to be to keep the wrestling product as monotonous as possible, just so all the other revenue streams can leech off of it.

    I think this is the primary reason the won't move Cena away from the top spot. They're such a low risk company with the actual product. I don't know how this changes either. It really really wouldn't surprise me if Cenas the top guy until he chooses to hang it up

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't know if I'd consider Austin or even Cena big guys in wrestling terms. Neither are that much bigger than Bret.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cenas pretty big. I'll rephrase though with what I really meant...

    ReplyDelete
  11. DIESEL~! says "Hey!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stranger in the AlpsNovember 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

    Meh...I kinda figured that this was going to happen with Bryan. He just doesn't have "it". He is a very very good and fine wrestler, but remember: Vince has re-branded this as sports entertainment. And Vince McMahon has earned the right, as the king of all wrestling companies everywhere, to re-brand it. I do not understand why the IWC feels a need to have their favorites as "the guy". Dolph Ziggler...CM Punk...Daniel Bryan. I am a member of said IWC, and I enjoy these guys as much as the rest of you. But frankly, I don't have a dog in this fight, and because I have no other alternatives, I will continue to watch the ONLY company in the genre, and I will enjoy my mid-card matches very much. Once in a while, WWE will throw the IWC a bone, but we are the minority voice, and the majority pays to see Cena (or whoever they determine is "the guy").

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stranger in the AlpsNovember 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

    1989? I was jerking off to MAGAZINES in 1989.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    Yep, and that's what I mean by Vince not being the same guy. He had a bit of a "fuck you" counter-culture type attitude, and now his company comes across totally corporate and sold out.
    Leeching on to ANYTHING that's relevant, may be relevant or used to be relevant to get a pat on the head from the general public. #this, #that, hey, here's some sonic breakfast burritos, don't bully, pad the Susan Koman fund's coffers, etc.


    It's kind of sad actually. If someone did the Jericho debut promo now, they'd get a standing ovation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Farva, I'll just go down the list of things you mentioned about Vince's "philosophy".
    1. Position a big charismatic guy as the face of your company: There's not a single doubt in my mind that this is correct and accurate, and it's more true than ever considering that WWE is going large again (Show push, Khali exposure, Reigns getting the singles push soon). However, Stone Cold Steve Austin is 200% Proof (see what I did there) that you don't need to be larger than 6'2 and 250 pounds to be the biggest star of all-time, hands down. You simply need to be great on the mic (and have a catchphrase), you need to demonstrate a passion in your voice that people can identify with (Punk), and you need to deliver dramatic angles and heart-stopping wars (with twists and turns) that actually make sense. It's not rocket science!
    2. Protect him at all costs: This is super difficult, because of the advent of Social Media, as well as the over-exposure that seems to happen organically because of the amount of information thrown at fans on a weekly basis.
    3. Build the wwe brand: This is done through the Mid-Card. We used to have Hulk and Macho on top, but it was the Jake Roberts and Ted DiBiases of the world that helped build the brand. In addition to the top stars, you were given a WORLD of talent outside of those top draws. I feel like today's Mid-Card is like a rehash of the "In Your House" era....for example, you got Waylon Mercy, who had some great introduction videos. Fast forward to his debut, and they don't even create an emotionally-driven angle for him to latch on to. Fast forward again to today, and you're seeing the same thing with the Wyatts. Vince is great at creating the characters, but he's back to 1995 with his line of thinking..."Debut a guy with some great vignettes, and then abandon everything unique about him within six weeks."

    4. Watch the money pile up: Not these days.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Imagine you are a stock holder for the WWE. What is your concern? That good wrestling product is created, even if money is lost (and could potentially lose even more money in the long run)? Or if the product continues at a safe, reasonable rate? The answer is the former, which means that we get Cena on top until it becomes apparent that he can no longer continue making them money. This is doubled by the fact that the WWE is a virtual monopoly at this point. Imagine Coca-Cola was the only soda that existed, apart from shitty knock offs available at Hy-Vee or Safeway. Imagine it tasted like ass. When Coca-Cola executives say, "Well, let's change this product! It tastes like garbage!" or "Let's leave it as is until it becomes obvious that something needs to be done". I don't like comparing wrestling to a commodity but ask any of the stock holders how they view wrestling, and I'll think you'll get an idea of how things are done.


    But really, given how shitty the booking is, who gives a fuck if Bryan isn't mucking around on top with AWFUL storylines that no one cares about? Might as well have Big Show go through it to get heat on Randy Orton for the inevitable Orton vs. Cena match at Wrestlemania. In the meantime, Bryan can team with Punk until the Rumble, win that (which I think is what's supposed to happen as of right now), and then fight, oh I don't know, Shawn Michaels in a match of the night at Wrestlemania. Fuck, have him fight CM Punk or Cesaro at Wrestlemania. An enjoyable undercard is far better than a shitty main event, at least as far as entertainment is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Agreed. I mean there is always going to be a separation in wrestling from the real world. Wrestling is supposed to be larger than life. But you don't need these convoluted issues and storylines with multiple authority figures. I wish it was basic I hate you for x reason or I want your title, let's fight. And there are so many ways to play that basic premise so it never gets stale.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah, I wasn't online until 94 or something like that, but I'm pretty sure that usenet was rolling in the late 80s.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I totally see what you did here. You wanted me to bookmark *this* post instead of Scott's whenever people start crying about Bryan!!




    Well, mission accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Er, I think you meant "the answer is the latter" =)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yea, I agree with you on Austin. I couldn't really figure out how to articulate it but what I really meant is that Vince devalues workrate as opposed to charisma and size. Austin wasn't huge like Hogan or even Cena, but he was big enough to fit what Vince was looking for. Bryans not

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was only seven in 89 so I wouldn't be jerking off to things for a few more years. Kids have it so good today though, not having to use one magazine you got from an older kid that you had to hide in a temple with booby traps to keep your parents from finding it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    You need to finish your stories too and this is one of the biggest weaknesses about their product now, the stories never get finished. They used to be very good at this. Now they have this big storylines that crash down across the whole show and end with a wimper, or just aren't mentioned at all.


    Hell, other than Cena/Rock, what's the last big storyline they finished? And really, Cena/Rock was about a 4-5 month storyline over 3 years. This one they're doing now has to go on for 8-9 cycles of PPV. It ain't gonna make it. If it does it'll cost them money.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve Austin is 6'2" 250 lbs. Given average N.A. height is about 5'9", 6'2" is *still* a big guy in real world circles. That's all I'm pointing out...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Also, I don't know if you read the thread on "draws" yesterday. It gets into the brand importance of wwe. I'd argue against the mid card being all that important to the wwe brand.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do i think it's absurd that people demand he be given the top spot (that very spot as you said that only 3-4 people have held in the past 30 years or so) yes...because it takes more than just being over, you need to have absolutely everything invested in you, so i can imagine why WWE wouldn't want to just drop everything and put it all on Daniel, but they have to give him a chance, you can't know if he's a failure as a draw unless he's actually been given the title and put on top of the company for a couple of months. Personally...I still have hope that they will give him a good run at the top for a couple of months I just think their top priority is their big authority program.

    If rumours are true then Daniel Bryan is pretty much set, he's already a top guy and he'll likely face up against HBK or HHH at WM, he'll probably be A top guy from here on out...will he be the next Cena or Austin, who knows but I won't lose any sleep if he won't be.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yeah, kids today just Google that shit. We had to wait for someone to steal his Dad's pack of naughty playing cards to see our first girl junk.

    ReplyDelete
  28. He was never "the guy" though like the others. He didn't have as many reigns as the others or the duration. I think I'm right on that but 95-97 wwe is kinda a blur at this point

    ReplyDelete
  29. "We're pushing Big Show because he is larger than life and more imposing than Danielson" is a bullshit answer that I have no time to listen to in 2013

    ReplyDelete
  30. Definitely can agree with this, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've got a long answer to type up. But I'll be damned if I do it on my phone. I will say this, Vince lives in a bubble. Later.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think they're pushing big show. He's a sacrificial lamb so Orton/HHH can get more heel heat and be positioned as strong for the WM payoff feud build. There's a difference between "pushing" someone and inserting them into a main event angle for other reasons

    ReplyDelete
  33. I do wonder how the postmodern wrestling Zeitgeist affects the old Vince formula. If everyone nakedly admits wrestling is fake, does the audience care how big the face of the company is? I think Bret and Shawn would have fared even better today than they did in their heyday on that alone. Even the marks shouting THIS IS AWESOME!!!1!!! are more aware than the goobers filling the arenas in the 80s trying to fight Brother Love.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think Vince has made some stupid mistakes in terms of storylines.

    Brock and cena should have had the summerslam slota couple of years ago. They could have made more out of the summer of punk.And the Bryan vs corporation storyline could have had more legs.

    On the other hand, they made fuck loads out of cena vs rock, and the iwc whined about that!

    And Bryan is fine. He is like bret hart and angle. Upper mid card, main event when needed. And if the shawn Michaels vs Bryan rumours for wrestlemania are true, then it'll all be worth it.

    Can I also say how stupid it would be to have Goldberg wasted on ryback at wrestlemania?

    ReplyDelete
  35. That's really too bad, considering what could be done with their personalities. Guys like Fandango could get over by starting his own Series on YouTube, demonstrating new dance moves before having every episode turn into a complete travesty. There could be comedy in that, which would only benefit Fandango as a midcarder.

    ReplyDelete
  36. For every Hogan, Austin, and Cena, there have been more Ultimate Warriors, Diesels, Shawn Michaels, Lex Lugers, Sheamus, Ortons, Mizs, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yea. While I don't think the midcard is really that important in building the brand, it's definitely taken a big hit. Instead of having a clear cut mid card pecking order, with the guys you are trying to elevate, it's just a cluster fuck of stuff.

    I think it's because they know the brands the draw, so they just feel they can build a guy up in 3 months to plug in the upper mid card if necessary

    ReplyDelete
  38. To be a fly on the wall if they pitched this to Bill.
    Goldberg: What's this kid's name, Ryebread? $250K, see you in New Orleans.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Slaps everyone on the ass on the way out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your first paragraph is so spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've been catching up on today's stuff, and I had a thought. Feel free to agree, disagree, shoot it down, etc.


    WWE is a worldwide sports entertainment/wrestling corporation. But for this concept, we can narrow the "world" down to the U.S., where the vast majority of WWE events take place. The WWE holds events, from small house shows to huge PPVs all over the U.S., in more markets than one can easily count.


    Each market, or even an area of markets, has a preference in what they like. Each market/area also has certain dislikes. Catering to ALL areas with one product, like what WWE does, is extremely difficult, even in the best of times. What gets the big pop in a large city might suffer through silence in a more rural area. What works in the Northeast might be death out West or down South.


    Example: Sheamus/Orton died a horrible death in Jersey on the post-WM RAW... but who's to say that a house show in Bent Grass, Kentucky* a week later actually gave those two the largest pop of the night?


    As long as certain stars get pops, good or bad, in multiple areas, they'll be featured. It does cause a "lowest common denominator" factor to creep into the product, in order to try to catch the most people. Thus, Total Divas. Thus, Cena/Rock. Thus, a long time ago, Austin/McMahon.**


    And maybe, someday, if the planets align just right: Thus, Daniel Bryan. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.




    *: Made up town, I think
    **: Comparing these three in any manner is bad for your mental health.

    ReplyDelete
  42. He was champion in 1995,when the WWF almost went down!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Counterpoint: within that bubble lies the entirely of the North American pro wrestling industry. That's not to say Vince has never had bad ideas or made bad choices, but the bubble argument only really applies to Vince's attempts to bridge pro wrestling to the mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This. If anything, they pushed Daniel Bryan and now they're pushing Big Show. No real difference in the pushes.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And let the Backlash begin.


    the top guys know what Im talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Should I be worried?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Here's another thing nobody talks about (or has the wrong conversation about):


    "Triple H buried Daniel Bryan! All that B+ stuff ruined his push!"


