Thought of the Day: Your Time Is My Time

Concerning Rock, Lesnar, Undertaker, RVD etc.One of the most common criticisms about wrestlers such as these is that they’re part timers and shouldn’t be given top spots.  My reaction to this: why in the world shouldn’t they be?

 

Here’s the thing about guys like this: yeah they’re part timers, but they sell tickets.  WWE is supposed to stick with their people that don’t do as well instead of someone like Brock who is a guaranteed draw because of some loyalty?  That’s great.  They can be loyal the whole time business goes down because they don’t want to offend the feelings of some of their employees.

Look at Punk for example.  Yeah he worked hard for a year as champion and had a very entertaining run.  That’s all well and good, but Rock sells more tickets and merchandise than him with relative ease.  WWE would be foolish to stick with Punk because he had been there all this time instead of going with Rock who can make them a lot more money in a hurry.

This part timers shouldn’t get pushed theory comes off like some of the markiest stuff in the world. It’s a business people, and if the part timers do the most business then that’s what we’re going to get. That’s WWE’s thinking and it’s very logical and successful.

63 comments

  1. M.R. says:

    People actually had a problem with The Rock main eventing Wrestlemania?

    Jerichoholic94 Reply:

    Cm Punk says hello.

    M.R. Reply:

    That’s just sour grapes.

  2. BudDakota says:

    There are literally some people out there who have a problem with everything. I don’t mind being critical of the product but some people just get off on bitching about absolutely everything. Even the thing they were championing the day before.

  3. Fred says:

    To clarify, people had a problem with The Rock having three consecutive WrestleMania’s built around him with all three being excuses to run ads for his movies.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Which were three very big successes.

    ted Reply:

    I will never understand why you don’t get this. You can and most likley will yammer on about it being a business. It’s irrelevant the wrestlers are there to entertain. If people aren’t entertained by whomever. They complain. The numbers don’t matter, they only care about what happens in the ring.

    They also can’t rely on older names forever. It just seemed like they aren’t going to have anyone on the Rock level to take over.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Yet more fans seem to be buying these shows. Interesting how that works.

    There’s a Thought of the Day to be written called “You don’t think WWE knows this?”

  4. The Ringmaster says:

    There’s also the “less is more” factor. If you’re on raw every single week then your PPV appearances will ne less special. It’s an event when Brock, Rock etc wrestle. This is how it should be for the top stars who’ve put on the hard work to get to that level. There’s just too much product as well. I’ve always thought that WWE (and the wrestlers) would benefit from an off-season.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    This is true. I wouldn’t go with an off season as there’s the chance of people losing interest. I’d go with the NXT model: have A, B and C stories with only a few stories appearing every week. Above all else, training the fans to be more patient would work wonders for WWE.

    ted Reply:

    Good luck with “training” the fans these days. It no longer works that way in the information age.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Oh it can. No one will try to though.

    ted Reply:

    Really can’t. The fans aren’t just going to accept a because I told you so. It’s not 1985 anymore.

    HubcapDave Reply:

    Good point Ringmaster. While I wouldn’t go back to the 80s formula of showing nothing but squash matches on TV, there’s something to be said for not overexposing all your stars. Go back to JCP’s weekend shows on TBS. How often did you see Ric Flair wrestle on that show? Almost never. He was there every week, though, stylin’ and profilin’ through one promo after another, which drummed up the business for the house shows.

    I would think that Raw & Smackdown would be best served to hold back a little on the top guys being in action a bit, and give a little more time to the mid-carders stories and matches.

  5. Si says:

    As a fan and not a stock holder I really don’t care about money drawn, simply entertainment, seeing lesnar vs taker who’s build was 90% replay and video packages wasn’t entertaining. Seeing rock vs cena 2 where cena was trying to carry the mania main event by himself without anything new to say wasn’t entertaining.

    I’m not saying guys like dolph will ever be close to as big as rock, but they’re not put in the same position. The attitude era stars had the benefit of all the stars that came before went to WCW, do Vince had no choice but to put the company on their shoulders, and they delivered. I heard the massive pop when ziggler best del rio after mania 29, or Ryder got the US title, but when did they ever get a single moment to be memorable?

    ted Reply:

    Someone gets it.

    ted Reply:

    As Scott Keith used to say. “it’s entertainment says I, so entertain me.”

    klunderbunker Reply:

    They’re entertaining the masses. That’s the idea.

    ted Reply:

    Right some of those masses don’t like what they are seeing. They have every right to talk about their displeasure.

    See it makes no sense to counter ” The John Cena, Rock sequel match had terrible build up and a lousy match.” With ” The wwe is seen in more countries and makes more money then ever before.”

