WWE Too many titles?

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

That was only one of the reasons, there were a few others if i recall correctly. Another one was to take pressure off the guys working so many dates. Which worked for a short while, until they upped the number of house shows. !

Erm, I said it was one of the reasons, read what I wrote. Another important reason is that it plays into their major financial plan for the coming year which is running a higher number of shows aboard. Having different brands means that they have different crews running at the same time in different locations. Also and this something you may scoff at but you avoid the problem which they ran into during the Attitude era of having one brand. Which was people (kids) attending the house shows and the Rock or Austin etc wouldn’t be there eventhough they were apart of the same brand which lead to more complaints.

validreasoning! wrote: »

You telling me to live in the real world? That's rich given some of the stuff you've posted on here in the past week.

Examples would be nice?

validreasoning! wrote: »

You didn't read my post did you? I said that he's slowly crucifying his product for the sake of "the munn-aay". It's not just playing to "fanboys on the internet" (and you can include yourself at that, pal!),

I do but I can also see the wood from the trees and the business is currently on an upswing and the in ring product is pretty darn good for the most part. Using the language you are using here is slightly unbalanced.

validreasoning! wrote: »

I'm all on for increasing the revenue, as i said in my previous post (that you obviously either bypassed or you just can't read), that he's in the business to make money, like anyone that goes into business. However when the quality starts declining, the money, although it still rolls in, it does dwindle due to lesser buyrates etc.!

Look at this year's annual report and as well the buyrates for the first quarter. It ain’t dwindling by any margin, sorry.

validreasoning! wrote: »

And you know this for a fact? Or is that what Bryan Alvarez tells you every day as you wait on the edge of your chair waiting for his next anti TNA, pro WWE mumbling to be available for download? Secondly i never said that fans were turning off because of Cena, i said he was getting booed because he was overexposed and shoved down everyone's throats. Now, for the second time, quit putting words into my mouth.!

That’s rich you asking people not to put words in your mouth you are twisting what I say. You did actually say:

validreasoning! wrote: »

One brand, one champion, simple as
VR!

Ratings and buy rates don’t lie they are a pretty cut and dry indicator. I’m sorry for actually use facts in my arguments and not just rhetoric. If you were subscriber you would know Bryan and myself don’t argue on a lot, I’ve had 20 page arguments with him, been banned a number of times and be yelled at him in size 20 bolded font on number of occasions. So I’m not a Brybot as they are called. Anyway I think he is balanced in his coverage of both WWE and TNA, he is far from pro WWE. But if you want play the insult game you do sound like the typical internet TNA zealot (Cena hate, WWE is dying, overly sensitive of just criticism etc). Please try to use facts over opinion, insults and rhetoric in your posts

Thanks

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Also and this something you may scoff at but you avoid the problem which they ran into during the Attitude era of having one brand. Which was people (kids) attending the house shows and the Rock or Austin etc wouldn’t be there eventhough they were apart of the same brand which lead to more complaints.

As much as i hated the brand split when they implemented it in 2002, i got used to it. My problem with it is that instead of aiming one show (RAW) for it's Attitude era fans that WWE spent years obtaining after the farce that was 1995 and 1996, then one show for kids (Smackdown), which is already pre-taped and can be edited out anyway. ECW would have worked a lot better had they used it in the manner they had intended to, but they didn't.

Examples would be nice?

:rolleyes: is all i have to say on that, really. Mainly because you'll deny anything i point out to you anyway.

I do but I can also see the wood from the trees and the business is currently on an unpswing and the in ring product is pretty darn good for the most part. Using the language you are using here is slightly unbalanced.

Are you blind or on crack? It's already been posted that the ratings have gone down, that means less viewers. It may generate more revenue, but through your narrow eyes, all you can see is the money. If they keep losing viewers, they'll eventually lose money. I can see the wood from the trees, i can also view in the long term, something you are either incapable of doing, or just choosing not to.

Look at this year's annual report and as well the buyrates for the first quarter. It ain’t dwindling by any margin, sorry.

You should be, see above reply.

That’s rich you asking people not to put words in your mouth you are twisting what I say. You did actually say:

One champion, one brand yes, not three champions one brand!

Ratings and buy rates don’t lie they are a pretty cut and dry indicator. I’m sorry for actually use facts in my arguments and not just rhetoric. If you were subscriber you would know Bryan and myself don’t argue on a lot, I’ve had 20 page arguments with him, been banned a number of times and be yelled at him in size 20 bolded font on number of occasions. So I’m not a Brybot as they are called. Anyway I think he is balanced in his coverage of both WWE and TNA, he is far from pro WWE. But if you want play the insult game you do sound like the typical internet TNA zealot (Cena hate, WWE is dying, overly sensitive of just criticism etc). Please try to use facts over opinion, insults and rhetoric in your posts

Thanks

And it took you a whole 30 minutes for that response? I really don't know why i bother. You might have a point on buy rates, but as stated, ratings have actually dropped since this time last year. Justify that!

As for your opinion of me, you're entitled to it, but you're wrong by miles. I'm very Anti WWE at the moment as i'm pretty much jaded from seeing the same sh*t week in and week out. As for a TNA zealot? Nah, not really, i spent enough time being anti TNA around 2004-2006. I just know what i like.

