The Steel Cage

I think that it is ok to complain, it really is. The problem is that a lot of these people (you dont fall into this relm at all) is that they seem to have taken the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons and are constantly proclaiming something as the "Worst episode ever" over and over again. To use your hamburger analogy, if I went into an expensive place to eat, and got served a McDonalds burger, and then was told that my complaining was all in my head, and nothing was wrong, I don't think that I would be coming back to that particular place. So why if time after time after time after time after time of being disappointed by the WWE do these people continue to return? You want something to change, stop watching Raw, SD, ECW, or ordering the PPVs. Stop going to events, stop buying stuff. Nothing will change if you just keep watching, and just keep bitching. By no means am I saying that everything that the WWE is doing is right, far from it, but if you want change, complaining isnt the way to go. Complain with your wallet, that is the only thing corporate America seems to grasp.

Oh and FWIW, I failed to see what Hassan did to Taker way back when as a "terrorist attack simulated"...but thats just me

I couldn't have said it better myself. Being a fan of wrestling is a lot different than being a fan of other sports as there really aren't stats to back up your arguments. It's also different from other forms of entertainment because it's (supposedly) competition based.

If you ask me, that makes it incredibly hard to discuss without devolving into "my opinion is better than yours" arguments.

Amen!

Thats exactly my point...and I am glad you brought up the Iraq War analogy. Thats the perfect way to explain this subject. I am a WWE fan, I want my show to succeed. I was with it as a fan in the days of Hulkamania, then I stuck with it during the cartoon era "New generation" of Hart,Razor,Diesel and TL Hopper (ok maybe not for him) and then I was with it for the Attitude era when most of my friends all of a sudden were into wrestling again and I am still with it now because I love pro wrestling. It is sometimes embarrassing to admit it, but I am a wrestling fan dammit! I marked out for John Cena's Rumble return, I got a little misty eyed when Flair was beat by HBK at Mania and I love a great 4 star match with a hot crowd like everyone else. My only criticism is the criticism of being critical. If the NY Knicks blow people chant it at the Garden and eventually the coach is gone. If the President sucks people go out and vote for someone new in November that they hope can change the country for the better. On a lesser scale I stick with wrestling in hopes that it will change...for the better. I love watching a live wrestling show. I have not ordered a ppv though since 2000 and I have not attended a live show since 2003. I do not hate Vince McMahon...he is a genius...look at this empire he built off of pro wrestling, its insanity when you look at WrestleMania weekend has become. I also do not believe Matt Hardy and CM Punk should main event WrestleMania 25...I do think that guys like those two and a few others should be treated better though for future use. If you keep jobbing a guy or making him look weak in programs, people will eventually lose interest in the guy or think of him as a lesser character in a feud. I do not think that Kennedy deserves a world title push right now...he is still too green in my opinion and well he failed a drug test a few months ago...so I do not think he deserves that spot. I do think that HBK,HHH,Taker etc all deserve there spots because of years and years of hard work,dedication and love for the business. All I stated was its time to get some new blood into the mix. But again Alfonso....great blog and remember wwe isn't always right.

The ratings being down, to me, is odd when you consider that WWE is doing really well at getting people to PAY for their product.

The Rumble and NWO buyrates in 2008 were way up over the 2007 versions of those events, WM 24 was the second most bought wrestling PPV in history (behind WM 23), the vast majority of the TV tapings in 2008 have been sell outs or close to it (RAW, on Memorial Day, sold out in advance with over 15,000 people), and house show business has seen worse days in the past. Plus, WWE set their all-time revenue record in 2007 ($485,000,000), and the first quarter of 2008 was the most successful quarter in WWE history for total revenue.

You would think that people might still watch on TV but definitely would not spend money on the product if they believed the shows have become substandard.

Survivor Series 2007 was down a little from 2006.
Rumble 08 was 10% higher in buy rates than 07.
WrestleMania 24 did not do better buys than 23.

WrestleMania XXIV generated approximately 1.1 million pay-per-view buys, amounting to $23.8 million in pay-per-view revenue.WrestleMania 23 generated approximately 1.2 million buys and $24.6 million in pay-per-view revenue.

