APRIL 2022 WRESTLING DISCUSSION

[Hagan]

39 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

I don't think I said any of that but let me go back and check my post just in case I maybe had some sort of break and my other personality did it.

 

 

Nope.

 

 

My point is they're making a big show out of saying indy guys are too hard to work with or whatever, while the indiest of the indy guys from the last generation of indy geeks, two guys that super duper traditionalist Jim Cornette said had no future in wrestling, were the ones trusted to carry a movie/TV guy and an aging veteran who hadn't wrestled in decades.

NXT flopped against AEW.  Vince likes big muscular dudes and that's always his fallback when things stop working.  Making a showy, drastic change is easier than trying to really figure out a real solution.  Everything else is just a story they're telling to justify it.  Nothing else to say.

 

Right and someone being dismissive of Chris Jericho and Rey as draws is just silly. Both them and Brock are all Hall of Fame level drawing stars. All have headlined big, big shows. In fact, someone with more time on their hands can probably argue that Rey Mysterio has been a bigger career draw than Roman. 

[For Great Justice]

I’m not sure what the disagreement is here. It’s completely within the WWE’s right to revert to the formula of training sports athletes rather than poaching indies. It’s worked for them in the past and is a step up from underwear models of the mid aughts. 

There have always been and will always be veteran Indy-born guys on the card like Steamboat, Goldust, Rude regardless. I think it makes sense to target your developmental recruiting on the athlete types moreso than the Indy types. 

I unabashedly prefer NXT 2.0 over the Gargano/Cole/Ciampa era NXT though. Vince was 100% right that they product stunk and was contributing nothing to the main roster.

[Technico Support]

19 minutes ago, For Great Justice said:

I’m not sure what the disagreement is here. It’s completely within the WWE’s right to revert to the formula of training sports athletes rather than poaching indies. It’s worked for them in the past and is a step up from underwear models of the mid aughts. 

There have always been and will always be veteran Indy-born guys on the card like Steamboat, Goldust, Rude regardless. I think it makes sense to target your developmental recruiting on the athlete types moreso than the Indy types. 

I unabashedly prefer NXT 2.0 over the Gargano/Cole/Ciampa era NXT though. Vince was 100% right that they product stunk and was contributing nothing to the main roster.

Oh absolutely.  They can train guys any way they please.  I'm just arguing that it's laughable how they did the same old same old "let's go back to big guys" thing and then, after the fact, painted it like it was some strategic masterstroke.  They made an impulsive move based on Vince's prejudices and then created a story around it.  The saddest part is making a broken down wrestler who actually loves in-ring wrestling go out there and be the point man to sell the tale of how it's bad for a wrestling company to hire wrestlers.

Re: Gargano/Cole/Ciampa NXT: the point of that NXT was never to bolster the main roster.  The point of that was the blockade the indies by creating their own super indy.  Nobody who understands Vince's preferences is looking at those three and saying "oh yeah, that's a Mania main eventer."  That's what really killed me about Vince and company blaming HHH for NXT's lack of main roster ready stars.  NXT started as developmental, then they changed its purpose, then they bitched when it was no longer developmental.  That's like buying a Prius, swapping its engine for one from a Ford F-950 or whatever, then complaining that it's using more gas than it was supposed to.

[(BP)]

Does it really matter if their props are tiny kickpad wrestling nerds or charismatic juiceheads if it’s the same lame show regardless? 

[Hagan]

And as Meltzer pointed out today, WWE pretending that they invented recruiting outside athletes to be pro wrestlers is ahistorical. It's been going on since the beginning of the industry. 

I think the big issue is, as smart people point out, is that you don't have to be hard and fast on ANY rule. Eric Bischoff famously told Steve Austin "“you know Steve, you might need to find something else to do for a living or somewhere else to go. Maybe New Japan or ECW, because you go out there in those black trunks and black boots and there’s not a whole lot of ways for me to market that.”

I feel that Steve Austin and Bill Goldberg did pretty well with black trunks and black boots. 

Eddy Guerrero was a big money drawing star. So was the Undertaker. Daniel Bryan and Jeff Hardy were bigger stars than Mason Ryan and Ezekiel Jackson by a million fold. What is silly is that WWE flip-flops on these pronouncements based on Vince's whims every so often and people bend over backwards to justify it as opposed to just dismissing it as Vince being Vince. 

I mean, when Kevin Owens came in and pinned Cena, or Nakamura debuted against Zayn at Dallas, or Takeovers were selling out arenas, or former ROH champion Seth Rollins was hot not many were ranting and raving about how broken their developmental system was. It was only when AEW debuted* that a large portion of their fans/co-opted pundits had to justify that indie/foreign wrestling was the wrong kind of wrestling.

 

edit: *it kind of started when New Japan got hot where people couldn't accept the praise the Okada Era was getting.   

Edited April 19, 2022 by Hagan

[supremebve]

27 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Re: Gargano/Cole/Ciampa NXT: the point of that NXT was never to bolster the main roster.  The point of that was the blockade the indies by creating their own super indy.  Nobody who understands Vince's preferences is looking at those three and saying "oh yeah, that's a Mania main eventer."  That's what really killed me about Vince and company blaming HHH for NXT's lack of main roster ready stars.  NXT started as developmental, then they changed its purpose, then they bitched when it was no longer developmental.  That's like buying a Prius, swapping its engine for one from a Ford F-950 or whatever, then complaining that it's using more gas than it was supposed to.

The problem with the Ciampa/Gargano/Cole NXT was that they were the best students in class,  but somehow never graduated. NXT at its best was always about building guys up until they left for bigger and better things.  It worked because it was a never ending line of workers who we met as freshman and graduate as seniors. Those guys were seniors for so long that no freshman really felt like they had a chance. This 3 guys are really good pro wrestlers,  but if the WWE wasn't going to elevate them they were just shooting themselves in the foot.

[Eivion]

50 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Re: Gargano/Cole/Ciampa NXT: the point of that NXT was never to bolster the main roster.  The point of that was the blockade the indies by creating their own super indy.  Nobody who understands Vince's preferences is looking at those three and saying "oh yeah, that's a Mania main eventer."  That's what really killed me about Vince and company blaming HHH for NXT's lack of main roster ready stars.  NXT started as developmental, then they changed its purpose, then they bitched when it was no longer developmental.  That's like buying a Prius, swapping its engine for one from a Ford F-950 or whatever, then complaining that it's using more gas than it was supposed to.

NXT never stopped being a developmental. Not sure how that purpose ever changed with people moving up regularly every year. HHH was the one who added the super indy aspect into it, and that had a more to do with wanting to show his booking skills being able to draw. I'm not even sure where you pulled the idea of them trying to block a super indy from rising. That just makes absolutely no sense.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Eivion

[JohnnyJ]

Wasn't the point of the Performance Center always to bring in former athletes and train them? That's what is comical about WWEs "new" vision for developmental. I would love to know how many former collegiate athletes have been in and out of that place. The question for WWE should be what makes this time different. 

It seems like the problem WWE keeps on having is the indies are the closest thing wrestling has to a meritocracy. If you sign up top indy names chances are they will have certain qualities which will separate them from the pack. So if you mix them in with untrained performers with size, you're going to get a roster of Johnny Garganos. 

[Sublime]

Wasn't one of the reasons WWE started signing up indy guys who didn't really fit their usual mold is because they didn't like the indy's using Mania weekend as a time to put on shows and get more money (that should be Vince's in his eyes) 

[Eivion]

13 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Wasn't one of the reasons WWE started signing up indy guys who didn't really fit their usual mold is because they didn't like the indy's using Mania weekend as a time to put on shows and get more money (that should be Vince's in his eyes) 

That was always more fan theory than anything else and made little sense since it would do nothing to curbed that action with how many indy wrestlers are out there.