As for using facts over opinion, why don't you practice what you preach?
Now if you'll excuse me, some of us have actual work to do
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

As much as i hated the brand split when they implemented it in 2002, i got used to it. My problem with it is that instead of aiming one show (RAW) for it's Attitude era fans that WWE spent years obtaining after the farce that was 1995 and 1996, then one show for kids (Smackdown), which is already pre-taped and can be edited out anyway. ECW would have worked a lot better had they used it in the manner they had intended to, but they didn't.!

You cant really do the full blown attitude era as being an era it has past (thank Janet Jackson's breast.) The actual reason is that their television network lost advertising as a result of the riskiness of it. I agree some brand identity would be nice. ECW in the WWE banner wasnt NEVER intended to be the old ECW read the press release Vince McMahon issued months prior to the launch on Sci-Fi for proof.

validreasoning! wrote: »

:rolleyes: is all i have to say on that, really. Mainly because you'll deny anything i point out to you anyway..

Come on name just one

validreasoning! wrote: »

Are you blind or on crack? It's already been posted that the ratings have gone down, that means less viewers. It may generate more revenue, but through your narrow eyes, all you can see is the money.

Does this make you sad? It is a profit driven business always has been if you havent noticed. What is normally best for business is usually the best aesthically too.

validreasoning! wrote: »

If they keep losing viewers, they'll eventually lose money. I can see the wood from the trees, i can also view in the long term, something you are either incapable of doing, or just choosing not to.

Yeah and what creditably do you have to predict long term? Please show your workings, VR.

validreasoning! wrote: »

And it took you a whole 30 minutes for that response? I really don't know why i bother. You might have a point on buy rates, but as stated, ratings have actually dropped since this time last year. Justify that!

I’m in work, dude. I did already in the thread about it, the Nielsen figures don’t take into account 8-10% of people who TIVO the programme. The ratings dips this time very year, look at last year for example. Ratings across every programme and channel are very much down since the last year too there are many reasons for that.

validreasoning! wrote: »

As for your opinion of me, you're entitled to it, but you're wrong by miles. I'm very Anti WWE at the moment as i'm pretty much jaded from seeing the same sh*t week in and week out. As for a TNA zealot? Nah, not really, i spent enough time being anti TNA around 2004-2006. I just know what i like.

Looks like someone doesn’t like people making judgments about them over the internet, lol. Okay you like badly written shows with low and falling ratings. Dont you think TNA over using gimmick on a weekly and monthly basis is killing the business?

validreasoning! wrote: »

As for using facts over opinion, why don't you practice what you preach?

As in ratings, buyrates, annual reports and press releases?

ShawnRaven

Alrighty, back in the office, so let's roll with the killer and turf out the filler.

rovert wrote: »

You cant really do the full blown attitude era as being an era it has past (thank Janet Jackson's breast.) The actual reason is that their television network lost advertising as a result of the riskiness of it. I agree some brand identity would be nice. ECW in the WWE banner wasnt NEVER intended to be the old ECW read the press release Vince McMahon issued months prior to the launch on Sci-Fi for proof.

That i will agree with, Attitude era will never be the same as it was, no matter how much they replicate it, same with ECW, it will never be the same as it was, and i was the first one to admit it. But to me, at the time they were relaunching ECW (June 2006 was it not?), they were struggling with two brands as it was. ECW was a quick moneymaker, but in my general opinion, although RAW remained unaffected, Smackdown suffered in a bad way as a result, Velocity getting the can was bad because it meant the undercarders either got shafted, or fired. And Velocity were actually showing better matches than Smackdown at that particular point in time.

Does this make you sad? It is a profit driven business always has been if you havent noticed. What is normally best for business is usually the best aesthically too.

It doesn't make me sad, what makes me sad is the quality of the product has taken a steady decline as a result of it. I guess you're still not getting that though, right? :rolleyes:

Yeah and what creditably do you have to predict long term? Please show your workings, VR.

About as much as you rovert, next!

I’m in work, dude. I did already in the thread about it, the Nielsen figures don’t take into account 8-10% of people who TIVO the programme. The ratings dips this time very year, look at last year for example. Ratings across every programme and channel are very much down since the last year too there are many reasons for that.

I don't buy that for one second rovert, because for all you know, the same amount of people were TIVOing it the year before! TIVO *could* be a part of it, but i don't know that for sure, you don't know that.

Looks like someone doesn’t like people making judgments about them over the internet, lol. Okay you like badly written shows with low and falling ratings. Dont you think TNA over using gimmick on a weekly and monthly basis is killing the business?

I couldn't care less about people who judge me over the internet. The likelihood of ever meeting you for a beer is very slim. I don't take it personally, neither should you.

As for over using a gimmick, let's take some examples of WWE doing the same.

- Eddie Guerrero's death being run into the ground
- Kane, enough said
- Undertaker - 18 years on and he's still dead, but he's not.
- Big Dick Johnson, so bad even TNA parodied him
- DX's cock jokes

And don't get me started on poor storylines, you even watched Smackdown lately? Like i really give a sh*t about Maryse and Cherry, and as for pushing Chuck Palumbo into the upper midcard after he's bombed not only in WWE but also in WCW?

Want me to keep going, because I can. Sure TNA is guilty of it too, every wrestling promotion is at the end of the day.

As in ratings, buyrates, annual reports and press releases?