WWE has done a great job pushing other things like their .com,dvds and international tours to make up for lower attendance and lower buy rates on the lesser ppvs.

OK...wow.

First of all, the last few weeks hasn't really been 'same old, same old'. We've had Regal do some pretty original things. The dynamic of Cena being the top face and being booed, and the company fully embracing it, for the last few years is something different. A guy saying he is going to give away a million bucks is something different. All the other stuff, is what wrestling has, and what wrestling always will be. We will always have babyfaces, heels, screwy finishes, ridiculous gimmicks, similar gimmicks, etc etc etc. The product overall now is not really any different to what it always has been, just the various characters fulfilling the roles are different. There is no Rock, but there is a Cena. There isn't a revolving factory machine where the company can just easily replace their lost stars though.

Sometimes I will watch Raw, or any program and think, 'well that wasn't that great' but there's a difference between doing that, and going 'TERRIBLE BOOKING! AWFUL DECISION! WHY THE HELL DID THEY DO THAT!?' The two Raws following Flair's send off I'd say were quite crappy from an entertainment point of view, but that's just my opinion. I won't then go making out that they should have done this or that, because there are obviously good reasons why they chose the show format that they did. Saying that everyone is negative because it's cool was wrong, and I apologise, but damn, the internet is overwhelmingly negative. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has a 'right' to one, but just because they have a right, it doesn't mean that it would have been any better for the company, only better for that particular person. I could say I want Kennedy main eventing right now, and that's my right. Is it what the company should be doing? No! They have to please the people where the majority of the money will be coming from. If those people want their Cena, they are going to get it for as long as they do.

If you've never been in the business, you won't know anything about the type of the considerations they have to make in order to do the best for their company. That's just the way it is. If you don't like it, don't watch. It's fine to moan, but it's all pointless in the end. You could be moaning about the million dollar giveaway, while someone else is moaning that Kennedy isn't main eventing yet, someone else is moaning that HBK hasn't turned heel, and someone else is moaning that Cena and Batista can't wrestle. Someone else is moaning that they are bored of HHH, someone else is moaning that JBL is boring, while someone else is saying how much they think he is a great heel etc etc etc. Everyone will have a different opinion on almost everything to do with the product, so what does moaning acheive? They listen to the fans in terms of what type of product to put on, but in terms of what they are actually going to do, they know best. They can't possibly cater to everyone. If they had done something different that Alfonso would have loved, there could have been another blogger in another part of the country that hated it, and would wish they would do something like give away money.

What does all of it acheive? For every person on the internet that hated Hornswoggle as Vince's son and think it could have been used to elevate CM Punk, there will be a little person or five in the crowd that thinks it's the funniest thing they have ever seen. They cannot possibly cater to everyone. They only go by what makes them money, and they know what makes them money. If something doesn't work out, they change it quickly.

I'd say the WWE writers do know best. It's why they are where they are. People may not think that something in particular entertains them, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't entertain a hell of a lot of other people. That's always the get out clause when people complain. 'Well I've watched wrestling and I know what I like', well good for you. Doesn't mean that you could write something that millions of other people would tune into every week though, which is what the company always tries to do. I absolutely loved the first 3 series of GTA. I thought the 4th one sucked. I know what I like from my GTA and thought I could have done something that I would have liked more. Doesn't mean that Rockstar came out with a poor game though, because millions of people loved it. My opinion was valid, but it was also pointless. There's reasons they took a turn for more realism in that game than in previous ones, just like there's a reason for everything the company does when it comes to producing a wrestling show.

wweisright...I agree with some points and disagree with others. Ill kep it simple since people are probably tired of us going back and forth with long postings.

Agree:

Opinions are just that...opinions. It doesn't make you a mark if you love everything wwe does or bitter if you hate it all. Its an opinion and it is also nice to have one. If you go through life without strong opinions on things you like then you have no passion. So yes wwe can not please every person. Millions of people will have millions of opinions. But when thousands and even millions stop tuning in, well then you need to realize things are not working or what you are putting out there is not what fans want to see.

Disagree:

"I'd say the wwe writers do know best. It's why they are where they are." Just because you are working at a certain job does not mean "you know best". People get hired for a plethera of reasons and from what I have read many of the writers were not hired for their wrestling knowledge...but because they worked in Hollywood.

I do still believe they know best. An investment banker is going to know more than me about the world of finance, no matter how much I could protest. That's the way it is. Chefs will know more than me about cooking. Sport's coaches will know more than me about their sport. Wrestling writers/bookers will know more than me about how they need to produce their product. Ratings are down right across the wrestling 'world'. A really good episode will be followed by a drop in ratings the next week, it's a representation of societies' overall interest, not the actual quality. You'll have many people say TNA is better now than the WWE, but even their ratings are going down. What does that mean?

Hollywood writers are hired because they know how to piece together dialogue, construct scenes and develop character, etc etc. They know how to write. Wrestling fans don't. I'm sure we get some fantastic ideas from fans, but they may not translate well to the screen, be thought out properly, or look coherent when spoken.

I'm sure when the Billy + Chuck wedding was going on there were many, many fans saying how awful it was, but I'm sure there were reasons for it, just like there are reasons for what they are doing now.

"Survivor Series 2007 was down a little from 2006.
Rumble 08 was 10% higher in buy rates than 07.
WrestleMania 24 did not do better buys than 23"

No one said WM 24 did more than 23. It did slightly less and is still the second most bought wrestling PPV ever. You also did not mention the large increase in No Way Out's buyrate from '07 to '08.

"WWE has done a great job pushing other things like their .com,dvds and international tours to make up for lower attendance and lower buy rates on the lesser ppvs."

Attendance is actually pretty good. Not just internationally, either.

It's not a given a chef knows more about cooking. there's probably housewives( husbands) out there that know as much or more about cooking, maybe the chef knows more about presentation? still the fans know what they like. I been to WWE shows headlined by the warrior, hogan, savage, bret, michaels,rock, stone cold, brock, taker. I would love to be entertained without the constant reminder I'm being entertained, and that's what the WWE now does. It's true this it not by far the lowest point in WWE history, but it's sinking fast like most other forms of entertainment they have no idea whats next it seems everything has been done. When they moved from wrestling to sports entertainment they now more directly compete with movies, music tours, internet, ect. for the entertainment value. for the most part they have been on the forefront, but i can't help but think they've lost something for the sake of the show. Last time WWE came here was the first time I had not gone to a show since 1989, last july I went to a shop headlined by Cena vs Orton (Cena was feuding with Khali at the time so I Knew Randy was next up) and it just didn't have the Magic of the late 80's early 90's, the party atmostphere of the attitude era, or sheer excitement of early 2000's. My dollars won't really hurt Vince, but I can't be alone feeling this way am I?

No, you're not alone, but just remember, your opinion is worthless because you've never written for WWE, therefore you couldn't possibly know what you're talking about. Sheesh.

"No, you're not alone, but just remember, your opinion is worthless because you've never written for WWE, therefore you couldn't possibly know what you're talking about. Sheesh."

Opinion is worthless is kind of true...obviously WWE is not knocking on your door or emailing you asking you to book shows. But they do care about fan reaction and also send out questionnaires from time to time asking fans what they like or dislike about shows. Again no one is saying that there opinion is the end all and be all. It is just fans venting and giving opinions. Just because you never wrote for WWE does not mean you can not have an eye for the business. I understand that if you did work for WWE then you know more than regular people just typing away online with suggestions. Saying someone couldn't possibly know what they are talking about is a bit rough and one sided.

...and c1 I agree and forgot to mention No Way Out's 59% increase from the previous year. I mean WWE did pull out a double Elimination Chamber, which worked because people ate it up more than a HBK/Cena-vs-Taker/Batista main event.

As for attendance...I did not say attendance was bad...it is just lower than the attitude era. But with ticket prices rising and international tours being more focused on more than ever before, the WWE has figured out how to keep that going strong.

Since Alfonso touched on it in his post, let me echo my appreciation for the current HBK-Jericho-Batista storyline. If the Creative team put together most stories like this I think some of us would be more satisfied. Let's look at WHY the angle works as I think it reveals some of what is good about WWE.

