Email This Article - Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

Updated Wednesday, Oct. 17 - 4:29 p.m.

If Sci-Fi doesn't make it worth WWE's while through either programming fees or a share of advertising, the exposure for WWE with barely over one-third of Raw's typical audience just isn't worth the trouble as it waters down the WWE product in general. There are so few wrestlers on the brand as it is, and WWE doesn't seem to have the creative will to go a completely different direction with the brand, so it just serves little purpose. That's not good news for Joey Styles and Tazz (or maybe one or two of the other four announcers who might be shoved out to make room for Styles or Tazz), but otherwise the wrestlers will likely find a home on Raw or Smackdown (or Heat), and if they don't, they probably weren't long for the ECW brand anyway.

ECW's original concept was to be different enough that it would attract a different demographic and run successfully house shows at smaller venues. Attendance wasn't strong enough to sustain that, and soon they were thrown together with Smackdown house shows. Now that wrestlers are intermixing on TV, there's nothing other than the logo to separate the ECW brand from a Smackdown B-show. The only way ECW had a chance to succeed long-term is by going a different direction with the product than Vince McMahon would, such as giving Paul Heyman total autonomy.

If ECW does remain online for a while, used to drive traffic to the WWE.com website, WWE should get creative and go all-out with a new concept for it. Heck, build toward pay-per-views online only and see if that has any viability at this point. But make the brand look and feel different, not just a red and black version of Heat or a return of Velocity with lip-service being paid to being "extreme."

Updated Tuesday, Oct. 16 - 5:29 p.m.

Today, a PWTorch VIP member brought up in the VIP Forum a potential WrestleMania main event - Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels. That's possible, but I think they're headed a different direction. With John Cena out of the picture, Hunter vs. Cena is off the table for the second year in a row.

With Triple H and Batista crossing paths at the last PPV, I expect that to be the headline match. The top babyfaces on each of the two major brands facing off, with Triple H probably winning the Royal Rumble to earn a shot at either belt and choosing Batista over Orton.

Then, if Orton still holds the WWE Title by then, or loses and regains it, I would anticipate Chris Jericho being his challenger. That may come about through Jericho winning the Rumble, but it makes more sense for Triple H to win the Rumble to create a storyline reason for him shifting brands for the WM24 match.

Then I expect (and would like to see) Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels. The sample we got at the Royal Rumble earlier this year was spectacular, and having those two legends battle while they can still "go" would be my easy pick for the third of the Big Three matches at the big show.

Updated Wednesday, Oct. 15 - 2:49 p.m.

One of the best reviewed shows of any kind this year for any group was TNA Bound for Glory last night (80 percent of respondents have given it a 7.0 or higher; 24 percent gave it a perfect 10). Coming off two very mixed reviews for the first two editions of the expanded TNA Impact, there's a message there for TNA management.

Their strength lies in their talent delivering in the ring. Their TV show is overbooked, almost a desperate effort to beg viewers not to switch to Raw at that moment, as if Raw was on opposite of them in the midst of the Monday Night War. There is no Raw. There are other shows, but if someone tunes in to Impact, they're not going to leave because Tenay and West stop screaming for three seconds. They're not going to leave if a wrestling match - in a two hour show - manages to last longer than 10 minutes on a regular basis in the same show.

Once TNA bookers top trying to throw in a million storyline advancements and just let things play out, which they did better on PPV than on Impact, the talent can really rise to the occasion.

There were still signs of TNA's negative tendencies. Instead of nine matches, if BFG had seven, this could have been a buzz-creating show of the year. All the three or four best matches needed were five minutes more each to really have the proper time to tell a story. Epic movies need to be well over two hours to be epic. Horror movies need to stop short of 90 minute to not test your patience. A comedy movie can't be 55 minutes and expect people to be satisfied. In other words, different stories need different lengths of time to play out properly. An epic match that people pay for as part of a PPV needs to have more time than TNA typically gives it. Otherwise, you get matches like Daniels vs. Lethal, on the verge of being great, but instead it felt slightly crammed and rushed.

The reader reviews being sent in aren't focusing their praise on the great convoluted finishes "that kept them guessing!" They aren't talking about the great innovative match stipulations like the reverse battle royal or seedings for the contender tournament. They're not talking about the crazy, wild bumps and broken glass and thumb tacks. They're talking about the three or four really good matches.

There is a lesson for TNA in the positive reaction to BFG. Make the TV show more like PPVs. That doesn't mean feature PPV calliber matches all the time - although building to feature-length X Division, tag team, or heavyweight title contender matches would be good. It does mean slow things down, let the wrestlers do their thing, and cut back on the frenetic, densely packed booking. You've got 52 weeks and 104 hours to tell the stories. Don't act like every show is your last.

Updated Wednesday, Oct. 10 - 1:49 p.m.

There are many theories for why Raw ratings dropped to the lowest number since December 1997. The fact that Raw went up against a Dallas Cowboys game on Monday Night Football ("America's Team") and a New York Yankee's deciding playoff game absolutely contributed to the drop in Raw's rating this week. But if WWE decides things are fine otherwise, and it was just a one week fluke because of stiff sports competition, they'd be doing themselves a disservice. This rating is a lesson, a message, a call to action for change.

Look at today's PWTorch Poll that PWTorch contributor Doron Barbalat posted earlier today. Two thirds of those responding chose "Overall disdain for the current product" as their theory for why the ratings dropped, while only six percent called it a one-time aberration. What surprised me is that "no advertised in-ring main event" and "no John Cena" only received 3 and 10 percent of the votes. In other words, PWTorch readers believe this rating is a reflection of the overall quality of the product today.

I agree. I do think the Yankees and Cowboys caused the rating to drop as much as it did; it'd be ridiculous not to consider that as a factor. However, what it revealed is how "soft" Raw's audience is right now. They jump quickly to another option if offered. That wasn't the case when Raw was getting ratings above 5.0 for a few years there - with WCW Nitro as competition. Raw viewers were loyal no matter what else was on.

The decline began with the handling and sadness of the Benoit Family Tragedy, which exposed the dark consequences of the "fun" WWE promoted each week on TV. It continued with a below-par product, a focus on just a few favored names while everyone else was treated like garbage on TV, and a general erosion of roster depth. Then ratings rebounded for the return of Triple H and the McMahon Love Child mystery. When Hornswoggle was revealed to be the long lost love child, ratings crashed. As a non-wrestling fan friend of mine said in reaction to a recent Hornswoggle scene on WWE TV, "I can't imagine any of the wrestling fans I know would be entertained by that kind of thing." WWE has gone in a cutesy direction that is a turnoff to many fans, and they haven't offered enough else to offset those negative feelings. Thus, fans' loyalty is low right now.

It's time for WWE starting with Vince and Stephanie on down to admit that they might need some fresh ideas, it might be time to take some chances and make moves against even their own better instincts, and try to shake up the product. At the same time, they need to start making other moves to plan for one and two and three years from now such as a bigger investment in the developmental system and recruiting - and not just big, muscular guys, but open themselves up to pushing different weight classes in a serious way, as UFC does, and not treat anyone under 5-10 as suitable only for a skit that involves a box of Lucky Charms.

Send me a paragraph with your theory on why Raw ratings have been eroding in recent months. What are the key reasons you and your friends might be less likely to watch Raw as often, and a couple quick ideas on how to turn things around. Keep your responses to 10-15 lines - in other words, not long booking ideas, but rapid-fire short messages that WWE management will have the patience to read and digest.

Email Us Here

Updated Monday, Oct. 8 - 1:42 p.m.

Last night was a huge moment for Triple H. Based on the circumstances, he was put in a difficult position. He was essentially replacing, in the eyes of the fans, either John Cena or Chris Jericho or both. For Cena fans who bought tickets expecting to see Cena vs. Randy Orton, Triple H may have been a letdown. For fans chanting "Y2J," they may have been expecting to be part of the triumphant return of Chris Jericho, so Triple H could have been seen as old news being shoved at them instead.

What happened was a best case scenario for Triple H. After Vince McMahon shut down the hopes of Y2J fans quickly and decisively, Triple H came out to resounding cheers. No mixed reaction like with Cena. No boos because they wanted to see Jericho instead. It would not have shocked me if the crowd was quiet or booed. They didn't. They reacted to Triple H like he was a top tier major superstar there to play the lead role in filling the gap left by Cena.

Then Triple H delivered. Say what you will about how Hunter is portrayed on TV and the type of unnecessary destruction of mid-card wrestlers he has left in his wake, he came though last night with an overall tremendous serious of performances. The first two matches weren't designed to be show-stealers, but that main event was. And I believe it was just that. Torch columnist Bruce Mitchell wasn't as high on it as I was (and James Caldwell was), which we discussed in last night's VIP audio roundtable, but it seems as if most readers agree with me that it was a special match in a year that hasn't had as many MOTY contenders as we've grown used to.

It's hard not to think of Orton's baggage when considering his contributions to WWE, but it has to be said that he comes through time after time with great in-ring work. He's not the flashiest wrestler, and he is maddeningly overreliant on headlocks early in matches, but he is a pro's pro in matches, a true ring general who seems to be getting better during a stretch of time where a number of legends from the Monday Night War era are beginning to age out.

But it was Hunter's night last night. He was in a really tough position and the fans accepted him immediately, and he earned that acceptable by working triple duty and putting in a show-saving performance with Orton in the main event.

By the way, yesterday was the cover date of the first-ever edition of Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter (Oct. 7, 1987). This month we'll be celebrating our 20 years covering wrestling with a number of acknowledgment of our history, some of which will be part of the Torch Newsletter, but others that I will share on the website. Thanks to everyone who has been part of this great journey covering pro wrestling for the last 20 years. It's taken me places I could have never imagined and been a fulfilling job in so many ways. I've been able to meet an amazingly wide ranging group of people who have been unlikely friends over the years. I appreciate everyone who has visited PWTorch.com regularly since the website launched in 1999 and, of course, those who have subscribers - including a few who date back to the 1980s when we first began. I'll have more to say as the month progresses.

Updated Thursday, Oct. 4 - 3:30 p.m.

There is never a great time to lose a top star for any reason, and you never wish an injury upon anyone, but that said - Raw's rating headlined by Cena vs. Mr. Kennedy this week was just a 3.2. You have go back ten years to find a lower rated Raw on the first Monday of October. It's possible Cena was the only talent holding things together, but it's also possible that Cena had his fans and detractors, and that with him as the long-term champion centerpiece of Raw, it had become monotonous for many viewers who were watching less frequently, if at all. This injury forces Vince McMahon to take a new direction with Raw, and if he plays what cards he has well, it could lead to a surge in interest by presenting a product that feels fresher and newer. Just giving Orton and Hunter more TV time is the answer, though, isn't the likely best solution. Finding some newer, underutilized talents to give TV time would be nice. It's difficult to understand how McMahon thinks fans should watch two hours plus of Raw when 70 percent of it is filled with wrestlers who are firmly established to be jobbers to a few top tier players. The needless squashing and demeaning of Jeff Hardy (to both Umaga and Big Show over the past year), Cade & Murdoch, London & Kendrick, and Carlito (Hunter) has made the rest of the segments feel like filler, not a chance to see stars on the rise.

GameFly.com

For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA!
VISIT OUR AFFILIATE - PROWRESTLING.NET

For UFC & MMA NEWS & BLOGS:
VISIT OUR SISTER SITE - MMATORCH.COM

Upgrade to PWTORCH VIP: DETAILS & SIGN-UP INFO

(c) 1999-2009 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved.