Comment on this post ›

COMMENTS (31)

123
Page size:
PageSizeComboBox
select
     
123
Page size:
PageSizeComboBox
select
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
thnx for liking it...would surely like to hear ur opinions....n i would like to join the "Cult" too...
 CanadianCanadianX Division Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
Yes, your writing skills are good. Nice to have more posters here, who know how to communicate.

At this moment, your blog too long so I didn't read but I get the general gist of it, I think. Like you, I find it very hard to suspend disbelief, when watching WWE programming because there booking is so illogical at times. On the other hand, the 6/25/11 Punk promo was probably the first time I was really able to emotionally invest into the product by suspending disbelief. A few weeks later, Punk fizzled out, starting losing and now I am on the ADR bandwagon because in a real fight ADR could beat Punk and Cena easily so I would not need to suspend disbelief.

1) I covered this in my above paragraph

2) That is something WWE can't control so I don't have opinion on it.

3) The problem is that both RAW and SD are diluted and watered down with unknown people, who don't connect with the fans. Putting titles on these unknowns then calling them former champs does not help their cause one bit. Furthermore, title-hopping destroys credibility of said title.

The only way to fix this would be to bring down Cena, Punk, ADR, HHH and Christian and Orton down to the mid-card to put over others but WWE can't do that because like you said they lack star power.

4) UFC is popular because it does not insult the intelligence of fans like WWE does, going back to point #1. UFC basically stole all the former male jaded fans of boxing and pro-wrestling. Also the wealthiest demographic is the males 21-49, UFC dominates here.
Twitter
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
thanks for the like n opinions.......the economy is not in control of the WWE but they could atleast feel for the general public n reduce the no. of ppvs, if they can't reduce the costs...$50 is just too much when you consider more than a dozen ppvs a year
 CanadianCanadianX Division Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
That is just bad business. If you look at basic economics, judging by your age you have yet to take an introductory economics college course, once you give a consumer a sale, a certain percentage will stop paying regular price, directly proportional to how much discount is given.
Twitter
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
yeah but i've studied introductory micro economics....n its bad business no doubt...WWE doesn't have a monopoly anymore..they need to regulate the prices to attract more customers....8 ppvs a year would be adept...with 6 weeks build up to the second rate ppvs n 7 weeks build to the big 4....
 CanadianCanadianX Division Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
Good point, I would just like to add to my previous post that all other variables would be controlled, for my equation to happen. For example, the WWE booking would be the same and the roster would be the same,
Twitter
 manutddjwJobber2 years agoLikeReply
 
I've been a fan of the WWE since 1989 and the problem for me now is that there are simply wrestlers that I just don't care about.

Back in the day, I wasn't the typical wrestling fan who only cheered for good-guys and hated bad-guys. I liked whoever entertained me by both wrestling ability and entertainment ability via promos or feuds. For example I loved Razor Ramon and Macho King even though they were "bad guys" when they debuted because they were entertaining. I can name over 15 wrestlers on the roster for every year from 1989-2005 that I cared about and wanted to watch. Today I can name 5. I do give credit to todays wrestlers because if you look at the mid-carders today vs the ones from yesteryear they are much better wrestlers and wrestle in a more entertaining style. But they are missing something. 

Another problem I found is if you don't like John Cena or Randy Orton there will be about 45 minutes of Raw that you don't really want to watch because they are the top guys and they are featured heavily on the shows (rightfully so). At least back then if you didn't like Hogan you had Macho Man and The Ultimate Warrior or if you didn't like Diesel or Lex Luger you had Bret Hart and The Undertaker. A Mount Rushmore of 4 top guys doesn't exist anymore.

I found myself TiVoing Raw because I want to watch football and when I do get around to watching Raw, theres alot of it I skip through because I simply don't care.

In regards to your comments about less PPV's that will never happen. The cost of putting on a PPV is already basically covered by the ticket sales and whatever PPV buys they get is more-less profit anyway.
 Commissioner CainCommissioner Cain *
Moderator
Hall Of Famer2 years agoLikeReply
 
Fewer PPV's would equal better build-ups and storylines.  I have argued this point for a long time that the WWE has too many PPV's.  I would say 8 a year is perfect.  Four major ones and four minor ones. 

Yes the economy sucks and I don't think it will better anytime soon.  This may hurt the WWE in the long run, but like it has been previously said, ticket sales usually cover the cost and the buyrights are pretty much profit for the WWE. 

As far as the lack of star power goes, the WWE needs to create the next Rock or Austin.  I am not talking about any of the already developed stars like Orton, Cena or even Punk.  I am talking about someone fresh and new.  I'm also not talking about a rookie.  I'm talking about someone who is not really in the mainevent spotlight with him, and come up with a  gimmick that would be a major homerun and get them super over.  Even though Austin was a veteran, his gimmick caught on like wildfire and the rest is history.  Whoever, or whatever gimmick it may be, I think they will eventually come up with it, the question is when.

