Has the WWE gotten old...or have we?

Vin Ghostal · Post by **Vin Ghostal** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:33 pm

According to recent Nielsen reports, the cherished 18-34 year old viewers which most television producers and advertisers covet has, as far as the WWE is concerned, started to get a little long in the tooth. Nielsen claims that the average 2004 WWE viewer is 27-31 years old, rather than the 19-24 year olds that made up the bulk of their viewership in 1998, the peak of their ratings boom. What does this mean? Likely, that the WWE has failed to add new fans, that many of the fans that were younger during the WWE's boom period have jumped ship, and that those left are older than the fans that WWE courts and would like to be drawing. How do you guys, as fans, approach these numbers?

Baxter · Post by **Baxter** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:34 pm

I'm 29, (really old), and I've been watching since Macho Man and Hogan wrestled back on the Saturday Night Main event with James "Buster" Douglas as the special enforcer.

So in 1998 I was....(carry the one) 23.

Wow I am average

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:45 pm

WWE blew the 2002 RVD push who is/was the wrestler who had most in common with the young generation.
Whatever you say about Randy Orton he ain't got much in common and is in fact far more old style in character than the company should be pushing.Randy will never draw young wrestlers.

Oh and HHH. Why is boring old HHH the centre peice of RAW? Nothing to do with drawing new crouds because he doesn't. Since DX he was nbever cool and was lucky to be the biggest heel left in late '99 for Foley to get over and to hold the belt so mega over Rock's win would be big. He still needed Steph or Chyna to be over in a big way through out the 'golden era' of his career.

WWE needs a really big change and fresh start. 97/98 worked because just about every bit of the old (Hogan, Hart, Hash, HBK) were gone and Austin/Rock etc were new fresh and able to make the mainevent theirs without crusty old ****e weighing them down.

A similar "Out with the old and in with the new" approach is needed.

Vin Ghostal · Post by **Vin Ghostal** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:10 pm

For the most part, that's happened. Look at the guys who have appeared in WWE since 2002 but have yet disappared:

Hulk Hogan
Scott Hall
Kevin Nash
Mick Foley
The Rock
Steve Austin
Goldberg
Scott Steiner
...and Brock Lesnar

With the exception of Brock, the out with the old thing has pretty much taken place. There's plenty of room at the top. The only legitimate veteran stars still around are Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, and Eddie Guerrero. Kurt Angle and The Big Show have stepped up since their respective debuts in 1999 to become big stars, as have Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. It's easy to forget that all these guys have only been in the WWE 4-5 years. In a way, they're still new blood. To me, the WWE's in a transition period right now, the same way they were in 1992-1996, between Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. I'm not saying Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels didn't carry the ball well, but the rest of the card during that period was fairly weak. The WWE just needs to hang on...

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:16 pm

Originally posted by Vin Ghostal
To me, the WWE's in a transition period right now, the same way they were in 1992-1996, between Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. I'm not saying Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels didn't carry the ball well, but the rest of the card during that period was fairly weak. The WWE just needs to hang on...

I think not. WWE were fortuant that WCW were collecting every superstar they ever had so they ahd no choice. It's clear that MacMahon was a blind eye to see were old stars are actually hurtful to business. Even now the roumours are that Austin, Hogan etc will get a special role at Wrestlemania 21.

Back in 97 all oldies were cleared out and even their replacements were soon to leave. No concidence ratings sored after the WWE put Austin et al in the spot light in 97/98 there were absolutly no superstars from before '96.

Look at 2001/2002. It was when the 'old' superstars returned after the attitude era and became centre peice over the 'newer' ones is where the problem of rating declining began. No concidence that while HHH has been the spotlight of RAW the ratings have constantly declined.

Cyberstrike nTo · Post by **Cyberstrike nTo** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:55 pm

I think the problem isn't the age of the talent it's how the shows
are booked and written.

Look back at the attitude era and it was the war between Austin
and Vince McMahon that got people to watch, basically a simple
good guy (Austin) vs bad guy (Vince) but what made it so great was you couldn't wait to see what Vince would do and how Austin
would get out of it, and what he would do to get back at Vince for screwing him over. The storyline worked because everybody who
watched could relate or understand why Austin would beat up his
boss and come on everybody who has every worked all wanted to beat the **** out the boss.

Austin's character was an underdog. That's what they need now a
new underdog.

Sixswitch · Post by **Sixswitch** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:09 pm

No they don't, because that would be simply rehashing an old storyline. Which is never a good thing.

-Ss

Bombshell · Post by **Bombshell** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:34 pm

Originally posted by Sixswitch
that would be simply rehashing an old storyline. Which is never a good thing.

Yeah. It's not like they haven't been doing that enough already.

Waitasec...

Gesani · Post by **Gesani** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:16 am

Theres the problem.. eveyone has already seen all the stories!!

A long time ago iused to wacth the WWF and the story was good. But as soon as it became the WWE and "Merged" with WCW it went down hill fast.. and i lost all interst in it.

Tempest · Post by **Tempest** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:29 am

Originally posted by Gesani
Theres the problem.. eveyone has already seen all the stories!!

A long time ago iused to wacth the WWF and the story was good. But as soon as it became the WWE and "Merged" with WCW it went down hill fast.. and i lost all interst in it.

BING!

IMO that last GREATEST Fued was WWF Vs ECW and WCW. That was perhaps one of the greatest thinsg ever, yet most people didn't like it ... dunno why.

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:12 pm

The problem with the WWE vs WCW vs ECW storylines was simple.

The competition was squashed for the most part. The only guys that jumped ship before that were being rewarded were the Dudley's *Whom WWE got to stop ECW's new TV show* and of course Benoit, Eddie, Saturn *well if you want to call Moppy a push* and Malenko. But for the most part the former stars well kinda got their tails handed to them by the WWE.

Also, I am still a big fan of the classics, I see nothing wrong with Hogan and Austin being at WM 21. In fact I am looking forward to it, remember those are the two men that helped to make wrestling. I just hope Bret and others can be there as well. It would be like seeing Greg Valentine, Superstar Billy Graham, Jesse and the Brain at WM 20 for me.

I think what WWE needs to do is fairly simple. Grab some new talent which they are doing slowly but surely. CCC, Simon Dean and Heinreich *I know I know he sucks or whatever* is a start. Also bringing talented wrestlers like Sheldon Benjemon *pardon my misspelling it's early and I have a headache for some reason* is another great idea.

If I were Vince this is what I would do, first say **** HHH. Don't care that your married to my kid your pompus attitude is hurting us more than I could have. Get him out of the main event picture and get these 6 guys into the world title picture: Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Keep Orton, Shawn Micheals, Ric Flair *Barriing he stays heel.* and Edge *as new heel blood*. I think if they worked the story right they could make a very kick ass storyline leading up to Wrestlemania 21 and I think the best main event they could do would be Micheals vs Someone. Now I realise someone is going to say Flair is old or Micheals can be as bad as HHH etc. But let me explain my logic.

Those 6 guys are the hottest tickets on Raw and have been for years. I think trying to find a story arc that uses them would gather first old school fans with flair, the inbetweeners with Micheals and Benoit, and new school as well Edge and Orton.

Anyway I am rambling.... me stop talking now.

Thats just my thoughts though.

Xille · Post by **Xille** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:23 pm

Originally posted by Ravage
If I were Vince this is what I would do, first say **** HHH. Don't care that your married to my kid your pompus attitude is hurting us more than I could have. Get him out of the main event picture

Do you really think Vince realizes this, though? Or is he so blinded by his ego and arrogance that he thinks he cannot fail?

I'm pretty sure that's going to be the case in this situation.

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:44 am

I'd have to say ego. Or maybe he's whipped by his daughter who knows.

Extreme_Kup · Post by **Extreme_Kup** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:45 am

well blood is thicker than water, so its in the family thats why he doesnt want to end Triple H's dominance.

Its just that simple I guess. Unlike the AWA, unlike Gange, it aint ALL about Vince's ego that blinds him. Part of it is his ego, part of it is his family. I mean c'mon, if Bill Watts can push his son during his booker status in WCW and f*** up that dropkick, Vince could get away with Triple H holding down talent. But sad thing is, I think that would be WWE's downfall. If Vince doesnt realize what the others say(like patterson...I wonder if he was joined by Lombardi in his departure) about Triple H being pushed too much, WWE is done with.

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:02 am

Yeah, too much Triple H. His character's obnoxious, and he has a character that doesn't work, except in a group He's always playing the stereotype bully, which gets really old.

When I do watch it (I'm usually busy most thursday nights and I don't have cable), I'm sick of it being HHH and his cronies beating up on good guy of the week.