Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
W E L C O M E      G U E S T S

Welcome to 6 Star Wrestling. We are a small community of dedicated wrestling fans. Our forum members range from new to the product to 20+ years of viewer knowledge of the product.

We discuss WWE, TNA, ROH, WCW, and various other wrestling companies. Regardless if you have just watched your first wrestling show or if you have been following wrestling your entire life, I guarantee that you'll find someone to have an in-depth and enjoyable conversation with.

We also have discussions that are not related to wrestling. We discuss movies, music, news, play games, and do all sorts of fun and interesting things. So even if you are not a wrestling fan, we can guarantee you'll find something to keep your interest while you are here.

Feel free to follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook with the links below!

Please enjoy,
The 6 Star Community

Register your free account today!

http://6starwrestling.net

http://twitter.com/6StarWrestling

http://facebook.com/6StarWrestling

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Would wrestling exist as we know if if WCW would have won?
Topic Started: Aug 2 2010, 07:28 AM (598 Views)
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
Matty Flamingo's Signature
 
Posted Image

If not for ECW, you'd probably be tuning into Nitro to get your wrestling fix on Monday nights. Not Raw.

Maybe you'd even get to watch your The Rise & Fall of the WWF DVD afterwards...


So I just happen to click on Matty's profile and saw this signature. I can understand the logic and I'm not sure if it's a serious thought or just pointing out how influential ECW was, but I think this is about as inaccurate as you can get. In my mind, if WCW would have won the war and put WWE out of business, then wrestling as we know it would have drastically, drastically changed. I think WCW would still have gone out of business regardless, which would have left us (the fans) without any national/global wrestling company. Other companies (like TNA) would have popped up, but without having a big company like WWE to point to to show how successful a wrestling company can become, then they would have had an incredibly difficult time finding any television station to carry them.

Yes, I think that if WCW would have won the war that wrestling would have entered a very dark period that we may not have even gotten out of now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

Honestly, I believe WCW would probably still be dead with or without WWE now in 2010. If not, they'd probably be on a very small-time level. I also doubt Vince would have sold the rights to the WWF to anyone, so there wouldn't be a Rise & Fall of the WWF DVD - at least not an official one. And I highly doubt WCW would have been in a position to buy it when it mattered anyway.

I believe wrestling would probably be more back to how it was before Vince took control of his father's company. Not necessarily back to territories, but everything would be small scale. A company like TNA would be considered a massive success that everyone wants to aspire to, even though I doubt TNA would exist either.

The point I was more trying to make with my signature has more to do with what I believe to be ECW saving the WWF by being what it was. The WWF was stagnant and, Vince McMahon himself has said they were in danger of going out of business at one point because of WCW. It wasn't until the WWF started their "Attitude Era" that business began to turn around for them. And I firmly believe without ECW or some other company doing what ECW did, the Attitude Era would have never come to be and as a result, the WWF might have never survived the 90s.

So it's not so much me saying that WCW would be what WWE is now but more saying that WCW would have probably won the Monday Night Wars and wrestling history would be much, much different than what actually happened. I just chose to say it in an exaggerated way because it gave the comment of "WWF would be dead, WCW would have won" a bit of an exclamation point.
On a side note, I'd like to mention that next month is the 15th anniversary of WCW Monday Nitro. I wish WWE would come out with some kind of Best of WCW Nitro DVD to honor it but that's probably asking for too much.

I want more 90s WCW DVDs. I love seeing all of it again. Afterall, I was a loyal WCW fan before Stone Cold Steve Austin (and a lack of availability of WCW at home) turned me to the WWF.
Edited by Kraul, Aug 2 2010, 07:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
I often feel that ECW fans give too much credit to ECW for :quote: saving :quote: WWE. I won't deny that ECW influenced WWE to move beyond their PG style, but I think that even if ECW had as much influence that ROH has on WWE now, I think WWE would have ultimately persevered. Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock were iconic. Even if they played different characters, I think both are so damn charismatic and attention grabbing that they would have turned WWE around even if WWE didn't go Attitude.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

Except if it wasn't for ECW, there probably would be no Stone Cold Steve Austin. He was fresh out of WCW, frustrated with big wrestling politics and looking to vent. ECW gave him that outlet and helped him develop the early stages of who he would go on to become in WWE. Even the beer drinking could probably be traced directly to Sandman. He could have played a different character, but it would not have been the same. Stone Cold vs Mr. McMahon was feud of the late 90s and I dare to say the number one on-air reason fans tuned in each week to Raw. If Austin never became Stone Cold, not of that would have happened and we very well might have missed out on Mr. McMahon altogether.

The Rock only became The Rock because of the Attitude Era. He started out as a blue chipper Rocky Maivia. I bet if he had come around five years earlier, when a character like The Rock would have been unthinkable in WWE, he would have floated around as Rocky Maivia before just fading away... Or at the very least he wouldn't have become The Rock that we all know and love, except for Purps.

Not to mention all of the other talents that passed through ECW that would later go on to help make WWE what it is today. Without ECW, WWE may have never signed Foley - which means the night that turned 300,000 fans from Nitro to Raw would have never happened.

The WWF had a very good relationship with ECW behind the scenes and I have absolutely no doubt that people in the WWF took notice and ran with the ball ECW got rolling. It was after ECW hyper-sexualized women that the WWF started to do what has become considered to be a WWE idea (of the beautiful diva who is there just because she looks good). It was after ECW said no to the cartoony angles and went with realism that WWF started with more realistic and grounded angles. Not to mention the whole style of wrestling changed. Suddenly "hardcore" wrestling became very common place - which is one point that you can argue is a negative overall, but it was also a very big part of what made the Attitude Era the Attitude Era.

I'm not saying ECW deserves all of the credit, but I think ECW is far, far more influential to WWE's success than most people would probably admit.
Edited by Kraul, Aug 2 2010, 08:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
Again, I'm not denying ECW's influence on WWE. I just don't think it is as huge as many hardcore ECW fans claim it to be. Even if WWE did borrow ECW ideas and concepts, they had to do something with them. WWE made Stone Cold Steve Austin. WWE made The Rock. WWE made Mankind/Mick Foley. WWE made Triple H. WWE made The Undertaker. WWE made Kane (back when he was still cool). It wasn't as though WWE just looked at ECW and copied what they did verbatim. WCW tried the same things and they had no success. Hell, ECW did the same thing and didn't have the success WWE had. It was WWE taking the concept and ideas and running with them.

But the point of my previous post was that even if WWE didn't go "Attitude", I don't think they would have gone out of business. Vince knew his old way wasn't working and that he needed a change. He did go with Attitude, but even if he didn't, even if he went with a different direction, he still had the talent depth. Aside from the names already mentioned, Vince was also bringing in talent that WCW didn't want and was turning them into stars (whereas WCW was taking Vince's stars and just running them dry). I think with all that talent that it was just a matter of finding a way of marketing it that mattered. WWE went Attitude to great success. I think they'd have had success even without Attitude. Maybe not the same magnitude, but I don't think WWE would have closed doors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpaceOdyssey
Member Avatar

I am ashamed to say this but I have watched very little WCW. As far as I can remember it used to air sporadically over here with some regions not airing it at all. So for the most part I only watched WWF. That being said the WWF seemed to to try and incorporate the best things from several promotions which was probably instrumental to their success. The hardcore title and the light heavyweight title were both obvious inspirations from ECWs hardcore style and WCWs success with their cruiserweight divison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

Before giving all the credit to ECW, one would be wise to give some attention to the workings of popular culture around the same time. The WWF had become stagnant around about 1992 and onwards since then. At the same time, The Simpsons was booming and later on in 1997 South Park became popular. These are two examples pulled only from animation, so there's probably more to be foudn elsewhere. I'm not a cultural expert but I think a good argument could be made for the "Attitude era" being extra-cultural, rather than specifically tied to wrestling and wrestling only.

What I'm saying is that ECW was not the impetus behind that particular change. Rather, I'd believe that something else drove both ECW and the WWF to the rusty extremes they went towards.
Edited by Nubochanozep, Aug 2 2010, 11:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
Yes, I agree with this. And it just adds to my point that ECW diehards try to give too much credit to ECW for WWE's Attitude Era. While I agree ECW influenced WWE, I don't think ECW was the "make it" part of the equation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

Cybrus
Aug 2 2010, 09:33 AM
Again, I'm not denying ECW's influence on WWE. I just don't think it is as huge as many hardcore ECW fans claim it to be. Even if WWE did borrow ECW ideas and concepts, they had to do something with them. WWE made Stone Cold Steve Austin. WWE made The Rock. WWE made Mankind/Mick Foley. WWE made Triple H. WWE made The Undertaker. WWE made Kane (back when he was still cool). It wasn't as though WWE just looked at ECW and copied what they did verbatim. WCW tried the same things and they had no success. Hell, ECW did the same thing and didn't have the success WWE had. It was WWE taking the concept and ideas and running with them.
I agree with this.

I'm not saying ECW is completely responsible for the successes of WWE, but that without that influence, the Attitude Era as we know it would most likely have not existed.

I'm sure the WWF would have gotten more serious eventually, especially with so many people growing so tired of their style at the time, but I just can't believe they would have gone quite as far as they did or with many of the talents involved that they did.

Would they have survived the 90s? Maybe. I base my opinion that the WWF would have gone out of business on the opinion of Vince McMahon (I don't remember where he said it, maybe on the Monday Night Wars DVD) and how business didn't really turn around for Vince until guys like Steve Austin and Mick Foley became a big part of the show - two guys who might not have had the same impact in WWE if not for their time in ECW.

ECW was a cog in a machine with many cogs that lead to WWE's success. I'm not saying it was the only factor and I'm not saying that it completely dwarves everything else, but that it was an important factor to their success and that it isn't given enough credit by many for the influences it had on the WWE (and wrestling in general, good and bad).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheObserver

Some very good points.The thing though about WCW is that they were a mess to begin with and in a way destroyed themselves.

When they were aligned with NWA, they were strong and had the talent to become great but when Ted Turner bought the company he had a bunch of people that didn't know anything about wrestling or rather the business side of things. I to was a big fan of theres' back in the early to late 80s' and even parts of the 90's.

Also if Turner didn't give Bischoff the time and channels he needed, they probably wouldn't have survived. Yes it was a very bitter war but in the end I think it was all about greed that killed WCW. See the thing is when the Horsemen were around they were in some great feuds, most notably against Rhodes and Magnum but the reason why people spent there money going to events, tuning in every week is cause Flair and company were willing to lose to keep the feud interesting, going back and forth while with the NWO and it was a cool concept at the beginning is that they because of their gurateed contracts and the political power they weilded behind the scenes, no one reallly got over which led to watching almost the same thing weekly. Watching other wrestlers get beat up and seeing the talents go no where.

Mysterio best said it in one of the dvds, you have all this talent but aren't doing nothing with it, what about us? ECW while pushing the evelope and giving WWF some help as far as angles and even characters who were edgy were a mess aswell but I don't want to get into that. ECW was a great influence as you most of this thread has related and I think it's not so much the ECW fans that don't give credit, I think it's others that aren't or weren't aware of the contributions they had given.

Many people even still to this day don't know that WWF got ideas from them or that one of their greatest stars in Stone Cold got his gimmick from the Sandman.......now before anyone hoops and hollers about Austin was a far better wrestler overall which I am in total agreement with, I'm just saying that this is just something that I take as an example.

If anyone remembers that it wasn't until ECW was or rather was on Vincen's payroll, doing the high adrenaline type of stuff that WWF didn't change. It was more PG friendly, much like it is today. Having RVD show up on Raw and doing a minor invasion angle was nice to broaden the business at the time. It still took sometime for WWF to find their stars though.

The best thing I still say is that during this time, when both Nash and Hall left while HBK was frustrated, they took wrestlers who weren't doing anything in WCW and made them a big part in the fight against them. Taking ones that had busted their ass, paid their dues to higher levels. All the while WCW had taken wrestlers who were already "made" in WWF but just giving them a different run which go back to the whole political power.