Nice blog by the way...
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 

I began watching wrestling in 2004....even that time around all the titles had some prestige attached to them....they didn't change hands without any build....how many WWE title changes have we seen since  the last 9 weeks??....John Cena was the champion at MitB,then CM Punk,then Rey Mysterio,then John Cena,then John Cena & CM Punk,then CM Punk,then Alberto Del Rio n now John Cena.....that's 9 champions in 9 weeks......all the prestige attached to being a champion is lost....the IC championship is no better...it is defended just randomly....WWE just adds in filler material in the last minutes...that's not the way to build a ppv....
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
the prestige of being a WWE Champion has gone down...John Cena's 10 Championship reigns have been 1055 days long combined....whereas Pedro Morales, the 4th WWE Champion was a 1 time Champion n his reign was 1027 days long....meanwhile Bruno Sammartino, the 2nd WWE Champion was a 2 time Champion n his reigns were 4040 days long combined...Championship reigns must be atleast 6 months long....but now being a Champion for 6 weeks is a tough prospective.....
 Commissioner CainCommissioner Cain *
Moderator
Hall Of Famer2 years agoLikeReply
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by subho
the prestige of being a WWE Champion has gone down...John Cena's 10 Championship reigns have been 1055 days long combined....whereas Pedro Morales, the 4th WWE Champion was a 1 time Champion n his reign was 1027 days long....meanwhile Bruno Sammartino, the 2nd WWE Champion was a 2 time Champion n his reigns were 4040 days long combined...Championship reigns must be atleast 6 months long....but now being a Champion for 6 weeks is a tough prospective.....
-------------------

That's also the product of having way too many ppv's a year.  There has to be constant title changes at these ppv's in order to keep the fans interested.  Not that I agree with this though.
 Commissioner CainCommissioner Cain *
Moderator
Hall Of Famer2 years agoLikeReply
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cult_of_Awesomeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niteshadow
Quote:
Originally Posted by subho
the prestige of being a WWE Champion has gone down...John Cena's 10 Championship reigns have been 1055 days long combined....whereas Pedro Morales, the 4th WWE Champion was a 1 time Champion n his reign was 1027 days long....meanwhile Bruno Sammartino, the 2nd WWE Champion was a 2 time Champion n his reigns were 4040 days long combined...Championship reigns must be atleast 6 months long....but now being a Champion for 6 weeks is a tough prospective.....
-------------------

That's also the product of having way too many ppv's a year.  There has to be constant title changes at these ppv's in order to keep the fans interested.  Not that I agree with this though.

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

I don't know that WWE is totally to blame for the short reigns. Back 20+ years ago there could be title reigns that lasted for years. I think that the Monday night wars were the beginning of the end in that regard. In today's society there is a demand for change for the sake of change, shorter attention spans and always wanting something new. I'm not sure that 2 or 6 week title reigns are the solution. Although i'm a huge Miz mark, he got more repect for holding on to the WWE title for six months than the poor booking of his title reign.

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

I agree, the attitude era and the Monday night wars were most responsible for the short title reigns that we see today.  Although there were many benefits from these events, the short title changes were not one of them.  It does start to tarnish the achievements of Ric Flair and a lot of other of yesterday's superstars.  On the other hand it is sometimes hard and unfair to compare the wrestling of today with that of 30 years ago.  30 years ago you didn't have all the televised events and especially the internet.  Everything the WWE does now is under the constant scope of fans.
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 

the beginning of the Monday Night Wars wasn't the end of long title reigns...from Shawn Michaels,to Bret Hart,to The Undertaker,to Triple H,to John Cena's year long reign,to JBL's longest title reign in TV history...these all were long reigns...week to week title i think began somewhere around 2009....
 Commissioner CainCommissioner Cain *
Moderator
Hall Of Famer2 years agoLikeReply
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by subho

the beginning of the Monday Night Wars wasn't the end of long title reigns...from Shawn Michaels,to Bret Hart,to The Undertaker,to Triple H,to John Cena's year long reign,to JBL's longest title reign in TV history...these all were long reigns...week to week title i think began somewhere around 2009....

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

I'm not saying it was the end of long title reigns.  I'm saying that the attitude era and the Monday night wars thrust wrestling into the main stream spotlight thereby making longer title reigns coming fewer and far between in order to appease the fans and keep them interested.  I realize it has gotten worse in the past year or so and that there still have been some long title reigns in the past 10 years, but I am saying that the attitude era started it.
 subhosubhoCruiserweight Champion2 years agoLikeReply
 
yeah..i agree with that one...Mainstream entertainment has created this all...but it has its plus points too...WWE just needs a bit cleansing...
Comment on this post ›