Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted March 25, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 25, 2011 Air_raid is consistantly spot on which each post he's making in this thread. He needs to walk off into the sunset tipping his hat looking down at those arguing. Some fine points made, it has to be said. Especially the part about streams. There just doesnt seem to be enough wrestling fans with the passion to want to keep on buying. Early 2011 figures have shown PPV's have dropped even further. And what is worrying is that the domestic buyrates are dropping as well, which is usually the coverup for previous years numbers being so high. I'm a perfect example, because if there's something I fancy watching I will pay for it. I fucking paid for WWF Capital Carnage back in 1998 just because I imagined it was going to be class since One Night Only was so good. What a divy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted March 25, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 25, 2011 I have no real arguement for any of your counterpoints Supremo, as you've gone about them all with a lot more thought than I've put into it. Though I will say you're presenting how over you deem a wrestler to be as a bullet-proof marker for whether or not they should be considered a success, rather than something you have just decided for yourself. Genuine question then; who's more or less over than I've given credit to? Â You are making a estimate that The Miz is not drawing based on partial viewinng firgures you have seen on the drit sheets and have decided to make your accusations about The Miz on this. Do some checking up and see how many peple watch streams how many streams are there are these viewing figures total or is there an equal amount tuning into the replay. Until you know these answers you can't know for sure that The Miz is not putting bums on seats. The ratings have gone down when a segment has featured The Miz directly. Are you suggesting people who were originally watching on TV have switched to online streams mid-episode, coincidentally when The Miz has appeared on-screen? Â Â Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 I'm not sure where the Sunderland comparison came from, but can I reiterate that our attendances are down because our fanbase is drawn almost exclusively from the north east of England, a historically poor area now being squeezed even tighter because the scumbags currently in government hate us as much as we hate them. Â The WWE is a hugely successful, multi-national corporation that appeals to a wide geographical and commercial range. As such, I'd tend to go with the argument that any fall in business is down to quality more than politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 The ratings have gone down when a segment has featured The Miz directly. Are you suggesting people who were originally watching on TV have switched to online streams mid-episode, coincidentally when The Miz has appeared on-screen? Â This is all very familiar... Â However, Cena vs. Del Rio with the Miz attack lost 270,000 viewers in the first 15 minute overrun falling to a 3.59, and since Cena is historically far and away the biggest ratings draw, that isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted March 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 26, 2011 What the fuck are you on about, you utter stalker? Â If I was repeating Meltzer's opinions as my own, then I'd see how you'd consider it regurgitation, but I'm not. It's facts that I get from The Observer to back up my opinions, and so accordingly I'm at an absolute loss as to how then quoting them is consdered somehow," copying," or passing stuff off as my own. Â It's a wrestling discussion forum. We discuss wrestling. To back up discussions you need facts. Getting those facts from the most in-depth and reliable source in order to discuss is seen as copying, regurgitation and/or plaigarising? Â Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted March 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 26, 2011 The ratings have gone down when a segment has featured The Miz directly. Are you suggesting people who were originally watching on TV have switched to online streams mid-episode, coincidentally when The Miz has appeared on-screen? Â This is all very familiar... Â However, Cena vs. Del Rio with the Miz attack lost 270,000 viewers in the first 15 minute overrun falling to a 3.59, and since Cena is historically far and away the biggest ratings draw, that isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlemaniacx Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 good discussion and fun reading all the opinions on here...personally i would absolutely hate it if wrestling evolves into a more mma style approach of presentation and real-ness, pro wrestling is fantasy and mma is real, it's diffrent sports now please leave it at that, as someone already mentioned, why promote a fake mma style of wrestling when people can just go watch the real things instead, makes no sense to me..  For myself, i think high flying action is where the future of wrestling is and it's also my favorite style to watch, never get sick of it  Which is not to say i don't respect a slower paced, methodical match or vintage stuff like nwa,awa, i love it all but in this day and age that is not the kind of wrestling i'd like to see anymore,too much has changed to go back to that kinda wrestling and i would get bored fast, so no..but please don't look at me as if i'm just another spotmonkey loving fan that doesn't appreciate the real art of pro wrestling because i do, i just prefer an over the top high impact style match instead of a 5 minute headlock and chain wrestling, no matter how good its presented.  TNA was doing great when the x division actually meant something and the focus was on young athletic wrestlers, to me the blueprint of the perfect wrestler for the future is aj styles, he is an amazing aerialist,but he also has enough power to do impressive strenght moves and he's able to tell a story in the ring and convey emotions believably.  stuff like dragon gate is amazing too but i fear the language barrier will always be a hurdle for newcomers, its kinda hard to relate to characters of which you don't understand a word they're saying....but action wise it's incredible, same with mexican lucha libre talent like in cmll, tremendous athletes over there but they fail to attract a lot of us fans because it's a bit niche and yet again a language barrier.  I think we just have to get back to the time when the x division was hot, that to me, is what wrestling should be,eye popping action with guys who are able to tell stories at the same time, no slow pacing style that puts people to sleep, but no flippedy flop spotmonkeys who don't connect with fans either ( so no mtv crap) but a good middle ground.  wrestling does not have to be cartoony, but it definatly shouldn't promote itself as an mma wannabe sport either, i watch pro wrestling to see athletic guys do athletic things that i can't find in any other sport,period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWM Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 I have no real arguement for any of your counterpoints Supremo, as you've gone about them all with a lot more thought than I've put into it. Though I will say you're presenting how over you deem a wrestler to be as a bullet-proof marker for whether or not they should be considered a success, rather than something you have just decided for yourself. Genuine question then; who's more or less over than I've given credit to? Â You're missing the point just by asking the question. I could say I thought Dolph Ziggler was getting Hogan reactions and Del Rio is the most over heel in the world, and those would be my views on them based on what I'm seeing on TV and how I'm judging what I'm watching. Okay, I'm being a bit glib with those examples, but you get what I mean. From your individual responses to the guys I named, it's clear you disagree in every case, and all the guys I obviously think are more over than you do. That was all I was trying to say initially - you're mixing the ratings/buyrate facts you've picked up from the Observer or whatever with your own opinions on certain guys and presenting it as one big "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!". I named the guys based wholly on my perception of them, which you just shit all over because you disagreed. It's why I also admitted I was probably a daft to chime in on this sort of thread, because I think wrestling's in absolutely tremendous shape, and the original post was obviously looking more for the answers on how to save it or something from those that felt it was in a funk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted March 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 26, 2011 Genuine question then; who's more or less over than I've given credit to? Dolph Ziggler is far more over than you give credit for. He's admittedly not where WWE seem to think he is, but he's been the main event heel on Smackdown for a while, well until Alberto won the rumble. He's not at Main Event level, but he's capable of getting there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 I can see Miz being shifted to SD in the draft, and taking a main event spot there. Probably feuding with Edge. He's certainly worthy of a main event spot but lacks something as a flagship world champion because he just doesn't cut it phyically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.