 

 

I always find this situation and the reactions to it to be odd. Not saying it does happen so often, but it feels like we hear this edict coming into play every few years. And every time it does they don't actually stop bringing in indy talent. At best they limit it to a degree. Beyond that the reaction to it from fans always strikes me as weird since the biggest proponents against it are the ones who don't watch, and much of the time hate, WWE. If anything you would think they would be happy there is less of a chance of their favorites being scooped up. 

[NoFistsJustFlips]

40 minutes ago, Eivion said:

NXT never stopped being a developmental. Not sure how that purpose ever changed with people moving up regularly every year. HHH was the one who added the super indy aspect into it, and that had a more to do with wanting to show his booking skills being able to draw. I'm not even sure where you pulled the idea of them trying to block a super indy from rising. That just makes absolutely no sense.

Let me try this example to see if you change your mind.

Say I run a nightclub. It's making money and most people are happy coming there. But then I decide I also want my nightclub to be a competitor to H&R Block and we do tax prep. We start renovating and shifting around the bar location & dance floor so we can fit in desks for our CPAs. It's also too loud so we turn the music way down. We still have music. We still serve drinks. So it's still a nightclub. But our focus has shifted to making sure we stop H&R Block from being able do tax prep. Our top goal is to take them out.

NXT was still a developmental, just like in this example it's still a nightclub. But the developmental component took a backseat. The primary focus was trying to cock block AEW and make sure Warner didn't want to continue on with them once the first deal ran out. It muddied the waters. They didn't fully commit to building those Sami / Finn / Bayley kind of stars. That took a backseat to trying to out workrate the workrate company. So you get Ciampa & Gargano & Cole overload. Those guys weren't developmental guys. They were super indys. They weren't being groomed to succeed on the main roster. They were being groomed to have matches good enough people picked watching NXT over AEW.

The truth is the big loud showy announcement and NIL focus is the 'you can't fire me, I quit' move. It's to change the narrative in the news cycle. It's no longer WWE hired a bunch of guys they can't make stars out of to try and take a bite out of AEW. It's oh wow WWE decided to do this new thing now. How dumb is this new thing now. It's purely a PR move.

[A_K]

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

I don't think I said any of that but let me go back and check my post just in case I maybe had some sort of break and my other personality did it.

 

 

Nope.

 

 

My point is they're making a big show out of saying indy guys are too hard to work with or whatever, while the indiest of the indy guys from the last generation of indy geeks, two guys that super duper traditionalist Jim Cornette said had no future in wrestling, were the ones trusted to carry a movie/TV guy and an aging veteran who hadn't wrestled in decades.

NXT flopped against AEW.  Vince likes big muscular dudes and that's always his fallback when things stop working.  Making a showy, drastic change is easier than trying to really figure out a real solution.  Everything else is just a story they're telling to justify it.  Nothing else to say.

 

I didn’t say you did - in fact, I didn’t even quote you. Don’t worry, you’re not the only one who shares the sentiment - hence the collective twilight zone. For the guy who’s suggesting Chris Jericho/ Brock Lesnar are same ballpark of draws - I’ll have whatever you’re smoking. 

AEW has occupied a very clear niche, and absorbed practically every viable Indy-origin talent on the market. Since the Punk/Danielson summer debut pair (absolute apex of that talent-type), ratings have only gone backwards, and last week show was actually a YOY fall despite the hurrah about how good the TV output is. For all they’ve added, the number of eyes on the product aren’t a million miles away from when the original batch of talent were running the screen & they’re back to 50% less views than SD! (led by a guy who can’t draw - figure that one out). So, commercially, it probably remains to be seen as to whether that is really the commercial ‘solution’ for Connecticut at all. They’ve been in a malaise, that’s for certain, but no proof yet the development talent alteration adds to it.