Also let's not forget how WCW brought in Russo and his follower to try and make things competible against WWF but the big issue with this is that no one was there to control all these creative ideas that led to dissapointing matches that were book. Anyone remember Piņata on a pole? It's stuff like this that you knew they were in trouble or how bout having David Arcuette be your world champ. Or even when it all came ahead at Bash At The Beach 2000 when the infamous lay down occured which led to yep Hogan suing WCW for defamation of character, I think I said that right.

There are many fingers that you can point to say who caused the downfall but in the end it was the companies themselves that did it.

If WCW or even ECW were around today, I believe they would be on borrowed time, meaning they would eventually be on the verge of going out of business because of greed and people who shouldn't be in the business to begin with, just because you watch it on tv, doesn't mean you can run a company.

There are some even within the business that state Heyman was taking funds from the shows and making money for himself instead of paying his talent which eventually lead to alot of them walking away. Thats' just a rumor though cause you really never know.

Even though ECW and WCW went out of business almost 10 years ago, we still see parts of them in other companies, hell WWE rehashed a couple angles from ECW not to long ago but it just looked different cause it had different people involved.

And although it's been mentioned countless times and even more recent, TNA is basically WCW while.....well you know.
Edited by TheObserver, Aug 2 2010, 08:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
I find this really weird that you guys are talking about this because during my 3-day hiatus of the internet, I watched the Rise and Fall of ECW DVD to pass the time. I think we can create an entire new thread of stuff I want to say about the subject, but I'll say a few things:

1. To -O-'s later point, I'm really wondering myself what happened with ECW's finances. Heyman blames the closing of ECW on not having enough finances, but then they immediately cut to scenes of events that have like 5,000 people in attendance. I'm sure the rising salaries for some wrestlers had something to do with it, but out of all the merchandise sales, ticket sales, licensing (the video game), PPVs and whatnot, they couldn't find any money to stay afloat?

2. I believe that ECW had a lot of influence on WWF's product. In the mid-late 90's (meaning about '96 or '97) WWF ran the original ECW invasion angle where they came in on a few events. This was happening when King Mabel was still a big member of the roster, so it tells you the time period. ECW came in on those shows, and I think at that point Vince saw the reaction they were getting and thought of going in that direction. I'm not going to say that Stone Cold is based off The Sandman (Sandman's entrance was sooooo much cooler), but the hardcore matches, hardcore championship (which was honestly my favorite title when I started watching wrestling) and divas fights were clearly based off what ECW was doing because no company ever went that direction before before them.

3. I think you can say ECW had just as big an influence though on WCW. You look at WCW's cruiserweight division, which was argably the best part of the show besides the NWO angle, and most of those guys got their start in ECW. I don't think it means as much because those guys (Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero) never really became stars, but you look and see that they had a lot to do with WCW's workings as well.

4. Does anybody agree with the statement Heyman made about WCW regarding them "stealing" his talent? Although I agree with what a lot of what Heyman said, this one makes me scratch my head. So when WCW signs Benoit, Mysterio, Guerrero, etc., from WCW it's theft, but when WWF takes Taz and The Dudleys it's legit? Or does it have something to do with the way they go about it, i.e. Vince putting Heyman on his payroll while Bischoff gives absolutely nothing in return?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

Quote:
 
1. To -O-'s later point, I'm really wondering myself what happened with ECW's finances. Heyman blames the closing of ECW on not having enough finances, but then they immediately cut to scenes of events that have like 5,000 people in attendance. I'm sure the rising salaries for some wrestlers had something to do with it, but out of all the merchandise sales, ticket sales, licensing (the video game), PPVs and whatnot, they couldn't find any money to stay afloat?


It doesn't matter how much money you can bring in, if it's managed poorly, it can still all disappear. And it's no secret that Heyman was terrible at managing money.

Quote:
 
Does anybody agree with the statement Heyman made about WCW regarding them "stealing" his talent? Although I agree with what a lot of what Heyman said, this one makes me scratch my head. So when WCW signs Benoit, Mysterio, Guerrero, etc., from WCW it's theft, but when WWF takes Taz and The Dudleys it's legit? Or does it have something to do with the way they go about it, i.e. Vince putting Heyman on his payroll while Bischoff gives absolutely nothing in return?


I think that it's mostly due to Heyman both saying that on a WWE endorsed DVD and that he had a nice business relationship with Vince at the time (back during Heyman's time in ECW, that is).