First it works from a performance standpoint. Michaels are Jericho are in my opinion two of the best top name workers of the last two decades. They can work different styles of matches and they almost always make the other guy in the match look good. Batista's work has been very good of late, in fact I think he's one of the most improved big talents in the last few years and ever since returning from his injury last year he's been sharp most times. His matches with Taker have been great as well, and as anyone who has watched the evolution-pardon the pun- of wrestling over time can tell you face versus face feuds are the hardest things to sell. Which is another reason the current story has been enjoyable.

Second it has great psychology. This is a story after all and it takes something that the audience can connect to, to make a great story. Jericho's promos about Michael's history (even citing the overused Montreal Screwjob which gets tiring otherwise) hits a perfect note. Batista's anger first in defense of Flair, then at Michaels for his actions are believable from a character standpoint. Meanwhile all three have carried their storylines with a great amount of talent.

The third aspect, sort of ties into the second. History.
The one thing that is frustrating for me is the way many times our intelligence is insulted. Writers forget history of the players, their past feuds, or WORSE, they don't care we might care about it. Michaels citing the 'blood on his hands' and his reference to not trusting Jericho (a reference to their past feuds). Having Batista return to that looming, brooding figure that haunted HHH during that turn...it all feeds back to our collective memories.

Now certainly, WWE has to cater to new fans as well. Fans unfamiliar with such past stories, but what a great way to highlight some of their past great periods with flashbacks and history lessons.

Also it's impossible to craft such complex storylines for everyone up and down the roster, and I don't think those of us who have been critical of late are asking for that. But what we are asking for is effort. And as much as I enjoy the work of HHH, Orton, Taker, Edge etc etc (and I do very much), it doesn't seem to take Creative any effort to throw the same main events at us 4 straight pay-per-views, or give us three brands with three heel managers.

I hope Vince and his writers have something going with money giveaway, I hope a draft infuses a freshness, but I'm afraid that the low ratings and the fact that two players getting the push of their careers blow 60 day suspensions won't encourage Vince to take a lot of risks.

And for the record, to see all criticism as 'piling on, or being cool' is a childish mentality. It's the way a child sees constructive criticism from a parent. "they don't like this, they're being mean".

Instead, adults see criticism as a gesture of love. "we see you doing this and it isn't good, and we want you to succeed".

It works in life, politics, and yes, even in wrestling.

PPV Buys are doing well despite slumping ratings because of international buys. If you look only at the domestic buy-rates they have not improved, but gone down.

"but I'm afraid that the low ratings and the fact that two players getting the push of their careers blow 60 day suspensions won't encourage Vince to take a lot of risks"

I don't want to see him take a lot of risks either... but I do want him to take some.

High risk can, and often does, equal high reward. Sure, high risk leaves you with the possibility of crashing and burning - but this is a very strong company financially - it can afford to take more risks than it currently is. One example - a title shot for somebody other than the usual suspects... if it doesn't pay off immediately, at least you know where you stand.

On the other hand - Vince has taken one big risk by aiming at a younger demographic. His punt is that by aiming at impressionable youngsters (8-15 years), he forms new fans - much as he did in the Hulk era - however, he has to be careful that in trying to appeal to younger fans, he doesn't alienate us older fans (21- whatever). Much as we might not like the way the WWE is marketing itself at the moment - it would be worse if they weren't aiming it at the kids at all, because then a whole generation would be skipped, and pro wrestling would ultimately suffer.

I'm a fan of the business, I will never completely tune out, but I do want more bang for my buck than I am currently getting from the WWE. The solution - competition. Competition equals pressure to perform - and then we're getting somewhere.

I don't have a problem with people who want to discuss and dissect pro wrestling - sports analysts who never played sports do it all the time. My problem is when fans act like experts and watch only to criticize. Someone gave the earlier analogy about going to a steakhouse and eating McDonalds steak, only to be told its "all in the head"....and continuously eating at the steakhouse, just to moan about it.

I think the worst problem, in my opinion, is when the "fans" discuss the "backstage gossip" which is ALWAYS hearsay, even when its "MELTZER." Thats like reporting TMZ like it's Reuters.

The reason why so many people criticize all the time is because most people don't have the patience to wait something out, so they criticize it right away.

Look at some of things that have happened in the past few years.

1) Eugene debuts, people complain. But he turned into a pretty popular character for a while and was booked in a few top angles.