 

[Eivion]

5 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

Say I run a nightclub. It's making money and most people are happy coming there. But then I decide I also want my nightclub to be a competitor to H&R Block and we do tax prep. We start renovating and shifting around the bar location & dance floor so we can fit in desks for our CPAs. It's also too loud so we turn the music way down. We still have music. We still serve drinks. So it's still a nightclub. But our focus has shifted to making sure we stop H&R Block from being able do tax prep. Our top goal is to take them out.

NXT was still a developmental, just like in this example it's still a nightclub. But the developmental component took a backseat. The primary focus was trying to cock block AEW and make sure Warner didn't want to continue on with them once the first deal ran out. It muddied the waters. They didn't fully commit to building those Sami / Finn / Bayley kind of stars. That took a backseat to trying to out workrate the workrate company. So you get Ciampa & Gargano & Cole overload. Those guys weren't developmental guys. They were super indys. They weren't being groomed to succeed on the main roster. They were being groomed to have matches good enough people picked watching NXT over AEW.

The problem with this is the super indy stuff started a good 2-3 years before AEW was a thing.

7 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

The truth is the big loud showy announcement and NIL focus is the 'you can't fire me, I quit' move. It's to change the narrative in the news cycle. It's no longer WWE hired a bunch of guys they can't make stars out of to try and take a bite out of AEW. It's oh wow WWE decided to do this new thing now. How dumb is this new thing now. It's purely a PR move.

I do agree its about altering the narrative.

[The Natural]

 

[JohnnyJ]

I think the better example would be if you brought a bunch AAA ballplayers who werent major league material to play for the A ball team. At first, it's exciting that you are dominating your opponents. However, over time, by filling up your roster with a bunch of ringers with limited upside potential you are hurting the major league roster. 

[Go2Sleep]

43 minutes ago, A_K said:

I didn’t say you did - in fact, I didn’t even quote you. Don’t worry, you’re not the only one who shares the sentiment - hence the collective twilight zone. For the guy who’s suggesting Chris Jericho/ Brock Lesnar are same ballpark of draws - I’ll have whatever you’re smoking.

 

You keep asserting that Brock is a monster draw if it's a law of physics, but is there any actual proof that Brock adds to WWE's core audience, which has been generally shrinking over the last decade? Jericho was the centerpiece of a brand new promotion getting a national tv deal, dismissing that as drawing power is crazy. Yes AEW has lower ratings than WWE, but getting eyes on a new company is a lot harder than getting eyes on a company that has been the premier name in wrestling for 40 years.

[Hagan]

Yeah - WWE, which is doing perfectly fine, is still down in like every single metric over the last several years. By what measure is Roman (and Brock for that matter) lighting the world on fire? The whole premise of the company is it's the brand that draws and not the performers. Roman has been a massive failure up until this last monster push. Let's not pretend he's Bruno on a 7 year hot streak. Brock is a massive, massive star but not like the TV shows are doing monster ratings or show are drawing as well as they've done in other times.   

Brock was a phenomenal draw in UFC and is obviously a difference maker but the dude isn't prime Steve Austin either. Roman isn't even prime Cena. Jericho very rarely got an ace position but dude was a main eventer when the company was a LOT more popular. 

[Swift]

This Letterboxd account surely belongs to someone here - https://letterboxd.com/vincemale/film/porky-the-wrestler/

[SirSmUgly]

In WWE, the brand is the draw. WM will draw 50K+ regardless of who is on top. WWE is a machine that can build anyone they want to build and present them as a star to a general audience that checks in once a year. 

Jericho is certainly a draw to an exec that was a fan growing up in the '90s, I'd assume. I'll give Punk and Bryan "draw" status as well; they both broke through into the mainstream to some degree in their WWE runs. 

Brock at least has a Q rating, and probably you can argue that he's a draw based on his first run and his UFC history. 

Roman is a dud. Actually, The Shield is the best argument for creating and elevating a trios division. Three guys who aren't legit main event draws on their own, but who are a trios draw when put together. And there's nothing wrong with that, either!

[Eivion]

I'm curious what metric people are using to argue someone in the modern era is or isn't a draw because by whatever criteria people are currently using for WWE no one can or will ever be a draw again because its all brand based. Curious how much people for instance are taking in the continue gradually fall of tv in general into account.

[SirSmUgly]

1 minute ago, Eivion said:

I'm curious what metric people are using to argue someone in the modern era is or isn't a draw because by whatever criteria people are currently using for WWE no one can or will ever be a draw again because its all brand based. Curious how much people for instance are taking in the continue gradually fall of tv in general into account.

This is a fair point. I almost noted that we have to consider a) the fragmentation of the audience and b) WWE's brand-first strategy.

Maybe we can come at this theoretically. If Steve Austin or The Rock show up in 2022 WWE and are allowed to be themselves + given a push like Roman or Brock where they never lose, do they draw a bigger crowd than Roman or Brock if all else remains (recycled feuds, good matches with unremarkable builds across the card, etc.).

[Burgundy LaRue]

This will get mocked by my oh-so-much-smarter fellow members. Eh, I've been mocked for less around here.

Brock and Roman are massive draws on YT. Considering how WWE pretty much puts up clips that gives one an entire show's rundown, them (along with Ronda) consistently bringing in millions of views usually just for standing there is something. Cody is doing good numbers right now. We'll see if he remains consistent over the next 6-12 months.

WWE likely makes as much or more on YT than AEW does with their TV deal, so it's not chump change we're looking at. I'm not saying that anything should live or die by these metrics. But they pull in sizeable numbers that WWE clearly count for something.

Even when he was supposedly box office poison, Roman was selling tons of merch. He's supposedly on Cena levels of moving shirts and what-nots these days.

FOX apparently made it known to WWE they wanted Roman on SD when they moved there in 2019. And USA supposedly whined, so they came up with the Wild Card rule for that summer so he could still be on RAW for a bit. Someone in a fancy office thinks he has value. And he brought SD's ratings back up to 2M+ when he returned after SummerSlam 2020. They dropped when he took his leave.

Brock and Ronda also have caused some uptick in ratings when they returned to TV. Those three are the draws, however one may value that in 2022. And again, watch Cody's numbers to see if he maintains them. If so, he'll join that list.

@(BP) mentioned WWE as IP and there's truth to that. That's where the value to any entertainment company now. There was a good article recently--I think from CNBC--where they talk about how streaming services are looking to buy niche sports companies for the continuous live content, how Disney goofed in not buying UFC in 2016. How, if they have ESPN renew their licensing rights, they'll have paid more for those licenses than it would have cost to buy UFC outright six years ago.

So if you're WWE, you have a 20,000-hour library that you still own, along with the IPs to countless characters that can be used in a multitude of ways. But part of that allure is them continually creating/building new IP--new stars, more or less. If Roman Reigns or whoever you push as your big star is this supposed dud--then WWE may as well close up shop and call it a good run. which I know would cause a massive party around here, but I digress.

Now, if we want to debate whether WWE does its best work in promoting said stars/IP, that's worth a discussion. And yes, WWE has been built in a way where they don't have to depend on one guy/girl to be a massive draw. No one who's looked at their business would dispute that. But the idea that they have no current wrestler who contributes to their bottom line is puzzling. Comes across as crapping on talent just because you can squat.

If WWE's ratings are rotten, don't bother even talking about AEW's. That's not me dismissing them. Thing is, TV ratings aren't the best metric to use unless we're looking at live sports (actual, not sports entertainment/pro wrasslin'). And even then, it's not the be all, end all. Nielsen lost its accreditation because they were 6-10% off with their numbers. Any poll that's more than 5% off is considered worthless, so that tells us where Nielsen was. And that's before we get into how those boxes were heavily put in White upper-middle class homes, ignoring Blacks and other POC plus lower-income families.