It's no doubt one of the reasons ECW died, though. Their roster was being snatched away by bigger paychecks quicker than they could build up new stars. That's why their main event scene as they died paled in comparison to their main event scene back in, say, 1997. And with Heyman burning out, it just compounded the problem since arguably the number one driving force behind building new stars in ECW was running out of fuel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
Kraul
Aug 2 2010, 09:43 PM
Quote:
 
1. To -O-'s later point, I'm really wondering myself what happened with ECW's finances. Heyman blames the closing of ECW on not having enough finances, but then they immediately cut to scenes of events that have like 5,000 people in attendance. I'm sure the rising salaries for some wrestlers had something to do with it, but out of all the merchandise sales, ticket sales, licensing (the video game), PPVs and whatnot, they couldn't find any money to stay afloat?


It doesn't matter how much money you can bring in, if it's managed poorly, it can still all disappear. And it's no secret that Heyman was terrible at managing money.
I understand that, but I wonder how it happened though. When you look at bigger companies, you can clearly see times when they either spent money on somebody who was worthless or on starting business ventures that don't work out (Yankees signing Carl Pavano to a $40 million dollar contract where he spent most of his four years on the disabled list as the first example, and Vince McMahon starting XFL for the second). ECW didn't have that. You can't really point and see where ECW went wrong with bringing somebody in, nor can you see a big issue they made business-wise, besides maybe going on TNN (which they HAD to do anyway). So it's just weird that somebody can be so bad with money that even though they rake it in, it just literally flies away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheObserver

Well to your earlier point Whosey about WCW taking talent and WWF signing the different ones is that I believe Vince gave Heyman some kind of incentive, like extra money or something rather than Bishoff just what the call in the business raiding the talent.

Even though I myself believe that even though Vince was kind enough to do this, I think Heyman just never forgave Bishoff for doing this. Not to mention that WCW or rather Bishoff was taking alot of Heyman's ideas and putting them on ppv. Not giving any type of credit to him while Vince on the other hand acknowledged Heyman, even helping him to promote his then first ppv when he brought the ECW guys to Raw.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpaceOdyssey
Member Avatar

I got this off wikipedia...

Quote:
 
The bankruptcy filing included hundreds of claims, including production companies, buildings ECW ran in, TV stations ECW was televised on, travel agencies, phone companies, attorney's fees, wrestlers, and other talent. Wrestlers and talent were listed, with amounts owed ranging from $1 for Sabu and Steve Corino to hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars. The highest amounts owed to talents were Rob Van Dam ($150,000), Tommy Dreamer ($125,000), Joey Styles ($50,000), Shane Douglas ($48,000), and Francine Fournier ($47,875).


I mean there is quite a lot listed there and there were probably other things that we don't even know about that ECW owed money to. It also says that they were still owed like $860,000 but I might be reading it wrong ... :thinking:

Quote:
 
The company was listed as having assets totaling $1,385,500. Included in that number was $860,000 in accounts receivable owed the company by In Demand Network (PPV), Acclaim (video games), and Original San Francisco Toy Company (action figures). The balance of the assets were the video tape library ($500,000), a 1998 Ford Truck ($19,500) and the remaining inventory of merchandise ($4).
Edited by SpaceOdyssey, Aug 2 2010, 10:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

In other words, he mis-managed the money so poorly he owed absolutely everyone who had any part in ECW. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
Since that Wiki entry interested me so much I did a google search and came up with a pretty good article from an accountant/ECW fan. I'll just get to the gist of it which answers my question:

Quote:
 
Getting back to that whole "puzzle" thing from my first paragraph, what the heck happened? How could a company which made $5.8 million in 1999 and $4.1 million in 2000 hit the wall so hard so fast?

Well, it didn't.

Actually, it looks to me like this situation has been lingering for a long time now.

Salaries of guys who had left a few years ago, like Shane Douglas, were still unpaid. How long had this been going on? Many TV stations, radio stations, advertising companies and the like were owed money. Who knows when these debts originated? Remember the ECW action figures that came out a couple of years ago? It looks like the manufacturers waited a while, too -- they're owed about a quarter of a million dollars.

Truth be told, I can't tell what the problem was. Fiscal mismanagement, lack of priorities, apathy, absentmindedness -- oops, I still can't find my chequebook. Without further information, it's just not possible to tell. Too many missing pieces.

For you cynics and naysayers, it does NOT look like Heyman screwed everyone and took off with the money himself. In fact, he's out to lose over $125,000 for backpay, and others in his family are owed over $3.5 million. It seems to me that the whole Heyman clan made major sacrifices in order to keep the company alive this long.

Only Paul Heyman knows for sure what went wrong. Hopefully, he'll have the chance one day to start over and do it right the next time.

I wish him the best of luck in that regard.

As an accountant, not knowing why ECW folded is a frustrating concept... I'd like to be able to finish the puzzle.

As an ECW fan, though, it just doesn't seem to matter.

Article
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheObserver

I'm not sure the exact figures of how bad they were in debt or how much the wrestlers were owed but I do know that WCW sold to Vinny for $2,500,000. With the video library being $1,700,000, which is a total of $4,200,000. Yes that is alot of money but it's also an embarrassment that considering how big WCW was with the revenue they were bringing in is a bit of let down.

When TBS and TNA decided not to renew a tv deal, WCW was worth very little. Even though Bishoff had made a bid for it, and he also states this on the MNW dvd that the deal fell through and that he could have the rings, the library but no tv time. Instead of looking around for another station, I think in the end he was just tired and didn't want to fight to keep WCW around. After the deal fell through Vince was the only serious buyer to obtain them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

If I was a millionaire, I would have bought WCW.

Then again, if I was a millionaire I probably would have been having sex with supermodels in the Caribbean and not watching wrestling every day so...

I think I'm always going to be split on WWE buying out the rights to all of these companies. On the one hand, it lets us have really good DVD collections that I am always interested in getting (and have one playing right now, in fact). It also let's WWE acknowledge that there are, in fact, other companies in the wrestling world - even if the ones they mention are all dead.

On the other hand, having so much history being owned by one company who isn't exactly non-biased is kind of scary and potentially disappointing because it guarantees we'll never see WCW or any of the smaller companies start again, and most likely will never see their shows in re-runs outside of WWE subscription services.

Overall, I guess it's better as a fan since I get to watch so much different stuff from WCW, ECW, NWA, GCW, WCCW, CW, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
I think it was best for Vince to buy WCW because he was the only one with the ability to actually "use" the brand. As -O- mentioned, Bischoff buying WCW fell through because they weren't able to get the time on TNT/TBS to have the show. A show without a timeslot is completely worthless. At least the WWF would have been able to utilize the WCW name on TV, which they obviously did with the Invasion angle not long after. In that case, I don't see anybody besides Vince buying WCW as being worth it because unless they owned a TV network (or have as much pull as Donald Trump), they weren't going anywhere with it. It's almost like buying a car that was used in a big chase scene from a movie. It would be cool to have for nostalgic purposes ("hey, I have the car from "Beverly Hills Cop!"" "Hey, I have the video library from WCW!"), but you can't really do anything with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

The problem with that mentality, though, is that it's not like TBS and TNT were the only TV networks out there. If someone was motivated enough, they could have bought the rights then went out and looked for a network. I've heard rumors that, at the time, Fox and NBC were interested. If it's true NBC was, then WCW could very well have wound up on USA Network in Raw's old spot (WWE had fairly recently moved over to TNN after ECW was cancelled afterall).

I can understand why someone might not want to take the risk or see it as too much work, but it's not like it would have been a pointless venture. There are an awful lot of networks, I'm sure someone would have given WCW a shot - especially since wrestling was still popular at the time, although not like it had been a year or two earlier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
I don't know, to me it would seem pointless, especially if nobody from the network was in the wrestling business. You could argue neither Turner or Bischoff were into wrestling before running WCW, but if a network turned, looked, and saw a wrestling show with bad ratings about to be dumped by AOL Time Warner, I don't think they would want to touch it. Especially when they see WWF regularly pumping out ratings in the upper 4's though low 6's each week while WCW was what, in the 2's? Although the risk would be low, I would think the reward would also be low because not only would WCW be a shell of itself at that point, but it would be run by people who weren't wrestling people and would just be kicking a dead horse.

I just think that wrestling organizations run by TV owners is wrong because if they are sold, they have nobody to fall back on. As seen so many times, WWE is able to be on multiple networks at one time (I'm not talking about being on a couple NBC Networks), which works to expand their company.
On a separate but equal note, has anybody watched the documentary "Forever Hardcore"? I remember hearing about it before, but I want to know how it stacks up against "Rise and Fall" information-wise. I know it's definitely a smaller production, so that might be something, but I might pick it up if it's good enough.
Edited by WWEFootos48, Aug 2 2010, 11:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

They wouldn't necessarily have to get a new TV show ASAP. They could give it a few months to a year to completely rebuild the company before shopping for a TV station.

With the state WCW was in as it went off the air, it would have been hard for them to survive as is. The best way to keep WCW alive, and possibly the only way, would have been to give people some time to wash the bad taste out of their mouthes.

The only problem is that it most likely would have been Bischoff in control (since he was the interested buyer before Vince), and I could see that ending up as more of the same. It probably would have been best for someone else to buy it and take over.

It was entirely possible to turn WCW around, it didn't have to end up just being turned into a joke of an invasion (in probably the biggest drop opportunity in all of wrestling history) and then some library of tapes. It's just that the work that would have had to been put into it and the risk involved was probably too daunting for most people.

It's a shame that the Jarrett's didn't buy it. Instead of TNA, WCW could have been in it's place. Everything else would be the same except TNA would have the history of WCW behind them making everything they do mean that much more.

But this is already deep, deep into fantasy talk. It's a nice daydream, but it's a daydream regardless.

Quote:
 
On a separate but equal note, has anybody watched the documentary "Forever Hardcore"? I remember hearing about it before, but I want to know how it stacks up against "Rise and Fall" information-wise. I know it's definitely a smaller production, so that might be something, but I might pick it up if it's good enough.


Yep, I have. And in fact, I just ordered it a few days ago so I can finally own it.

It suffers from a lack of ECW footage (a lot of talking about moments without being able to show them) and it can basically feel like a "Best Of..." shoot video, but it's very nice hearing from all the people WWE didn't/couldn't/wouldn't interview for The Rise & Fall of ECW. It's also not something for someone who is completely unfamiliar with ECW to watch without brushing up on some history first. The doc more or less assumes you're already familiar with the general history of ECW.

In my opinion, I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning about ECW or just hearing some stories, but in combination with the WWE DVD. Watch both, back to back, and you're in for a quality experience.

Same with it's sister project, Hardcore Homecoming. For a real good tribute to ECW, it's best to see both the original One Night Stand and Hardcore Homecoming. It gives you the ECW stuff WWE didn't, like Shane Douglas, Raven, New Jack, etc. I can't speak for the second Hardcore Homecoming, though, because I haven't seen it (it's on the way, too, though).

That reminds me, one thing that is kind of disappointing about the rushed aspect of Hardcore Justice is that with most of the ECW legends out of WWE now, they could really assemble the closest thing to a full roster reunion yet - in theory. I'm sure Hardcore Justice will be decent, but just like the other two tribute shows mentioned in this post, it'll probably always have that "what if..." factor to it.
Edited by Kraul, Aug 2 2010, 11:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
I just don't think something like that would work though. I mean if they did that, WCW would probably be slightly more popular than TNA at this point and that would only be because of their name recognition. I think that's what happened to WWE's version of ECW. ECW's TV show, when it first started on Sci-Fi, was getting a rating of 2+ until settling in the low 1's. In the beginning it was all about name recognition, but then it settled down and became what it was. That might be skewed because it wasn't really the same ECW (but the ratings in the beginning reflected it as if it would become the same one), but then again, it wouldn't be the same WCW either because at the way it was, it would just go right out of business again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

I didn't say it would beat WWE again. By the time WCW went out of business, WWE was so powerful that it would take a string of extremely good luck to ever see WWE fall back down to #2.