2) There is a mock Trump VS Rosie match with impersonators. People complain, but it is turned into one of top Wrestlemania matches with Lashley vs Umaga.

3) People complain it's always the same faces in the main event. But when the WWE tries to add someone different (Mark Henry, Khali, etc.), people complain (or wrestlers such as Regal, Kennedy and Jeff Hardy screw themselves over).

4) If they bring a guy in slowly, such as Kozlov, by having them beat jobbers, people complain. If they are forced down our throats with immediate wins (such as The Rock or Cody Rhodes originally), people complain.

You get the idea.

I'm sure if it were to happen today, people would complain about Hogan slamming Andre at Wrestlemania III.

It's easier to criticize than praise.

Wrestling as a whole was booked for most of the 20th century without "Hollywood writers", so the idea that they know best is crap. They might know best for Will & Grace, but they obviously have a hard time coming up with good ideas for wrestling storylines and characters.

The whole idea of "criticizing the critics" is interesting. Is there any other form of entertainment where this happens? When people express their opinions about something like the new Indiana Jones movie, they don't immediately have people shouting them down and telling them they don't know what they're talking about, they've never worked in film, etc. So why are wrestling fans held to those standards?

It is not easier to criticize than praise...they are equal. It can be more fun to bash than praise because wrestling fans I believe have become jaded. The attitude era spoiled a lot of fans and we went from the days of jobber matches on Saturday and Sundays with the 4 ppvs and occasionaly SNME matches to 5 hours a week of top matches with 12-15 ppvs a year and the occasional SNME. So I think fans are smarter and demand more from their product, especially when there are so many choices on tv today. As for your examples:

1) Eugene debuts, people complain. But he turned into a pretty popular character for a while and was booked in a few top angles.

Eugene was complained about by a few fans, but was largely accepted by fans. Watch SummerSlam with Eugene vs HHH. He then had the rug pulled out from under him by the WWE. As usual when someone gets heat they hit the brakes and slow them down or kill the heat they once had. Look at RVD,Punk,Tazz,Booker T and others...all debuted strong then were buried or put in a lower role and eventually some of them crawled back up to a top spot for a little while.

2) There is a mock Trump VS Rosie match with impersonators. People complain, but it is turned into one of top Wrestlemania matches with Lashley vs Umaga.

If thats the best creative can come up with to promote the top match of the year for the company that sums up why creative isn't very creative at all.

3) People complain it's always the same faces in the main event. But when the WWE tries to add someone different (Mark Henry, Khali, etc.), people complain (or wrestlers such as Regal, Kennedy and Jeff Hardy screw themselves over).

They tried to add Mark Henry...you know the guy they signed in 1996 and have used over and over again after he comes back from his injuries. You know the same guy that has no heat but because he is "strong" they push him. Watch his match with Batista or Taker and tell me he deserves a top guy push. I think his best work was Sexual Chocolate because he was fun and bad ass at the same time. As for Khali...if you think adding Khali is a good idea then well...there is indeed a Khali fan out there after all! Congrats! The guys that screwed themselves over were all accepted by the fans because fans know a good worker when they see one. Jeff Hardy is so over with the fans and has such a marketable character that he should one day (if he doesn't screw up) be the WWE Champion. But I feel differently about Hardy since his last "mistake". At the Rumble I thought he would have made a great champion...even if it was for one month and he lost it back to Orton. But now I do not think he should be the champion, simply because that would be a disaster for WWE if he was fired because of strike 3 and was their top guy. I like Kennedy, but I think he still needs another year or more before getting that spot. He is good on the mic but comes off green sometimes. He needs to prove himself to WWE that he, like Hardy, will not mess up again.

4) If they bring a guy in slowly, such as Kozlov, by having them beat jobbers, people complain. If they are forced down our throats with immediate wins (such as The Rock or Cody Rhodes originally), people complain.

Bringing in a guy slowly with vignettes and jobber matches is always a good idea in my opinion. You get people to connect hopefully with the wrestler's character before he eventually gets into a ring and fights. I mean sorry but most WWE fans look for a character over work rate these days. If the guy is funny or crazy or evil and good on the mic, he will get more crowd reaction then say a guy who is a great amateur wrestler. Kozlov I think is a great example of what WWE does quite often and thats start slowly...and then well...keeps going slowly...for months! They did it with Colin Delaney on ECW. They had a great under dog character and for weeks...and then months he was fighting for an ECW contract. It got so repetitive. I mean how many times can you do the same thing...they did it with Snitsky when he returned on ECW. I do not like hot shot angles...unless they are really shocking...but I also hate when they do the 8 week angle of "this new guy beats another jobber" angle. Also Kozlov needs a manager...it would help him out a lot.

Again like I stated earlier...most of these views above are opinions...agree...disagree...its just wrestling...I am just stating what I think, and from reading the net, a lot of others think is wrong with WWE today.

Bring back managers like Jimmy Hart,Slick Bobby Heenan!
Make the IC,US and Tag Titles mean something!
Bring back Tag Team wrestling as a serious part of the show!

Ok back to work and more coffee

"It's easier to criticize than praise."

Not to beat a dead horse, but the point is to criticize the bad stuff and praise the good. And there are flaws in a lot of the examples you pointed out. I may give you the Eugene example, even though I was never a fan of the character.

And it doesn't matter what the awful Rosie-Trump angle led up to. That segment sucked, and it should be judged on its own merits. You don't praise a terrible movie because the sequel was better.

And with all due respect to Khali and Mark Henry, who I am sure try their best, the reason fans don't get behind their main event pushes is that they are terrible, terrible wrestlers.

I've got no problem with WWE's handling of Koslov or Rhodes so far.

And that's another thing. People moaning about the 'big guy' wrestlers. These are absolutely vital to the process. Very few people like Snitsky, but he has an important role to play. Kennedy beating him a few weeks ago after losing in the ECW match gave him more credibility than beating other mid carders would have, because Snitsky has that credibility.

People complain about everything. They complained about Cena. Everyone was sure he couldn't wrestle, and that Vince was an idiot for 'shoving him down our throats' but they don't really have a clue how a match is put together if that is the case. Cena is a fantastic wrestler, and plays his role to perfection, but the internet know it alls believe they are right.

People always say 'I know what I like' and act like it means what they suggest would have fulfilled the companies' objectives any better. What they suggest doesn't have to just be better for them, it has to be better for everyone. So when there's a segment that some people say sucked, the improvement has to not only be better for them, but also get over what the company wanted to do as well as being just as good. I like making money, but I know that just because it's what I like doing, it doesn't mean that I know more than investment bankers. I like good video games, doesn't mean that I what my improvements are would be any better than what came out. I could suggest a bunch of improvements that would make my GTA4 experience better, but they have pretty much already been considered by the makers, and the careful decision was taken to go the way they did, because they know best.

Everything is done for a reason. Everything is carefully considered., and they've chosen to do what they did for a number of reasons. These are people at the very top of their industry. It would be like me telling the CEO of Barclay's where he should invest his money. I mean he's made some losses, surely I can improve it? It would be like me walking into my first lecture in university and telling the lecturer what's what, just because I done reasonably well at school. You wouldn't do that, because it's ludicrous. Teachers know more for a reason, and so do people at the top of their respective industries. This isn't a random backyard indie fed, this is the top, with lots of knowledgable people all weighing in to make the company as successful as possible.

And that's another thing. People moaning about the 'big guy' wrestlers. These are absolutely vital to the process. Very few people like Snitsky, but he has an important role to play. Kennedy beating him a few weeks ago after losing in the ECW match gave him more credibility than beating other mid carders would have, because Snitsky has that credibility.

People complain about everything. They complained about Cena. Everyone was sure he couldn't wrestle, and that Vince was an idiot for 'shoving him down our throats' but they don't really have a clue how a match is put together if that is the case. Cena is a fantastic wrestler, and plays his role to perfection, but the internet know it alls believe they are right.

People always say 'I know what I like' and act like it means what they suggest would have fulfilled the companies' objectives any better. What they suggest doesn't have to just be better for them, it has to be better for everyone. So when there's a segment that some people say sucked, the improvement has to not only be better for them, but also get over what the company wanted to do as well as being just as good. I like making money, but I know that just because it's what I like doing, it doesn't mean that I know more than investment bankers. I like good video games, doesn't mean that I what my improvements are would be any better than what came out. I could suggest a bunch of improvements that would make my GTA4 experience better, but they have pretty much already been considered by the makers, and the careful decision was taken to go the way they did, because they know best.

Everything is done for a reason. Everything is carefully considered., and they've chosen to do what they did for a number of reasons. These are people at the very top of their industry. It would be like me telling the CEO of Barclay's where he should invest his money. I mean he's made some losses, surely I can improve it? It would be like me walking into my first lecture in university and telling the lecturer what's what, just because I done reasonably well at school. You wouldn't do that, because it's ludicrous. Teachers know more for a reason, and so do people at the top of their respective industries. This isn't a random backyard indie fed, this is the top, with lots of knowledgable people all weighing in to make the company as successful as possible.

wweisright....has wwe ever been wrong? if so give me some examples?

The problem is people complain on site's like this one but never go to wwe.com to complain there. The WWE has no idea what people do or don't like because people don't tell them.

Define wrong?

It's so subjective. I'm sure isolated decisions that are taken that are deemed to be wrong get taken care of pretty quickly. I'll go back to bringing necrophilia into a storyline. That was wrong, because it turned a lot of people off, just down to that, and probably didn't gain any new viewers in the process. I'm sure the company gets other things wrong, but the beauty of being at the top of the industry is that you see something that is or isn't working how you need it to straight away. Then you rectify it and move on. I'd say that there isn't so consistent decision that's constantly taken that's wrong, for the progression of the business, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Be it the use of people who lack 'workrate' as main eventers, be it the method in which they create new main eventers and the length of time it takes, be it the consistent use of big men, etc etc, they are all decisions consistently taken because that is what benefits the company. And there are reasons and considerations taken when the company decides what is right for them, and those reasons are ones that fans on the outside don't know about.

People definitely email wwe.com, but do you think they read every email or listen to every email? But they definitely get complaints at their site. Also fans reactions at shows like "boring" or no reaction is a way to complain. Another way to complain is to tune out...like fans have been doing on Mondays...like this past week.

This past Monday fans decided to skip Raw and that resulted in a 2.9 rating. Fans are obviously tuning out and are not happy with what WWE is giving them. Also don't say it was because of Memorial day because that rating Monday was one of the lowest since 1997 and they have pulled in regular ratings for most Memorial days in the past years.

Here are the Memorial Day Raw ratings and the ratings the week before and week after.

2008: 3.2......2.9
2007: 3.2......3.7/3.8
2006: 3.8......3.7/4.0
2005: 3.8......3.6/3.7
2004: 3.2......3.5/3.4
2003: 3.7......3.6/3.9

People SHOULD complain about Cena. And the fact that he was and still is shoved down people's throats is a perfect example of WWE being dead wrong in their creative choices.

Cena obviously doesn't play his role "to perfection"; he's supposed to be a brawler, and his punches look terrible (but don't listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about). He's booked to be the company's top babyface, and he's booed everywhere he goes. That's far from perfect.

Wrestling fans will complain when emphasis is shifted from wrestling onto entertainment, which is what WWE has been trying to do for a long time in order to reach a broader consumer base. The end result is programming that will disappoint a lot of people who tuned in to see "wrestling" rather than "sports entertainment". To say they shouldn't express that disappointment is a little ridiculous.

sorry last part was messed up in 2008 part,

Here are the Memorial Day Raw ratings and the ratings the week before and week after.

2008: 2.9......3.2/
2007: 3.2......3.7/3.8
2006: 3.8......3.7/4.0
2005: 3.8......3.6/3.7
2004: 3.2......3.5/3.4
2003: 3.7......3.6/3.9

Like shockmaster said WWE is pushing entertaiment over wrestling to reach the casual fan, sometimes insulting the "hardcore" fans. When you have the Rodman's ,Lenos, Mayweathers,LT's, sure you're bring in new veiwers but are you making new fans? Most fans are grandfathered in. my son wasn't even born until 2000, but Utimate Warrior is one of his favorites. Fans want something to remember. As for pushing wrestlers, look at Val Venus former IC champ now stuck jobbing on heat he's a great worker, good on the mic, but they can't find anything for him. Look how many wrestlers left or got fired the last few years. If Creative couldn't find anything for a character on a sitcom would the actor get fired or would the writer?
In the real world there are lots of people in postions that really don't belong there or maybe are not the best at what they do. Doctors-malpractice, Lawyers-wrongful convictions, and yes even writers-crap storylines. Why is that so hard to comprehend anyone who has lived a little knows this.
Some hotshots are good (Lesnar,Yokozuna) others aren't (Glacier, Renagade) just the way it is.
I only complain out of love of wrestling. I just did not grow up on WWE alone. I watched USWA, NWA, AWA, WorldClass ect. So I saw Vince borrow gimmicks and personalites from small territories and bring them to a larger platform under the WWE umbrella. Also it's hard to watch the same people for years. I'm from the OVW territory so I've been watching Batista(Leviathan) Cena(Prototype) Eugene(Nick Densmore) Orton a long time. I've seen Brock help set up rings at expo five before he was the next big thing when he tagged with Shelton. I saw the Rock( Flex Kavanna) before he was even set foot in WWE. I actually know how big of a legend Jerry Lawler should be, watched Jeff Jarrett grow from a skinny little kid no bigger than Colin Delaney inot the King of the Mountian. I know Ron Killings was better as K-Krush than he was as K-Kwick. So jaded I my be they made me that way.

Here is what the Cena haters fail to grasp. He is the guy who sells the tshirts, he is the guy who moves all kinds of merch. He is the guy that the young fans love. My six year old niece couldn't pick HHH out of a police lineup, but she knows John Cena, same with my 8 and 9 year old nephews. Like it or not, he is the most popular guy with the non hardcore fans. Like it or not, McMahon doesn't give a rats ass about hardcore fans, because hardcore fans never really go away forever. Sure they bitch every week, but they still watch every week in the long run.

It's great that Cena sells t-shirts, but that doesn't mean he is actually any good. What is it with fans who think they're in the business? Why do t-shirt sales matter to you as a fan? Saying Cena sucks is nothing but a personal opinion (or a lot of people's opinion. Like a stadium full). His merch sales have nothing to do with it; if people don't like him, they don't. 9 year olds might, and that is one of WWE's target groups, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Plenty of lousy wrestlers have sold t-shirts, but by your criteria, someone like Hogan would hands down be better than, say, Ric Flair because he sold more t-shirts. But ask any wrestling fan (who is over the age of 9) who's matches they would rather watch.

You can say he sucks all you want, I guess I didn't specify my point. My point is that no matter how much the hardcore fans hate Cena, he isn't going anywhere. So we might as well just accept the fact that Cena is the golden goose at the moment, and that he will be shoved down our throats for years to come.

Besides that, Cena is no worse than Hogan ever was in his prime...

Point taken, but that shouldn't keep people from booing him the hell out of the building if they feel like it.

It doesn't matter if you think Cena is good or not. It's about how much money he can make for the WWE. Because Cena makes the most money for the WWE he gets the best push.

Quote: "Here is what the Cena haters fail to grasp. He is the guy who sells the tshirts, he is the guy who moves all kinds of merch. He is the guy that the young fans love."

It's true it's true, but that was Austin 3:16 in 1998/99 too [and he was also loved by the older fans, and not only from the kids and girls], but they weren't so stupid and pushed him alone, but also The Rock, Mankind and Triple H to an equal level, so that the product couldn't get boring and weak, when Austin made his injury time out, or when he eventually get uninteresting or so...

You have to put the responsibility on many shoulders and not only one, because if these breaks, the whole company is fucked up (if you haven't got an alternative).

When Hulkamania was over, the WWF was devastated - although they had the Warrior, Savage, Flair, Bret Hart, Yokozuna, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker and so on. But that was, because, aside from Hogan, they build no one on his level in the years, were Hogan was on top. Not Savage, not the Warrior. And they are making the same error today with Cena. If Cena is no more, there is nobody left who can take his spot. Not Triple H, not HBK, not Orton, not Batista, not Taker and not Edge.

I don't trust anyone whose name is wweisright, communismisright or wifebeatingisright.