    1.) It makes you sound like Michael Cole
    2.) That doesn’t replace the fact that it was still boring and sub par.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Absolutely they do. I also have the right to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in their arguments.

    As for Rock vs. Cena II, the build and match don’t matter to WWE. They have the money and that’s a success to them.

    If the masses don’t like what they’re seeing, they won’t be watching long. When they stop watching, then something will change. WHen they voice their opinions wearing WWE gear at WWE events they purchased tickets to or while watching on WWE Network, it doesn’t do a thing.

    ted Reply:

    I have the right to point out your flaws and inconsistencies in your arguments. Wonderful world isn’t it?

    See my problem isn’t that you point out flaws in other people’s opinions. It just gets my goat when you present yourself, as above people who’s opinion’s differ from yours. Are the wwe going to change course because 10,000 fans boo Cena? Apparently not. But people can still dislike the guy.

    As For Rock, Cena twice in a lifetime The fans do care. Hence it being brought up more than once as terrible. The match sucked and will not be talked about as an “Wrestlemania moment”. As a fan telling me well they made money. Makes no difference to me. It will not alter my opinion that the match sucked. I have no stake in the company. What sucks, sucks.

    It’s like wwe’s need to tell me that Triple H is one of the biggest draws and best wrestlers ever. After you hear it enough times. You start to wonder who’s convincing who? ” I am not talking about Jim Niedhart”

    As for it not doing a thing it seems to tick you off.

  6. klunderbunker says:

    That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about not doing every match immediately. Make them wait to see it so they have to. It worked for Rock vs. Cena and can work again on a smaller scale.

    ted Reply:

    Oh my apologies. I wasn’t aware that’s what you meant. In the case of can long term booking work? Of course it can. I didn’t think any training was required.

    I figured if they did sting undertaker it would operate on the same year long principle.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    It would and it would hide Sting’s limitations.

    THe training is required in the ring as well, with the fans automatically chanting BORING if a guy tries to use psychology.

    ted Reply:

    I actually hate when fans do that.

  7. klunderbunker says:

    Yep. I’d never say otherwise.

    Sure people can dislike Cena etc. I take issue with people who dislike him for stupid reasons. That’s when I poke holes in it.

    I have a stake in the company so it matters to me. Not a financial stake, but a stake as a fan. I didn’t care for the build or the match, but it made perfect sense to go with it.

    The HHH stuff gets to me when his run in 2002/03 didn’t serve anyone but him. Business results back that up.

    ted Reply:

    Making sense is fine. But the match was still boring. As a fan we should only care about what happens in the ring.

    The numbers and backstage politics by and large are irrelevant. I still stand by saying the numbers somehow erase stupid or boring is wrong.

    Perhaps you should buy some stock as you care a great deal about the numbers.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Why should we only care about what happens in the ring? I want WWE to succeed and there’s a lot more to that than just stuff in the ring.

    ted Reply:

    Mostly because a majority of fans only care about that. Fans don’t turn on raw or go to raw saying I want to watch John Cena because he draws the biggest house. They want to see Daniel Byran over come the odds. See The shield get there revenge. Most fans don’t obsess as much as you or I.

    The wwe sells wrestling to those who want it. 90% of what you see is in the ring action. Which is what most want. What happens off camera or on the stock market doesn’t matter especially to children.

    It really sounds like your kind of killing the fun of wrestling. Rather then enjoying the show and liking whomever. You care about what the wwe is trading at? Or how much merch it sells? I mean to each their own, but that doesn’t sound that fun.

  8. deanerandterry says:

    I definitely agree, I just hope WWE can swim when the part timers aren’t around anymore. Sure WWE has always made new stars and new draws but they haven’t had to rely on part timers nearly to the extent they do now.

    Overall it could cause great issues once these part timers and Cena decide to call it a career.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    The thing people don’t seem to get: WWE is aware of this. I don’t know why fans think WWE has somehow lucked their way into being on top of wrestling for as long as they have.

    ted Reply:

    So you choose to ignore all the stupid things this company has done?

    Being aware is one thing actively doing something about it is another.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    …..have you read my reviews?

    They’ve done a ton of stupid stuff, but they correct it more often than not. They also do a lot of stuff that works very well.

  9. deanerandterry says:

    I’m sure they are KB, you don’t stay successful as long as WWE has if you aren’t aware of things like this.

    To others, WWE does dumb shit, so does every other company in the world, dumb shit ultimately doesn’t matter if you can recuperate and WWE has the rebounding skills of Hakeem the Dream, they’ll be fine.

  10. Marky-Marc says:

    I agree with you 100% it’s a business and WWE will capitalize on that star power until those names tell them ‘no’.
    However, you’re always saying in your reviews that creative will drop the ball with certain guys then say its their own fault for not getting over. So while The Rock and Brock Lesnar will sell more tickets then Dolph Ziggler or Barrett, those guys aren’t exactly given the time to develop into stars.
    Vince and co. I feel got lucky that Bryan is as over as he is. Hypothetically if Bryan doesn’t get over the way he did, where do they go for the biggest Wrestlemania on a decade? Throw Cena into the main event I guess, but eventually they will have to start relying on the talent they have because one day (very soon) The Rock and Lesnar will be telling them ‘no’.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    I wouldn’t say it’s the time with them. It’s the start and stop booking but that’s a story for later. Something people overlook: Ziggler debuted in WWE nearly eight years ago. That’s longer than Austin had in the company. It’s not just time.

    Marky-Marc Reply:

    You’re right but Ziggler has also been over for a while. Who knows what their plans were for him after he cashed in MITB last year but once he came back from the concussion it’s as if they said ‘oh well we have Lesnar and HHH coming back so he doesn’t matter’.
    Tonight he gets a jobber entrance. For a boring show with rather meaningless matches they don’t even let him pop the crowd.
    I’m not a mark for him or anything he’s just one example of how I feel they don’t develop talent because they rely on the part-timers. It’s as if they don’t care to build or brand a name because there’s already several spots reserved for the big event.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    He’s been over as a B level guy. As one of the elite level guys, not so much.

    ted Reply:

    Perhaps he could have been more if he had been handled differently.

  11. klunderbunker says:

    I can almost assure you that most fans don’t watch for the wrestling itself. If they did, ROH would be the biggest company in the world and the Attitude Era would have been the worst time ever for the company. People watch for the drama and the stories. The wrestling is more of a backdrop than the focal point.

    ted Reply:

    It’s a wrestling company whether you or even they like it or not. They sell wrestling matches . You take the wrestling out entirely your show is 20 mins long. With bad comedy sketch and playing to no one.

    Your a wrestling fan. Don’t tell me you actually buy Vince’s were a entertainment empire nonsense?

    klunderbunker Reply:

    If you think this is a wrestling company anymore, you’ve missed a lot of exits along the way. It hasn’t been focused on wrestling in a long time and when it does, a lot of people change the channel.

    ted Reply:

    So you do believe them. Well your entitled to your misguided opinion.

    Well all I can say is It’s kind of hard to argue when Everything they promote on their show is toward wrestling matches, Their ppv’s which have wrestling matches. Hell the word wrestling is in their name.

    The point is you’ve got to shake it off my friend. Vince is a wresting promoter and what you watch and even review is wrestling. I don’t see any reviews of anything else on here.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    There’s been a DVD review.

    Here’s the thing: yeah wrestling is the culmination, but it’s a tool to tell stories. Also there’s quite a bit of stuff promoted on WWE that isn’t wrestling. It’s wrestling related, but it’s not wrestling.

    ted Reply:

    Come on KB it’s wrestling. That’s what all this is. Are you telling me your not a wrestling fan?

  12. HubcapDave says:

    KB, you’re spot on with this. At the end of the day, WWE is a business and it’s success is demonstrated by the money it receives in exchange for the product it delivers. “The fans” (I love it when people try to voice their opinions as that of the masses…..) don’t express their disapproval with their voices, they do it with their wallets. Sure, 1000s of people in the audience night after night may chant “Cena sucks”, but night after night they’re paying their hard-earned money to sit in that arena and chant “Cena Sucks”. Couple that with the fact that Cena merchandise outsells everyone by a large margin, and the conclusion WWE is going to come to is Cena is still a valuable commodity. No, if the fans were TRULY dissatisfied with the product, they’d be doing shows in 1/2 empty arenas, getting crappy buy rates for their pay-per-views, and Raw & Smackdown would be tanking in the ratings…kinda like what happened to a certain company owned by an Atlanta billionaire 14 years ago.

  13. HubcapDave says:

    The WWE sells story lines with wrestling matches as part of the narrative, and ultimately the payoff of the stories. Oh, and T-shirts, hats, plastic title belts, etc……

  14. klunderbunker says:

    Absolutely I am, but professional wrestling hasn’t been about wrestling since about January 24, 1984.

    ted Reply:

    I hate to break it to you. But all the things you’ve been watching since 1984. It’s still wrestling. There is nothing the wwe promotes that isn’t related to wrestling in some way. All roads point to the ring.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    I hate to break it to you, but you really don’t get what you’re talking about.

    ted Reply:

    I know perfectly well. You seem to be in denial. I’ll leave you to it.

    Have a nice day:)

  15. Heyo says:

    If you ask me what WWE/WCW/TNA is, it’s storylines told much like soap operas, but with wrestling working as the blowoff to the stories/feuds.

    For goodness sake, it was the NWO that kickstarted the late 90s reinnassance of wrestling. How did that start? Hogan turning heel and shocking the world. What was everyone talking about WrestleMania 30 once it was over? Lesnar shocking the world by snapping the Streak, and Bryan finally getting that damn WWE title belt.

    Granted, there’s still quite a focus on wrestling, and some of the most legendary moments in history comes down to certain moments inside the ring. But you’re going to find just as many moments not involving a single wrestling move that get attention. The forementioned NWO forming, Vince as the Higher Power, ANYTHING by Bray Wyatt lately, only God knows how many amazing Rock and Austin promos…

    But you have to have a balance between the two to work. That’s why Russo is universally hated, because he just wouldn’t let wrestling be wrestling, no, he HAD to let the storylines take over.

    So yeah. WWE is big not just because of wrestling alone, but it’s part of the formula.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    I don’t understand why people can’t comprehend this.

    ted Reply:

    “I don’t understand why people can’t comprehend this.”

    Buying into McMahon propaganda I Think.

    No matter how hard Vince tries to market himself as a entertainment mogul. He’s a wrestling promoter and the wwe is a wrestling company. That’s all it will ever be. Truthfully ever time he tried to get away from it. It has been disastrous, XFL anyone.

    Don’t be ashamed to be a wrestling fan. That’s what we watch wrestling matches. If they stopped having them would you watch?

    klunderbunker Reply:

    I’m not ashamed at all to be a wrestling fan. What I’ve been trying to explain to you for days now is that there’s a lot more to wrestling than getting in a ring and doing moves to each other.

    Heyo Reply:

    Well…when Vince was compared to some legendary boxing promoter in the 80s, he actually went out and said he was like the Walt Disney of wrestling.

    ted Reply:

    That’s because he truly believes he’s above wrestling. He believes it’s a dirty word and has/is tried desperately to distant himself from it. No matter what he does or will do. He will be remembered as a wrestler promoter. Which is a great thing, though he will hate it.

    There might be more to it than that. But do you think the wwe’s core audience between 6-12 care? Of course not they just want to see things that happen on raw/smackdown etc.

    Now once again you can care about the numbers and figures. That’s perfectly fine. But to use those numbers to justify something that is boring or stupid. Is silly as one can’t really explain the other in terms of entertainment.

    For example If I said to you “How was avatar the film ? ” and your reply was “It made 2 billion plus dollars and is the highest grossing film ever” That doesn’t really answer if it’s good or worth watching.

  16. klunderbunker says:

    This brings me back to an explanation I’ve had to give people about a thousand times over the years. I know what’s good business for WWE, but it doesn’t always mean it’s what I like best. For example, Cena doing his thing is good for WWE, even if I don’t always care for it.

    As for the Avatar question, yeah it was indeed successful. I liked it and would recommend it, but that has nothing to do with its business. I’d recommend WWE to people because it has good stories capped off by great athleticism in the ring. I’m not going to boo or cheer a wrestler because of how well they do business. I understand why WWE does things the way they do, even if I don’t like them at times.

    Does that make sense? Not trying to sound patronizing with that question.

    ted Reply:

    You don’t’ think it’s kind of arrogant to say you know what’s best?

    I understand what your saying but don’t you understand in the Rock, Cena, sequel match. You did say it did well financially. As some sort of explanation as to why the match was terrible. You were trying to equate business to entertainment. True Both are necessary but one does not explain the other. I just want you understand you can’t use numbers to explain match quality. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to meet you half way.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    Me? Arrogant? Tell me it’s not so!

    Numbers don’t explain match quality and I haven’t been trying to explain that they are. Numbers trump quality though, at least in WWE’s eyes.

    Heyo Reply:

    Yeah, sadly that’s what’s going to happen, where numbers actually decide booking. Remember when WCW’s Bash at the Beach 1998 had a GREAT buyrate, the only one I know that came close to Starrcade 97, based on Hogan/Rodman vs. DDP/Malone?

    Their response? Deciding it was a good idea to sign Jay Leno to the main event of Hog Wild that same year. It didn’t matter if people thought that Bash main event was awful, all they looked at was the buy rate and how it was fueled by Rodman and Malone being there.

    ted Reply:

    Maybe in wwe eyes but not in the fans.

    Yes those matches and story lines were terrible. Do you look back fondly on Malone or Leno? The numbers it drew were irreverent it was still awful.

    Also I’m not sure you should be happy about being arrogant.

    klunderbunker Reply:

    I certainly don’t look back on them fondly, but WCW did a few months later. Those are two different perspectives. I’m not saying that I agree with everything WWE does as a lot of it gets on my nerves but often times I get why they’re doing it.

    Eh I’m used to it.