Ratings we've already trashed out, buyrates i gave you credit for. As for press releases, like their rigged wellness policy?

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

It doesn't make me sad, what makes me sad is the quality of the product has taken a steady decline as a result of it. I guess you're still not getting that though, right? :rolleyes:!

Wrestling fans always say that the best Wrestling was the stuff they grew up on. Its a fact of life.

validreasoning! wrote: »

About as much as you rovert, next!

Im not the one projecting into the future. You've yet to tell me how you can.

validreasoning! wrote: »

I don't buy that for one second rovert, because for all you know, the same amount of people were TIVOing it the year before! TIVO *could* be a part of it, but i don't know that for sure, you don't know that.

Well the entire Television industry accepts it as fact
http://www.newser.com/story/28091.html

You probably dont follow it as much as I do, fine. But dont make blanket statements without facts to back you up.

validreasoning! wrote: »

I couldn't care less about people who judge me over the internet. The likelihood of ever meeting you for a beer is very slim. I don't take it personally, neither should you..

But you did after I responsed to the Alverez stuff you posted

validreasoning! wrote: »

As for over using a gimmick, let's take some examples of WWE doing the same.

- Eddie Guerrero's death being run into the ground
- Kane, enough said
- Undertaker - 18 years on and he's still dead, but he's not.
- Big Dick Johnson, so bad even TNA parodied him
- DX's cock jokes

Firstly a lot of that stuff is influenced from the attitude era which you so much love. I missed out the word matches after the word gimmicks, sorry. TNA does over use gimmick matches on a weekly and monthly basis. Which again goes back to the idea over exposure and the wrestling business.

validreasoning! wrote: »

And don't get me started on poor storylines, you even watched Smackdown lately? Like i really give a sh*t about Maryse and Cherry, and as for pushing Chuck Palumbo into the upper midcard after he's bombed not only in WWE but also in WCW?

Want me to keep going, because I can. Sure TNA is guilty of it too, every wrestling promotion is at the end of the day. ?

I said poorly written storylines at least before Michael Hayes left they made sense. From the top of the card down on TNA storylines are poorly written for the last 2 years.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Ratings we've already trashed out, buyrates i gave you credit for. As for press releases, like their rigged wellness policy?

The wellness policy isnt a press release. I was referring to the press relase I mentioned Vince McMahan made about his vision for ECW which he he said the new ECW wasnt going to be the old ECW. You said:

validreasoning! wrote: »

ECW would have worked a lot better had they used it in the manner they had intended to, but they didn't.

I found these quotes from that press release:

Vince McMahon on WWE.com said: “It won’t be shot the same way we shoot SmackDown or RAW. It’ll have a different feel. It will be more gritty. There will also be more imagination put into concepts and characters. But at the same time, there will need to be a delicate balance because there are three masters to serve. There’s the small, vocal ECW audience. Then there’s the SCI FI audience that is accustomed to things more SCI FI. And obviously, you have to also be true to our broader audience in terms of what sports-entertainment is today.” Vince also said, regarding whether Paul Heyman would have a role: “Absolutely. But at the end of the day, Mr. McMahon is in charge.”

By the sounds of it is more or less what we have today.

Again I dont see much facts behind your statements.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Wrestling fans always say that the best Wrestling was the stuff they grew up on.

I can't disagree there, i know mine was, to the point where i actually ended up collecting it to reflect on it.

Im not the one pjojecting into the future. You've yet to tell how you can.

I'm not projecting into the future, but if you're seeing the same sh*t week in and week out, you'll get bored of it. That's just common sense. There's already been a thread about those who are tired of WWE's same old sh*t that they've tuned out.

Well the entire Television industry accepts it as fact
http://www.newser.com/story/28091.html

You probably dont follow it as much as I do, fine. But dont make blanket statements without facts to back you up.

CTRL+F - tivo - no results found.
Where are your facts on your statement exactly?

Firstly a lot of that stuff is influenced from the attitude era which you so much love. I missed out the word matches after the word gimmicks, sorry. TNA does over use gimmick matches on a weekly and monthly basis.

And WWE doesn't? And how is Milking Eddie Guerrero's death influenced from the attitude era? Also Undertaker was pre-attitude era.

I said poorly written storylines at least before Michael Hayes left they made sense. From the top of the card down on TNA storylines are poorly written for the last 2 years.

Michael Hayes only took up that position towards the end of 2006, and the storylines on SD were just as bad beforehand. If you can justify them, go for it. But in my opion, SD went downhill from mid 2004, and you can't blame Michael Hayes for that!

The wellness policy isnt a press release. I was referring to the press relase I mentioned Vince McMahan made about his vision for ECW which he he said the new ECW wasnt going to be the old ECW. Which I cant find a link for at moment LOL.

Don't worry about that, i'm pretty sure Vince had no plans to bring back the garbage wrestling era ECW

Again I dont see much facts behind your statements.

Well i could say the same, especially your TIVO theory.
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

CTRL+F - tivo - no results found.
Where are your facts on your statement exactly?!

TIVO is a brand name you tard, from that article:

DVRs are also hurting numbers

validreasoning! wrote: »

And WWE doesn't? And how is Milking Eddie Guerrero's death influenced from the attitude era? Also Undertaker was pre-attitude era.

Notice what I wrote "a lot" not all. You referenced Undertaker's 18 years too which in fact took in the Attitude era and beyond.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Michael Hayes only took up that position towards the end of 2006, and the storylines on SD were just as bad beforehand. If you can justify them, go for it. But in my opion, SD went downhill from mid 2004, and you can't blame Michael Hayes for that!

What are you jabbering on about?

validreasoning! wrote: »

Well i could say the same, especially your TIVO theory.
VR!

I posted this another thread which you posted in yourself:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/19/the-hills-leads-cable-tv-time-shifting-again/3830

It is not a theory and these figures are the industry standard.

Again no facts on your part just opinion.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

TIVO is a brand name you tard, from that article:

You're the one who mentioned TIVO, had you quoted the article itself and said DVR, i would have gone straight to the point. That still doesn't mention the previous years, so we still have nothing to compare it to. DVR's have been around for years!

Notice what I wrote "a lot" not all. You referenced Undertaker's 18 years too which in fact took in the Attitude era and beyond.

It was still Pre and Post attitude era though. And he was out for the guts of a year of that era from 1999-2000

What are you jabbering on about?

So you're blind too? I'm saying Hayes can't be solely held responsible for the state of SD's decline as he only became head writer from 2006 onwards and it was in horrible shape before that. I'm pretty sure Vito in a dress wasn't down to Michael Hayes' doing!

Again no facts on your part just opinion.

My friend, you are blind.
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

You're the one who mentioned TIVO, had you quoted the article itself and said DVR, i would have gone straight to the point. That still doesn't mention the previous years, so we still have nothing to compare it to. DVR's have been around for years!!

Sorry, I thought that you actually read the article maybe learn something. Christ if the ratings are declining what does that mean? They must of been higher in the past. It does in fact mention previous years: last year

With just a few days left in the 2007-'08 TV season, Fox is set to take the ratings belt from five-time winner CBS. But it’ll be something of a hollow victory, because network TV on the whole recorded its worst year ever, Variety reports. Among the top five networks, audiences fell 7%, and the coveted 18-49 demographic fell 10%.

They are comparing it to the 2006-07 TV season, it is not hard to figure out. Are you blind?

18-49 male demographic is WWE's main audience.

validreasoning! wrote: »

It was still Pre and Post attitude era though. And he was out for the guts of a year of that era from 1999-2000!!

Some of the most ridiclous elements of Undertaker's character came from the Attitude era (his backstory, even more supernatural powers, The Ministry etc.)

validreasoning! wrote: »

So you're blind too? I'm saying Hayes can't be solely held responsible for the state of SD's decline as he only became head writer from 2006 onwards and it was in horrible shape before that. I'm pretty sure Vito in a dress wasn't down to Michael Hayes' doing!

You are making no sense here. Here is what I said

I said poorly written storylines at least before Michael Hayes left they made sense. From the top of the card down on TNA storylines are poorly written for the last 2 years

I dont know where you coming or going with what you posted.

validreasoning! wrote: »

My friend, you are blind. !

Please outline what facts you detailed in this thread in relation to WWE's business.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Sorry, I thought that you actually read the article maybe learn something. Christ if the ratings are declining what does that mean? They must of been higher in the past. It does in fact mention previous years: last year

No it mentions 07/08, which leads me to believe they're not done at the start of the year, but are you trying to tell me people weren't using DVR's in 06/07? Be real here!

18-49 male demographic is WWE's main audience.

Yeah, Cena's chain gang kiddies really fit into that audience, i've yet to see anyone over 18 wear a Cena shirt!

Some of the most ridiclous elements of Undertaker's character came from the Attitude era (his backstory, even more supernatural powers, The Ministry etc.)

Actually, some of the more ridiculous elements of his character were pre-attitude era, him "dying" at the 1994 Royal Rumble, or getting squished by Mabel and Yokozuna at the end of 1995, and yet he's still around.

You are making no sense here. Here is what I said

Makes perfect sense, SD was rubbish before Hayes became head writer, and it was even worse when he became head writer. That's the last time i'm going to attempt to explain that to you.

I dont know where you coming or going with what you posted.

Now there's a f*cking surprise :rolleyes:

I give up, i really do. Trying to trash this out with you is like banging my head against a brick wall. I get nowhere, and in the end i wonder why i bothered trying in the first place. It was an interesting way to kill a day, but you'd give a disprin a headache.

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

No it mentions 07/08, which leads me to believe they're not done at the start of the year, but are you trying to tell me people weren't using DVR's in 06/07? Be real here!!

Sigh what do you think they are comparing the 07/08 season to?

The DVR figures were only started to be tracked from early 2008 onwards.
Also like with Digital TV, HD etc more and more people are buy them as time goes by. Do I need to post sales figures?

validreasoning! wrote: »

Yeah, Cena's chain gang kiddies really fit into that audience, i've yet to see anyone over 18 wear a Cena shirt!

I’m talking about for television audience namely Raw. Children under the age of 18 aren’t taken into account in these television ratings. If you had any knowledge of television ratings you would know this. Again don’t make blanket statements.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Actually, some of the more ridiculous elements of his character were pre-attitude era, him "dying" at the 1994 Royal Rumble, or getting squished by Mabel and Yokozuna at the end of 1995, and yet he's still around.

Undertaker died/disappeared of whatever since then too. The most ridiculous timeframe for Taker is very open to debate and let’s leave it there.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Makes perfect sense, SD was rubbish before Hayes became head writer, and it was even worse when he became head writer. That's the last time I’m going to attempt to explain that to you..

I disagree but again it is your opinion but you didnt you do a rounded job doing so. If you are as biased what is the point arguing?

validreasoning! wrote: »

Now there's a f*cking surprise :rolleyes:

Your viewpoints are rarely balanced or well backed up, sorry.

validreasoning! wrote: »

I give up, i really do. Trying to trash this out with you is like banging my head against a brick wall. I get nowhere, and in the end i wonder why i bothered trying in the first place. It was an interesting way to kill a day, but you'd give a disprin a headache.

I’ve posted for the most part facts which you don’t acknowledge, play dumb with or poke the most ludicrous holes in. I’m the one who should banging my head against the wall.

flahavaj

I don't think I've ever seen anyone get the last word on VR! :eek:

If ever there was proof that stamina/dogged persistence were effective arguing tools, this thread is it.

ShawnRaven

Well given that rovert takes one article about the general television ratings going down, and blames that on WWE's ratings going down, not even considering the fact that it's *could be* it's jaded programming that's contributing to the fact. And not even listening to reason.

It's just something i don't have time for, combined with a crap day at work.
VR!

rovert

Sorry for posting facts and not dealing with subjective opinion as you seem to be doing. How many articles have you posted to back your point? I post more articles if you want more than one:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117977292.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/4/march_madness_ratings_down_online_to_blame_
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/entertainment_living/music.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-05-08-0016.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/05/12/2008-05-12_networks_thrown_for_a_loop_by_low_rating-1.html

The theme is that Television are down record levels across every network and show especially among those 18-49 males (WWE main demographic like it or not.) The FACT is that TIVO numbers aren’t taken into account in the general Nielsen numbers and Raw is one of the highest recorded programmes on TIVO in America. Not mention people more and more are watching TV shows online LOST is a big one for this, bringing it back to wrestling (please bare in mind I’ve looked for the figure and cant find it) but a couple hundred thousand people watch ECW online on WWE.COM, the most skippable show ever, think about that!

With the amount of analysis I’ve posted I’m surprised that you can call your subjective opinion fact. I fail to see how your opinion is more reasoned than mine in this case.

citytillidie

Now they are bringing in a Diva belt for Smackdown and ECW woman

ShawnRaven

citytillidie wrote: »

Now they are bringing in a Diva belt for Smackdown and ECW woman

I watched SD over this weekend, and i have to say, their womens division reeks of trying to keep up with TNA's. Now i know i watch impact! on a regular basis and in general i try not to compare the two (as they're not even in the same leagues, for obvious reasons, financially being the big one).

However as SD seems to have a lot more divas than RAW, it just reeked of "well TNA can do it, i can't see why we can't succeed at it too!", in my honest opinion.

If they were smart, they'd have moved all the Diva Wrestlers to SD, fire half the talentless crap that's already there (they fired Torrie Wilson, why stop there?), and have one womens division for one show! It would strengthen the womens division by having Mickie James, Victoria (even if she is watered down now), Beth Phoenix, Natalya, Michelle McCool (she's getting there), and anyone that has an ounce of talent.

Keep the T&A out of the ring and as valets, it worked for Trish Stratus for nearly four years (before she learned not to suck in the ring)

VR!

Machismo Fan

Or perhaps one belt for three shows, similar to how the Undisputed champion used to work across both brands.

ShawnRaven

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Or perhaps one belt for three shows, similar to how the Undisputed champion used to work across both brands.

Unfortunately that didn't work in 2002 as Hogan, Undertaker, HHH, Rock and Lesnar all griped about having to do twice the amount of road time, which at the time was one of the big reasons they pulled the brand split in the first place. Understandably so.

VR!

Lita Forever

validreasoning! wrote: »

I watched SD over this weekend, and i have to say, their womens division reeks of trying to keep up with TNA's. Now i know i watch impact! on a regular basis and in general i try not to compare the two (as they're not even in the same leagues, for obvious reasons, financially being the big one).

However as SD seems to have a lot more divas than RAW, it just reeked of "well TNA can do it, i can't see why we can't succeed at it too!", in my honest opinion.

I agree completely there. I have the feeling that WWE has been trying to keep up with TNA's women's division since the night Mickie regained the title from Beth. That night, the match was presented as a serious wrestling match as opposed to TNA, and the women were given a decent amount of time. I've noticed WWE trying to improve things involving the women ever since..

For the first time in a long time they've been pushing a diva feud with two serious female wrestlers and not involving the title. (ala ODB, Roxxi, & Gail vs. TBP). They've been featuring the women's champion in an angle with a main event wrestler. They've had a couple of separate diva feuds on SD. They brought in the new divas title. They had a multi woman pole match, also ala TNA. Even though they don't do most of this stuff as good as TNA, I suppose it should be seen as a positive sign. WWE is always going to try to outdo the competition and the women's division is one of the main highlights in TNA.

The problem is though, the past stop and go nature that the WWE takes with it's ladies division leads me to believe WE won;t go as far as TNA in order to establish it's women's division as a serious one. It doesn't help that TNA's talent is superior, well more so to the SD/ ECW side at least. I can see WWE getting lazy and taking a half assed approach to the whole thing. I can't help but feel this will last a few months before WWE goes back to the T & A side of things for the yearly Playboy spread.

I'm really glad WWE is making an effort with it's women right now, but we'll see how far this will go and how long it'll last. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Raze_them_all

ah if only chyna and lita weren in the wrong era of the wwf/wwe

ShawnRaven

I'm not holding my breath, it's June now and you know what that means? Diva search is coming up, another six weeks of mindnumbing segments to hire another talentless bimbo.Why? Ashley Masarro, Leyla El and Eve Torres still suck in the ring. Maria outlived her usefulness about two years ago and only serves for the spank bank of spotty students who probably wouldn't know what the f*ck to do or say if she stood in front of them.

The Diva Search produced one good womens wrestler (and another up and coming one) being Christy Hemme (who really didn't get enough time with WWE in order for her to develop, and their loss is now TNA's gain), and Michelle McCool.

Bear in mind folks, we're talking about wrestling ability here, not what size fake tits they have.

VR!

ShawnRaven

Raze_them_all wrote: »

ah if only chyna and lita weren in the wrong era of the wwf/wwe

They would still have gotten over, Chyna vs Aja Kong in 1994 WWE would have been great to see, and Lita actually was a decent wrestler until she got injured in 2002, was it? After that, her career never fully recovered.

VR!

Lita Forever

validreasoning! wrote: »

Maria outlived her usefulness about two years ago and only serves for the spank bank of spotty students who probably wouldn't know what the f*ck to do or say if she stood in front of them.

Thank you!..Lol! : )

validreasoning! wrote: »

The Diva Search produced one good womens wrestler (and another up and coming one) being Christy Hemme (who really didn't get enough time with WWE in order for her to develop, and their loss is now TNA's gain), and Michelle McCool.

Hmm, I'm kind of torn on Christy right now. I was a big fan or her during her WWE run. If for no other reason but her ability to get in the ring and work a basic match without looking like a clueless bimbo. Since her release though..her in ring progress has stalled. I've seen a good bit of her indie work, against Anne Brookstone, April Hunter, etc, and she's looked passable but no more then that. I haven't seen great things from her in TNA either, aside bumping ability and selling in squashes. She far excels the likes of Salinas etc in the category.

If TNA want to use her as a wrestler though, they'll have to book her in house show matches so she can continue to improve. She's shown how much she can improve in a short space of time due to WWE booking her regularly on house shows. Since she's seemingly stopped taking indie bookings, that's probably the only way she'll improve further. If TNA only has interest in using her as a valet, she's doing great in that department.

Michelle is decent enough and I see good things for her. WWE need to give her a character though. I haven't seen much personality from her, she's more McBoring then McCool, lol.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Bear in mind folks, we're talking about wrestling ability here, not what size fake tits they have.

Again, THANK YOU!..:p

chopperbyrne

I mainly watch WWE and TNA for the womens matches nowadays.

The rest of the product has gotten quite boring.

Was good to see The Phenominal One back in action on Impact though.

ShawnRaven

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Was good to see The Phenominal One back in action on Impact though.

Lol, you been lost on a rock in Arran somewhere, the last few weeks or something?

AJ's been impact! for the last while now in that feud with Angle over his wife.

VR!

Bubs101

To be honest, I'm not really sure why the WWE feels the need for a second womens belt. It's not as if TNA's women's division has drawn them a whole lot of new viewers or PPV buyers so I don't see the need for them to compete. I really can't see women's wreslting in either the WWE or TNA becoming a massive draw. TNA have already exhausted their best feud

chopperbyrne

validreasoning! wrote: »

Lol, you been lost on a rock in Arran somewhere, the last few weeks or something?

AJ's been impact! for the last while now in that feud with Angle over his wife.

VR!

Yeah AJ has been on Impact in backstage segments or getting beatdown in the ring, I meant the in-ring return of "The Phenomenal One".

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not really sure why the WWE feels the need for a second womens belt. It's not as if TNA's women's division has drawn them a whole lot of new viewers or PPV buyers so I don't see the need for them to compete. I really can't see women's wreslting in either the WWE or TNA becoming a massive draw.

So wrong when it comes to women and TNA. How can you state such absolutes like that?

Bubs101

rovert wrote: »

So wrong when it comes to women and TNA. How can you state such absolutes like that?

Easily, ratings and PPV buys

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

Easily, ratings and PPV buys

You do know that the women's segments are the highest rated on IMPACT! right?

Bubs101

To be honest, that's new information to me, I though Borash was bull****ting but it still hasn't resulted in higher ratings overall or bigger PPV buys has it? Also, I do think that there's a big problem that they've run out of decent ideas for Kong

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

To be honest, that's new information to me, I though Borash was bull****ting but it still hasn't resulted in higher ratings overall or bigger PPV buys has it!

Has anything in TNA resulted in higher ratings overall or bigger PPV buys on a consistant basis? Ratings for IMPACT! decline as the show goes on. A trend which is fairly unique for Wrestling, that is telling about the promotion. The only thing bucks that trend is consistantly is the women.

Bubs101 wrote: »

Also, I do think that there's a big problem that they've run out of decent ideas for Kong

The current idea is a good way to build her back up, imo.

ShawnRaven

Bubs101 wrote: »

Easily, ratings and PPV buys

As rovert pointed out, the ratings are higher in the womens division, and it's very seldom that PPV's sell on undercard matches, hence thats why main events are there. And TNA's main event picture has been somewhat lacklustre ever since Joe, Angle, Christian and Steiner hogged the main event picture. So it's just a little unfair to judge the womens division on PPV buys, no?

VR!

citytillidie

rovert wrote: »

You do know that the women's segments are the highest rated on IMPACT! right?

Is that why according to offical stats shown on some websites they lost most of their viewers during the kong parts beating up the "fans"

Fozzy

The women have had an effect on the overall ratings in TNA. Their segments are usually the highest rated so they drive up the average rating of the show. Without them bringing more viewers in for their segments the shows would get a lower rating

Fozzy

citytillidie wrote: »

Is that why according to offical stats shown on some websites they lost most of their viewers during the kong parts beating up the "fans"

That's been one of the few exceptions. The Angelina Love vs ODB match on the same show was one of the highest rated segments. And the week before Kong was in the second highest rated segment, behind another women's match

EDIT: Also, there was a Sting interview in the same segment as Kong beating up the fan. The Sting interview the week before had a poor rating and the Kong segment the week before had a good rating. So who's to blame there?

rovert

citytillidie wrote: »

Is that why according to offical stats shown on some websites they lost most of their viewers during the kong parts beating up the "fans"

Did I say every and all womens segments? No. But on the whole the average women's segment outperforms the a men's. The women are for this reason are so underpaid relative to the men it is not funny.

Due to the fact of postive ratings TNA have decided to have more women's segments on their show decreasing their novelty and impact. VIVA TNA!

john concannon

rovert wrote: »

Did I say every and all womens segments? No. But on the whole the average women's segment outperforms the a men's. The women are for this reason are so underpaid relative to the men it is not funny.

Of course its not funny Rovert.Sexism is never good.Isn't d'Amore booking the womens division.

G-Money

I agree in that the WWE have too many belts now that mean flip all. I also think the roster split is a bad idea from the fans point of view. I'm sure WWE will point out that it means they can run more shows or something and that's good for the fans, but it would be nice to be able to go to a show and know that you can see anyone from the the entire roster, not just those "contracted" to that particular show.

Which leads me back to my main point. I have an idea how they can get rid of all those belts and go back to the way things should be, or at least how I think they should be IMHO.

They could run a storyline or something where they are going to end the brand split, re-join the rosters and unify the titles. I think this could be done maybe all during some mega PPV, or maybe spread out over a few PPV's or something.

They should unify the World Heavyweight Title with the WWE Title and just call it the WWE Title or something. It's the one with all the history whereas the World heavyweight belt was just created about 5 or 6 years ago so Raw would have a champion.

Unify the Intercontinental and US Titles. Personally I always liked the Intercontinental title and it always seemed like it was a stepping stone for someone to move to the upper card. Now it just seems to rotate between Jeff Hardy, Chris Jericho, Umaga and someone else. I'd prefer they unified these and kept the Intercontinental belt.

Unify the WWE Tag team and world tag team belts and again bring back the titles they've always had. I think it was previous called the World Tag team title, the one that the Hart Foundation and Legion of Doom etc held.

I guess they could keep the woman's title and maybe let that be it. There might be an option for one other belt, but they should play it by ear.

In my mind the top guy was always the WWF Champion, now with two versions of almost every title, the whole thing seems somewhat meaningless.

rovert

grandmaster wrote: »

I agree in that the WWE have too many belts now that mean flip all. I also think the roster split is a bad idea from the fans point of view. I'm sure WWE will point out that it means they can run more shows or something and that's good for the fans, but it would be nice to be able to go to a show and know that you can see anyone from the the entire roster, not just those "contracted" to that particular show.

Which leads me back to my main point. I have an idea how they can get rid of all those belts and go back to the way things should be, or at least how I think they should be IMHO.

They could run a storyline or something where they are going to end the brand split, re-join the rosters and unify the titles. I think this could be done maybe all during some mega PPV, or maybe spread out over a few PPV's or something.

They should unify the World Heavyweight Title with the WWE Title and just call it the WWE Title or something. It's the one with all the history whereas the World heavyweight belt was just created about 5 or 6 years ago so Raw would have a champion.

Unify the Intercontinental and US Titles. Personally I always liked the Intercontinental title and it always seemed like it was a stepping stone for someone to move to the upper card. Now it just seems to rotate between Jeff Hardy, Chris Jericho, Umaga and someone else. I'd prefer they unified these and kept the Intercontinental belt.

Unify the WWE Tag team and world tag team belts and again bring back the titles they've always had. I think it was previous called the World Tag team title, the one that the Hart Foundation and Legion of Doom etc held.

I guess they could keep the woman's title and maybe let that be it. There might be an option for one other belt, but they should play it by ear.

In my mind the top guy was always the WWF Champion, now with two versions of almost every title, the whole thing seems somewhat meaningless.

Meanwhile back on earth

D-FENS

Bubs101 wrote: »

After that, I would unify the tag belts and replace the SD one with a Hardcore title exclusive to ECW

Love to see the hardcore title back and on ECW, it would obviously fit perfectly. But I fear they would not be allowed to do proper hardcore matches that would do it justice, for fear it would actually draw interest to ECW which is basically Heat nowadays from what I’ve seen. Even the old 24/7 rule would bring a bit of hilarity to the proceedings, if someone like Santino or Noble had it to fill poor old Crash's role, but they'd ruin that too and have Hornswoggle do it

rovert

D-FENS wrote: »

Love to see the hardcore title back and on ECW, it would obviously fit perfectly. But I fear they would not be allowed to do proper hardcore matches that would do it justice, for fear it would actually draw interest to ECW which is basically Heat nowadays from what I’ve seen. Even the old 24/7 rule would bring a bit of hilarity to the proceedings, if someone like Santino or Noble had it to fill poor old Crash's role, but they'd ruin that too and have Hornswoggle do it

Those hardcore matches took away from the use weapons and brawling main events.

D-FENS

rovert wrote: »

Those hardcore matches took away from the use weapons and brawling main events.

Perhaps true, but some would argue that actual wrestling should be the key element to a main event anyway, not weapons and brawling. A spot involving a table or ladder etc. shouldn’t be relied upon so often that seeing them in a lower card match demeans it somehow.

ShawnRaven

I think the lack of spotfests is a good thing these days. That way when WWE produce street fights or matches like MITB, they actually mean something, or they're remembered. When the hardcore division was at it's peak, ladder matches, etc were all undershadowed. It also was so regular that it was expected on a weekly basis and it no longer meant anything.

Not to mention the amount of injuries it caused.
As for bringing the hardcore title and sticking it on ECW? Well, i suppose it would work for the sake of Hornswoggle making a title disappearing again.

Maybe they'll do an angle where they find the belt, along with the cruiserweight title hidden in his lucky charms box! :rolleyes:

VR!

chopperbyrne

The 24/7 rule was the only time I enjoyed "hardcore" wrestling.

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

I think the lack of spotfests is a good thing these days. That way when WWE produce street fights or matches like MITB, they actually mean something, or they're remembered. When the hardcore division was at it's peak, ladder matches, etc were all undershadowed. It also was so regular that it was expected on a weekly basis and it no longer meant anything.

Not to mention the amount of injuries it caused.
As for bringing the hardcore title and sticking it on ECW? Well, i suppose it would work for the sake of Hornswoggle making a title disappearing again.

Maybe they'll do an angle where they find the belt, along with the cruiserweight title hidden in his lucky charms box! :rolleyes:

VR!

I agree about the fear of overuse and injury, but it wouldn’t have to be Japanese death matches every week, even Al Snow style baking tray antics, would be mildly entertaining, with some decent hardcore matches set up for every PPV or two, and would look as if WWE was at least trying to keep the spirit of ECW alive (Which of course it isn’t). I hear what you’re saying about people expecting someone to dive off the top of Titan towers every week, but people expect a lot from WWE that is rarely delivered these days , you get used to it after a while!

AgentRed2003

Even though WWE tried to create three brands of shows creating an illusion of competition between the shows, I still feel like Raw, Smackdown, and ECW are a single WWE show. Being that, there should not be two champions in the same division. I'm old school, so I remember when feuds and stories went from Raw to Smackdown so that it felt like you got two new episodes per week and it made you watch both shows to keep up to date on a developing storyline. During that time, they had just one WWE Champion, Intercontinental, European, Tag Team, Women's, Cruiserweight, and Hardcore Champion. It worked back then because all superstars competed on both shows.

To trim back on the belts, there should be no more brand illusions in WWE. If I had it my way, I would have these titles available.

WWE Champion (only one) - Top prize in the game, anyone can compete in any type of match.

Intercontinental Champion - Since WWE has a long history with this title, I would combine the U.S. Championship to this one since it appears (although not officially) that the U.S. Championship is the second tier accomplishment on Smackdown. Also, I would put in a rule that this title can only be defended in standard matches. This would create a sense of being the best of the pure athletes in a way. Anyone can compete for this title.

ECW Championship - Kind of like a more glorified Hardcore Championship without the 24/7 rule. When this title is defended, there is no disqualifications or countouts. This includes events like Extreme Rules, Steel Cage, Ladder Matches or anything else of this nature. Maybe every now and then they'll throw in a "24/7 week" to spice things up a bit so that it adds the entertainment, but does not cheapen the belt.

Tag Team Championship (only one) - Teams of 2 people or "freebird rule." Anyone can compete and defended under type of match.

Winning the WWE Championship, Intercontinental, and Tag Team Championships would be considered the traditional "Triple Crown Champion." Winning the ECW champion with the previous three would consider one the "Grand Slam Champion" with the ECW Champion being like the European Champion.

The titles above anyone can compete for and should be considered as WWE's main titles. Below are more specialized title due to the fact that these exclude individuals from the division.

WWE Cruiserweight Championship - Individuals 200 lbs. or less. A division of high fliers and high risk manuevers is sorely lacking in WWE. This title will recognize these individuals who otherwise be jobbers.

WWE Divas Champion (only one) - Women only division.

So I would have six championships overall but that's if superstars compete on all the shows WWE has to offer. The only way that would happen is if TNA becomes really huge and start the Monday Night Wars again with WWE so it forces WWE to have their big draws compete on every televised show. What do you guys think?

RAMPAGE1

Great Answer Rossie and the Womens Championship is on TNA and the most exciting division in wrestling the X Divsion is on TNA