But being the #2 company isn't a bad thing. And we'd still see WCW alive and well (if it went the Jarretts/TNA route I mentioned). TNA is very much like WCW was, in good and bad ways, so for people that were WCW die-hards back in the 90s it's a nice way to get a WCW feel in wrestling again. It'd just be nice to see the WCW name still alive and it wouldn't hurt for TNA to have WCW's championships, past history, and name value.

The only real negative I could think of besides the lack of nearly complete collections coming out of WWE nowadays would be that a modern WCW would also inherit the negative history - which some can argue just wouldn't be worth it. No matter what they'd do, the fact would remain that in their waning years, Vince Russo and David Arquette held their most important championship.

Plus, TNA has been around for nearly a decade now, so it's not like they don't have their own history to back up whatever they do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
Kraul
Aug 2 2010, 11:38 PM
I didn't say it would beat WWE again.
Me neither. :lol:

But when a network looks at the history to see if it's a good deal or not, I think in their minds, they want a company that would compete with the WWE. I feel that way with the relationship right now between Spike TV and TNA. Although it's not one of their short term goals, you know they want to push TNA above the WWE in the ratings, which is why they give them a bunch of leeway in the time slot. If I were Spike TV, that's what I would want as the ultimate goal, no doubt. Especially when you're coming off such a magical time in wrestling, I think that would have been one of the expectations for the new WCW, to come back and surge past the WWE.

Of course any logical person knows it would never happen, but when you invest money into a brand like they would be doing in that case, I believe that would be their motive.
Edited by WWEFootos48, Aug 2 2010, 11:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheObserver

When WCW was first launched they had top names already around and a big surprise in Luger showing up. I beleive this is part of the reasons why WWE has the 90 day no compete clause when they are let go by them or don't renew one.

Also you have to remember, one of the reasons why WCW started out successfully is cause their programs weren't taped like WWF's which helped them gain fans cause they had stuff you wanted to tune in for. Even though internet wasn't even as close to being big back then, when WCW gave away the results, combined with the actual wrestlers along with the NWO angle, WWF wasn't doing all that well and even at one point almost going under but no one really knew what was going on. Also I might add that WCW's first Nitro show did a 2.9 in the ratings. TNA has yet to hit 2.0. I'm still rooting that they do and I'm sure Spike is hoping so to.

It was fun for me atleast during the MNW, switching back and forth to see what was going on, I had a blast watching it. I never did have a Nitro party which I should've.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kraul

I never got to experience the whole "switching back and forth between shows" aspect until late 2000.

From the moment Hulk Hogan debuted in WCW up until some time in 1999, the only wrestling show I would watch was Nitro (used to call Raw 'Raw is Bore' :lol: ). Then for a year I had no access to any wrestling show other than SmackDown (and Jakked) but I had been converted to the WWF over the year or so before, thanks to Stone Cold and some WWF fans for friends.

Even if Nitro was really mediocre towards the end, I still miss the ability to watch the first hour before Raw and I think they had a repeat right after Raw (or the second half of a repeat). It was nice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
As I'm sure I've mentioned numerous times on here, my first taste of wrestling was WCW around '99-2000. Not exactly sure when, but the first show I remember had to do with Mike Awesome. It also had something to do with a casket, some random dudes, and them "burying" Ric Flair's career. Of course somebody popped out of the casket. The next thing I remember is all of the paramedics being beat up and one of the announcers going "if all of the paramedics are hurt, who's going to take care of the injured?" :lol:

Then at the same time, my main wrestling fix was SmackDown since I didn't have cable (I had cable up until that point, then lost it so I could only watch SD). Around the same time as well (when I did have cable) I had my only real experience with ECW when they were on TNN.

Honestly besides one or two episodes of ECW on TNN I watched (I believe I watched more episodes of Roller Jam than I did ECW :lol: ) the most experience I got learning about ECW was through the video game which was my favorite game at that point, up until I started playing No Mercy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
That was the one thing I loved most about TNA being on Monday nights. I loved having three hours of wrestling again. There was one full hour of TNA that I could watch without interruptions. Then there was an hour where I'd flip back and forth between TNA and Raw. Then I had an hour of uninterrupted Raw to close my night. It was good stuff while it lasted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Wrestling · Next Topic »
Add Reply