    So why didn't all of Mr. McMahon's early promos that centered on "Steve Austin is not the kind of champion I want representing my company" (which, you'll notice, is not really too dissimilar to the "B+" stuff at all) ruin HIS push?


    Now, listen, I have my own share of problems with the way the Orton/Bryan feud was booked, but anyone who says Bryan wasn't given a chance is being willfully ignorant.


    Triple H is a heel. He is SUPPOSED to say that the face he's feuding with is "not championship material." The only line I will count against him is the "cruiserweight title" one, because that was just an unnecessary reinforcement of the "big men rule, little men drool" chestnut, but I doubt most people even recall that one.


    Point is, the heel is SUPPOSED to trash the face to the audience. Triple H never once said Bryan wasn't a good wrestler, wasn't entertaining or buried him. It was always "he's good, but he's not a world champion." The "B+" stuff is exactly the kind of stuff that the fans are supposed to have a visceral "hey, you know what? Fuck you" reaction to and support the supposed "B+" guy even harder in the face of.


    They didn't.


    After countless Raw main events, sympathy-generating heel beatdowns, wins over big names and several PPV main events, they didn't.


    At least at the start of his push (which is the important part), the fans weren't buying in.


    If you want to blame someone, blame THEM, not the company that gave Bryan every chance to turn the tide in his favor.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Cena is MASSIVE compared to Bret. Maybe not much taller, but a ton more muscle. Austin's quite a bit thicker than Bret as well.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Vince never called Austin a "good little technician" condescendingly, or sang a Jiminy Cricket song pointed at him. He made him out to be a dangerous rebel, which Austin lived up to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Diesel was a miss, and Warrior also fits the mold as a "big guy" miss. Sure there will be misses, but the philosophy has worked for him. Why would he deviate?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I must have missed to the "good little technician" line, but again, those both sound like the kind of stuff the audience should react negatively to if said to a face they're already behind, not hear a HEEL say and go "yeah, you know, he has a point."

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pretty sure there is a thread already up that you could have posted this in.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't disagree that a heel should be heelish, just sucks that the things HHH said about Bryan end up seeming true to the average mark after the blowoff.

    ReplyDelete
  54. pretty sure, or absolutely positive?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I saw. Didn't think it was a big inconvenience for people to click a few mouse to read another thread though.

    ReplyDelete
  56. No, THAT I DO agree with and that's one of the problems I have with how that whole feud was booked. I'm just saying that all the "B+" stuff didn't bury Bryan. It should have elevated him and garnered more fan support, especially in light of his "I'm not John Cena, I'm a wrestler" tweener promo before Summerslam. If it didn't (and it didn't), that's not the WWE's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  57. oh and i *hate* to be that guy but...

    http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/303287/Daniel-Bryan-May-Be-Done-As-A-Main-Event-Player.htm



    they do this shit all the time... book someone half assed, then blame them for low business

    ReplyDelete
  58. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    I never believe that shit. Internet newz sites posted the same crap about CM Punk, and he still winds up with more prestigious matches than 99% of the roster.

    ReplyDelete
  59. the second part is my usual view for wrestling watching, as a whole. the only reason I'd like bryan to be as high on the card as possible is to ensure more time for his matches.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Stick to your gimmick. And pick one of the 47 Bryan threads to post your opinion in.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Pretty sure this guy might not make it past next week.

    ReplyDelete
  62. you dont have to believe it, perception is reality.


    you think bryan working the wyatts is a promotion or a shuffling off to WWEarth-2 with Punk?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    I'll sum up WWE's state as quickly as possible, because I hate going over this:

    1998: In competition with a legitimate rival; able to make creative changes at whim; will strap a rocket to someone's ass as long as they have sufficient heat, etc.

    2013: No competition whatsoever; unable to push/depush certain people whose likeness holds interest with stockholders; will only push someone if they sell shitloads of merch since nobody spikes ratings and buyrates any more.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't disagree, Bryan hasn't been booked well. I think Bryan should be given more time at the tippy top to definitely prove if he could draw one way or the other.

    My bigger point was that Vince has a philosophy that he feels works,, and has made him very successful. For people to be completely ignoring his perspective and opinions on what draws, long term potential , etc., seems a little shirt sighted to me.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Good rationale. Different topic, different discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  66. What you fail to realize and why this is a dead and moot point at this stage is.


    HE WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO DRAW AND GO OVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!


    He was only there to get heat on HHH and make Orton look good in the matches.


    Once it was done, he was going to crash back to the midcard. Now he is working with the Wyatts with Punk and Punk is a top guy working on an alternate timeline. Its not going to bring up the Wyatts, its pulling both of them down in mgmt's eyes.


    The supposed smart fans are the biggest marks sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. And Austin was a larger than life character, even if he wasn't a super heavyweight.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Your last sentence was essentially my point. I didn't know to say it with tact though.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    I think the company considers Bryan's push something he should be thankful for.

    This may just be an angle they're running to kill time for the lull between now and WM, I'm not sure whether it's a demotion or not.

    They knew he wouldn't draw in the first place, which is why it's bullshit when sites allude to Vince standing in the darkened halls going, "harumph, that little bastard!"

    ReplyDelete
  70. And when they are trying to bring in Sting and Goldberg... Hogan is already verbally agreeing to WM 30...


    Do you honestly believe that Daniel Bryan is going to get any kind of featured match with a significant amount of time when the real stars show up?


    You know what? Dont stop believing bro

    ReplyDelete
  71. It's not just size, it's being a ' larger then life' personality. Austin ( and Flair at his peak) were that, even if they weren't as big as other guys. Hart never quite had that. Cena does, or did before his act got stale. It's why Hogan was a bigger star than Big John Studd.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'd like to believe that, but for some weird reason I'm inclined to think that Show will win at Survivor Series.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'm just trying to help you out, I never want to see someone go full Caliber. You don't see Bayless put up a new post everytime he has a shitty opinion on something. He sticks to his gimmicks.


