The Generation That Can't Let Go - CONTAINS SPOILERS

First topic message reminder :

On the surface, the ending of Summerslam was well booked, with lots of questions arising from the show:
- Did Triple H screw Cena deliberately, and if so, why?
- Why did Nash get involved?
- Did Triple H know Nash was going to get involved?
- What involvement do Stephanie, Vince and Laurenaitis have in what went on?
It also sets up Cena, Punk and Mysterio as having genuine claims to a title shot.

But...

One month ago CM Punk was the hottest star in wrestling, and it wasn't a surprise, because many people already knew he could be if WWE would just get behind him. Finally, it appeared, they were behind him.

One thing that has always, without fail, been key to wrestling promotions doing big business, is stars. You can have the best booking in the world and fail because nobody perceives the wrestlers on your roster to be any more important than anyone else (for example ROH who have consistently presented the best product in the US wrestling scene for almost a decade, without experiencing substantial growth). WWE has always revolved around the individuals rather than the wrestling or even the booking: Bruno, Hogan, Austin, The Rock, Cena. It is a cult of personality, if you pardon the pun. WWE proved that in 1999 when their booking was often horrendous but they did the best business they've ever done, because they had Austin, The Rock, Mick Foley at his peak, Undertaker, Triple H, Kane, The Big Show; all pushed as huge stars. One of the main reasons that TNA more often than not has failed is because "management" is presented as being stronger than the wrestlers, whether it is physical or political strength, and the would-be stars are emasculated and undermined as a result. The adults in the room, the true stars of the show, are not the wrestlers wrestling in main events of wrestling shows.

All they had to do was push Punk as a major star. They didn't need the worked shoot stuff any more; just put him in the top storylines and tell the viewers that this guy is important, he's the real deal, you will want to see this guy.

Instead, WWE saw it as a challenge. Here, in their eyes, was this wrestler who was full of his own hype, and a bunch of marks who fell for his nonsense. An indy guy, not a WWE creation, who had the gall to think he could get over using his own material.

Now obviously, they know they can make money out of him, so they're not going to completely bury him. But there was no way the company would get behind him as its next big thing with a good-faith push. There was no way he would get the push that Cena got, or the push that Batista got, or the push that Lesnar got, or the push that Lex Luger got. He would get the Bret Hart push, the reluctant, second-guessing "we're not really convinced about this wrestler but you seem to like him so here you go" push.

WWE's goal seems to be to subtly show Punk his place in the heirarchy. To prove to the fans that he's not as Cerebral as the Cerebral Assassin. He's not as honourable as John Cena. And, hell, he's not 7 feet tall, he's not 300lbs, he doesn't turn heads in airports, he's not a genuine badass, so he's obviously no Kevin Nash either.

In 2011, the hottest star in wrestling for years was bigfooted by Kevin Nash. However way you look at it - yes it was after a gruelling 25 minute match, yes he was blindsided - CM Punk was used to get Kevin Nash over, in 2011. Alberto Del Rio cashed in and won the world title? So what, did you see Kevin Nash came back?

CM Punk could squash Kevin Nash in matches up and down the country for the next six months, but the damage is done. The horse has bolted. Kevin Nash has now bigfooted Punk, and that can't be erased.

Since the end of the Monday Night Wars, the entire US wrestling scene has created one star. One wrestler, of the hundreds we've seen in WWE, TNA, ROH and the others, in the past decade, who makes a difference to attendances, ratings and buyrates. And even he is so polarising that it's possible he holds the industry back at the same time.

Whether Bruno and Hogan were better wrestlers, performers, entertainers, whatever you want to judge it on, is a moot point. They wouldn't have been anything like the same draws today, if they'd drawn at all. They had a crucial advantage. They didn't have the previous generation trying to shatter their aura at every turn. They were part of a WWWF/WWF that wanted them to draw, that wanted to maximise its earnings.

While all the kids are playing around scrapping over the world title (Punk, Del Rio, Mysterio, even Cena. Why don't they get a couple more belts made and all just have one each?), the important people are the ones who were old news in 2001. The adults in the room, the true stars of the show, are the same as ever: The Generation That Can't Let Go. The ones who made it to the top, and then climbed even higher, infiltrating the ranks of management, making the decisions, and ensuring that nobody from this generation gets the opportunities they got.

In 2011, Kevin Nash bigfooted the hottest star in wrestling. If any sentence better sums up the rotten state of the industry, if any tale is more telling, I'm yet to hear it.

I think that Davies' point is that the WWE have let down fans on so many occasions that it would be a little naive to merely expect this to be different.

However, the signs at present are that they are giving it the proper position it deserves, though people could say the same with the NEXUS storyline of last year and that turned into ... well, we all saw what that turned into.

I can see how many people might feel let down but i don't necessarily believe that if you think this plot is going to develop into something good for punk then your naive.

I think most wrestling fans want to be invested in a story however because punk is so over with the IWC since that promo, if he is not pushed to the hilt then the wwe don't know what their doing with him, their burying him or the older generation cant let go

Completely agree M C, as a wrestling fan I want to be open minded, I want to be able to invest emotion into it, it doesn't always happen but when it does, thats what keeps drawing you back as a fan

exactly gaffer its not about the darling of the fans or the Internets current fad its about building stories, characters, connections between performers and the fans who watch them. There are so many major story lines that just haven't had the payoff that you would want or expect:

Nexus
Vince's illegitimate son
Raw GM
etc etc etc

but the notion of that one gem that will get it all right, that will change the landscape, create new stars and give that payoff is why i personally watch. And with hhh, Nash and punk the potential is there...!

You cant watch wrestling expecting the WWE to mess everything up at some point in the future when its going well just because they have done so in the past. No point in watching it then! I'm trying to enjoy what is going on now rather than worrying it will all go down the tubes. If it does, fine but at least i enjoyed it when it had a bit of a peak!

the-gaffer wrote:Completely agree M C, as a wrestling fan I want to be open minded, I want to be able to invest emotion into it, it doesn't always happen but when it does, thats what keeps drawing you back as a fan

The flipside of that is that a casual viewer might have the opposite emotions. If they keep investing in storylines and none of those storylines pay off, eventually they'll stop investing and watch something else.

And before you say "I don't care about the casual viewers", they are crucial, because if they don't like something and the ratings continue to plod along between 3.0 and 3.3, or drop below 3.0, WWE will continue to make bad business decisions which affect you and me.

Will a casual fan be watching long enough to continually be let down and if they are then how long do they watch before they're stopped being referred to as casuals?

P.S I was never going to say "I don't care about the casuals", hows about waiting until I actually reply before making your own up

When are you 2 just gonna admit your feelings for each other?

But a casual fan will expect the storyline that they are watching to be concluded in a way that makes sense and is satisfying to them.

If they don't then they will stop watching.

the-gaffer wrote:Will a casual fan be watching long enough to continually be let down and if they are then how long do they watch before they're stopped being referred to as casuals?

That was the first thing that popped into my head too..

Also if ratings keep dropping why will that mean WWE will keep making bad business decisions? Surely if ratings are dropping they have made bad decisions and now are more likely to (or should) make good ones to get the ratings back up?? Either that or it sounds like they deliberately make bad decisions because they want ratings to drop..

Ok, I'll rephrase it. WWE might resort to rash business decisions, eg more hotshotting and not staying to the course of their planned storylines. Which, history has proved, is not the solution to falling ratings in wrestling (see: WCW in 2000, and WWE in 2002), therefore could be considered to be "bad" business decisions.

As for who the "casuals" are, I would say it is the TV audience that doesn't watch Raw every single week. The ones who aren't habitual viewers, who will turn over if they see something better is on.

It's not rocket science.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Ok, I'll rephrase it. WWE might resort to rash business decisions, eg more hotshotting and not staying to the course of their planned storylines. Which, history has proved, is not the solution to falling ratings in wrestling (see: WCW in 2000, and WWE in 2002), therefore could be considered to be "bad" business decisions.

As for who the "casuals" are, I would say it is the TV audience that doesn't watch Raw every single week. The ones who aren't habitual viewers, who will turn over if they see something better is on.

It's not rocket science.

I guess im a casual fan then.

The casual fan is just that casual! if they wanted to invest more they would, its most likely that a casual switches on as and when they feel like it, which means the development of storylines is paromount. I wouldnt agree that certain fans switch off because in the past the angles havent lived up to expectations, imo theres generally a peek in ratings when things get exciting and casual viewers decide to switch on and when they get bored or unintersted they switch off its as simple as:

tv good-casual watches
tv bad-casual turns off

The dedicated fans will usually watch week in week out good or bad, if raw sucks one week we watch the next in hope of improvement if its great we watch next to see if it gets even better. I wouldnt say i dont care about the casual fan i just believe that the casual is invested enough to care if the older generation cnt let go they just watch because things got exciting!

Exactly

I really don't think it's very complicated to differentiate between the fan who follows something religiously and wants to know everything about it, and the fan who has a casual interest in something that begins with the opening credits and ends with the closing credits, but maybe I just wasn't clear.

However my point remains that the ratings are important to our enjoyment of the product, because if the product is failing they are more likely to change direction.

WWE is a slave to its TV ratings. The company puts itself under big pressure to do a 3.0 rating at the very least. TV licensing and advertising revenue are as important to WWE now as PPVs are. In the last few weeks the company has come perilously close to consistently dipping below a 3.0 rating, something that was unheard of just a couple of years ago. With the American Football season beginning soon, there is a big danger that before long a 3.0 could be seen as a best case scenario.

It's short-sighted to say "I enjoy this storyline and I don't care about the ratings", because the storyline is less likely to result in the WWE product you desire, long-term, if it is a ratings flop. So if you are enjoying a storyline you should be hoping it succeeds in the ratings, because WWE will then be more likely to continue in the same direction.

That's why I sometimes will question whether something is good for business, even if I personally enjoy it.