2013 Pro Wrestling Thread

I feel like the E is really beginning to circle the drain. I know that they are about to get paid big time when they renew their TV contract, but they just can't keep doing this crap. They absolutely refuse to let any angle have time to breathe. Their desperate return to Cena may help for a bit longer, but he's eventually going to enter the pre-nWo WCW Hogan territory.

I just wish I could get inside the head of the "bury anyone that starts to get really over" mentality that seems to rule in WWE. It's freaking awful.

 

They seem deathly afraid of any sort of ratings downturn, but if they want to nurture some new people to truly take over the main event, then they're going to have to deal with it at some point.

 

And that's the issue. They continue to put Cena above everyone and anything else, but what happens when he leaves? It hasn't been good for business (despite what they apparently think) to build up one superstar over the last decade and when he can't go anymore, it's going to be even worse. The WWE has always made money off of multiple superstars, why have they been so afraid of it over this last decade? They cling to old timers like The Rock (and possibly Hogan again at WM30) like, well, WCW and TNA have done in the past. Yes, people like to see their old favorites, but they also need new people to root for. TNA clearly doesn't get that; I thought the WWE might but HiaC proved otherwise.

 

Eventually enter pre-NWO Hogan territory? I'd say he already has.

What they don't get is that when you get a really special storyline, it's OK to let it play out for more than 3 PPV cycles. I think part of it is that with the need for constant TV and multiple PPVs, we're used to needing storylines to move more quickly than the old days.

The days of Piper and Snuka battling for a year over a coconut wouldn't happen today because we'd be wanting Superfly to get his revenge on Smackdown, followed by Cowboy Bob vs. Snuka match on the next Raw with Piper interference, followed by the first PPV match in which Piper and Orton would screw him over. A year's worth of a storyline gets played out in a month.

 

They have become so reliant on the return of the older guys at 'Mania in the past few years that I think they've deceived themselves into thinking they can keep going to that well. The buyrate for WM 29 was good, but still a disappointment based on their expectations.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I read an article a year or two ago that basically said that the E had become dangerously reliant on Wrestlemania week for a huge share of its profits. A year where they really tank at 'Mania could send WWE into crisis mode. I think 2014 is the year where that could happen.

WWE has relied on The Rock as the main draw for the past three years. He tucked his tail and ran after getting booed out of Metlife Stadium. In 2014 they've got...Hogan? Lesnar? Sting vs. The Streak? I'm pretty sure Austin isn't walking through that door. There's some rumbling of HBK v. Daniel Bryan. Any other old timers worth mentioning?

I'm still not sure where they are going to go for the main event of WM XXX. Cena v. Orton unification match? The titles have been so thoroughly devalued that the unification lacks much luster. Nevermind that the guys have feuded several times before, and we know it will end with LOL CENA WINS. The only Cena match with any sizzle is one with Undertaker. The smarks (myself included) would pay for a Cena vs. CM Punk that closes the show, but I'm not sure that is going to sell with the casuals and kiddos.

 

I think we could see a Cena-Punk unification match, and it could be done well. Have Orton deal with Show in a PPV or two, with HHH behind it so you can use Show in some other angle with management, maybe with Roman Reigns (could be a great rub for Reigns).Then have Punk get the title from Orton. Cena loses the WHC at the Rumble but gets entered into the Royal Rumble because someone gets hurt and wins. He then wins his rematch for the WHC, leading to a unification main event.

Bryan ends up feuding with the Shield and Wyatts through this time. Ends up Bray Wyatt's devil is the Undertaker. Have Undertaker-Bryan for WM (Taker's old, but I think Bryan could have a strong match with him like Punk last year). And Bryan ends the streak, vaulting him back to main event status. (I know it'll never happen, but I can dream.)

Meanwhile, Hogan comes back and ends up in a tag match with Big Show against HHH and someone (HBK? All of the Shield? Just Reigns with the rest of Rollins and Ambrose in some kind of tag team gimmick match or something? Maybe Lesnar?). Have Shane-O-Mac in Hogan's and Show's corner. If Show and Hogan win, Shane gets control of the company. If not, HHH remains in charge and gets Shane's shares. This would be better if they'd pair Show with someone else and just have Hogan in the corner or working as a guest ref or enforcer, but I think they'll bring him back to put him in the ring.

Those would be three solid matches for the card. Add the Rhodes brother-vs.-brother match (they lose the titles and then Goldust screws Cody over and eliminates him from the Rumble with a low blow before he tosses him out) and you've got the start of a pretty good PPV. The problem is what do you do with guys like Orton if they aren't in the a event, and you lose a second "main event" match if you have both world champs facing off. Used to be they could throw them into a MITB or TLC match, but they don't use those at 'Mania any more.

 

In the days of Piper and Snuka, the feud only had to be featured on one segment a week. Since there was only an hour of TV each week, it was usually a quick promo. The TV matches in those days also tended to be sqaushes, which allowed the announcers to further the feud through their commentary. And, to cap it all, they were building to a PPV a few months down the line.
Now, there's about six hours of relevant TV a week. Those promo segments tend to run longer. Most of the TV matches of today, even the throwaway ones, could've been PPV-worthy 30 years ago in terms of matchups. And the PPVs come every month, whether we like it or not.

The fans have also changed. Their attention spans, by and large, aren't what they used to be. You drag a feud on longer than 3-4 months and it starts to feel stale. It's hard for the wrestlers themselves to keep the momentum going when you need several major waypoints and a well-defined ending. Fans want to see a story, but they expect it to be bigger and better than in years past, and they want it to escalate each time.
Fans being better educated about the business also forces them to speed things up. Every match these days is, it seems, watched with a critical eye. If they try something and it falls flat, it's ripped to shreds. If you skip a week in a feud, then come back to it, it's questioned as "killing momentum."

A lack of stables also hurts. Used to be, when a guy like Bobby Heenan had five wrestlers in his stable, they could have someone feud with the larger Heenan family and throw a few proxy matches in there with other stablemates. Now, so many guys are just on their own or in tag teams that that's harder to do. The Punk-Heyman feud is a throwback to that style, and some of the stuff with the Wyatts and the Shield might work like that, too.

Bottom line, the business has changed. Feuds are featured on TV more often, which necessarily forces them to escalate. Fans today have also been indoctrinated with the current PPV cycle. It's like watching a movie. You expect a certain flow to it, and when it tries a different storytelling style it's a risk that misses more often than it hits. If you're WWE, there's only a handful of guys you probably feel comfortable straying from that formula with.

 

Daniel Bryan vs. Antonio Cesaro in Ring of Honor. Enjoy!

 

WWE suffers from the most universal problem in pro wrestling history: In the face of any doubt at all, go with the booker and his friends/family.

 

It is weird how that works, isn't it? While I don't think Triple H is nearly as much of a heatkiller as others, I do think that the McMahon family's response to bad ratings is to insert themselves into a storyline, as opposed to finding a different solution.

 

Allegedly, it was USA that wanted more McMahons in the face of slumping ratings. Not that the McMahons were complaining about it, of course.

Unless they think the network is about to kick them off the air, I don't understand the obsession with ratings to this degree with no direct competition. They would have to work hard to get below, say, a 2.0, because there's a core of fans that will watch come hell or high Cena match placements. Shit, TNA still has a core.

But because of that, they don't feel as though they can take risks that don't pay off until months down the road because it means in the short term, ratings will drop. And that's the kind of risk-adverse management that'll not doom them, but certainly keep them from long-term success at the rate that expect.

 

If an Orton/Big Show main event feud isn't enough to drive ratings below 2.0, I don't know what is.