    Right now, you're Bob Holly going 20 minutes on a house show.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I don't know about it not elevating the Wyatts. Even if it's not the goal, working with Punk/Bryan is a step up from destroying the multi-time-destroyed "monster" Kane and the fucking Miz.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Fair enough, I was just annoyed by the irrational Bryan stuff after 16 threads about it in 3 days. If you view it as a "shifty opinion" I would like to know why you disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sure the matches will be better, but its not going to elevate them, its gonna keep Bryan moreso than Punk at a certain level.


    If anything, they might get face pops during the feud and thats wrong.


    The Wyatts are a midcard gimmick, no upward mobility as long as Cena/Orton are on top. Putting Punk/Bryan with them is going to satisfy the artsy-fartsy goof marks and they are gonna cheer everything done by all parties involved.


    Vince and mgmt are gonna look at the whole situation and go "Welp, we are keeping Punk occupied and happy while we do what we want over here. Run Orton/Show AGAIN!"

    ReplyDelete
  77. Never see Bayless doing that

    ReplyDelete
  78. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

    Are you telling me not to stop believing? How dare you, I'm the biggest misanthrope here. But I do like me some Journey, so maybe I won't.

    I only hope Bryan gets a good showing at WrestleMania, but again, the landscape is so stupidly corporate now that everything has to be in the "correct" order to satisfy stockholders, advertisers, merchandise contracts, etc. that I've reconciled myself to the idea that Cena will be the jewel in the company's crown until his sales are in the toilet.

    I think the only way WWE have gotten my money since 2006 is through one of the WCW DVDs they released. They seem to be doing well without me.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Yup...spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Just b/c Vince has a philosophy and it has worked in the past doesn't mean it's always right. And it certainly has failed on many occasions.


    Bryan was getting crowd reactions that rivaled anyone in the company and there were Bryan shirts flying off the shelves. Give him the ball for a few months and let him actually run with it. If it doesn't work then take the damn belt off him. Maybe Vince's strategy has only worked with big guys b/c only big guys are booked to like A+ talent.

    ReplyDelete
  81. they are doing quite well without a lot of us.


    thats why bryan is where he is.


    its lose-lose. he was never going to be annointed. if you paid to see him, chalk it up to orton/hhh.. if you dont, bryan cant draw.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Whoops, Thanks for spotting that!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Perhaps, but let's be ho0nest. As long as Orton and Cena are on top, NO act has upward mobility. At least working with a former world champion and a recent main eventer will perhaps legitimize the Wyatts a bit.


    As far as them getting face pops being no good? It's not, but it doesn't matter. Punk got mostly face pops during his heel run and Cena gets heel heat from roughly half the audience every time he pops through the curtain. it's not going to derail anything for them. I'm pretty sure creative has explicit direction to not turn anyone, regardless of crowd reaction, unless HHH/Vince tell them or agree to.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Go back and watch the Austin promos. Vince never criticized Austin as a legitimate wrestling threat; he criticized his attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I'm talking about Bayless' shitty opinions. I stopped reading what you wrote above after "here is my take on the current Bryan situation"

    ReplyDelete
  86. He is a solid hand.

    ReplyDelete
  87. You are comparing a new TV act to guys who have headlined multiple shows.... for multiple years...


    You can't do that, you do understand why right?

    ReplyDelete
  88. That's fine. I'm not saying it's always been right. Diesel and Warrior have been epic failures. My point was that i can see why hes reluctant to change and have turnover at the top of the card.

    My bigger point was that Vince McMahon has forgotten more about wrestling then we all ever know. To vehemently say he's in the wrong for not shoving Bryan to the top is just narrow minded, IMO

    ReplyDelete
  89. Exactly. You have already stated what your take is on the Bryan situation over the course of the last 2 weeks to 3 months.


    There has been multiple threads concerning it.


    Now it just looks like you got posting privs to push your agenda rather than to do your What ifs.

    ReplyDelete
  90. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

    I don't think kids care about Big Show's house and that he can't get it up.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    I don't think Warrior was an epic failure, they just really didn't know what to do with him and didn't put him in there with anyone strong, to get people to care.

    ReplyDelete
  92. But sacrificing people to HHH is ridiculous. Orton, fine, whatever. We all hate him but he draws and gets heat at live events. HHH is trying to live out this ridiculous fantasy that he's an A+ talent on the level of Rock/Austin and not A-/B+ with Chris Jericho.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Needs to be more worried about the What Ifs. That is a slam dunk gimmick that has been kinda meh so far.

    ReplyDelete
  94. There were no built up main event level heels for Warrior to go against cuz Hogan squashed them all in the last 4-5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  95. OMG, You and I agreeing on everything today?!?!


    BIZARRO!!


    Its getting the hits, but its not really *there* yet, you know?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well that's not true, but If that's your perspective, that's your perspective. Bryan is a huge conversational topic and it just seemed like a one off type of thing to post with a different take then the popular narrative. It has generated opinions, and that seems to be a good thing on a blog

    ReplyDelete
  97. It'll get there. Trying to get a feel on what really generates discussion besides "what if montreal.." or "what if invasion..."

    ReplyDelete
  98. Tell me what has changed in your opinion in the last 3 months that needed a WHOLE NEW Bryan thread?


    All I have seen is regurgitation of the same things from everybody here. Some are hoping Bryan breaks through.


    The people who know, know Bryan wasn't ever going over.


    The people who *Swore off* WWE programming for a week.


    It never changed.


    Nobody had this great epiphany that created a paradigm shift in thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  99. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

    Yep, and Hogan went on his early summer vacation as usual. That the best they could do was Rick Rude again tells you all you need to know. Nothing against Rude but if you blow off a feud, you shouldn't be going back to it in a year, especially back then.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    A year ago I bought all 12 (and the 2 UK) PPVs from WWF in 2000 (burnt copies of course, since most of them weren't released on DVD).

    The difference between WWF then and WWE now is night and day. The shows are actually, you know, fun.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    NOW, AT WWESHOPZONE.COM! BUY VIAGRA FOR BIG SHOW!!

    ReplyDelete
  102. .. and then Michaels comes out of retirement so he can put over Bryan for the title at Wrestlemania!

    http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch870113.gif
    The last panel being the relevant one.

    ReplyDelete
  103. To be honest, I didn't think opening a whole new thread was such an issue. I just viewed it as shifting a popular discussion in a different direction. If that's your issue, I'll be more cognicant of it.

    My opinion hasn't changed. The growing sentiment of "Vince is nuts for not pushing Bryan" has swelled.

    The disconnect is that I viewed, and maybe I'm off base, opening a new thread as not to pimp my agenda or opinion, but to just continue the Bryan discussion in another direction. I don't view my 1 thread opinion as anything more then 1 of 2pac or whatever comments

    ReplyDelete
  104. You know what? Keep doing you.


    Ive been here too long and Ive seen too many flameouts and meltdowns.


    Based of law of averages, im pretty sure I know whats going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  105. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Who's playing the role of Tugboat in the Big Show viagra charity angle?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Stranger in the AlpsNovember 8, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    It's like I've been saying: there is no viable reason for WWE to change who they push to the top because they are the only pony at the show, and they win by default. People are going to watch no....matter...what. How long have we been watching the Cena show? 7-8 years? That's about as long as Hogan had on top. The people that have stuck around already, are going to continue to stick around. It's the casual fan that tends to bow out.

    At the height of the Monday Night Wars, people jumping from ship to ship was a big deal because the two were neck and neck for a long time. NOW, if Sting suddenly jumps to WWE....or Angle...or AJ Styles...or Samoa Joe...or Bully Ray.....I'm certain that ratings will still remain at the level they currently are. Because TNA is NOT enough competition. And competition is what breeds creativity.

    ReplyDelete
  107. difference is you watched hogan once a month.


    you had to pay to see hogan wrestle.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    something i've wondered: is the desire to see 'larger than life' guys innate, or is it purely the product of vince's marketing machine since '84 when hulkamania took off?

    in other words, had there been a dbry or punk or hbk who vince pushed to the moon from the outset when going national, would the present conversation instead be about how it's not fair that big show can't get a fair shake simply b/c he's too big and can't move like dbry?

    lets face it: wwe fans (i.e., peeps who ONLY watch wwe) are not wrestling fans. the people to whom wwe caters fundamentally differ from people like us, and it has nothing to do with us being "iwc," and more with wwe fans being attracted primarily to the spectacle, the pyro, the flashiness, while we're attracted to the nuances, the psychology, the "action," the history, and yes, admittedly, the spectacle (but not in and of itself or for its own sake). it's like people saying they love mexican food but will only eat at taco bell

    is it naive to say that dbry or punk will never be at the "top" top like hogan simply b/c it's some weird culturally engrained trait or something, almost like it's been bred into the universal consciousness thanks to vince? or was hulkamania destined to be a la the theories of joseph campbell and jung?

    ReplyDelete
  109. I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but if you're talking about comparing the Wyatts to any other acts Punk and Bryan have worked with, I most certainly can compare them in terms of a lack of upward mobility.

    And the Wyatts are hardly new.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I... said as much in my post, did I not?

    ReplyDelete
  111. I'd argue that Cenas run has doubled Hogans in terms of how wrestling fans have access to him, whether it be tv, ppvs, etc.

    That being said, I still don't turn him or push him out until I absolutely have to. Maybe another 2 years as top face, a few more after his turn

    ReplyDelete
  112. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:17 PM

    i already posted this in the original big show thread

    ReplyDelete
  113. sorry, im sleep so i go from the top thread and work backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:20 PM

    i liked backlash as a concept, the backlash to wm. now we just jump to extreme rules which is a bit of a non sequiter

    ReplyDelete
  115. I think it cuts both ways. I think that the average wrestling fan likes to identify with a guy like Hulk Hogan because the average wrestling fan wants to be Hulk Hogan (the hero who's always right and revered for everything they do), but at the same time, it's easier to relate to a Stone Cold (the guy who says whatever he wants, beats the shit out of his asshole boss, etc.), so it's really a matter of reading the cultural zeitgeist and finding what works for the audience you're playing to at any given time.


    Right now, the WWE plays to kids and while kids find Daniel Bryan funny and cool looking with his beard, he ain't shit next to a 7' tall giant who can knock people out with one punch. Kids eat that shit with a spoon and ask for seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "Punk got mostly face pops during his heel run and Cena gets heel heat from roughly half the audience every time he pops through the curtain."


    You said this. This is what you said. Punk and Cena have been on WWE TV for a combined 19 years, people are invested in those characters. There is going to be wide array of cheers and boos.


    The Wyatts are a new TV act. How many people that watch RAW watch NXT? NXT aint pulling RAW numbers of ratings, so its safe to say the majority of the RAW viewership has not seen the Wyatt family before coming to RAW.


    And the people that have love the characters, so they are heel group getting face pops out the gate. \


    THat's bad.

    ReplyDelete
  117. If they really want him in the uber main even WM angle, then they're gonna need people to build him up. Remember he was coming off a long face run so they need to get him heel heat. Am I crazy about how they've done it...no. I just see the rational, and big show won't be hurt by jobbing pretty strongly to HHH/Orton

    ReplyDelete
  118. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    DB is really over with kids and the high school jock type people would fuck up Cena for wearing the stuff he wears out to the ring.


    People hate Cena because he's a DORK. Not because he's a jock.

    ReplyDelete
  119. It is, on a logical level, but again, it doesn't matter. If the company is dedicated to the idea of pushing them as heels, that's what they're going to do regardless. A heel act getting face pops is not going to see their act be pulled from TV because they're getting too much heat.



    And really, in the current WWE, if ANY act gets ANY heat, it's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM

    but what if hogan was never positioned as the hero? that's my point. wrestling existed before hogan, but sportz entertainment was built around him. had it been built around a dbry or bret or punk back in '84, i'm wondering if we'd be having a different conversation about "what wwe is doing wrong"

    it's like how all the women in classic paintings are considered not to be the embodiment of beauty by todays standards. it's been engrained that past a certain weight is ugly, but at one time those heavier women were considered the epitome of beauty. something changed aong the way and the idea of beauty is very much a social construct, just like i wonder if "hulk > dbry" would not be the current mindset in the eyes of the masses it had vince pushed it that way when he went national

    ReplyDelete
  121. Maybe you're right, but DB ain't THAT over with kids. He's a character that the average parent would have no problem with their kid being a fan of because he has all the edginess of a down pillow.

    Yet... No buyrates, no ratings, no big merch sales.

    Being liked and being over aren't the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  122. No, you're probably right. Vince has a huge hand in shaping what the culture has thought of when they think "pro wrestler" and Hulk Hoagn is still the archetype. Absolutely. Had he went with, I don't know, B. Brian Blair, things would be totally different.


    But really, the "what if?" of Vince going small over big 30+ years ago, when wrestling as a nationwide cultural institution, is probably the most pointless of all the "what ifs?"

    ReplyDelete
  123. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 6:35 PM

    Kids don't buy PPVs and they sure as hell don't stay up to 11:05PM on school days. This "kids" thing is played out, they are not targeting kids with the stuff they are doing. When they were doing the kids show, though, DB was all over it.


    I think you're inventing a scenario that doesn't exist to fit your opinion. The little kids are definitely into his act, especially compared to when they broke Punk out as a smarmy joke doing a George Carlin act about how much the WWE sucks

    ReplyDelete
  124. No, their parents do. You're the one inventing a scenario to fit your opinion. The 1980s WWF was targeted towards kids and the company would never have survived without that period. This is no different.

    The company is even on the record as saying that they pursue generations of fans. They know the age of the average wrestling fan is between 13 and 35, so they grab kids when they're young, hook them, follow the progression of their attiutudes through their lifespan and at 35, let them go and hook a new generation of 13 year olds.

    ReplyDelete
  125. This'll never happen, but if they drive everything so much through ratings now, why not trump up some reason to announce the lineup ahead of time for a Raw? Even if it's King of the Ring type tournament or whatever excuse to plot everything, set 15 minute time limits. "At 8:00: Punk vs X, 8:30: Bryan vs Y, 9:00: HHH vs common sense". Promote the shit out of it and see exactly who fans turn in to see.



    I really think you got a taste of this idea last Monday. A seemingly bigger than normal 10pm hour drop when fans knew it'd be the HHH Show (in more ways than one)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Well at least we are not talking about who is an A+ anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    well, what's kind of a harsh reaction to my post. i only raised the issue of what if b/c when peeps say dbry doesnt have what it takes, it's said as an absolute truth, when instead i question whether it needs to be said in the context of what vince created

    or is that context always assumed as "the way it is"? i mean, there was a lot of talk hbk potentially being a+. was that in terms of "he's good b/c he's good no matter what" or "he's good despite living in a world where his kind arent meant to succeed"?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

    not so fast, read my post below...

    ReplyDelete
  129. Sorry if you took it that way, but all I was saying is that it's the latter. I know it's gauche to agree with Kevin Nash here in this part of the web, but he read the industry and he's right. The majority of wrestling fans like bigger guys and the way Vince shaped the industry is the reason. Had he gone a different way, things would be different, but he didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM

    quit downvoting me [anyone universally not considered a+]

    ReplyDelete
  131. I'm simply rationalizing that they'll trade the title off.

    I'm in a good mood, so if you want humor, I'll humor you: Show wins the title, promptly joins The Authority, and loses the WWE Championship to Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania XXX. How's THAT for ridiculous? :oP

    ReplyDelete
  132. ...no one downvoted you...

    ReplyDelete
  133. It is innate, because when people used to tell stories about Davy Crockett and John Brown and Daniel Bowie they embellished a whole hell of a lot until Bowie killed 1000 Mexicans at the Alamo.


    Billy the Kid was reported to only have killed 8 people but let the stories tell it, he was killing people left and right. Also he was reported to be 6'7 when he was like 5'3.


    So its human nature to want to embellish and make things bigger than they are.


    How about the time when your friend drank 25 shots of tequila knowing it was only about 6?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:48 PM

    i see a dv for both of my comments above.

    ...i'm scared

    ReplyDelete
  135. Two reasons why:

    #1. With all the same-day last-minute rewrites, who the fuck KNOWS what's going on when?

    #2. All doing this does is gives people who give Vince shit about being out of touch ammunition to go "Hehehehe, see? more people tuned in for this guy than that guy mew mew mew"

    AND I bet Cena still comes about way ahead of Bryan. And I don't give a fuck about Cena and like Bryan.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Ah there they are... Sorry man... I know how tough that can be.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:49 PM

    i have such little self confidence, i see dv's where there are none!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    'How about the time when your friend drank 25 shots of tequila knowing it was only about 6?'


    never happened


    ...cause i live alone in a van down by the river :(

    ReplyDelete
  139. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    I take umbrage with the notion that people who watch WWE programming are not real wrestling fans.

    People who are "smarks" now, and even a lot of wrestlers themselves, became so by being fans of the cartoony, larger-than-life era of wrestling.

    Also, I have far more respect for the casual fans who were into wrestling from '98-'01 and then jumped off the bandwagon than I do for us. They were smart enough to watch it when it was fun, and we're still obsessed and angry about it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Upvote for confidence!

    ReplyDelete
  141. No competition whatsoever? What about TN... nope I just can't get through it.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM

    Doubled is putting it mildly.

    One month of John Cena = 4+ television appearances including matches (and that's only because of the brand split) + appearances on recap shows + PPV appearance + internet exposure + any house shows that people see live.

    It's insane. Really, by the time it had been The Cena Show for two years it had already equaled Hogan's entire run in terms of exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  143. That doesn't address the fact that the audience was actively trying to push Bryan to the top of the card yet they still chopped his legs out from under him. With Cena on the shelf there was no reason not to get behind Bryan 100% short term and see if it will boost business. Worst case is that it fails and he can be fed to Cena and/or Orton and the status quo can return. That's exactly what happened anyway, except there was never a test to see if Bryan could continue to draw and be a legit A+ guy. In my opinoin, the support he was getting at live shows suggested he merited a larger test.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM

    Seriously, were Bryan shirts really selling that much? I'd like to see some statistics and how his three pieces of merch compare to Cena's thirty or so.

    ReplyDelete
  145. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    the average viewer age is in its 40's

    ReplyDelete
  146. I agree to a point.


    Putting Bryan and Punk together is three-fold
    1. Get some good matches out of the Wyatts
    2. Keep them in one segment on RAW, so the main angle gets more time.
    3. Keep Punk content and Bryan busy


    If the Wyatts start getting cheered and over to the point where their program gets more shine than the main program, it will get cut off at the knees. This program is not going to help anyone in the long run. It wont help the Wyatts cuz they aint going to get elevated no time soon.


    It aint going to help Bryan because he has already been unceremoniously sent back to where he belongs.


    It aint going to help Punk because he is perceived to be above this.

    ReplyDelete
  147. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 7:01 PM

    lol, instant downvote for telling the truth

    ReplyDelete
  148. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM

    random thought that gets back to who's made it and who hasn't: hulk was the cover of sports illustrated. no other wrestler has.

    does that mean... well, anything really? just throwing out there. like is discussed below, maybe it's an access thing. hulk was on there b/c there was not as much access, so this was the way of celebrating him. with cena, there's no need to feature him since he's everywhere

    ReplyDelete
  149. I also liked Backlash as the PPV after Mania. It made sense.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I'm not sure what it means. My initial thought was that wwe was fresh and new at the time, hence SI and Vince saw it as a good cross promotional thing.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 7:07 PM

    I C what U did there

    ReplyDelete
  152. Not everyone is going to be Bayless. He's about as good as you'll get.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 7:09 PM

    in 99 there was an issue of entertainment weekly that had goldberg on the cover and had a spread dedicated the wwf/wcw, and i seem to recall that being considered a big thing, too (to get the cover/feature)

    ReplyDelete
  154. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    That is incorrect. Wrestling's biggest demographic is males aged between 18-34, and because the product sucks the ratings are low. Everyone still watches WrestleMania, hence those buyrates. Further, WWE is bigger internationally than it ever has been, so what they earn domestically matters less and less.

    Teens and preteens, on the other hand, spend the most money on merchandise and that's what is driving the business. You probably also have certain guys like Orton who appeal to a demo that WWE usually doesn't get, that being teenage girls and gay men.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    He's without bay, though.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

    'Punk is a top guy working on an alternate timeline.'

    so clearly we need to go back and give pipe bomb punk a copy of the sports almanac!

    ReplyDelete
  157. Yea, how much Cenas been promoted and been on tv is mind numbing when you think about it.

    It really is bonkers that he's still going strong.

    ReplyDelete
  158. He's so dreamy.

    ReplyDelete
  159. I think a lot of the decline in the early-mid 90's had more to do with the amount of turnover than anything else. Most of the established stars were gone or no longer full-time performers, and keeping the casual fan on board was going to be difficult no matter who was on top.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Yea. I remember reading that Vince was flabbergasted Goldberg got that spot, and not Austin.

    I'm still pondering your initial statement about if Hogan is more relevant then Cena in the publics eye.

    ReplyDelete
  161. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM

    It's on their corporate site. only roughly 1/4 of their audience is under 18. Meltzer said early 40's and I believe it because their distribution is pretty even.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Not sure if they matched up to Cena yet but my impression at Wrestlemania, Raw, and a couple of house shows was that Cena, Punk, and Bryan were light years ahead of anyone else as far as merchandise goes. Plus, when this whole angle started Cena was on the shelf. Take a chance with Bryan. Worst case scenario, it doesn't work and Cena can return and bury him.

    ReplyDelete
  163. That's why his soups and stews leaves a lot to be desired. Solid BOD B guy though.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Fuck off Fuj. Why so crusty?

    ReplyDelete
  165. huh?!


    Where'd that come from?!

    ReplyDelete
  166. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:19 PM

    Maybe he's just the guy to replace Mysterio, in that case.

    ReplyDelete
  167. You're giving Farva a lot of shit and I thought your comment to me was snarky. If I was wrong then I take it back.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Your_Favourite_LoserNovember 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM

    i wasnt necessarily intentionally making any statement either way. *shrug* just wondering if the SI cover was a sign of the times (i.e., maybe cena would have already made the cover if access to him was as limited as it was to hogan)

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'm thinking that, in their minds, they think they did just that for those two disjointed, uneven, irrationally booked months.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:22 PM

    First of all, if the average viewer age was 40, that would mean for every 20 year old there's a 60 year old watching.

    Perhaps only a quarter is that age, but that would mean three quarters are mostly males up to 40 who watch wrestling instead of football on a Monday night.

    ReplyDelete
  171. It was not snarky at all.


    As far as Farva is concerned, I said what I had to say. Im letting it go. Im not going to beat a dead horse, but you will see what Im talking about sooner than later.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Definitely agree with 1. Honestly, if that's what the ratings showed, I'd be ok with number 2 as well. There's no accounting for taste, so if the ratings showed people liked HHH getting blown for an hour every Monday, so be it, would take the "Bryan's been screwed" chip off my shoulder.

    ReplyDelete
  173. I don't know, I've been a serious wrestling fan since I was a kid and I've rarely given a shit about someone's size. When I was a kid I was scared of the big guys and hoped my hero could over-come their size but that's about it...I'm entertained by personalities.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM

    Fuj don't beat dead horses, he beats live ones by throwing acid in their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  175. I gotcha. Misinterpreted your statement I guess

    ReplyDelete
  176. I do see what you mean. Posting should not be overused. The day that Scott forwarded his inbox to Caliber and he posted like 4 questions in addition to his QOTD gimmick it was way too much.

    ReplyDelete
  177. It should not at all.


    by the way, Bayless is my guy! No heat with Bayless. No heat with anybody. Im just not the type to hold my tongue about anything.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Vince confuses me. The fuck would he have been flabbergasted about? Entertainment Weekly was a Time Warner property

    ReplyDelete
  179. Warrior should have been the one to take on Earthquake, not Hogan.

    ReplyDelete
  180. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM

    The numbers are right there. Go look at the site. I know it blows people's minds when they first see it. Also, over 1/3rd of their audience is female.


    It's nothing new, Nitro had an old audience too. If you were 15 in 1983, you're now 45.

    ReplyDelete
  181. I'm fine with it. The assumption that I turn into Caliber without seeing how it turns out I just thought was premature. I had zero idea what you were implying since you never stated it outrigt. The discussion was about this individual thread

    ReplyDelete
  182. I think Daniel Bryan will be okay. He's too good to be held down for long. A guy like him will get a chance again because he works so hard and can connect with fans as a face or a heel.
    Dolph Ziggler on the other hand...

    ReplyDelete
  183. Yea, I'm guessing he didn't make that connection.. I didn't know that till pretty long after either thom

    ReplyDelete
  184. Agreed. Ever since Bryan has arrived in the WWE, he has been treated as someone special. Remember his debut on NXT? They made that whole first episode about him. And he didn't disappoint against Jericho.


    He's this generation's Benoit. I assume Vince can appreciate a guy that goes all out in his matches.

    ReplyDelete
  185. The thing is, I think DB is BETTER than Benoit. Ring skills aside, Bryan has more charisma/personality than Benoit ever had.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Benoit was a way better worker than Bryan. Bryan is more comparable to a guy like Owen Hart both in character and skill. Benoit was one of the best workers ever who due to tragic circumstances we can no longer appreciate. In reality Bryan doesn't touch Benoit.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM

    Their primary source is Nielsen, which takes into account the average number of adults and children - as well as whether or not they're female - per household across different incomes and ethnicities as well as geography. Simply put, it's far from accurate, much like supposed nationwide polls, i.e. "35% of Americans believe their government was the conspirator behind 9/11!"

    Even if children were in the minority, WWE skews towards them because they dictate the overall mass, not different percentages, of the audience. 2000's product apparently appealed more to children judging by the numbers when it clearly did not. 2000's audience was at the very least two times larger than today's (and that's just WWE's audience; they were competing with WCW, who nearly equaled theirs) which means that today's 40+ or 50+ demo are the leftovers who are lifelong fans from the Attitude Era, or even earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  188. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 7:57 PM

    It's alot more accurate than someone making it up out of thin air.


    They don't skew towards kids. If they are, they're doing a real poor job of it. There's a bit of disconnect between what Cena's character is and who people think they're marketing towards.


    Their kid audience is garbage. Not surprising because their television schedule isn't kid-friendly at all. Back in their first heyday, it was all syndication on weekends in the morning or around noon. That is perfect to hook kids. They do nothing of the kind anymore.


    So really the only way kids are watching these shows is via DVR. Ironically enough, the idiots in the office think they're DVR proof at the same time

    ReplyDelete
  189. You're not wrong... This post seems like the site is being treated like a message board and may have been a tad bit of abuse... and Superman knows the subject has been beaten to death... but at the same time by pointing it out and essentially high fiveing cultstatus over it you are kind of being a "I am the cool kid in the room" type of toolbag... it probably should have just been left unsaid, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM

    Aw sheeeet.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Ah fuck me, that was supposed to be a reply to Fuj

    ReplyDelete
  192. You're not wrong... This post seems like the site is being treated like a
    message board and may have been a tad bit of abuse... and Superman
    knows the subject has been beaten to death... but at the same time by
    pointing it out and essentially high fiveing cultstatus over it you are
    kind of being a "I am the cool kid in the room" type of toolbag... it
    probably should have just been left unsaid, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 8:05 PM

    It may be "more accurate" than someone taking a wild guess, but it's far from being "actually accurate".

    They certainly skew towards kids. What is unnecessary today is skewing towards RATINGS. That's the key difference. Again, WWE makes the most important part of their revenue internationally and from merchandise; whatever avenue is not tapped out.

    And they cannot change their schedule around because they're in prime time. That's ridiculous, the notion to move. Also in today's television industry, getting 2 million people to watch your show is good, as opposed to the 1990s where you weren't shit until 20 million were watching.

    The core audience of WWE is probably equal to Impact's: a 1.0 rating. If they can attract nearly 2.0 more, they're clearly content with that.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 8:05 PM

    It was. I saw it pop up under me with "new comment" or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  195. ARRRRGH THE BARBARIANNovember 8, 2013 at 8:10 PM

    You don't have to move your schedule, they just don't show much interest in the syndicated style shows they used to do IN ADDITION to Prime Time Wrestling.


    You can say they skew towards kids all you want, but the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice

    ReplyDelete
  196. Here is my disconnect with hit. Serious question, how is it abuse? It seems Fuj and Cult took issue with it being a new thread.

    I viewed it as just transitioning a popular discussion in another direction. I don't view a front page thread or my opinion as anything more then a jump off point for the subsequent discussion.

    If it's viewed as abuse then maybe I just view this site differently and need to readjust

    ReplyDelete
  197. Why not? How was Benoit better as a worker? Not flaming, just genuinely curious.

    ReplyDelete
  198. I definitely liked Benoit more as a worker, but think it's just because I liked his style a lot more. For what Bryan does, he's very very good.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Pat Patterson Prolapsed!November 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM

    Yes, but WWE doesn't need kids to watch their shows as much as they need them to get their parents to buy them shit. The TV shows exist in prime time merely as a vehicle for the company to remain relevant.

    Nielsen may think they're 90% accurate, but up against a genetic freak like me they're only 25% accurate at BEST, and you add Kurt Angle to the mix, and your odds of beat me drastic go down.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment