# Russo Comments On AEW Fanbase



## SteveC484 (May 17, 2020)

People are so desperate to want good American wrestling after twenty years of it being terrible that they don't want to hear AEW's flaws. I like the show most weeks but it's not perfect. TNA had the same problem with it's hardcore fans where if you said 90% positive and 10% negative you'd get attacked. An example is if you mention that viewership had fallen (before the pandemic) you'd get tons of excuses or DVR numbers, ect.....the same stuff that TNA fans used to get laughed at for saying.


----------



## Rankles75 (May 29, 2011)

Shit, I’m actually agreeing with Russo on something!  I hope AEW does well, but any personal interest I had in it quickly soured thanks largely to the attitude of it’s fans.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

I’m not a fan of Vince Russo at all. Too often even his more rational sentiments are obvious horoscope-like readings. “AEW should increase its fan base,” “AEW should be good.” Yeah, great — but he very conveniently doesn’t explain how those things would occur, and that’s what he doesn’t understand. A lot of AEW’s booking actually feels like Russo could have had a hand in it, honestly. Surprised he doesn’t love it.

But more than Russo specifically, the greater point is obviously the fans getting so damn defensive. I think it might be a few things:

* People don’t like feeling stupid. AEW does a lot of stupid things. People feel uncomfortable about that link. It makes them feel stupid, and they don’t like that.

* Wrestling hates itself now. It’s so self-conscious. It’s scared to present itself sincerely. It’s why AEW fans are always so quick to jump to “look at how seriously these people are taking bullshit wrestling.” They get nasty about wrestling, which is something they are supposed to love.

* People have spent so much time bombarding themselves with WWE, it’s like they need anything else to be good. It’s like someone with Stockholm syndrome breaking free. I mean, just because the old relationship was bad doesn’t mean the new one is good, but a lot of AEW positivity seems chained up in it being “Not WWE.”

* AEW postures itself as being for the fans. Some have fallen for it and feel a connection to the product because of the pandering, winking and references to how bad WWE is.

* Gatekeeping. It’s a thing that happens in geek fandoms, and it gets quite toxic. The fandom feels it “owns” or have a prioritised right to the content. AEW is theirs and if you don’t like it, you’re insulting something that is theirs.


----------



## Blaze2k2 (Dec 3, 2019)

I don't understand what Vince Russo would do differently than what's already been done? What are these so-called great ideas that's going to grow the AEW fan base?


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Blaze2k2 said:


> I don't understand what Vince Russo would do differently than what's already been done? What are these so-called great ideas that's going to grow the AEW fan base?


Yeah, it's very much a Russo style show in my opinion as well. I can't imagine what he is saying that is getting AEW fans so riled up.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

All wrestling promotions have their fanboys that white knight their product with rose-colored glasses, but AEW definitely takes the cake in this regard.




.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

I’ve actually always thought Russo should be the head creative guy in AEW. His shows offer unmatched pacing and they get everyone involved in stories, not just the main 6-8. The highest popularity WWF/E and TNA/Impact has ever had were tied directly to Russo. He gets way too much hate for the WCW era.


----------



## kazarn (May 8, 2020)

KYRA BATARA said:


> All wrestling promotions have their fanboys that white knight their product with rose-colored glasses, but AEW definitely takes the cake in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When the people who run the show pander to them whenever they can then it's just natural.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Imagine being so affected by others that you choose to not watch something.


----------



## Swan-San (May 25, 2019)

I think the point about feeling dumb is true, I think they're insecure about being dumb so if you attack something they like and say it's retarded they can't disassociate between the two and feel personally attacked.
They remind me of social warriors at universities or hardcore feminists that think they're being all inclusive and empathetic etc but really they're the opposite and are acting out in that way as some sort of compensation for some sort of insecurity and won't listen to anything other than opinions like their own.

and not to be rude but I do think a lot are relatively dumb tbh from experiencing interactions on here and overall thinking what type of person you'd have to be to like some of the shit, but i'm not trying to insult or start an insult argument so assume i'm not talking about you if you love AEW.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I’ve actually always thought Russo should be the head creative guy in AEW. His shows offer unmatched pacing and they get everyone involved in stories, not just the main 6-8. The highest popularity WWF/E and TNA/Impact has ever had were tied directly to Russo. He gets way too much hate for the WCW era.


I'm not a big fan of his but have said before if someone randomly came up to me, gave me a huge budget and asked me to assemble a wrestling company I'd have Russo in the room creatively as a contributor but not as the guy in charge. In a creative meeting you want people who are going to have rapid fire ideas and Russo seems like a guy that would be able to fire off a heap of ideas and as you mentioned he has ideas for everyone on the show not just the main event guys.

His WCW run was him desperately trying to get ratings back because they put so much pressure on him to instantly be competitive with WWF again. Not a good indicator of his talents in my opinion.




optikk sucks said:


> Imagine being so affected by others that you choose to not watch something.


Well, he's afraid of being harassed on the internet by AEW fans so it kind of makes sense.


----------



## Jman55 (Nov 21, 2016)

optikk sucks said:


> Imagine being so affected by others that you choose to not watch something.


In the case of an average fan I 100% agree with you a toxic fanbase is not something that should stop you from watching something (enjoy a lot of things with severely toxic fanbases so well aware of this issue)

In the case of Vince Russo though who people would expect to share his opinions and is a semi public figure who already gets abuse would probably get a lot more shit if he shared any negative opinions cause though I don't think it's as bad as people say there's definitely a chunk of the AEW fanbase who are a big problem and would do this. So in Russo's case it makes sense.

(On the topic of if Russo would be useful to AEW yeah though he has a lot of crap ideas he has some great as well and his philosophy of giving everyone something to do with much more fine tuned ideas would be a good thing. Wouldn't ever have him in charge though merely a contributor of ideas with a serious filter over what gets approved)


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Well, he's afraid of being harassed on the internet by AEW fans so it kind of makes sense.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

optikk sucks said:


>


Very insensitive especially after what has happened in the past 7 days within the wrestling community.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Very insensitive especially after what has happened in the past 7 days within the wrestling community.


That’s Tyler the creator for you.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

TBH I think people attack Russo because he has an abrasive personality more than because they disagree with his opinions.

If you're gonna be a heel, expect heel reactions.

Also, let's call a spade a spade, Russo has a habit of shrinking audiences, not growing them.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

If many of the so-called critics cared about AEW’s growth, they wouldn’t make it about getting their opinion over. Never once do I hear these people amend their opinions when they’re proven wrong about something or be happy if their doomsday scenario doesn’t pan out. Usually, they just argue the exception and move the goalpost.

It’s kind of hard to appear impartial when many of the so-called critics sound like they want AEW to fail or care more about being right than the company doing well.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

DOTL said:


> If many of the so-called critics cared about AEW’s growth, they wouldn’t make it about getting their opinion over. Never once do I hear these people amend their opinions when they’re proven wrong about something or come across new evidence. Usually, they just argue the exception.
> 
> It’s kind of hard to appear impartial when many of the so-called critics abound like they want AEW to fail.


At least guys like Russo and Cornette get paid for getting their opinions over. I don't know what some people's motivations are...


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Geeee said:


> At least guys like Russo and Cornette get paid for getting their opinions over. I don't know what some people's motivations are...


True. I wasn’t even including Russo in that when I wrote it.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Geeee said:


> At least guys like Russo and Cornette get paid for getting their opinions over. I don't know what some people's motivations are...


Nobody paid you for that opinion so I wonder what your motivation is for posting it.

See how silly that comment is? People post their opinions because that's what this forum is designed for and it's fun to have discussions. Simple.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Nobody paid you for that opinion so I wonder what your motivation is for posting it.
> 
> See how silly that comment is? People post their opinions because that's what this forum is designed for and it's fun to have discussions. Simple.


He’s isn’t talking about people having an opinion. He’s talking about people prioritizing their opinion over the health and well being of the company. It makes sense for guys like Russo and Cornette to do it because they make money for being right about AEW doing something wrong.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

DOTL said:


> He’s isn’t talking about people having an opinion. He’s talking about people prioritizing their opinion over the health and well being of the company. It makes sense for guys like Russo and Cornette to do it because they make money for being right about AEW doing something wrong.


Maybe I'm stupid but I have no idea what you mean. The opinions of critics (Both good and bad) does nothing to benefit or harm the health and well being of the company unless they are within the company or have the ear of the company.

Most people are motivated to give their opinion because they feel obligated to or find it fun to do so.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

This doesn't change the fact that some people are also overly critical about the product. Both sides are wrong at different times with being overly praising or being overly negative. This post comes across to me like Russo and you guys who shit on AEW for everything under the sun can "do no wrong", because you believe you're always right about your criticisms. A lot of the time, (not really including you Chip because at least you back up your arguments), people like to try and force their negative opinion on people like absolute fact and don't really care about what you have to say. Its not just the "AEW Super Fans" that act this way with their positivity, but its also the "overly negative "AEW detractors" who live their lives for the primary sake of shitting on the product because it's not their precious WWE.


----------



## BigCy (Nov 10, 2012)

prosperwithdeen said:


> This doesn't change the fact that some people are also overly critical about the product. Both sides are wrong at different times with being overly praising or being overly negative. This post comes across to me like Russo and you guys who shit on AEW for everything under the sun can "do no wrong", because you believe you're always right about your criticisms. A lot of the time, (not really including you Chip because at least you back up your arguments), people like to try and force their negative opinion on people like absolute fact and don't really care about what you have to say. Its not just the "AEW Super Fans" that act this way with their positivity, *but its also the "overly negative "AEW detractors" who live their lives for the primary sake of shitting on the product because it's not their precious WWE.*


I really wish this argument would die. AEW Detractors (the vast majority) does not equal WWE Fans, most have the same number or even more issues with WWE than AEW you may have like 1 out of 10 who are only attacking AEW because they are pro-WWE for life but the vast majority actually like parts of AEW they just have a few problems with it.

Most of the people who don't like AEW don't like it because AEW came out advertising something different and "sport like" and made it like they were gonna set the world on fire and it basically became a mix of WWE and TNA with a little ECW thrown in. You can make the argument "well at least it's kind of different," yeah sure, but it's still not what was advertised, nor did they have any real urgency to secure the talent that would have gotten eyeballs, and they still took some of the worst aspects of each of those 3 companies and mashed them together, had they taken the best aspects of those 3 companies there would be very few complaints.


----------



## OwenSES (Jul 19, 2010)

Well you're always going to encounter this type of negativity of Twitter. It's not just exclusive to Wrestling but any entertainment with a strong fandom or even Sport and Politics.

That being said, I do hate whenever the official WWE Twitter account tweets anything, the comments get bombarded with AEW fans just shitting on WWE. It's like wtf, we get it, AEW is new, AEW is cool, AEW has chair shots to the head, AEW has Orange Cassidy (A character who would get booed out the building on WWE television) AEW has Dustin Rhodes getting the big push ect ect.

That's cool have fun watching that product, it's great for the business. But why are those type of fans getting caught up in some phony war with WWE and WWE fans?. Like just enjoy the fact that wrestling now has many alternatives you can watch and let WWE be WWE.


----------



## Cooper09 (Aug 24, 2016)

He isn't wrong. AEW die hards are fucking toxic who refuse to hear anything bad about the company despite the fact they're pushing WWE midcarders/jobbers as main eventers.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Maybe I'm stupid but I have no idea what you mean. The opinions of critics (Both good and bad) does nothing to benefit or harm the health and well being of the company unless they are within the company or have the ear of the company.
> 
> Most people are motivated to give their opinion because they feel obligated to or find it fun to do so.


I’m talking about giving opinions out of bad faith, with the goal not being the improvement of the product or at least, as you say, discussion. Many “critics” are just detractors.


----------



## Swan-San (May 25, 2019)

DOTL said:


> I’m talking about giving opinions out of bad faith, with the goal not being the improvement of the product or at least, as you say, discussion. Many “critics” are just detractors.


I can't speak for Russo as i don't listen to him, but you clearly don't listen to cornette if that's your opinion, he's always giving alternatives to what should have been done in his opinion.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

BigCy said:


> I really wish this argument would die. AEW Detractors (the vast majority) does not equal WWE Fans, most have the same number or even more issues with WWE than AEW you may have like 1 out of 10 who are only attacking AEW because they are pro-WWE for life but the vast majority actually like parts of AEW they just have a few problems with it.
> 
> Most of the people who don't like AEW don't like it because AEW came out advertising something different and "sport like" and made it like they were gonna set the world on fire and it basically became a mix of WWE and TNA with a little ECW thrown in. You can make the argument "well at least it's kind of different," yeah sure, but it's still not what was advertised, nor did they have any real urgency to secure the talent that would have gotten eyeballs, and they still took some of the worst aspects of each of those 3 companies and mashed them together, had they taken the best aspects of those 3 companies there would be very few complaints.


What talent did they not have the urgency to secure? They got all the big names who could have gotten eyes that were available except for CM Punk who wasn't signing with anyone because he hates the industry and Killer Cross who was made an offer but decided WWE was right for him and his wife. He probably wanted guaranteed stability seeing as WWE isn't a new company and he and Scarlett were having financial issues working with TNA, which is completely understandable seeing as Scarlett was still living with her mom. If they didn't pick up PAC or Moxley or Omega then you would have an argument. Everyone else was under contract and Okada is not leaving Japan. There's no one else out there. They can't just sign people from WWE like the paperwork doesn't exist. As soon as Matt Hardy and Moxley left the company, the urgency was there to bring them in. We may not like Hardy but his segments have been drawing eyes. Rusev, EC3, and The Revival will also be aggressively pursued once the 90 day no competes are done. There's no else. They are pouncing on any hot agent that hits the market. 

AEW only advertised an "alternative" and that "tag team wrestling" would matter. Both of which they have delivered on. Everything else that the fans think they promised was just a matter of people putting words into their mouths and trying to get AEW to mold their company to their vision because they are so damaged from WWE. In a way, they are setting the wrestling world on fire. They are leagues better than WWE and 9/10 of their shows have been enjoyable. That's revolutionary in the modern era of wrestling where WWE 2/10 WWE shows are enjoyable. I mean what more do you want them to do? Go the route of Lucha Underground with cinematography just with bigger stars? Become completely hardcore like ECW? Both would draw more complaining from fans and SJW's then we are getting now.

Care to explain what the worst aspects taken were? The comedy? Using legends? Are we just going to ignore that the best aspects were also taken?


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

prosperwithdeen said:


> This doesn't change the fact that some people are also overly critical about the product. Both sides are wrong at different times with being overly praising or being overly negative. This post comes across to me like Russo and you guys who shit on AEW for everything under the sun can "do no wrong", because you believe you're always right about your criticisms. A lot of the time, (not really including you Chip because at least you back up your arguments), people like to try and force their negative opinion on people like absolute fact and don't really care about what you have to say. Its not just the "AEW Super Fans" that act this way with their positivity, but its also the "overly negative "AEW detractors" who live their lives for the primary sake of shitting on the product because it's not their precious WWE.


There is literally only ONE poster in this forum that I would say sounds like someone wishing ill upon AEW and just wanting to be right. ONE poster in how many? Yet there are a TON of us who get labeled WWE fans, or even the same goddamn person on separate accounts, all because we HATE the stupid as fuck Matt Hardy, Nakazawa, or whatever comedy shit and don’t understand/can’t envision a future where all those different styles converge seamlessly.

To his credit, @LifeInCattleClass gave the most compelling description of the way he sees it coming together, and just speaking for myself here, while I don’t buy it working, I do appreciate him helping shed some light on it and giving me some perspective.


Cooper09 said:


> He isn't wrong. AEW die hards are fucking toxic who refuse to hear anything bad about the company despite the fact they're pushing WWE midcarders/jobbers as main eventers.


This is going to piss off a lot of the sycophants who refuse to admit that only those with the built-in WWE backing of fans are getting pushes.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

Geeee said:


> Also, let's call a spade a spade, Russo has a habit of shrinking audiences, not growing them.


WWE got their highest ratings with Russo assigned as writer. So did TNA. WCW's audience didn't shrink for the 3 months that he was on creative, they just didn't grow in any significant way.

Not sure where you're getting your data from.



Swan-San said:


> I can't speak for Russo as i don't listen to him, but you clearly don't listen to cornette if that's your opinion, he's always giving alternatives to what should have been done in his opinion.


Russo _sometimes_ gives alternatives, but mostly points out why AEW did something wrong. I can't speak for his AEW Dynamite review show on Patreon though, only the stuff I catch of him from his weekly podcast.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Swan-San said:


> I can't speak for Russo as i don't listen to him, but you clearly don't listen to cornette if that's your opinion, he's always giving alternatives to what should have been done in his opinion.


I wasn’t aware that those two were the only two critics. This argument is being made against people that don’t want the show to get better, or can’t admit when their ideas for what the show is doing wrong might be wrong. If those two want it to be better, fine. Great on them. But I still wonder if especially Cornette would be all to happy if something he says can’t draw actually drew.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Swan-San said:


> I can't speak for Russo as i don't listen to him, but you clearly don't listen to cornette if that's your opinion, he's always giving alternatives to what should have been done in his opinion.


Cornette last week cut a promo as Cody Rhodes to tell his audience what AEW should've done. For those interested it was Jim as Cody cutting a promo swearing revenge on Archer during the go home episode of Dynamite. He found it odd that both Cody and Archer weren't involved in the episode.



prosperwithdeen said:


> What talent did they not have the urgency to secure? They got all the big names who could have gotten eyes that were available except for CM Punk who wasn't signing with anyone because he hates the industry and Killer Cross who was made an offer but decided WWE was right for him and his wife. He probably wanted guaranteed stability seeing as WWE isn't a new company and he and Scarlett were having financial issues working with TNA, which is completely understandable seeing as Scarlett was still living with her mom. If they didn't pick up PAC or Moxley or Omega then you would have an argument. Everyone else was under contract and Okada is not leaving Japan. There's no one else out there. They can't just sign people from WWE like the paperwork doesn't exist. As soon as Matt Hardy and Moxley left the company, the urgency was there to bring them in. We may not like Hardy but his segments have been drawing eyes. Rusev, EC3, and The Revival will also be aggressively pursued once the 90 day no competes are done. There's no else. They are pouncing on any hot agent that hits the market.
> 
> AEW only advertised an "alternative" and that "tag team wrestling" would matter. Both of which they have delivered on. Everything else that the fans think they promised was just a matter of people putting words into their mouths and trying to get AEW to mold their company to their vision because they are so damaged from WWE. In a way, they are setting the wrestling world on fire. They are leagues better than WWE and 9/10 of their shows have been enjoyable. That's revolutionary in the modern era of wrestling where WWE 2/10 WWE shows are enjoyable. I mean what more do you want them to do? Go the route of Lucha Underground with cinematography just with bigger stars? Become completely hardcore like ECW? Both would draw more complaining from fans and SJW's then we are getting now.
> 
> Care to explain what the worst aspects taken were? The comedy? Using legends? Are we just going to ignore that the best aspects were also taken?


I know you didn't ask me but wanted to give my opinion anyway. I made a post recently in another thread showing some of the people AEW could have got when they were actively signing people. Check it out:




Chip Chipperson said:


> I believe it was Cult03 that brought up a possible what could have been AEW roster in this thread or another one. Instead of pitching random chubby indy guys doing frat gimmicks (No disrespect to the above poster) lets instead look at what could have been:
> 
> Men:
> 
> ...


We can take Brian Cage off that since he's just debuted with the company but we could've had an AEW where Jericho, Moxley, Brodie Lee, Omega, Cody, Archer and CM Punk were your full fledged main event acts with an undercard featuring the likes of Hammerstone, Eli Drake, Fatu, Kross, Scurll, Elgin, Aldis, Jungle Boy, Cage, Luchasaurus, MJF, Guevara, PAC, Fenix, Pentagon, Cabana and a few others. Honestly if they had combined all of those talented individuals together and used them properly I'd say they'd be doing well over 1 million fans a week right now and would probably have the best men's roster in the world right now bar none. With that roster I would suggest that within 2-3 years they could be competitive with WWE Smackdown.

Even the women's division could've been much better than what it is currently. Jordynne Grace, Marti Belle, Scarlett Bordeaux (As a manager), Tenille, Tessa and Thunder are all super talented and I know quite well that Scarlett, Tenille, Tessa and Thunder Rosa all have pretty big fan bases that would support them weekly on television. Instead we've got Shida as champion despite the fact AEW doesn't air on TV in Japan and a bunch of cast offs and rejects in the AEW Women's division

Despite what you say CM Punk was interested in at least chatting to AEW and they fucked it up. Sure, he might not have returned full time but maybe 10 matches a year (4-5 on PPV, 4-5 on free TV) and an agreement to do 30-35 shows a year could have interested the guy especially if big money was coming his way. Hypothetically lets say Punk was offered 2 million dollars a year to work 30-35 dates a year and only work 10 matches. You think he'd turn that down? I don't.

Again, I know you didn't ask me but I think what that poster means is that AEW hasn't tried to take from the best of what the three companies he mentioned have to offer. So for example, the WWE does a really good job at offering a little something for everyone and they really are on the ball with how angles go and how matches go. TNA was really good at utilising big stars and making them feel important whilst ECW was great at utilising every talent they had and offering a more serious and adult approach which is what AEW should be doing as well.

Imagine an AEW with the roster I've named above consisting of the structure and creative team WWE has mixed in with the ability TNA has/had to make their big name stars actually matter and mean something mixed in with the more realistic approach of ECW and the adult stories that they offered. I guarantee those three things all mixed in together with the roster above would be a product that would be competitive with WWE. Instead we've got Marko, Orange Cassidy, Chuck Taylor, Shawn Spears being stripped and Kenny, Cody and Tony Khan writing the shows despite having hardly any experience amongst them.

* Sigh * What could have been...


----------



## Stellar (May 30, 2016)

What we all do wrong is lump everyone in to groups. Like the "AEW fans" and the "AEW haters". Not everyone expresses their opinion or interacts with others the same way.

Most people only wants to hear opinions that fit their opinion. It's that way in every subject. "If you don't have the same opinion as me, you're wrong and i'm right. End of story.". It's why politics in general is so toxic now.

Those that criticize AEW may think that the diehard fans are toxic but some diehard fans may feel the same way about some haters. So the communication ends up being a thing that goes in circles of "AEW fans can't take criticism" and then "AEW haters just want to crap on the product". Most from both sides are causing this defensive mindset instead of everyone being open minded.


----------



## Buhalovski (Jul 24, 2015)

I love AEW but i hated the Stadium Stampede match. Guess what, when I've said it I had multiple notifications with funny quotes  Russo is somewhat right, AEW is great but some of their fans are the worst kind of marks.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Southerner said:


> What we all do wrong is lump everyone in to groups. Like the "AEW fans" and the "AEW haters". Not everyone expresses their opinion or interacts with others the same way.
> 
> Most people only wants to hear opinions that fit their opinion. It's that way in every subject. "If you don't have the same opinion as me, you're wrong and i'm right. End of story.". It's why politics in general is so toxic now.
> 
> Those that criticize AEW may think that the diehard fans are toxic but some diehard fans may feel the same way about some haters. So the communication ends up being a thing that goes in circles of "AEW fans can't take criticism" and then "AEW haters just want to crap on the product". Most from both sides are causing this defensive mindset instead of everyone being open minded.


This is exactly what it is. Nail on the head. Everyone feels strongly about their POV's whether it's positive or negative and we will just keep going around in circles until everyone decides to be absolutely neutral and un-biased, which will never happen.


----------



## Jman55 (Nov 21, 2016)

Southerner said:


> What we all do wrong is lump everyone in to groups. Like the "AEW fans" and the "AEW haters". Not everyone expresses their opinion or interacts with others the same way.
> 
> Most people only wants to hear opinions that fit their opinion. It's that way in every subject. "If you don't have the same opinion as me, you're wrong and i'm right. End of story.". It's why politics in general is so toxic now.
> 
> Those that criticize AEW may think that the diehard fans are toxic but some diehard fans may feel the same way about some haters. So the communication ends up being a thing that goes in circles of "AEW fans can't take criticism" and then "AEW haters just want to crap on the product". Most from both sides are causing this defensive mindset instead of everyone being open minded.


"Us vs Them" and "My opinion is right" are common practices among fanbases, politics and all forms of stuff which you can have an opinion on and in the age of the internet and social media it has just gotten worse and worse. I barely post here anymore cause I feel like one way or the other I'm going to be labelled as on one of these "teams" (I like 95% of what AEW puts out but the parts I dislike I will admit I very much dislike and am not afraid to say as much) When I am just one person who thinks my own way and just want to have a respectful talk with others about it. I disagree with a lot of people here a lot of times but I don't want to waste energy on these generalisations that "both sides" are doing it's such a waste of time and energy by all who do it.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

Southerner said:


> What we all do wrong is lump everyone in to groups. Like the "AEW fans" and the "AEW haters". Not everyone expresses their opinion or interacts with others the same way.
> 
> Most people only wants to hear opinions that fit their opinion. It's that way in every subject. "If you don't have the same opinion as me, you're wrong and i'm right. End of story.". It's why politics in general is so toxic now.
> 
> Those that criticize AEW may think that the diehard fans are toxic but some diehard fans may feel the same way about some haters. So the communication ends up being a thing that goes in circles of "AEW fans can't take criticism" and then "AEW haters just want to crap on the product". Most from both sides are causing this defensive mindset instead of everyone being open minded.



In a general sense yes, but AEW caters to the most vocal portion of the niche wrestling fanbase. The fans that spend their days discussing wrestling on message boards, watching stuff like BTE and reading the dirtsheets are the target audience. Naturally, they'll have a very clear / blatant bias when it comes to the quality of AEW's product. They'll forgive, look away or defend when AEW does something stupid because it needs to maintain the illusion of being a superior product to WWE.

Of course not _every_ AEW fan is like this, but it's very apparent online wherever wrestling-related topics are being discussed


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

As an AEW fan. 

1. Why do people think telling us what they dont like matters to us?
2. Why do people think telling us what they dont like will change anything?
3. No one cares about personal opinions of things, why do you think it always turns into an argument or debate
4. If you do not enjoy something stop trying to ruin it for others. No one wants to watch a show and hear how terrible it is. 

Think about it this way, I do not enjoy RAW or SD. I do not watch Raw or SD. 

However people always have something negative to say about AEW. Even in a match where lets say 90% of it was great, they focus and harp on the 10% they feel wasn't. So now we get a couple posts here about 90% of the match and then the other 10% is covered in the discussion thread for pages and then you guys make threads about that same 10% days after. 

Its stoopid. Its annoying. It is counterintuitive to quality discussion.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

NXT Only said:


> As an AEW fan.
> 
> 1. Why do people think telling us what they dont like matters to us?
> 2. Why do people think telling us what they dont like will change anything?
> ...


The AEW section isn't a fan club or a Discord, it's a section on a message board where anyone can express their likes and dislikes about something. For better or worse.

Also, you're ruining the product for yourself if online discussion triggers you, and yet you continue coming back to the source to discuss said shit. It's not like someone is standing infront of your television screen while you're trying to watch Dynamite.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

NXT Only said:


> As an AEW fan.
> 
> 1. Why do people think telling us what they dont like matters to us?
> 2. Why do people think telling us what they dont like will change anything?
> ...


1. We don't. We're simply sharing our views just like you are. 

2. We don't. We're simply sharing our views just like you are.

3. Who says? I've had plenty of really intelligent debates on here where people want to talk about my personal opinion on wrestling and I want to talk about theirs.

4. Nobody is trying to ruin anything for anyone.

Also, something the AEW fans don't seem to comprehend is that the "haters" generally like things on the show. For example, my buddy Cult03? He regularly talks about how he likes about half the show on any given week. The Wood? He's a bit more harsh but still does put over things every now and then. Even myself I will always mention what I do like and enjoy because I genuinely find myself enjoying certain parts of the product. Even Mr. Negative himself in Jim Cornette always puts over the show when they do things properly. It's usually the AEW fans that pick up on the tiny negative thing and carry on the discussion with us for multiple pages as opposed to us rambling on about it for ages.

Nobody here hates watching the show week to week though. Just certain aspects.


----------



## TKO Wrestling (Jun 26, 2018)

Chip Chipperson said:


> His WCW run was him desperately trying to get ratings back because they put so much pressure on him to instantly be competitive with WWF again. Not a good indicator of his talents in my opinion.


Yep. Once Goldberg's streak died, WCW as an equal to WWF, died. WWF was gopin


Chip Chipperson said:


> Cornette last week cut a promo as Cody Rhodes to tell his audience what AEW should've done. For those interested it was Jim as Cody cutting a promo swearing revenge on Archer during the go home episode of Dynamite. He found it odd that both Cody and Archer weren't involved in the episode.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Man if thats all it takes to sign Punk then shame on AEW. I figured it was $15-$25 million to get him.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

TKO Wrestling said:


> Man if thats all it takes to sign Punk then shame on AEW. I figured it was $15-$25 million to get him.


I don't know how much he wanted I'm just estimating but 15-25 million would be way too much. I think his UFC deal was for just under a million dollars and he dedicated 2 years of his life to that so I'm taking into account AEW being smaller and WWE probably offering him a bit more than the UFC deal. 2 million seems fair to be competitive and get him under contract as the face of the company.


----------



## Jman55 (Nov 21, 2016)

NXT Only said:


> As an AEW fan.
> 
> 1. Why do people think telling us what they dont like matters to us?
> 2. Why do people think telling us what they dont like will change anything?
> ...


As another AEW fan I agree with point 4 as well as the paragraph it can be annoying as hell this forum in general focuses on the negative way more than the positive which is not fun when you genuinely enjoy these things. However points 1 and 3 are not good points at all. This is a discussion forum where we talk about both the good and the bad the only problem is if people share those opinions like assholes but just sharing the opinion of disliking something is perfectly reasonable if done reasonably (you can say it's not done so and tbf you'd be correct more often than not but that isn't at all addressed by what you said here you just basically said negative opinions shouldn't be shared which no they should just be shared respectfully for an actually reasonable discussion and debate)

I just want us to actually discuss both the good and the bad with respect but the whole "us vs them" bs is likely a bit too deeply rooted already.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

KYRA BATARA said:


> The AEW section isn't a fan club or a Discord, it's a section on a message board where anyone can express their likes and dislikes about something. For better or worse.
> 
> Also, you're ruining the product for yourself if online discussion triggers you, and yet you continue coming back to the source to discuss said shit. It's not like someone is standing infront of your television screen while you're trying to watch Dynamite.


I dont watch live since I work Wednesdays so I am not here when Dynamite airs but I do watch PPVs live so I still see that even after months nothings has changed.

Now express your opinion fine but here's a better way to do so. 

Cody defeats Archers

Poster who didn't like it "I would have went in the other direction, I think Archer winning could have led to a better transition in this rivalry"

However we get "Dumbass Cody putting himself over" "This shit is terrible" "Fucking nepotism" "WWE-lite, Cody thinks he's HHH" "This was supposed to be an alternative but we're getting the same shit" Then we get threads about this decision. None of that is about making things better, its just crapping on a decision because you disagree. Take that shit to twitter and tell Cody or Tony or the Bucks. They'll see it.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

Chip Chipperson said:


> 1. We don't. We're simply sharing our views just like you are.
> 
> 2. We don't. We're simply sharing our views just like you are.
> 
> ...


My point is that things you like are barely mentioned and things you dont we get consecutive posts, insults, attacks, jokes, etc...Never once is just a simple "I would have went the other way" 

Think about this, how are we able to associate negativity with the exact posters on this site? If it was just you guys simply stating what you dont like you wouldn't stand out at all. There's more to it. 

The funny thing is you all think we just like everything and that isn't true. We just dont need to harp on every detail because we unlike you guys understand that 1. everything isn't for us and 2. we aren't going to like everything


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

NXT Only said:


> As an AEW fan.
> 
> 1. Why do people think telling us what they dont like matters to us?
> 2. Why do people think telling us what they dont like will change anything?
> ...


There’s nothing wrong with saying what they don’t like. The issue is when they act like their opinion is a fact and use condescending terminology to ridicule others for enjoying something that they don’t like.
“Come on guys, let’s be honest. You can’t like this. You’re trolling”
“You’re smarter than this”
Blah blah. @The Wood and @Cult03 are especially guilty of this.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

NXT Only said:


> and things you dont we get consecutive posts, insults, attacks, jokes, etc


Yeah because people will debate me/us on that.

Will give you an example, on the PPV I mentioned that I really enjoyed MJF/Jungle Boy and Cody/Archer. Not once has anyone tried to ask why I liked it, what I think MJF is going to do next or anything positive however I must have had at least 2 pages dedicated to me not liking Stadium Stampede with people calling me stupid, a hater, a fan boy etc.

Cult03 will regularly post a pretty even mix of what he liked and disliked but people will focus on what he thought was bad and try to sway him or tell him he was wrong which is what I imagine happens to Russo as well. I know for a fact it happens with Cornette.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

NXT Only said:


> I dont watch live since I work Wednesdays so I am not here when Dynamite airs but I do watch PPVs live so I still see that even after months nothings has changed.
> 
> Now express your opinion fine but here's a better way to do so.
> 
> ...



Well, there's mature posters and immature posters. If the number of immature posters far outweigh the mature ones then maybe you should ask yourself why you're still here?

If it's vice-versa, then the ignorant posts can easily be shot down or ignored. If it's blatant trolling / flaming then you can always report or block.


easy peasy lemon squeezy


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Yeah because people will debate me/us on that.
> 
> Will give you an example, on the PPV I mentioned that I really enjoyed MJF/Jungle Boy and Cody/Archer. Not once has anyone tried to ask why I liked it, what I think MJF is going to do next or anything positive however I must have had at least 2 pages dedicated to me not liking Stadium Stampede with people calling me stupid, a hater, a fan boy etc.
> 
> Cult03 will regularly post a pretty even mix of what he liked and disliked but people will focus on what he thought was bad and try to sway him or tell him he was wrong which is what I imagine happens to Russo as well. I know for a fact it happens with Cornette.


How can you not like Stadium Stampede? It was a hit worldwide.

But either way a discussion Thread, in my opinion, should be discussing what’s happening or happened. I don’t think either side needs to force what they liked or didn’t like.

I wish it was more analysis rather than reaction on this site.


----------



## validreasoning (Jul 4, 2012)

NXT Only said:


> How can you not like Stadium Stampede? It was a hit worldwide.
> 
> But either way a discussion Thread, in my opinion, should be discussing what’s happening or happened. I don’t think either side needs to force what they liked or didn’t like.
> 
> I wish it was more analysis rather than reaction on this site.


This is your life is one of the most watched things in Raw history yet was torn apart by iwc when it happened and I still detest it to this day.

So yes you can hate something. I am 50/50 on the cinematic matches, maybe 25/75 because they aren't pro wrestling. I can understand many fans hating it. It's moving the business from the ring and towards what ironically a few were predicting around 2002 would happen.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

NXT Only said:


> I dont watch live since I work Wednesdays so I am not here when Dynamite airs but I do watch PPVs live so I still see that even after months nothings has changed.
> 
> Now express your opinion fine but here's a better way to do so.
> 
> ...


Well, I asked this question numerous times and only one person responded, so here goes again, “What purpose does Matt Hardy being propped up as the Face of the Elite in its Inner Circle war serve, other than to make Matt Hardy look good?”

I made it clear I didn’t like that Hardy was somehow pushed to be King Fucking Ding-a-Ling of a story that had been brewing since Dynamite began, and the question went ignored with the AEW sycophants screaming that I’m just a hater and a shill. I genuinely wanted someone, ANYONE to give me a fucking reason to buy into the story they were telling.

But only one soul responded, the day after the Stadium Stampede mind you, so it further proves my theory that AEW wasn’t giving any thought to the stories being told, except Cody’s story of course.

Meanwhile, Moxley, Hangman Page, and MJF lost all momentum they had coming off big PPV wins where they looked like stars, and you’ve got Cody telling us they can’t even put together vignettes to hell further their story and keep those guys’ momentum going.

But hey, Matt Hardy being pushed as Face of this feud was really goddamn important, huh? There’s a cancer in the company.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

validreasoning said:


> This is your life is one of the most watched things in Raw history yet was torn apart by iwc when it happened and I still detest it to this day.
> 
> So yes you can hate something. I am 50/50 on the cinematic matches, maybe 25/75 because they aren't pro wrestling. I can understand many fans hating it. It's moving the business from the ring and towards what ironically a few were predicting around 2002 would happen.


The Bayley one?

And I'm talking about the instant reaction to stadium stampede, not just the viewership. 

Many fans didn't hate it. And how did it move the business from the ring. Its not different than a street fight match where they end up outside the arena.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

TKO Wrestling said:


> I’ve actually always thought Russo should be the head creative guy in AEW. His shows offer unmatched pacing and they get everyone involved in stories, not just the main 6-8. The highest popularity WWF/E and TNA/Impact has ever had were tied directly to Russo. He gets way too much hate for the WCW era.


Giving something to everyone is not actually a good thing. It means emphasis doesn’t exist where you need it. Think “Three Stooges Syndrome” from The Simpsons. Too many ideas trying to jam through one doorway at once. Not good. If you’ve got 18 different stories on one show, youce



Swan-San said:


> I think the point about feeling dumb is true, I think they're insecure about being dumb so if you attack something they like and say it's retarded they can't disassociate between the two and feel personally attacked.
> They remind me of social warriors at universities or hardcore feminists that think they're being all inclusive and empathetic etc but really they're the opposite and are acting out in that way as some sort of compensation for some sort of insecurity and won't listen to anything other than opinions like their own.
> 
> and not to be rude but I do think a lot are relatively dumb tbh from experiencing interactions on here and overall thinking what type of person you'd have to be to like some of the shit, but i'm not trying to insult or start an insult argument so assume i'm not talking about you if you love AEW.


Ha, to be fair you could flip all those points about feminism and social justice back on the insecure people who attack it, and it would kind of make more sense, because at least one side doesn’t have the social power that the other side is self-conscious about losing. Completely agree with you on AEW though, hahaha



Geeee said:


> TBH I think people attack Russo because he has an abrasive personality more than because they disagree with his opinions.
> 
> If you're gonna be a heel, expect heel reactions.
> 
> Also, let's call a spade a spade, Russo has a habit of shrinking audiences, not growing them.


I’m glad someone else sees Russo as a heel. Way too often I hear him portrayed as a “nice guy, but..” which is unsettling.

I really do just think the myths have all been busted with the guy. WCW and TNA have really exposed the tropes of his “writing style.” People see through his “I gave everyone something to do” and see “I choppy-choppy your pee-pee” and the miscarriage of Terri Runnels. They see through “Bro, we came up with something new every week” and see “hot-shotting.” They hear about that This is Your Life rating and realise that Austin vs. Taker killed it.

A silent killer with Russo is the lying. Cornette, for whatever his fault, comes out ahead because history proves him right, and he at least tells the truth. Russo’s excuses, fudging of the numbers and revisionist history just make it more instinctive to dismiss the guy as a con artist. The dude turned Goldberg heel. He has no clue what he is doing, haha.



DOTL said:


> If many of the so-called critics cared about AEW’s growth, they wouldn’t make it about getting their opinion over. Never once do I hear these people amend their opinions when they’re proven wrong about something or be happy if their doomsday scenario doesn’t pan out. Usually, they just argue the exception and move the goalpost.
> 
> It’s kind of hard to appear impartial when many of the so-called critics sound like they want AEW to fail or care more about being right than the company doing well.


You’ve completely made that up. What does “getting their own opinion over” even mean to anyone but you because you don’t like their opinion. Does that just mean they make their opinions clear and stand behind them? Why wouldn’t anyone arguing do that? You’ve just chosen language to try and make conviction sound like a character flaw.

What has anyone been wrong about? Hang on, I can name a thing I’ve been wrong about — I thought NXT would have been beating AEW by the literal and misappropriated standards of the Nielsen ratings by now. I mean, ratings for both are down, down, down, so I don’t know how much of a victory you want to claim that as, but go ahead.

Why do people need to inflate the things AEW is doing well? People don’t owe that to you or them. And what if they feel they aren’t doing much well? Or that the critically bad stuff is overpowering any of the perceived good they’re doing. Having a good MJF promo on a show isn’t going to make up for two awful segments of Matt Hardy, for example. That damage is done.

But no, you just don’t like that opinion, and it isn’t framed in sunshine and rainbows enough for you, so you dismiss it as “getting themselves over.” Maybe their opinions shouldn’t be so damn charismatic?


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Chip Chipperson said:


> I know you didn't ask me but wanted to give my opinion anyway. I made a post recently in another thread showing some of the people AEW could have got when they were actively signing people. Check it out:
> 
> 
> We can take Brian Cage off that since he's just debuted with the company but we could've had an AEW where Jericho, Moxley, Brodie Lee, Omega, Cody, Archer and CM Punk were your full fledged main event acts with an undercard featuring the likes of Hammerstone, Eli Drake, Fatu, Kross, Scurll, Elgin, Aldis, Jungle Boy, Cage, Luchasaurus, MJF, Guevara, PAC, Fenix, Pentagon, Cabana and a few others. Honestly if they had combined all of those talented individuals together and used them properly I'd say they'd be doing well over 1 million fans a week right now and would probably have the best men's roster in the world right now bar none. With that roster I would suggest that within 2-3 years they could be competitive with WWE Smackdown.
> ...


Yeah that was a very well thought out post. I don't think guys like Brian Pillman Jr., Davey Boy Smith Jr, Eli Drake, Jacob Fatu, Killer Kross, Marty Scurll, Michael Elgin, Nick Aldis, & Rhino would really make much of a difference as far as ratings in comparison to who they decided to pursue. I don't really know Marty, Elgin, or Aldis and I doubt others would really know them watching AEW for the most part. Kross was still under contract at the time. When it was time to negotiate, I think he decided WWE was the better move for financial security. Who they have now can get them over that million mark. They were doing 900k before the pandemic. All they need is to create storylines that get people excited. Now that everyone is back to stay (hopefully), they have an awesome prospective card going for ALL OUT, with MJF/Mox, Hangman Page vs Omega, Revival vs Young Bucks, and Cody vs PAC for the TNT Title as possible headlining matches. Those 4 programs alone could get them over the million mark if booked correctly, which I trust AEW to do if the pandemic doesn't continue to hamper their progress.

With the women, Scarlett and Tessa were under contract. Tessa was World Champion at the time in TNA wasn't she? Even if she wasn't, Tessa had a lot of bad publicity concerning racist comments, which would have deterred a pick up from both AEW and WWE. If it was my company, I still would have signed her, but she was under contract. I have never heard of Jordynne or Thunder Rosa, so that would probably put them on the level of the women they already have assuming that the majority of the audience haven't heard of them either. I know Tessa has a huge fanbase but Scarlett who also has a huge fanbase hasn't helped ratings in NXT. Their last show did 593K, and this 2 weeks after their debut.

As far as CM Punk, he would have been an awesome addition, and maybe they did fuck up negotiations, but Punk has also been known as a hard guy to work with. The guy definitely would have wanted more than $2 million/year. I am sure he was looking for $7-8 million. At the time, BEFORE he wasted his big return on "WWE Backstage", CM Punk was more valuable than Brock Lesnar, who doesn't draw anything and is making about $10 million to show up 5-8 times a year. If he were to come in now, I don't think people would even care as much. CM Punk could have seriously moved the needle at that time by at least a couple hundred thousand people. And maybe he still can. He would have wanted something similar to what Lesnar was getting in WWE. Something that I don't think either WWE or AEW were willing to pay.

* "WWE does a really good job at offering a little something for everyone and they really are on the ball with how angles go and how matches go. TNA was really good at utilising big stars and making them feel important whilst ECW was great at utilising every talent they had and offering a more serious and adult approach which is what AEW should be doing as well."*

I don't know if you have been watching WWE in the past 5-9 years, but they have been absolutely awful at following up with angles and booking matches properly. Everything is a f**k finish and storylines for the most part don't play out. They have been destroying their fanbase because of those reasons. There is no meaning to anything. For example, they had a huge RAW vs SD storyline a couple years back where SD went 0-6 to RAW at SSeries, and they never followed up on it. They just dropped it like nothing ever happened and like the PPV didn't happen that previous Sunday. All of their new stable angles are launched then buried within weeks. Zelina Vega's brand new stable for example, has been jobbing to everyone in the last 5 weeks. I think that AEW does a much better job at following through on their storylines. AEW has also done very well at utilizing their big stars and making them feel important. Almost everyone feels important or like they matter on the show. The only one who I really think needs work is Kenny Omega, who was on the fast track before the pandemic. As far as ECW, I do agree that they need to offer a more serious approach to their angles and drop the overabundance of comedy.

AEW will definitely be competitive with WWE in the next 2-3 years. Its only been a year and the quality presented is far superior to what we have been getting for the last 7-8 years in the industry.




bdon said:


> Well, I asked this question numerous times and only one person responded, so here goes again, “What purpose does Matt Hardy being propped up as the Face of the Elite in its Inner Circle war serve, other than to make Matt Hardy look good?”
> 
> I made it clear I didn’t like that Hardy was somehow pushed to be King Fucking Ding-a-Ling of a story that had been brewing since Dynamite began, and the question went ignored with the AEW sycophants screaming that I’m just a hater and a shill. I genuinely wanted someone, ANYONE to give me a fucking reason to buy into the story they were telling.
> 
> ...


The purpose of Matt Hardy is to get additional eyes on the product. His segments are shit to us here, but his segments have been proven to draw additional eyes in the ratings. The Sammy G vs Matt Hardy match was the most watched on the Dynamite they main evented. He's also not being propped up as the face of the Elite. He had the attention on him for a couple of weeks, but at the end of the day, Omega was front and center on the poster and he got the decisive pin in the Stadium Stampede match. Hangman Page is also a far bigger deal than Hardy. He was quarantined for weeks though so it couldn't come across that way on TV. The Young Bucks were also quarantined. You don't have to buy into the story, because it wasn't the original story. It is a makeshift story that they threw together because half of the Elite couldn't make the show.


----------



## Chan Hung (Dec 28, 2011)

I also critique the show. But can we all just take a moment and remember that Dynamite has not been on more than 1 year, has it? I say by their 3rd year would be a more fair assessment of how they are doing.


----------



## El Hammerstone (Jan 11, 2020)

prosperwithdeen said:


> *The purpose of Matt Hardy is to get additional eyes on the product*. His segments are shit to us here, but his segments have been proven to draw additional eyes in the ratings. The Sammy G vs Matt Hardy match was the most watched on the Dynamite they main evented. He's also not being propped up as the face of the Elite. He had the attention on him for a couple of weeks, but at the end of the day, Omega was front and center on the poster and he got the decisive pin in the Stadium Stampede match. Hangman Page is also a far bigger deal than Hardy. He was quarantined for weeks though so it couldn't come across that way on TV. The Young Bucks were also quarantined. You don't have to buy into the story, because it wasn't the original story. It is a makeshift story that they threw together because half of the Elite couldn't make the show.


This is all the more reason he needs to start putting over some younger talent; Matt Hardy is what he is at this point, wins and losses on his record will have no effect on his credibility one way or the other, but they WILL have an effect on the people he's in the ring with.


----------



## Nickademus_Eternal (Feb 24, 2014)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Just thought I'd share these tweets from Vince Russo.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264581593772855296
> ...


Well,to be fair,you "wwe stans" tend to do the same thing. You get your panties in a wad because people like and enjoy something you dont like or enjoy. Can't complain about what others do when you do the same thing.


----------



## Mister Sinister (Aug 7, 2013)

There is a difference between constructive criticism and people going onto boards or social media to publicly tear down the product with the intent to either create the optic that the fans hate the show they are watching every week or to say to everyone that they know everything about wrestling and are so smart (when the shit they complain about exposes their asses as having no idea how a wrestling show runs or how story narrative progresses). There has been a swell of complaining during this pandemic about all of the shit that is out of AEW's control.

The overabundance of complaining says that some of these folks complaining are not actually fans (of AEW or of an alternative to WWE). Where is the constructive discussion? I created a positive thread about how to use Mike Tyson in the royal, and there were mostly negative responses. That is bullshit. There is nothing negative about Tyson on TV, in the royal or winning it. He is a massive mainstream draw right now, and the real fans that want to see this company succeed don't need smarks that don't know the business side of the business shitting on this and ruining it. *The Tyson argument exposes the people on this board who actually are here to damage the brand and want to see it go down. It's the AEW blood test from "The Thing."*


----------



## validreasoning (Jul 4, 2012)

NXT Only said:


> The Bayley one?


No Rock and Foley one. Bayley one didn't do second or third highest viewership in raw history



> And I'm talking about the instant reaction to stadium stampede, not just the viewership.
> 
> Many fans didn't hate it. And how did it move the business from the ring. Its not different than a street fight match where they end up outside the arena.



Reaction on this forum was 50% negative as the match was happening, same on other sites I checked.

And yes it's moving it away from ring. Street fights start or end in-ring in front of the live fans.

It's not pro wrestling more a movie


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

El Hammerstone said:


> This is all the more reason he needs to start putting over some younger talent; Matt Hardy is what he is at this point, wins and losses on his record will have no effect on his credibility one way or the other, but they WILL have an effect on the people he's in the ring with.


I'm sure he will, you have to give it time. He just got here. I highly doubt they will make Matt Hardy World Champion. Now that Stadium Stampede is over, he will probably feud with Jericho for a match at ALL OUT, then I can almost guarantee you that he is dropping down to the mid-card. If he is going to put over younger talent, then he still needs to get some wins at some point, he can't lose every match that he's a part of. Or else going over Matt Hardy will mean nothing because you're just beating a jobber who barely even got wins in WWE. It means so much more for Darby Allin or Sammy G to beat Matt Hardy clean if they at least build him up to the point where he is a serious contender to the TNT Title.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

It’s funny how people all of a sudden can’t comprehend the difference between treasuring being right over doing a practical service to the show.
It’s the difference between being constructive and being a hater. If you care more about being vindicated and deny any success the company has as a success at all, you are trying to get your opinion over.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

El Hammerstone said:


> This is all the more reason he needs to start putting over some younger talent; Matt Hardy is what he is at this point, wins and losses on his record will have no effect on his credibility one way or the other, but they WILL have an effect on the people he's in the ring with.


Omega eating a pinfall: what was the point of that in protecting Matt fucking Hardy who has a built-in fan base from The Machine that is WWE? Why is Santana and Ortiz only able to land 4 punches, a back body drop, and a kick on Matt Hardy, but they’re capable of beating the shit out of this supposed Best Bout Machine? Why is Sammy Guevara not finding a way to cheat Matt Hardy and get one over on him? Even in the goddamn Stadium Stampede, Santana and Ortiz FINALLY get the upper hand on Matt Hardy, but he is impervious to drowning and able to change clothes at will.

Kenny Omega, Cody, Jericho, and the Bucks should seriously consider writing lasers that shoot out of their eyes into their character that way none of them ever have to look more over than Matt Jardy.

Goddamn I hate that son of a bitch, and I hope they write his character off the television soon. Fuck him.

As for @prosperwithdeen, what makes you think they will be able to write compelling storylines for those 10 men you named? Cody has shown a propensity for only writing well for himself. Cody wouldn’t give MJF, Hangman, or Moxley much time at all during a pandemic when they could have used a vignette or anything to cover the free air time, would have done a lot to keep those guys’ momentum going after Revolution.

But nah. Cody got to Cody, manipulates Khan into pushing the TV title as the most important storyline, Omega can do random tag matches with no story, MJF can stand in the crowd doing stupid gambling angles with Shawn Spears when Maxwell just made Cody realize he was better than him, gets Jake the fucking Snake to make his first on-air appearance in God knows how long, gets Mike Tyson to present his tv title, all while facing the most well built heel in the business at the time.

There is no reason to believe anything good is going to come from having a full roster, other than better work rate quality with Pac and Page back in action, but ultimately, the single’s action is still written and decided by Cody with his hand up Tony Khan’s ass.


----------



## Mister Sinister (Aug 7, 2013)

Fact: 99% of the mainstream audience isn't analyzing wrestlers' ages, counting the minutes of offense they get in or thinking that some unknown wrestler they have never seen is getting buried. They turn on the television and they think, "Oh, Matt Hardy is wrestling some guy I've never seen." The audience tunes in for characters-- not Jim Cornette's scripture of what the perfect Southern wrestling show is that no one will watch.


----------



## BigCy (Nov 10, 2012)

prosperwithdeen said:


> What talent did they not have the urgency to secure? They got all the big names who could have gotten eyes that were available except for CM Punk who wasn't signing with anyone because he hates the industry and Killer Cross who was made an offer but decided WWE was right for him and his wife. He probably wanted guaranteed stability seeing as WWE isn't a new company and he and Scarlett were having financial issues working with TNA, which is completely understandable seeing as Scarlett was still living with her mom. If they didn't pick up PAC or Moxley or Omega then you would have an argument. Everyone else was under contract and Okada is not leaving Japan. There's no one else out there. They can't just sign people from WWE like the paperwork doesn't exist. As soon as Matt Hardy and Moxley left the company, the urgency was there to bring them in. We may not like Hardy but his segments have been drawing eyes. Rusev, EC3, and The Revival will also be aggressively pursued once the 90 day no competes are done. There's no else. They are pouncing on any hot agent that hits the market.
> 
> AEW only advertised an "alternative" and that "tag team wrestling" would matter. Both of which they have delivered on. Everything else that the fans think they promised was just a matter of people putting words into their mouths and trying to get AEW to mold their company to their vision because they are so damaged from WWE. In a way, they are setting the wrestling world on fire. They are leagues better than WWE and 9/10 of their shows have been enjoyable. That's revolutionary in the modern era of wrestling where WWE 2/10 WWE shows are enjoyable. I mean what more do you want them to do? Go the route of Lucha Underground with cinematography just with bigger stars? Become completely hardcore like ECW? Both would draw more complaining from fans and SJW's then we are getting now.
> 
> Care to explain what the worst aspects taken were? The comedy? Using legends? Are we just going to ignore that the best aspects were also taken?


Thank you for your balanced reply. I won't argue the CM Punk dynamic much here as it has been beaten to death in other threads but just in short, I think they could have handled it better with a more serious play. CM Punk said that they came at him unprofessionally, maybe he's lying but it could also mean something. Texting someone isn't how you do business. I'll just leave it at that since this has been argued to death and it will probably be just us agreeing to disagree but if you want to expand further on it I can't stop you. 

I'll actually concede the argument about too many other notable ones that they could have made plays but mostly because I can't remember the names but someone else made a great list and case for them in another thread and I know there are plenty of other more talented Indy guys out there that would have been better than what they have on hand at the moment. I do understand the concepts of contracts and paperwork being a thing and deal with them in real life but there are others not on contract that they could have made plays for which that other person or 2 pointed out in another thread.

I'm still lukewarm on AEW as a whole, I don't hate them and I don't love them, they are just kind of there, I do prefer them overall more than WWE. This thing is all opinion mostly anyway and I don't think mine is any more important than anothers this will be some people's cup of tea and others not so much. 

When I heard "Sportslike Presentation" I expected an American New Japan before NJPW: America got up and going. What we got was some modern Indyriffic disconnected mess. It isn't horrible but when you have no legs guy and marko stunt show up and OC play kicking (I actually am growing on OC and think he has a place) in your opening battle royal it sets the tone as something hokey. It's hard to take it as "sportslike" when there's stuff like that going on. I actually like the way they are using legends and think they are doing great in this regard. The worst aspects I'm speaking of is the hokey and silly wink wink nudge nudge stuff they are doing and the elevating former WWE/TNA guys to spots that are higher on the card than they had in their former companies.

I won't ignore the good either. Their use of legends is on point, most of the matches are at least ok with a few duds and a few good ones. I'm actually not an MJF nuthugger like most people but I understand he s good for the company. They now have a good and balanced amount of championships, they do have a few good players now, they are a little more consistent with booking than before. They're not WWE. Unfortunately that's about the only positives I can think of at the moment. 

Anyway, I'm out gotta get back to work.


----------



## Nickademus_Eternal (Feb 24, 2014)

optikk sucks said:


> Imagine being so affected by others that you choose to not watch something.


I know right? Nobody,especially the girls on here are gonna make me stop watching what I enjoy. I personally


Chip Chipperson said:


> Cornette last week cut a promo as Cody Rhodes to tell his audience what AEW should've done. For those interested it was Jim as Cody cutting a promo swearing revenge on Archer during the go home episode of Dynamite. He found it odd that both Cody and Archer weren't involved in the episode.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do know the majority of those names were already contracted to other companies right?


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Mister Sinister said:


> Fact: 99% of the mainstream audience isn't analyzing wrestlers' ages, how much offense they deliver or thinking that some unknown wrestler they have never seen is getting buried. They turn on the television and they think, "Oh, Matt Hardy is wrestling some guy I've never seen." The audience tunes in for characters-- not Jim Cornette's scripture of what the perfect Southern wrestling show is that no one will watch.


And in every form of wrestling, that guy that already has the eyes tuning into watch him builds stars around him by not looking so much better than everyone else. Those new eyes tuning in only saw Matt Hardy, who was the worst half of a tag team from the early 00s, is now the ass kicker in a random thrown together tag team, pups half his age are incapable of landing offense on Hardy whilst kicking the dog shit out of this supposed Best Bout Machine, etc.

Are you still incapable of saying what good the last 3 weeks did for anyone in the Elite and Inner Circle, besides making Matt Hardy look like an ass kicker who got shit booking from Vince? What was gained by Sammy, Santana, Ortiz, Kenny, Hager, and Jericho putting over Matt Hardy the last 3 fucking weeks? What..? WHAT!?


----------



## Nickademus_Eternal (Feb 24, 2014)

BigCy said:


> Thank you for your balanced reply. I won't argue the CM Punk dynamic much here as it has been beaten to death in other threads but just in short, I think they could have handled it better with a more serious play. CM Punk said that they came at him unprofessionally, maybe he's lying but it could also mean something. Texting someone isn't how you do business. I'll just leave it at that since this has been argued to death and it will probably be just us agreeing to disagree but if you want to expand further on it I can't stop you.
> 
> I'll actually concede the argument about too many other notable ones that they could have made plays but mostly because I can't remember the names but someone else made a great list and case for them in another thread and I know there are plenty of other more talented Indy guys out there that would have been better than what they have on hand at the moment. I do understand the concepts of contracts and paperwork being a thing and deal with them in real life but there are others not on contract that they could have made plays for which that other person or 2 pointed out in another thread.
> 
> ...


True. But wwe does hokey shit too.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Nickademus_Eternal said:


> True. But wwe does hokey shit too.


Why does WWE doing hokey shit mean AEW should do hokey shit? I loved WCW for keeping things realistic. Sting never shot goddamn lighting bolts and all that. He dropped in from the rafters, saved the day with a baseball bat, the end. I don’t want to have to watch Hokey Hour with WWE Life. If we wanted that shit, Raw wouldn’t be in the position of having a Tony Khan thinking of throwing a $100 million into the hat to try and start his own company.

Hokey shit sucked enough for AEW to start. Should they continue the tradition?


----------



## Nickademus_Eternal (Feb 24, 2014)

optikk sucks said:


> There’s nothing wrong with saying what they don’t like. The issue is when they act like their opinion is a fact and use condescending terminology to ridicule others for enjoying something that they don’t like.
> “Come on guys, let’s be honest. You can’t like this. You’re trolling”
> “You’re smarter than this”
> Blah blah. @The Wood and @Cult03 are especially guilty of this.


Honestly,fuck those guys. I've been enjoy aew lately more than wwe. If you like what you like,then that's all that matters. Two nobodies on a forum isnt going to change my perception on what I enjoy. As a matter of fact I cant wait for their next ppv event.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Nickademus_Eternal said:


> Honestly,fuck those guys. I've been enjoy aew lately more than wwe. If you like what you like,then that's all that matters. Two nobodies on a forum isnt going to change my perception on what I enjoy. As a matter of fact I cant wait for their next ppv event.


yeah for sure. idk who they're trying to convince, apart from themselves.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

bdon said:


> As for @prosperwithdeen, what makes you think they will be able to write compelling storylines for those 10 men you named? Cody has shown a propensity for only writing well for himself. Cody wouldn’t give MJF, Hangman, or Moxley much time at all during a pandemic when they could have used a vignette or anything to cover the free air time, would have done a lot to keep those guys’ momentum going after Revolution.
> 
> But nah. Cody got to Cody, manipulates Khan into pushing the TV title as the most important storyline, Omega can do random tag matches with no story, MJF can stand in the crowd doing stupid gambling angles with Shawn Spears when Maxwell just made Cody realize he was better than him, gets Jake the fucking Snake to make his first on-air appearance in God knows how long, gets Mike Tyson to present his tv title, all while facing the most well built heel in the business at the time.
> 
> There is no reason to believe anything good is going to come from having a full roster, other than better work rate quality with Pac and Page back in action, but ultimately, the single’s action is still written and decided by Cody with his hand up Tony Khan’s ass.


Lol dude how am I supposed to respond to this. This entire post and your previous ones are you hating Cody and essentially wanting Matt Hardy dead. That is a biased response that there is no way to respond to. That's like arguing with me about Becky Lynch, it's just not going to work out because I'm biased as f**k about her and think she should have had a 2 year-long title reign with BOTH title belts, main eventing every PPV, even though that is a completely ridiculous thing to want or expect. #Becky2Belts4Ever



bdon said:


> And in every form of wrestling, that guy that already has the eyes tuning into watch him builds stars around him by not looking so much better than everyone else. Those new eyes tuning in only saw Matt Hardy, who was the worst half of a tag team from the early 00s, is now the ass kicker in a random thrown together tag team, pups half his age are incapable of landing offense on Hardy whilst kicking the dog shit out of this supposed Best Bout Machine, etc.
> 
> Are you still incapable of saying what good the last 3 weeks did for anyone in the Elite and Inner Circle, besides making Matt Hardy look like an ass kicker who got shit booking from Vince? What was gained by Sammy, Santana, Ortiz, Kenny, Hager, and Jericho putting over Matt Hardy the last 3 fucking weeks? What..? WHAT!?


I guess the response you have been looking for all this time is...NOTHING. It helps no one. But is that really a bad thing? It's only been 3 weeks during a pandemic when half the Elite wasn't there and now Matt Hardy is dropping down the card like he should be lol. You're making a big deal out of nothing. No one even remembers that Omega took the pinfall. This is you being over-analytical when most are just watching to have fun.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

Jman55 said:


> As another AEW fan I agree with point 4 as well as the paragraph it can be annoying as hell this forum in general focuses on the negative way more than the positive which is not fun when you genuinely enjoy these things. However points 1 and 3 are not good points at all. This is a discussion forum where we talk about both the good and the bad the only problem is if people share those opinions like assholes but just sharing the opinion of disliking something is perfectly reasonable if done reasonably (you can say it's not done so and tbf you'd be correct more often than not but that isn't at all addressed by what you said here you just basically said negative opinions shouldn't be shared which no they should just be shared respectfully for an actually reasonable discussion and debate)
> 
> I just want us to actually discuss both the good and the bad with respect but the whole "us vs them" bs is likely a bit too deeply rooted already.


Expressing your opinion is one thing but again the way it is done is the issue. 

A single post on whether or not you liked something is reasonable, maybe 2 even and then a discussion might occur but these dudes are bombarding threads with their opinions and no one signed up to read that shit. This isn't mine nor anyones personal diary. Speak your mind, with respect intended, and there won't be any issues. 

If something lackluster happens then its fine to say "I didn't enjoy that" its not exactly analytical but that's fine. But "that sucked ass" "AEW sucks" come on like where are those posts getting anything constructive done here. 

The greater point is no one, good or bad, right or wrong, cares enough about anyone's opinion to express the way most do. Unless they're subscribing to your newsletter or something.

Like I said if I see a post that says "I think Archer should have won" I can then ask why but when I see "This company is God awful" what does that do for anyone but cause back and forth jabs at "fanboys" and "haters"


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

NXT Only said:


> Expressing your opinion is one thing but again the way it is done is the issue.
> 
> A single post on whether or not you liked something is reasonable, maybe 2 even and then a discussion might occur but these dudes are bombarding threads with their opinions and no one signed up to read that shit. This isn't mine nor anyones personal diary. Speak your mind, with respect intended, and there won't be any issues.
> 
> ...


Its been like a pack mentality the last 4 months. There is a difference between offering constructive criticism and completely ripping the product apart with illogical statements like a pack of hyenas or a swarm of bees. Not all of AEW's detractors do this but it has become very prevalent in every thread, to the point where being on here is not an enjoyable experience, even for AEW fanboys who have their own personal criticisms they would like to address. I feel like if I were to post my negative views on the product being an "AEW Superfan", my opinion would be morphed into malicious stabs at AEW by others who twist and turn my words because they see an "opening" lol, when that was never my intention to begin with. Very weird lol.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

bdon said:


> I loved WCW for keeping things realistic.


" i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."










" i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."










" i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."










" i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."










" i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."













The power of recall bias is a wonderful thing. You're becoming a goofy these days my guy. Tone it down.


----------



## Jman55 (Nov 21, 2016)

NXT Only said:


> Expressing your opinion is one thing but again the way it is done is the issue.
> 
> A single post on whether or not you liked something is reasonable, maybe 2 even and then a discussion might occur but these dudes are bombarding threads with their opinions and no one signed up to read that shit. This isn't mine nor anyones personal diary. Speak your mind, with respect intended, and there won't be any issues.
> 
> ...


Now see this is more like it apologies for any venom in my post towards you it's just the "us vs them" nature of the AEW forum has been annoying me for a long time and your post didn't actually come across like you were referring to presentation of their points till at the time I made mine so may have let out some frustration. I also just want things to be respectful whether it's about negatives or positives cause I like talking about both and seeing different perspectives on what is considered one or the other debates when respectful are actually really fun to me.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

prosperwithdeen said:


> Lol dude how am I supposed to respond to this. This entire post and your previous ones are you hating Cody and essentially wanting Matt Hardy dead. That is a biased response that there is no way to respond to. That's like arguing with me about Becky Lynch, it's just not going to work out because I'm biased as f**k about her and think she should have had a 2 year-long title reign with BOTH title belts, main eventing every PPV, even though that is a completely ridiculous thing to want or expect. #Becky2Belts4Ever
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the response you have been looking for all this time is...NOTHING. It helps no one. But is that really a bad thing? It's only been 3 weeks during a pandemic when half the Elite wasn't there and now Matt Hardy is dropping down the card like he should be lol. You're making a big deal out of nothing. No one even remembers that Omega took the pinfall. This is you being over-analytical when most are just watching to have fun.


Sooooooo, you finally admit that they wasted all that goddamn build of Inner Circle vs Elite to prop Matt Hardy? Simple as that. They had 3-4 weeks where they could have been building Omega as the face of the Elite’s war with Inner Circle, which would relay into Alpha/Omega III and put Kenny on path to being a stud. Or they could have had Hangman doing a vignette mocking the fact that Kenny couldn’t find the anger to fight off Santana and Ortiz himself, needing Matt Hardy to get the win, anything.

What they did was NOTHING to propel anyone forward besides fucking Matt Hardy and his selfish display of wrestling. No stars on the roster or showing up, and they chose to not even take a chance to build one up that they have basically shit on from Day 1.

Cody got to Cody. Matt Hardy got to get Matt Hardy over and fuck everyone else.

It’s shit.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

Chan Hung said:


> I also critique the show. But can we all just take a moment and remember that Dynamite has not been on more than 1 year, has it? I say by their 3rd year would be a more fair assessment of how they are doing.


If it takes them 3 years to get their shit together, then they _deserve_ cancellation.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

optikk sucks said:


> " i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lmao

Those early WCW days are tough. Lmao


----------



## Rozzop (Aug 26, 2019)

I know there is a pandemic and plans have been thrown out of the window but how many people here would have booked AEW exactly as it has been? 

How many people would employ Broken Matt Hardy, let alone have him in the main event? 

How many people would have Brodie Lee in some crap stable? 

How many people would have Stunt, Cassidy, all the unfunny comedy etc etc

No promotion is perfect. They have done good stuff these past few months. Elevation of MJF, Allin, Jungle Boy, Page being a highlight, but my problem with AEW is it could be so so much better. 

The talent is there. They should be having triple threat classics with Moxley, Page, Omega, PAC etc for the belt, make it mean something. 

Make everybody want to be champion. Want is the point of Omega being there? To get Page over? 

Just my 2 cents. If I had that roster i would be booking a far more compelling show and not fill it with comedy bullshit.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

bdon said:


> Lmao
> 
> Those early WCW days are tough. Lmao


once they found their groove though.

Same thing could happen with AEW.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

optikk sucks said:


> " i loVeD wCw fOR kEepiNg THINgS REALiStIC."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think it's fair to call ANY wrestling "realistic", unless you're talking about a pseudo-MMA promotion like UWFi.


WCW had _actual_ stars though, and the product wasn't meta /hyper focused on getting the Meltzer seal of approval. Made the immersion easier.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

KYRA BATARA said:


> I don't think it's fair to call ANY wrestling "realistic", unless you're talking about a pseudo-MMA promotion like UWFi.
> 
> 
> WCW had _actual_ stars though, *and the product wasn't meta and hyper focused on getting the Meltzer seal of approval. Made the immersion easier.*


Whose product is?
You could argue that no promotion today has stars.
and I'd rather that the product focuses on getting actual fans' seals of approval, and not just Vince McMahon's.

AEW gets my approval and approx 32 million people's approval around the World. But ok


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Rozzop said:


> I know there is a pandemic and plans have been thrown out of the window but how many people here would have booked AEW exactly as it has been?
> 
> How many people would employ Broken Matt Hardy, let alone have him in the main event?
> 
> ...


This is all I’m saying. I like the show. Some weeks I love it, but they’re leaving so much on the table. I get they’re new at this, so bad decisions will be made. Why then are none of Cody’s segments booked with only half a thought? Why is Moxley, Omega, Page, MJF, Jungle Boy, or any of the others allowed to only get it half right? Not that every Cody “Win-Loss” decision is right, but every angle and program he writes for himself is booked to stand out apart from everyone else.

I think I’m going to Twitter to start campaigning for Omega to write laser eyes into his character and to do battle with Brian Pillman Jr who enters AEW pissed that Omega is getting more comparisons to his dad than he does. After LOSING at the PPV, Omega comes out to lick his wounds for more fan sorrow, but he is confronted by a CGI late, great Brian Pillman.

Do it, Omega. Nothing wrong with booking yourself strong, right Cody?


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Nickademus_Eternal said:


> Well,to be fair,you "wwe stans" tend to do the same thing. You get your panties in a wad because people like and enjoy something you dont like or enjoy. Can't complain about what others do when you do the same thing.


Am I a WWE Stan despite not regularly watching WWE since mid 2006? That is 14 years my dude.



Mister Sinister said:


> The overabundance of complaining says that some of these folks complaining are not actually fans (of AEW or of an alternative to WWE). Where is the constructive discussion? I created a positive thread about how to use Mike Tyson in the royal, and there were mostly negative responses. That is bullshit. There is nothing negative about Tyson on TV, in the royal or winning it. He is a massive mainstream draw right now, and the real fans that want to see this company succeed don't need smarks that don't know the business side of the business shitting on this and ruining it. *The Tyson argument exposes the people on this board who actually are here to damage the brand and want to see it go down. It's the AEW blood test from "The Thing."*


So if someone doesn't agree with your ideas they want to damage the AEW brand and see it go down?

The idea was silly in my opinion. Boxer in his fifties doing limited appearances for wrestling company wins battle royale to earn title shot. Nobody really wants to see that.



Nickademus_Eternal said:


> You do know the majority of those names were already contracted to other companies right?


Most are working smaller companies and have since come off contract. The majority on there have been re-signed or signed elsewhere during that time. Hammerstone for example just re-signed with MLW.



KYRA BATARA said:


> I don't think it's fair to call ANY wrestling "realistic", unless you're talking about a pseudo-MMA promotion like UWFi.
> 
> 
> WCW had _actual_ stars though, and the product wasn't meta /hyper focused on getting the Meltzer seal of approval. Made the immersion easier.


WCW also didn't do comedy shit every week until Russo took over in 2000 so it isn't really a fair comparison. Yeah, okay, WCW did a lame unrealistic segment a few times a year whilst AEW do them weekly. Seems like a silly comparison.



optikk sucks said:


> AEW gets my approval and approx 32 million people's approval around the World. But ok


Where did you pluck this number from? I'd be surprised if 32 million people in the world actually knew what AEW was let alone gave some kind of approval...


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

optikk sucks said:


> Whose product is?
> You could argue that no promotion today has stars.
> and I'd rather that the product focuses on getting actual fans' seals of approval, and not just Vince McMahon's.
> 
> AEW gets my approval and approx 32 million people's approval around the World. But ok


Why is WWE being brought into this? I thought that the comparison was between surrealism of AEW vs WCW from 20 years ago...


The WWE might not be making any new stars, but at least their brand is established. They have a proven track record of success and an infrastructure that will keep them in business despite shitty creative. They have 40 years worth of nostalgia to sell. AEW is the promotion that has yet to prove itself. They're both failing pretty hard at gaining new fans, but that's adjacent to the overall point.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

Chip Chipperson said:


> WCW also didn't do comedy shit every week until Russo took over in 2000 so it isn't really a fair comparison. Yeah, okay, WCW did a lame unrealistic segment a few times a year whilst AEW do them weekly. Seems like a silly comparison.


Where were you in 1994 / 1995? The entire product was made up of pastiche 1980's WWF and other cartoon caricatures. (Refer to Dungeon of Doom as a prime example). They only became culturally hip after the nWo started, and even then you had your Glaciers and your Se7ens filling up airtime.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Am I a WWE Stan despite not regularly watching WWE since mid 2006? That is 14 years my dude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AEWs press release when TNT extended the contract.
32 million is no small feat bro. You gotta be impressed with that.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Where were you in 1994 / 1995? The entire product was made up of pastiche 1980's WWF and other cartoon caricatures. (Refer to Dungeon of Doom as a prime example). They only became culturally hip after the nWo started, and even then you had your Glaciers and your Se7ens filling up airtime.


I was three years old.

I have gone back and watched that time period but I am mainly referencing WCW's prime in my post (96-99)


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Why is WWE being brought into this? I thought that the comparison was between surrealism of AEW vs WCW from 20 years ago...
> 
> 
> The WWE might not be making any new stars, but at least their brand is established. They have a proven track record of success and an infrastructure that will keep them in business despite shitty creative. They have 40 years worth of nostalgia to sell. AEW is the promotion that has yet to prove itself. They're both failing pretty hard at gaining new fans, but that's adjacent to the overall point.


AEW for sure is gaining new fans. You might think your exaggerated opinion of “failing pretty hard at gaining new
fans” is a fact. But it’s wrong.

They are gaining more and more traction online. Their social media accounts have blown to over a million followers. I remember when they were sub 500k late last year. They are getting consistent ratings in a shrinking and niche industry. 
All the signs point up, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

optikk sucks said:


> AEW for sure is gaining new fans. You might think your exaggerated opinion of “failing pretty hard at gaining new
> fans” is a fact. But it’s wrong.
> 
> They are gaining more and more traction online. Their social media accounts have blown to over a million followers. I remember when they were sub 500k late last year. They are getting consistent ratings in a shrinking and niche industry.
> All the signs point up, whether you like it or not.


*January 1 Episode: 967,000 viewers with a 0.36 rating in the 18-49 demographic
January 8 Episode: 947,000 viewers with a 0.36 rating in the 18-49 demographic
January 15 Episode: 940,000 viewers with a 0.38 rating in the 18-49 demographic (Bash at the Beach episode)
January 22 Episode: 871,000 viewers with a 0.35 rating in the 18-49 demographic
January 29 Episode: 828,000 viewers with a 0.34 rating in the 18-49 demographic
February 5 Episode: 928,000 viewers with a 0.36 rating in the 18-49 demographic
February 12 Episode: 817,000 viewers with a 0.30 rating in the 18-49 demographic
February 19 Episode: 893,000 viewers with a 0.31 rating in the 18-49 demographic
February 26 Episode: 865,000 viewers with a 0.30 rating in the 18-49 demographic
March 4 Episode: 906,000 viewers with a 0.35 rating in the 18-49 demographic (post-Revolution episode)
March 11 Episode: 766,000 viewers with a 0.26 rating in the 18-49 demographic
March 18 Episode: 932,000 viewers with a 0.35 rating in the 18-49 demographic (Limited crowd episode)
March 25 Episode: 819,000 viewers with a 0.34 rating in the 18-49 demographic
April 1 Episode: 685,000 viewers with a 0.25 rating in the 18-49 demographic
April 8 Episode: 692,000 viewers with a 0.26 rating in the 18-49 demographic
April 15 Episode: 683,000 viewers with a 0.25 rating in the 18-49 demographic
April 22 Episode: 731,000 viewers with a 0.25 rating in the 18-49 demographic
April 29 Episode: 693,000 viewers with a 0.27 rating in the 18-49 demographic
May 6 Episode: 732,000 viewers with a 0.28 rating in the 18-49 demographic*

In what world is this a consistent ratings trend? Keep in mind that over a million people sampled the show when it debuted, and half of those didn't stick around for the longhaul. Hardly a metric as evidence that they're actually gaining fans rather than losing them.

"Social media accounts"* , *"gaining traction online". I'm sorry but you'll have to be less vague than that if you want to strengthen your argument here.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

Also would like to point out that a company doing subpar (but not rock bottom _yet_) numbers during a time when wrestling isn't cool is hardly relevant. Should Vizio be celebrated for s_till_ selling a few 3D TVs at a time when the rest of the world has moved on to 4K?


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

KYRA BATARA said:


> *January 1 Episode: 967,000 viewers with a 0.36 rating in the 18-49 demographic
> January 8 Episode: 947,000 viewers with a 0.36 rating in the 18-49 demographic
> January 15 Episode: 940,000 viewers with a 0.38 rating in the 18-49 demographic (Bash at the Beach episode)
> January 22 Episode: 871,000 viewers with a 0.35 rating in the 18-49 demographic
> ...


His excuse will be COVID-19.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Rozzop said:


> I know there is a pandemic and plans have been thrown out of the window but how many people here would have booked AEW exactly as it has been?
> 
> How many people would employ Broken Matt Hardy, let alone have him in the main event?
> 
> ...


Seriously, I’m curious what reason they have to justify paying the “Kenny Omega” price tag to Tyson Smith if all you’re going to do is use him as a way to make other stars. I imagine you could have used that money far better in signing more has-been’s that can eat more L’s for your youth.

It’s like watching WWE creative when they have nothing for someone, and you can see a guy being wasted. If nothing else, as soon as you get out of that contract, use that money to sign someone that won’t let you just use their name to promote your company.

Cody and Jericho got the money mark right where they want him. Gonna have to convince me otherwise.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Chip Chipperson said:


> His excuse will be COVID-19.


Him saying that would be the truth. You can't take the fact that people don't want to watch wrestling with no fans with half the roster gone as something that doesn't matter to the ratings. WWE has lost 500K viewers since COVID started and only bounced back recently because Becky announced she was pregnant with Edge also coming back. Now they're dropping again. NXT has lost 300K. Its affecting everyone. Stop ignoring that. Its the biggest part of the ratings argument.



bdon said:


> Sooooooo, you finally admit that they wasted all that goddamn build of Inner Circle vs Elite to prop Matt Hardy? Simple as that. They had 3-4 weeks where they could have been building Omega as the face of the Elite’s war with Inner Circle, which would relay into Alpha/Omega III and put Kenny on path to being a stud. Or they could have had Hangman doing a vignette mocking the fact that Kenny couldn’t find the anger to fight off Santana and Ortiz himself, needing Matt Hardy to get the win, anything.
> 
> What they did was NOTHING to propel anyone forward besides fucking Matt Hardy and his selfish display of wrestling. No stars on the roster or showing up, and they chose to not even take a chance to build one up that they have basically shit on from Day 1.
> 
> ...


It was the right business decision. When things shut down, they dropped to under 700K. Matt Hardy helped them to get back to over 700K+ viewers with his segments being the most-watched. Okay, maybe the feud itself suffered because of it, but from a business point of view, it was the right choice. Hangman Page vignettes and a better push for Omega would have been nice though. That was a missed opportunity. It will be easily rectified. Hangman is still over. Omega is still over. Stadium Stampede got raving reviews from literally every website and everyone loved it. No harm done. But you're carrying on way too much about it my guy. It's been weeks that you have been saying the same thing in every thread like a broken record. I don't think anyone here cares man, you're wasting your time. And I don't say that to insult you or "come at you" in any way. And the viewing audience certainly doesn't care about those intricacies. They turned the channel to AEW, saw Matt Hardy and said "Oh look its Matt, I remember he used to jump off ladders, I'll watch. Oh shit that was a damn good Street Fight and that Sammy kid got f**ked up haha!", as they chugged their beers or ate their Mac n Cheese. Then they proceeded to enjoy the show for what it is, dumb entertainment. Like wrestling has always been. You gotta give it a rest.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

Russo crippled two wrestling companies with national TV shows - don't quote him


----------



## El Hammerstone (Jan 11, 2020)

bdon said:


> Seriously, *I’m curious what reason they have to justify paying the “Kenny Omega” price tag to Tyson Smith if all you’re going to do is use him as a way to make other stars*. I imagine you could have used that money far better in signing more has-been’s that can eat more L’s for your youth.
> 
> It’s like watching WWE creative when they have nothing for someone, and you can see a guy being wasted. If nothing else, as soon as you get out of that contract, use that money to sign someone that won’t let you just use their name to promote your company.
> 
> Cody and Jericho got the money mark right where they want him. Gonna have to convince me otherwise.


Which doesn't work because the average western viewer is going to see him as just another guy; he doesn't have the credibility with that audience to have his "rub" mean anything.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

El Hammerstone said:


> Which doesn't work because the average western viewer is going to see him as just another guy; he doesn't have the credibility with that audience to have his "rub" mean anything.


He and Pac really covered the match quality that first 5-6 months. It isn’t even about guys winning or losing next to him, but he made the matches good. Look at Page’s tag match against LeSex Gods without Omega.

But the point remains: why are you paying this guy the heightened price for the Kenny Omega character?


----------



## Rozzop (Aug 26, 2019)

bdon said:


> Seriously, I’m curious what reason they have to justify paying the “Kenny Omega” price tag to Tyson Smith if all you’re going to do is use him as a way to make other stars. I imagine you could have used that money far better in signing more has-been’s that can eat more L’s for your youth.
> 
> It’s like watching WWE creative when they have nothing for someone, and you can see a guy being wasted. If nothing else, as soon as you get out of that contract, use that money to sign someone that won’t let you just use their name to promote your company.
> 
> Cody and Jericho got the money mark right where they want him. Gonna have to convince me otherwise.


It comes across as a bunch of friends playing wrestler in their back yard.

If thats your thing, fine. But nothing has been booked to increase the audience.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Rozzop said:


> It comes across as a bunch of friends playing wrestler in their back yard.
> 
> If thats your thing, fine. But nothing has been booked to increase the audience.


Yep. It’s why I loved MJF calling out everyone for being “play wrestlers” last week.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

prosperwithdeen said:


> Him saying that would be the truth. You can't take the fact that people don't want to watch wrestling with no fans with half the roster gone as something that doesn't matter to the ratings. WWE has lost 500K viewers since COVID started and only bounced back recently because Becky announced she was pregnant with Edge also coming back. Now they're dropping again. NXT has lost 300K. Its affecting everyone. Stop ignoring that. Its the biggest part of the ratings argument.



Please, a ton of shows got a ratings boost because _literally_ everyone is at home and looking for entertainment.

WWE and AEW dropped in ratings because they're putting on an uninspired product. The WWE got rave reviews on the Boneyard match because it was fresh. It's not impossible to get creative and try different things instead of putting on long, meaningless matches that no one outside of a dozen people care about.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Please, a ton of shows got a ratings boost because _literally_ everyone is at home and looking for entertainment.


I agree. I've been off work a couple months due to COVID-19 and have discovered a heap of new films, TV shows, documentaries, YouTubers etc. Some argue that the lack of crowd turns people off but here in Australia we had a round of rugby games played without the crowd and they weren't really hurt by the lack of crowd or atmosphere at all.

I think it's an excuse and as you said AEW and WWE are currently uninspired and are just treading water until the crowds come back to put on compelling television. People have noticed the lack of effort and left.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Please, a ton of shows got a ratings boost because _literally_ everyone is at home and looking for entertainment.
> 
> WWE and AEW dropped in ratings because they're putting on an uninspired product. The WWE got rave reviews on the Boneyard match because it was fresh. It's not impossible to get creative and try different things instead of putting on long, meaningless matches that no one outside of a dozen people care about.


Are you serious with this argument? TV series and movies DON'T require a live audience to be watchable. You don't need raving fans live in an arena to watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. If the NBA, NFL, and NHL were watchable without a live audience, they would probably still be on the air right now for at least half the season. Wrestling gets its lifeblood from its audience. Matches, promos, and segments drastically lose their quality when there is no one cheering/booing. I can't believe I have to explain this. To try and make an argument that fans not being in attendance doesn't affect ratings is absolutely asinine.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

prosperwithdeen said:


> Are you serious with this argument? TV series and movies DON'T require a live audience to be watchable. You don't need raving fans live in an arena to watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. If the NBA, NFL, and NHL were watchable without a live audience, they would probably still be on the air right now for at least half the season. Wrestling gets its lifeblood from its audience. Matches, promos, and segments drastically lose their quality when there is no one cheering/booing. I can't believe I have to explain this. To try and make an argument that fans not being in attendance doesn't affect ratings is absolutely asinine.


Admittedly not many shows are exactly like wrestling but I've seen plenty of talk comedy shows still going ahead and doing strong ratings. Nobody is there to laugh at the jokes or react to the interview but they are still doing well.

As I mentioned in my above post Rugby League is returning this week to television without a live crowd and the entire fan base is really pumped up about it.

I'd also like to point out that AEW does have a live audience so it's not really an excuse. The wrestlers and staff in the crowd are reacting the way the fans would so you're still getting some kind of reaction it just isn't the reaction of thousands of people.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Admittedly not many shows are exactly like wrestling but I've seen plenty of talk comedy shows still going ahead and doing strong ratings. Nobody is there to laugh at the jokes or react to the interview but they are still doing well.
> 
> As I mentioned in my above post Rugby League is returning this week to television without a live crowd and the entire fan base is really pumped up about it.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that AEW does have a live audience so it's not really an excuse. The wrestlers and staff in the crowd are reacting the way the fans would so you're still getting some kind of reaction it just isn't the reaction of thousands of people.


Comedy and rugby are 2 completely different segments that haven't had their fans driven away for the last 15 years by terrible booking and creative. People miss live sports that are REAL and have always been passionate about them, it would be the same raving response if the NBA or NFL were to return. But then who's to say that when the novelty of crowdless live sports wears off, the ratings won't tank? We don't know that. In comedy people like to laugh. People have always liked laughing at jokes and that segment won't die either. Wrestling is completely different. The industry went from getting 9-10 million people watching weekly shows to 1.6 million people on average on a weekly basis in under 20 years. AEW does not have a live audience. Live audience = full arena of thousands of people. Not developmental talent at ringside. The way it is now is a far cry from having thousands of fans. The atmosphere is totally different. You're not gonna convince someone who stopped watching because there were no fans to watch just because they have 15 people at ringside. It still looks absolutely ridiculous and only the most hardcore of hardcore fans like us will watch under these conditions.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

prosperwithdeen said:


> Comedy and rugby are 2 completely different segments that haven't had their fans driven away for the last 15 years by terrible booking and creative. People miss live sports that are REAL and have always been passionate about them, it would be the same raving response if the NBA or NFL were to return. But then who's to say that when the novelty of crowdless live sports wears off, the ratings won't tank? We don't know that. In comedy people like to laugh. People have always liked laughing at jokes and that segment won't die either. Wrestling is completely different. The industry went from getting 9-10 million people watching weekly shows to 1.6 million people on average on a weekly basis in under 20 years. AEW does not have a live audience. Live audience = full arena of thousands of people. Not developmental talent at ringside. The way it is now is a far cry from having thousands of fans. The atmosphere is totally different. You're not gonna convince someone who stopped watching because there were no fans to watch just because they have 15 people at ringside. It still looks absolutely ridiculous and only the most hardcore of hardcore fans like us will watch under these conditions.


Actually, rugby league has indeed driven a large amount of it's audience away. It's a big deal in my country and I talk to many older people in the work place or that are around and they always say they don't watch anymore because it was better back in the day. Kind of like wrestling.

A live audience by definition could mean anyone. Even 1 staff member watching is technically an audience but I get what you mean, it does hurt the presentation of it all to have no big crowd there but really I feel like if AEW or WWE were putting on absolute killer shows that were can't miss that people wouldn't refuse to watch simply based on the crowd not being there.

The crowds have gone out, AEW and WWE are saving their ideas for when they can cash in on them with a live gate. Simple concept.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Actually, rugby league has indeed driven a large amount of it's audience away. It's a big deal in my country and I talk to many older people in the work place or that are around and they always say they don't watch anymore because it was better back in the day. Kind of like wrestling.
> 
> A live audience by definition could mean anyone. Even 1 staff member watching is technically an audience but I get what you mean, it does hurt the presentation of it all to have no big crowd there but really I feel like if AEW or WWE were putting on absolute killer shows that were can't miss that people wouldn't refuse to watch simply based on the crowd not being there.
> 
> The crowds have gone out, AEW and WWE are saving their ideas for when they can cash in on them with a live gate. Simple concept.


Well, AEW is “saving” their ideas for Cody and maybe when the crowds come back, others can join in the fun of having storylines.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Genuinely curious, who here expects Cody’s story to NOT be the #1 angle getting pushed? I mean, we already have TNT Battle Royal as if that belt means more than the World Heavyweight title. Have we heard anything about Moxley segments? Bucks and Page? Omega? Nah?

Par for the course, Cody and Jericho segments are all we’ll ever get.


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

Chip Chipperson said:


> His excuse will be COVID-19.


And why not?


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

Chip Chipperson said:


> Actually, rugby league has indeed driven a large amount of it's audience away. It's a big deal in my country and I talk to many older people in the work place or that are around and they always say they don't watch anymore because it was better back in the day. Kind of like wrestling.
> 
> A live audience by definition could mean anyone. Even 1 staff member watching is technically an audience but I get what you mean, it does hurt the presentation of it all to have no big crowd there but really I feel like if AEW or WWE were putting on absolute killer shows that were can't miss that people wouldn't refuse to watch simply based on the crowd not being there.
> 
> The crowds have gone out, AEW and WWE are saving their ideas for when they can cash in on them with a live gate. Simple concept.


Didn't know that about international rugby. No crowds probably drove even more of those people away honestly if they were already leaving the sport itself. AEW has been trying. The Dynamite that aired the Street Fight gained a bunch of viewers, so you're not wrong that some people will watch a crowdless show when there is good content, but no angle they run will be enough to make a real difference and get them back to 900K without a crowd. There's nothing WWE can do either. Becky's pregnancy announcement and Edge's return both happening on the same show barely broke 2 million viewers, and this is RAW we're talking about. That Street Fight and the Stadium Stampede were 2 of the most creative "hardcore" type matches I have ever seen. The Cody/Archer feud was built well. They're putting in plenty of effort. Could it be even better? Definitely. But they were also running with skeleton crews and half the roster this whole time. Its hard to run awesome programs when you don't have your stars there. PAC, Lucha Bros, Hangman, MJF, Young Bucks, and Moxley, your world champion, all gone for multiple weeks. We don't really know when crowds are back, so I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing bigger things happen like Hangman Page going heel, The Revival debuting, and MJF being coronated in front of no audience. If they just start running their hottest prospective angles, they can probably get back to 800K, but thats a stretch because people are gonna see no crowd and automatically change the channel or put on Netflix.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

prosperwithdeen said:


> Are you serious with this argument? TV series and movies DON'T require a live audience to be watchable. You don't need raving fans live in an arena to watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. If the NBA, NFL, and NHL were watchable without a live audience, they would probably still be on the air right now for at least half the season. Wrestling gets its lifeblood from its audience. Matches, promos, and segments drastically lose their quality when there is no one cheering/booing. I can't believe I have to explain this. To try and make an argument that fans not being in attendance doesn't affect ratings is absolutely asinine.


Then don't do as many matches? The WWE and AEW have a production team. Lucha Underground worked around this concept and did quite well. Perfect opportunity to focus primarily on building characters and filming them outside of their element. . Wrestling is in an advantageous position where they can dabble in fiction and create Blockbuster-like scenarios (Boneyard) or pull back the curtains and give us pseudo-reality outside of the ring (Total Bellas / Breaking Ground), so why not just run with it? The fact that they choose to air a 2-hour show filled with wrestler (Y) taking on wrestler (X) for 25+ minutes isn't excusable. If the idea of wrestling being impossible to produce without a live crowd holds any weight, then maybe they should've done like the NBA and the NHL

Poor ratings is the product of uninspired presentation. Simple as that. ESPECIALLY at a time where you have the opportunity to attract a much larger audience.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

I mean I don't agree with everything AEW does by a long shot and I don't necessarily disagree with those tweets in the most basic sense but Vince Russo is also a total fucking retard so why the fuck are we pretending he matters in 2020?

Seems like he's just trying to toss shit at the wall hoping something sticks and they hire him for something, I know I've been missing out on the possibility of a Marko Stunt on a pole match.


----------



## MontyCora (Aug 31, 2016)

Why are we STILL, LISTENING, TO, VINCE, RUSSO?


----------



## Mister Sinister (Aug 7, 2013)

Ratings are only down about 150-200k. They have shown that they can hold most of their tv audience even when the live audience is absent and the atmosphere and energy just is not the same.

What I see on here are haters posting constantly throughout the week and making threads more than the people who like the show. The trolls internally want the show to be cancelled. One of you even said on page 4 of this thread they deserve to be cancelled. That's your mission. This is a raid. You want to kill the discussion on the forum. You want to ruin the live threads. You want this company gone and you are never pleased with anything. Why are you here? Why are you here every day if are so pissed about their style of show. It is their show. Not yours. Go watch Raw or Impact or ROH or NJPW or NWA. You don't have to watch AEW if it just pisses you off from front to back. Why are you spending hours on a discussion board for a show you hate!? You are the definition of internet trolls. You have nothing positive to say.



bdon said:


> And in every form of wrestling, that guy that already has the eyes tuning into watch him builds stars around him by not looking so much better than everyone else. Those new eyes tuning in only saw Matt Hardy, who was the worst half of a tag team from the early 00s, is now the ass kicker in a random thrown together tag team, pups half his age are incapable of landing offense on Hardy whilst kicking the dog shit out of this supposed Best Bout Machine, etc.
> 
> Are you still incapable of saying what good the last 3 weeks did for anyone in the Elite and Inner Circle, besides making Matt Hardy look like an ass kicker who got shit booking from Vince? What was gained by Sammy, Santana, Ortiz, Kenny, Hager, and Jericho putting over Matt Hardy the last 3 fucking weeks? What..? WHAT!?


No. The guy the fans stop the channel to watch is the guy that goes over. You use the veteran wrestlers to bring in eyes, you build your young talent over years and work out who is drawing money and eyes. This shit takes years. You guys don't know how this works. You're expecting perfection and you're expecting some myth of wrestling that you put a rocket up a young guys ass and that is what draws-- just the narrative that your company is the good guy because they are pushing the young wrestlers. No. What draws is a guy like Ric Flair who can deliver a main event story in his match. You stick the belt on a young kid because they have a hot look or whatever, and they can't carry the damn company because they haven't got the experience yet to deliver on that level (the main event is another f'n level in wrestling).

What will be remembered of the last three weeks of television is Mike Tyson and the TNT title tournament. Those are the important things that happened (because the pandemic has had everyone else at home for a month of television), and they were overwhelmingly positive for the company. Deal with it. You're worried about a bunch of stuff that did nothing storyline wise but deliver a crazy match in an empty stadium. The mainstream are tuning in this Wed to see the fallout of the TNT title, Mike Tyson and who will be the number one contender following the rumble.

This is how you criticize constructively: AEW need more PPVs. DoN's main event should have been the TNT title. The Stadium Stampede was something better for a television main event where more eyes could see the batshitness of it all. And having more PPVs means the world title doesn't have to be defended on every PPV.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Then don't do as many matches? The WWE and AEW have a production team. Lucha Underground worked around this concept and did quite well. Perfect opportunity to focus primarily on building characters and filming them outside of their element. The fact that they choose to air a 2-hour show filled with wrestler (Y) taking on wrestler (X) for 25+ minutes isn't excusable. If the idea of wrestling being impossible to produce without a live crowd holds any weight, then maybe they should've done like the NBA and the NHL. Wrestling is in an advantageous position where they can dabble in fiction and create Blockbuster-like scenarios (Boneyard) or pull back the curtains and give us pseudo-reality outside of the ring (Total Bellas / Breaking Ground), so why not just run with it?
> 
> Poor ratings is the product of uninspired presentation. Simple as that. ESPECIALLY at a time where you have the opportunity to attract a much larger audience.


At the end of the day, this is still a wrestling show. You can't just tape pre-filmed segments the whole time and air them for half the show every week. You can't keep airing vignettes of your stars and not reward the viewer with the actual superstar that they are showing vignettes of. They were all at home quarantined. And who's to say we don't get a Boneyard match type scenario in the coming weeks? We just got Stadium Stampede, which was just as creative except it didn't have the dramatic cinematography and lighting. No wrestling promotion is attracting a larger fan base under these circumstances. The industry as a whole wasn't attracting new fans even when there were live crowds. Yes, maybe they should have done like the NBA or NFL and just shut down, but what about the 600K - 700K people that are still enjoying the show? What about TNT, who are still happy with the way things are going? Surely if they were happy with the 800k - 900k they were drawing originally, even to the point of giving them a huge 5 year deal, they would be happy with the 700K they're drawing now during a pandemic right? You can't forget about the people who are having fun watching the show just because you don't like the storylines being presented to you.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

Russo: needs more miscarriage angles & lesbian catfights, bro


----------



## The Raw Smackdown (Jan 8, 2017)

I'm really tired of this whole AEW fans are assholes and will drag anyone that has a negative opinion. Plenty of people have been reasonable with AEW and have some things that they like and don't like.

This has been brought up but the ones who want to critique every little thing need to understand that some people will like what they do and that doesn't make them wrong or idiots, and the same goes for anyone else that enjoys any other wrestling promotion out there.

Also, Fuck Russo.


----------



## TheFiend666 (Oct 5, 2019)

He's right. I love AEW but it's hard to post in here or anywhere if you have something negative to say about it. without some mark getting all butt hurt


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Mister Sinister said:


> Ratings are only down about 150-200k. They have shown that they can hold most of their tv audience even when the live audience is absent and the atmosphere and energy just is not the same.
> 
> What I see on here are haters posting constantly throughout the week and making threads more than the people who like the show. The trolls internally want the show to be cancelled. One of you even said on page 4 of this thread they deserve to be cancelled. That's your mission. This is a raid. You want to kill the discussion on the forum. You want to ruin the live threads. You want this company gone and you are never pleased with anything. Why are you here? Why are you here every day if are so pissed about their style of show. It is their show. Not yours. Go watch Raw or Impact or ROH or NJPW or NWA. You don't have to watch AEW if it just pisses you off from front to back. Why are you spending hours on a discussion board for a show you hate!? You are the definition of internet trolls. You have nothing positive to say.
> 
> ...


Who is saying stick the belt on a kid? I’m saying don’t put goddamn Matt Hardy in your main fucking event over Hangman Page, the Bucks, and Kenny fucking Omega. These are not kids chasing a belt. You use Hardy’d attention grabbing name to give those guys the spotlight to look like stars.

As for the TNT Title, there is no goddamn reason that should be the #1 story coming out of DoN. You’ve got Tyson showing up bringing new eyes, Matt Hardy bringing new eyes, and this could very well be the most important show of your limited time on TNT. You have a chance to hook new eyes with newer stars.

Where does Brodie Lee go from here? What is the fallout of Jericho and the Inner Circle being beat? Is there any progression for MJF? Did Jungle Boy gain anything in defeat? What happens of Archer now?

You just spent the better part of 8 goddamn weeks telling the story of the TV Title. There is no way in hell it needs to be front and fucking center of the fallout show with multiple segments.

Also true, AEW has done a terrible job of just throwing randoms out on their Fallout shows. Nakazawa after Full Gear, QT Marshall after Revolution, etc. You can’t do that here. You need to do a proper Fallout show, take advantage the hot iron coming off the PPV.


----------



## Matthew Castillo (Jun 9, 2018)

bdon said:


> He and Pac really covered the match quality that first 5-6 months. It isn’t even about guys winning or losing next to him, but he made the matches good. Look at Page’s tag match against LeSex Gods without Omega.
> 
> But the point remains: why are you paying this guy the heightened price for the Kenny Omega character?


It's going to be the same price either way because the Kenny Omega character comes free with Tyson Smith.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

The point is that you’re not getting much bang for the buck by paying Omega to fuck off in the midcard doing...”nothing”.


----------



## Mister Sinister (Aug 7, 2013)

bdon said:


> Who is saying stick the belt on a kid? I’m saying don’t put goddamn Matt Hardy in your main fucking event over Hangman Page, the Bucks, and Kenny fucking Omega. These are not kids chasing a belt. You use Hardy’d attention grabbing name to give those guys the spotlight to look like stars.
> 
> As for the TNT Title, there is no goddamn reason that should be the #1 story coming out of DoN. You’ve got Tyson showing up bringing new eyes, Matt Hardy bringing new eyes, and this could very well be the most important show of your limited time on TNT. You have a chance to hook new eyes with newer stars.
> 
> ...


1. Matt Hardy didn't fight Page, Bucks or Omega. I think you're afraid that when the audiences come back, they are going to be behind Hardy and then you're going to be sick to your stomach.
2. I've posted before what I would do with the world heavyweight title-- Do a rematch with Mox and Jericho, insert Omega, turn Omega heel (paired with Austin Aries and Frank Mir) and put the belt on Omega. Omega is the guy in my opinion because he delivers on the matches. Mox is a good draw, but he isn't delivering on the main event matches without Omega or Pac in the match. The best workers in the company, athletically and story-telling wise between the bells are Pac and Omega. Jericho is great at telling a story in a match, but he simply isn't as capable physically as Omega and Pac anymore.
3. They played out the TNT title tournament successfully despite not having 3/4 of their talent available. They invested big money in Tyson, made Archer seem like a monster and used Jake the Snake to help carry the program (where WWE doesn't value managers anymore). You can't fuckin hate them for pulling something off well. You don't get to move the goal post and say, "It was too good and shouldn't be the draw."
4. Let's not overestimate the impact on ratings. There is still no live audience, and that's going to keep them under 800k this week I believe. If this pandemic hadn't happened, they hadn't lost most of their talent and their live audience, and they were at 900k viewers last week going into DoN, I would expect them to break the 1 million mark this week. But the reality is that people see the empty arena and it has a different feel. You have to want to watch a wrestling show with an empty arena.
5. I really don't care about Brodie Lee and the Dark Order. Inner Circle will move on to the next program (possibly turn face). MJF and Wardlow should do a tag match against Luchasaurus and Jungle Boy. Archer enters the royal and that can be his turn to a new program with the guy that eliminates him.
6. The TNT rumble should be the main event tomorrow. It should go over an hour and feature 30+ wrestlers.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

bdon said:


> The point is that you’re not getting much bang for the buck by paying Omega to fuck off in the midcard doing...”nothing”.


I'd suggest Omega is making at least 700-800 thousand a year for his wrestling and his "writing ability". You're right that it makes no sense for him to be midcarder. I understand they might not want to put the belt on him right away and make him THE guy but he certainly could be a special attraction instead of messing around in 10 man tags. That's coming from a guy who isn't a fan of him either.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Mister Sinister said:


> 1. Matt Hardy didn't fight Page, Bucks or Omega. I think you're afraid that when the audiences come back, they are going to be behind Hardy and then you're going to be sick to your stomach.
> 2. I've posted before what I would do with the world heavyweight title-- Do a rematch with Mox and Jericho, insert Omega, turn Omega heel (paired with Austin Aries and Frank Mir) and put the belt on Omega. Omega is the guy in my opinion because he delivers on the matches. Mox is a good draw, but he isn't delivering on the main event matches without Omega or Pac in the match. The best workers in the company, athletically and story-telling wise between the bells are Pac and Omega. Jericho is great at telling a story in a match, but he simply isn't as capable physically as Omega and Pac anymore.
> 3. They played out the TNT title tournament successfully despite not having 3/4 of their talent available. They invested big money in Tyson, made Archer seem like a monster and used Jake the Snake to help carry the program (where WWE doesn't value managers anymore). You can't fuckin hate them for pulling something off well. You don't get to move the goal post and say, "It was too good and shouldn't be the draw."
> 4. Let's not overestimate the impact on ratings. There is still no live audience, and that's going to keep them under 800k this week I believe. If this pandemic hadn't happened, they hadn't lost most of their talent and their live audience, and they were at 900k viewers last week going into DoN, I would expect them to break the 1 million mark this week. But the reality is that people see the empty arena and it has a different feel. You have to want to watch a wrestling show with an empty arena.
> ...


I'm sorry my friend but you have very little idea and I say that with all due respect.

1. The audience no doubt will be behind Hardy but that doesn't mean he's best for business. The guys who went mental over broken Matt in the first place are the fans that were calling Stadium Stampede one of the best matches they've ever seen in their lives so the 5000 AEW fans that attend these gigs will be shouting delete as Hardy does dumb shit live on national television. AEW already has this audience and they already have them locked in meaning the only people Hardy will bring in will be those who remember his glory years and once they see him being silly they'll tune out.

2. You'd turn Omega heel despite The Elite being the biggest act AEW has and pair him with Austin Aries (Known egomaniac) and Frank Mir (A former UFC fighter) in a super weird stable. You'd then proceed to put the championship on someone that a majority of United States wrestling fans do not know to focus on Omega and PAC whilst your big draws presumably go down the card. It doesn't make sense.

3. The TNT Title was a pretty big mess lets not pretend it was great. Big money in Tyson for him to sit around and yawn, Archer goes like 15 minutes with Dustin showing he isn't a monster at all and then selling for Marko. Rhodes beats him in his first real match, general consensus was that the feud was more Rhodes Vs Roberts instead of Cody Vs Lance.

4. No chance AEW would be doing a million plus viewers. The shows just aren't compelling enough in their current format.

5. Inner Circle as faces would be awful, MJF and Wardlow Vs Jungle Boy and Luchasaurus is interesting but I think they'll hold off on it and build to it (Which they should do). Archer fighting for a title shot and losing again just makes him look even worse.

6. Nobody wants to watch a one hour plus rumble unless the words "WWE" and "Royal" are ahead of "Rumble".


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

KYRA BATARA said:


> Please, a ton of shows got a ratings boost because _literally_ everyone is at home and looking for entertainment.


And those shows have a live audience that is integral to their process. . .


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

prosperwithdeen said:


> At the end of the day, this is still a wrestling show. You can't just tape pre-filmed segments the whole time and air them for half the show every week.



Absolutely you can. They have a production team and a state of the art facility designed for this sort of thing. AEW also have a number of resources to serve this purpose




> You can't keep airing vignettes of your stars and not reward the viewer with the actual superstar that they are showing vignettes of. They were all at home quarantined.



I didn't suggest not doing ANY matches at all. Instead, do the ones that count the most. Make some of them extraordinary like Boneyard.




> And who's to say we don't get a Boneyard match type scenario in the coming weeks? We just got Stadium Stampede, which was just as creative except it didn't have the dramatic cinematography and lighting.



If more is coming then good, but by then the people that fucked off might not be coming back. The core presentation needs to be alligned / consistant with this sort of thing.




> No wrestling promotion is attracting a larger fan base under these circumstances.



Right, because they all decided to stick with the status quo instead of trying something fresh and different.




> The industry as a whole wasn't attracting new fans even when there were live crowds. Yes, maybe they should have done like the NBA or NFL and just shut down, but what about the 600K - 700K people that are still enjoying the show?



The problem is that with a consistantly subpar product, this 600K - 700K may drop down to 500K, or even lower. Then, you've ended up alienating absolutely everyone outside of the diehards. Not sure this would please TNT.




> What about TNT, who are still happy with the way things are going? Surely if they were happy with the 800k - 900k they were drawing originally, even to the point of giving them a huge 5 year deal, they would be happy with the 700K they're drawing now during a pandemic right? You can't forget about the people who are having fun watching the show just because you don't like the storylines being presented to you.



A a major television Network being happy about a declining trend in ratings doesn't exist. Pandemic or not. MORE people are at home during a pandemic. It's not like COVID-19 infects their Satellite dishes...


----------



## Mister Sinister (Aug 7, 2013)

Chip Chipperson said:


> I'm sorry my friend but you have very little idea and I say that with all due respect.
> 
> 1. The audience no doubt will be behind Hardy but that doesn't mean he's best for business. The guys who went mental over broken Matt in the first place are the fans that were calling Stadium Stampede one of the best matches they've ever seen in their lives so the 5000 AEW fans that attend these gigs will be shouting delete as Hardy does dumb shit live on national television. AEW already has this audience and they already have them locked in meaning the only people Hardy will bring in will be those who remember his glory years and once they see him being silly they'll tune out.
> 
> ...


1. When you have a full house cheering a guy fanatically, it affects the television product and the watching audience at home. If he is over massively with the AEW core, it will put him over with the viewers at home. One of the major differences between AEW and WWE is the fan enthusiasm. Fans are part of the show. Not having them there takes away from the show. Anything that makes the fans go batshit and draws out energy from them will make good wrestling television. If WWE had a full house at WM and Hulk Hogan worked the battle royal as planned, the audience wouldn't care how old he is-- they would flip out to get to see Hogan work his final match at WrestleMania. They would flip out because they love Hogan. If you love a character, you don't have to ever stop loving that character just because they aren't in their prime anymore.

2. Storytelling wise, it is where the story should go. Omega should be the one to take down Mox. Jericho isn't a pure heel. They need a pure heel, and Omega's turning on his friends would be unexpected (as they have teased Page's friction with the Elite as a red herring) and would create more drama because he is the group's most powerful wrestler. He has plenty of motive with how his role has been diminished, and he hasn't received a title shot. Omega makes sense as the champion now that he has had time to demonstrate his value to the US and Euro audiences as a great wrestler. Having him win in a three-way allows the title to removed from Mox without Mox losing. I agree with those who have said that Mox was better in the chase. It doesn't mean he can't be champion multiple times over the years, but it means that the most interesting narrative is when the odds are against him.

2 and 1/2. Mir is a former world champion and has a real win over Brock Lesnar (the WWE's biggest contract if I am not mistaken). Mir can enter the tag division with Aries, they can hide his weaknesses and focus on his strengths and give Mir time to get his feel for the live-action stunt-fight. Omega's wrestling career intersects with Aries years ago. Aries went on to TNA, became their longest reigning X champ (at the time), got over huge, became the star of the show and was crowned world champion. Despite his heated relationship with Jim Cornette, he seems to be on good terms with AEW's crew (he was backstage recently and is working with DDP). Aries and Mir come in together because they have been training together for the last year. It's a real-life friendship. It's an added layer of realism.

3. How can you call it a mess? They only had the guys they had to work the tournament. How is it a mess when they could not design it any other way? Did you want Marko in the tournament? Pineapple Pete? They weren't doing it to build Hardy or Jericho so those two weren't needed in the tournament. You shit on the use of managers while most of the wrestling fans and wrestlers are very happy that AEW is using managers to help carry stories for wrestlers who aren't talkers. It's a lost craft. It doesn't make the program into Jake the Snake vs Rhodes. This is classic wrestling programming. And you keep harping on Marko Stunt giving good matches to both Brodie Lee and Archer weeks ago. You're the only one still thinking about those matches, but let us not forget that Stunt bumped like death for both guys and made them look vicious. Stunt is where he is because of his size, not in spite of it. And he is really good at selling insane moves.

4. If none of this pandemic had happened-- yes, they would be looking at breaking a million this week. Before this virus, they had shows over 900k viewers early in the year. They were building to a new regular high.

5. The Jurassic Express vs Mardlow seems like the most logical next thing. We agree on that, so they must not be going to do that. I feel the Inner Circle are on the verge of being faces.

6. That sounds like you're saying that nothing that isn't WWE is worth watching to you. The royal is an event that you have to watch just to behold. It's the story of the match that becomes the majority of the story of the episode. And it affects the narrative.


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

Mister Sinister said:


> 1. When you have a full house cheering a guy fanatically, it affects the television product and the watching audience at home. If he is over massively with the AEW core, it will put him over with the viewers at home. One of the major differences between AEW and WWE is the fan enthusiasm. Fans are part of the show. Not having them there takes away from the show. Anything that makes the fans go batshit and draws out energy from them will make good wrestling television. If WWE had a full house at WM and Hulk Hogan worked the battle royal as planned, the audience wouldn't care how old he is-- they would flip out to get to see Hogan work his final match at WrestleMania. They would flip out because they love Hogan. If you love a character, you don't have to ever stop loving that character just because they aren't in their prime anymore.
> 
> 2. Storytelling wise, it is where the story should go. Omega should be the one to take down Mox. Jericho isn't a pure heel. They need a pure heel, and Omega's turning on his friends would be unexpected (as they have teased Page's friction with the Elite as a red herring) and would create more drama because he is the group's most powerful wrestler. He has plenty of motive with how his role has been diminished, and he hasn't received a title shot. Omega makes sense as the champion now that he has had time to demonstrate his value to the US and Euro audiences as a great wrestler. Having him win in a three-way allows the title to removed from Mox without Mox losing. I agree with those who have said that Mox was better in the chase. It doesn't mean he can't be champion multiple times over the years, but it means that the most interesting narrative is when the odds are against him.
> 
> ...


1. Not true at all. There are plenty of wrestlers that are super over with a core audience but don't translate well on TV. For example, plenty of the ECW guys that were over with the ECW Arena crowd and the ECW audience were put on ECW's TV show with TNN and struggled. New Jack is a well known example of someone who didn't translate well.

2. Vince Russo is that you? Know what else would be unexpected? This week on Dyamite we see Moxley join The Dark Order, learn a new ability that allows lasers to shoot from his eyes and he uses this ability to shoot a massive hole in whoever dares to cross him. Totally unexpected but not necessarily good (Although I'm sure the AEW loyalists would eat that angle up). Kenny has yet to prove himself in the US and is actually deep in the midcard currently.

Okay so you sign Aries and Frank Mir to big deals who are you trying to attract to the product with this signing? Hey, here's the guy that beat Brock Lesnar! Nobody really cares and I don't even know if Frank Mir is a trained wrestler. Mir would be big money and offer nothing. TNA did this with Tito Ortiz and Rampage Jackson in 2013 and nobody cared.

3. Tournament was super predictable (Every man and their dog knew it'd be Archer/Rhodes), random stipulations that were forgotten about week to week (If Dustin loses to Kip he'll retire but not if he loses to Archer? What?), Cody driving 5 metres to knock over a barricade, the awkward brawling, Brandi's involvement etc etc. It all just didn't resonate with me personally.

I never shit on the use of managers but my point is correct. Jake did more for Jake than he did for Archer and the feud was generally Cody Vs Jake. It was Jake that dry humped Cody's wife, all the bad shit that was said was from Jake. It was Cody Vs Jake featuring Lance Archer.

4. I doubt it but we'll never know s no point in arguing.

6. I don't watch WWE I don't know how many times I have to say that. Dedicating over 2/3rds of your television show to a rumble for the midcard belt seems stupid though.


----------



## bdon (Nov 12, 2019)

Chip Chipperson said:


> 1. Not true at all. There are plenty of wrestlers that are super over with a core audience but don't translate well on TV. For example, plenty of the ECW guys that were over with the ECW Arena crowd and the ECW audience were put on ECW's TV show with TNN and struggled. New Jack is a well known example of someone who didn't translate well.
> 
> 2. Vince Russo is that you? Know what else would be unexpected? This week on Dyamite we see Moxley join The Dark Order, learn a new ability that allows lasers to shoot from his eyes and he uses this ability to shoot a massive hole in whoever dares to cross him. Totally unexpected but not necessarily good (Although I'm sure the AEW loyalists would eat that angle up). Kenny has yet to prove himself in the US and is actually deep in the midcard currently.
> 
> ...


Sounds similar to the Matt Hardy vs Inner Circle featuring Kenny Omega storyline. Wonder who put that shit together? Wonder WHY they put it together the way they did?

Selfish motherfucker would suck a dick to have HHH offer him a WWE contract with some creative control.


----------



## The_It_Factor (Aug 14, 2012)

I don’t watch AEW or keep up with its fans, but this thread makes it sound like Lucha Underground 2.0

That show was terrible, but it’s fans acted like you were some rube if you preferred WWE over it.

Is it even around anymore? (I’m actually not being sarcastic, what ever happened to it?)


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

The_It_Factor said:


> I don’t watch AEW or keep up with its fans, but this thread makes it sound like Lucha Underground 2.0
> 
> That show was terrible, but it’s fans acted like you were some rube if you preferred WWE over it.
> 
> Is it even around anymore? (I’m actually not being sarcastic, what ever happened to it?)


No it's not. They don't have the budget to keep it going, and most of their talent are now under contract to other promotions.


----------



## TheDraw (Jun 27, 2019)

Unfortunately, most AEW fans are too biased at this stage to have real conversation about the show. Fans are still in the Monday Night Wars mode desperate to see AEW succeed at all cost. Even if it means turning a blind eye to bad booking and mediocrity. Everything is gold to them.

Just like how most people in the world are dumb sheep who will buy things off of a brand sticker...most AEW fans and wrestling fans in general are much the same.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

TheDraw said:


> Unfortunately, most AEW fans are too biased at this stage to have real conversation about the show. Fans are still in the Monday Night Wars mode desperate to see AEW succeed at all cost. Even if it means turning a blind eye to bad booking and mediocrity. Everything is gold to them.
> 
> Just like how most people in the world are dumb sheep who will buy things off of a brand sticker...most AEW fans and wrestling fans in general are much the same.


Real conversation=say the show is bad no matter how you feel about because we should agree with you or real conversation= you don’t enjoy something about the show but some of us do enjoy those things. And that’s is perfectly fine.


----------



## I eat mangos (Sep 23, 2014)

That seemed like a fairly restrained and insightful post from Russo. With that said, I'm surprised he hasn't grown more comfortable with criticism and contrasting opinions after so many years of receiving them. 

Ultimately, in my experience, you can deliver criticism without causing offence as long as you're fairly careful about how you state things. Maybe some fans are hyper-defensive dicks, but calling them on it doesn't exactly ingratiate you to the wider community, who embrace those people because they are on the same side, without ever noticing their less-than-flattering characteristics. Vince Russo, amongst others, are hardly known for their considered, diplomatic statements. Consistently making inflammatory statements will invariably lead to inflamed retorts. 

Nevertheless, the message is sound. It is important we all learn to accept criticism. AEW has changed substantially since its inception and not entirely in ways that might constitute growth. I don't think this is the topic in which to discuss how and why, but I do think it important to state that some of the ways in which it has changed seem more to suit the existing audience than to suit a wider audience as well. Why focus so intently on your niche when the fans within that niche would also likely have appreciated a sincere attempt at growth to encapsulate a broader fanbase?


----------



## kingfrass44 (Sep 19, 2019)

I eat mangos said:


> That seemed like a fairly restrained and insightful post from Russo. With that said, I'm surprised he hasn't grown more comfortable with criticism and contrasting opinions after so many years of receiving them.
> 
> Ultimately, in my experience, you can deliver criticism without causing offence as long as you're fairly careful about how you state things. Maybe some fans are hyper-defensive dicks, but calling them on it doesn't exactly ingratiate you to the wider community, who embrace those people because they are on the same side, without ever noticing their less-than-flattering characteristics. Vince Russo, amongst others, are hardly known for their considered, diplomatic statements. Consistently making inflammatory statements will invariably lead to inflamed retorts.
> 
> Nevertheless, the message is sound. It is important we all learn to accept criticism. AEW has changed substantially since its inception and not entirely in ways that might constitute growth. I don't think this is the topic in which to discuss how and why, but I do think it important to state that some of the ways in which it has changed seem more to suit the existing audience than to suit a wider audience as well. Why focus so intently on your niche when the fans within that niche would also likely have appreciated a sincere attempt at growth to encapsulate a broader fanbase?


aew niche 
Your wrong


----------



## MontyCora (Aug 31, 2016)

NXT Only said:


> Real conversation=say the show is bad no matter how you feel about because we should agree with you or real conversation= you don’t enjoy something about the show but some of us do enjoy those things. And that’s is perfectly fine.


Pretty sure Draw is a joke account.


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

I eat mangos said:


> That seemed like a fairly restrained and insightful post from Russo. With that said, I'm surprised he hasn't grown more comfortable with criticism and contrasting opinions after so many years of receiving them.
> 
> Ultimately, in my experience, you can deliver criticism without causing offence as long as you're fairly careful about how you state things. Maybe some fans are hyper-defensive dicks, but calling them on it doesn't exactly ingratiate you to the wider community, who embrace those people because they are on the same side, without ever noticing their less-than-flattering characteristics. Vince Russo, amongst others, are hardly known for their considered, diplomatic statements. Consistently making inflammatory statements will invariably lead to inflamed retorts.
> 
> Nevertheless, the message is sound. It is important we all learn to accept criticism. AEW has changed substantially since its inception and not entirely in ways that might constitute growth. I don't think this is the topic in which to discuss how and why, but I do think it important to state that some of the ways in which it has changed seem more to suit the existing audience than to suit a wider audience as well. Why focus so intently on your niche when the fans within that niche would also likely have appreciated a sincere attempt at growth to encapsulate a broader fanbase?



Right on the money


Russo sometimes comes across as a giant man child when tweeting out. It gets annoying, even when his points and criticism is perfectly reasonable.


Russo had every right to be pissed about Cody publicly telling him to stay away from All In over homophobia. But, he went on an emotional tirade in videos and on Twitter that made it seem like he gets easily triggered. It's like Cornette, only with less personal attacking and with an inferior vocabulary.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Just on Omega: I'm no fan. But it makes sense to hire him and present him a way that makes sense to best capitalize on the audience the drools over him. It's very similar to Sabu in ECW. Meltzer fell for that hook, line and sinker and actually made a declarative statement in, I think it was 1994 (citation needed), that "the best wrestler in the world is not Bret Hart -- it's Sabu." Think about that for a second. That's Heyman's presentation and smart booking. 

You don't hire someone that a chunk of the fan-base that is already there for you thinks is the best wrestler in the world and present him as anything other than a candidate as such. It makes no sense to bring him in as a mid-carder. It doesn't matter whose decision it was or how "nice" anyone thinks they're being. Jericho vs. Omega was a perfectly fine choice for the main event of the first Double or Nothing, but if you removed the bullshit World Title stips, it would have been fine to put Omega over and say "this is our guy." At least for now. No, he can't talk. Yes, he sucks at selling and he is overrated as hell. But you can at least try while you don't have guys with a more rounded overall worker quality to them. And it certainly doesn't make sense to start with a "slump" storyline before anyone even knows who you are.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

Is he okay? Zero "Bro" and said something I actually dont disagree with. I hope he is well.


----------



## .christopher. (Jan 14, 2014)

Pippen94 said:


> Russo crippled two wrestling companies with national TV shows - don't quote him


I'm usually down for calling out Russo for the fool he is, but, surprisingly, he's talking sense here.

That's the worrying part. This fool who, like you said, played a huge part in not only killing so many wrestlers careers, but wrestling companies in general, is talking more sense than the hardcore AEW fans and, more worryingly, people actually associated with AEW.


----------



## BuckshotLarry (May 29, 2020)

Fans being nasty to him was a big reason he didn't buy the event. What a fragile flower Russo is - bro.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

.christopher. said:


> I'm usually down for calling out Russo for the fool he is, but, surprisingly, he's talking sense here.
> 
> That's the worrying part. This fool who, like you said, played a huge part in not only killing so many wrestlers careers, but wrestling companies in general, is talking more sense than the hardcore AEW fans and, more worryingly, people actually associated with AEW.


Aew just did double ppv buys then highest TNA ever did - they're doing something right


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

Russo didn't even watch and review Wrestlemania this year. He also stopped reviewing Raw/SD. Instead, he gets other people to talk about it while he wakes up every 10 minutes to mediate with a question, then go back to sleep.

He's clearly tired of wrestling right now, but needs to keep talking about it to keep his paying subscribers until he retires in a couple of years.

After that, he's said he wants to talk about everything non-wrestling (hoping a portion of the current subscriber base will continue paying).

A year ago he used to offer alternatives, book angles on the fly, etc, etc, etc - he's highly entertaining when interested. But that dropped off this year. 

Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe he simply didn't want to spend the money on the PPV and after that decision was made, he tried to think of the best possible way to make the most of it - which is by inciting AEW fans on twitter to help his brand grow in popularity even though he's not even watching wrestling anymore.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Aew just did double ppv buys then highest TNA ever did - they're doing something right


TNA was infamous for under-delivering on PPV. That is because Russo did not know how to book, but his focus was purposely focused on TV and ratings. TNA's lack of success on PPV does not immediately mean that AEW should be lauded. ECW used to get 99k domestic and terrestrial PPV buys. If they were around today, it's reasonable to think that their shows would have found an international audience through digital distribution. AEW gets about a third of its buys internationally. That would push ECW's international buys to 130k. But it would realistically be way higher, because people have multiple devices that provide on demand services. 

AEW is not exactly killing it in the PPV business. WWE were getting nervous about anything under 300k domestic buys. 75k domestic US buys or whatever is only "doing something right" if you squint.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> TNA was infamous for under-delivering on PPV. That is because Russo did not know how to book, but his focus was purposely focused on TV and ratings. TNA's lack of success on PPV does not immediately mean that AEW should be lauded. ECW used to get 99k domestic and terrestrial PPV buys. If they were around today, it's reasonable to think that their shows would have found an international audience through digital distribution. AEW gets about a third of its buys internationally. That would push ECW's international buys to 130k. But it would realistically be way higher, because people have multiple devices that provide on demand services.
> 
> AEW is not exactly killing it in the PPV business. WWE were getting nervous about anything under 300k domestic buys. 75k domestic US buys or whatever is only "doing something right" if you squint.



Wwe regular ppv's not $50.
120k for last aew ppv is domestic so you need to drop that line of agrument


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Wwe regular ppv's not $50.
> 120k for last aew ppv is domestic so you need to drop that line of agrument


On PPV they were whatever the price of PPVs were. AEW PPVs are way cheaper than WWE were over here, and you'd know this if you watch them on Fite. This is you deliberately misleading. 

I've heard people running with that. Do we have any confirmation on that? The Forbes article I've got in front of me says 115k-120k and compares it to the Double or Nothing worldwide buyrate for the previous year. It also says that Meltzer mentions the Fite app, which implies a global audience. Where are you getting that 120k is the domestic rate? 

'


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> On PPV they were whatever the price of PPVs were. AEW PPVs are way cheaper than WWE were over here, and you'd know this if you watch them on Fite. This is you deliberately misleading.
> 
> I've heard people running with that. Do we have any confirmation on that? The Forbes article I've got in front of me says 115k-120k and compares it to the Double or Nothing worldwide buyrate for the previous year. It also says that Meltzer mentions the Fite app, which implies a global audience. Where are you getting that 120k is the domestic rate?
> 
> '


That's what I've heard from more reliable ppl than you - you can't prove otherwise


----------



## Blade Runner (Jan 24, 2012)

.christopher. said:


> I'm usually down for calling out Russo for the fool he is, but, surprisingly, he's talking sense here.
> 
> That's the worrying part. This fool who, like you said, played a huge part in not only killing so many wrestlers careers, but wrestling companies in general, is talking more sense than the hardcore AEW fans and, more worryingly, people actually associated with AEW.


Who's career did he "kill"?


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> That's what I've heard from more reliable ppl than you - you can't prove otherwise


Translation: You can't. I don't need to prove a negative. Find me a single "reliable" source that suggests that 120k is the domestic number for Double or Nothing. It sounds like some dressed up blue-sky thinking.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> Translation: You can't. I don't need to prove a negative. Find me a single "reliable" source that suggests that 120k is the domestic number for Double or Nothing. It sounds like some dressed up blue-sky thinking.


Show me where it's not


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Show me where it's not


That's not how evidence works. If you want to assert something, have some evidence. But besides that, I already explained that I was looking at a Forbes article that quoted Dave Meltzer. Here's an extract: "Dave Meltzer of _The Wrestling Observer Newsletter_ noted streaming numbers for B/R Live and FITE were up 10 percent, suggesting Double or Nothing likely did 115,000 to 120,000 buys." Where in that does it say anything about domestic? FITE is the international provider for AEW, are they not? It seems to suggest that Double or Nothing is up 10%, which would put them at under 80k domestic buys, since I seem to recall Double or Nothing doing 71k domestic buys the previous year. Doing 120k worldwide buys and being the most purchased AEW event ever does not mean it did 120k domestic buys.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> That's not how evidence works. If you want to assert something, have some evidence. But besides that, I already explained that I was looking at a Forbes article that quoted Dave Meltzer. Here's an extract: "Dave Meltzer of _The Wrestling Observer Newsletter_ noted streaming numbers for B/R Live and FITE were up 10 percent, suggesting Double or Nothing likely did 115,000 to 120,000 buys." Where in that does it say anything about domestic? FITE is the international provider for AEW, are they not? It seems to suggest that Double or Nothing is up 10%, which would put them at under 80k domestic buys, since I seem to recall Double or Nothing doing 71k domestic buys the previous year. Doing 120k worldwide buys and being the most purchased AEW event ever does not mean it did 120k domestic buys.


Seem to recall? Where is overseas or domestic number? You have no basis to your argument - just making up your own numbers


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Seem to recall? Where is overseas or domestic number? You have no basis to your argument - just making up your own numbers


That's what I'm asking you. Where is the source that suggests 120k buys is the domestic number? This source has Meltzer talking about B/R Live (US) and FITE (international) are up 10%. Given that these are usually in line with traditional PPV buys and you're looking at a 10% increase of the show, which would be 120k worldwide and just under 80k domestically. I am not making this up, I am getting it from Dave Meltzer. It's right there. PPV, B/R Live and FITE likely up 10% and that adds up to 120k. 

If they 120k domestically, that would mean they converted about 17% of their TNT audience. Do you really think almost one in five people estimated people who watch Dynamite every week ordered the PPV? And don't you think Meltzer would be singing that from the rooftops and talking about how it's the greatest PPV conversion in pro-wrestling history? I've probably given him ideas, haha.


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> That's what I'm asking you. Where is the source that suggests 120k buys is the domestic number? This source has Meltzer talking about B/R Live (US) and FITE (international) are up 10%. Given that these are usually in line with traditional PPV buys and you're looking at a 10% increase of the show, which would be 120k worldwide and just under 80k domestically. I am not making this up, I am getting it from Dave Meltzer. It's right there. PPV, B/R Live and FITE likely up 10% and that adds up to 120k.
> 
> If they 120k domestically, that would mean they converted about 17% of their TNT audience. Do you really think almost one in five people estimated people who watch Dynamite every week ordered the PPV? And don't you think Meltzer would be singing that from the rooftops and talking about how it's the greatest PPV conversion in pro-wrestling history? I've probably given him ideas, haha.


You're discounting DVR & streaming - it's not 2006 TNA anymore. Upshot you don't have actual numbers


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> You're discounting DVR & streaming - it's not 2006 TNA anymore. Upshot you don't have actual numbers


What is that even in response to? Do you have any source that suggests 120k is the domestic number? What does DVR and streaming have to do with anything?


----------



## Pippen94 (Jan 10, 2020)

The Wood said:


> What is that even in response to? Do you have any source that suggests 120k is the domestic number? What does DVR and streaming have to do with anything?


Aew audience total should include streaming & DVR. Any luck finding source showing international buys?


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Pippen94 said:


> Aew audience total should include streaming & DVR. Any luck finding source showing international buys?


The 5% thing usually works pretty closely to the live audience. I don't feel compelled to include the DVR audience. They're not pressed enough to watch the show live -- do you think they're going to massively affect PPV buys? Especially considering how small that audience is. Yes, the Forbes article. It links the 10% increase with FITE. You are just being a baby about it now, haha.


----------



## TalkLoudHitHarder (Dec 31, 2017)

is that his kids in his profile picture?


----------