Wrestling is a niche within a niche now. Most things are. With dozens of streaming services and cable steadily going down in popularity, anything that pops 1M+ rating is good as gold. Which means Dynamite is no trouble. Neither is RAW. But by and large, wrestling is this quirky thing that networks can put on for live content at a fairly cheap price. Such is the life within ultra-geek culture and those of us who still enjoy this mess.

[Log]

When I think "draw", I think the person people pay/tune in/show up to see.  Rhonda and Brock appearances may have spiked ratings, so that's something.  I just think we're past the days of a wrestling promotion getting by on a Hulk Hogan-like draw.  I don't see that happening again.  

It's not just wrestling.  Movie people complain about the fact that there are no more Movie Stars.  IP draws.  Used to, you went to see the new Tom Cruise movie.  Now, you go see the new Marvel movie or the new Fast and Furious movie.  Used to, you went to see Hulk Hogan.  Now, you go see WWE.

It's my opinion that if a pro wrestling promotion wants to succeed today, it needs to put on a compelling program.  People these days love good storytelling.  Marvel doesn't dominate DC in movies because their characters are bigger stars.  They beat them because their stories are better (my opinion, of course, but the box office agrees).

It's hard because wrestling's biggest successes have revolved around that one big star breaking out.  That's how we think about "success" in pro wrestling.  I just don't think we're going to see a star like that again.  The entertainment landscape doesn't allow for it right now.

 

[Ziggy]

It's weird that as further away WWE has gotten with kayfabe and being open with letting people behind the curtain. The more forceful they are about the fans accepting their chosen person as the Ace of the company no matter how much the Audience kicks against it. Naturally the audience is going to feel like they have a voice on who they want as the top guy and reject the person who they feel you are trying to force in that spot, even if that person is top guy material. Austin and Rock felt more like the people's choice. Even Rock who had the Pedigree and sculpted like what a top guy should look like, for whatever reason still turned into the peoples choice. I like Cena and I think he was a great representation of the company and an excellent worker but the company still forced the Audience to accept him even though a good portion of the audience rejected him.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Ziggy

[Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie]

1 hour ago, Burgundy LaRue said:

If WWE's ratings are rotten, don't bother even talking about AEW's. That's not me dismissing them. Thing is, TV ratings aren't the best metric to use unless we're looking at live sports (actual, not sports entertainment/pro wrasslin'). And even then, it's not the be all, end all. Nielsen lost its accreditation because they were 6-10% off with their numbers. Any poll that's more than 5% off is considered worthless, so that tells us where Nielsen was. And that's before we get into how those boxes were heavily put in White upper-middle class homes, ignoring Blacks and other POC plus lower-income families.

Wrestling is a niche within a niche now. Most things are. With dozens of streaming services and cable steadily going down in popularity, anything that pops 1M+ rating is good as gold. Which means Dynamite is no trouble. Neither is RAW. But by and large, wrestling is this quirky thing that networks can put on for live content at a fairly cheap price. Such is the life within ultra-geek culture and those of us who still enjoy this mess.

Something else people forget about when it comes to viewership numbers as well is DVR viewership. Comparing live viewership in 2022 to live viewership in 1997 or 1999 or whenever is something that simply cannot be factored in, because really, how many people truly watch TV live anymore? Some things, like sports, are bulletproof when it comes to live viewing, but otherwise you have to look at live+7 viewership (or for those unfamiliar, that's live viewership plus whatever gets watched within seven days of airing).

Guess what never gets reported? The live+7 ratings of pretty much any wrestling show.

@Burgundy LaRueis 100% right in that wrestling is live content that is, for the most part, DVR-proof for its core audience and compared to most live sports rights fees is fairly cheap. She's also right that most ratings numbers aren't accurate due to how skewed they can be and that they are often projections.

So really... shouldn't we be more concerned about whether the show was enjoyable or not? Because nothing gets my eyes rolling faster than an enjoyable show getting shit on because someone saying "well the building was only half full". So what. I don't watch wrestling to see how many people are in the crowd.