Yo sorry everyone I’m quoting. Just responding as I read through. Fiery debate.
I think the way to sum this whole thing up is the wrestlers on AEW feel like bigger stars, but the wrestlers in WWE are bigger stars and it isn’t even close. AEW attracts a much more rabid hardcore fan base than main roster WWE. But they draw smaller crowds and have half as many live viewers. People are saying Charlotte isn’t a star because NXT didn’t win the night and only had an 8% ratings boost. Name a woman on the AEW roster that would get you a 0.8% ratings boost and I’ll call you a liar. She isn’t a big star in the grand scheme, but she would instantly be the centerpiece of the AEWs women’s division and no one else would be close. I made all these arguments when AEW was starting out about AEW lacking star power and how their WWE guys were their really only known stars. Jericho is their number 1 star by a lot. Followed probably by Mox, then Cody. All of whom are known for WWE. Don’t tell me Cody is known for other things, more people know him from WWE or as Dusty’s kid then ever saw him perform in NJPW or ROH. He was in WWE longer. People are conflating “big name in the hard core wrestling bubble with star.”
1 Like
Well, yes. @AuthorOfPosts is correct. Fans of these promotions choose to play along. But I think a good argument is that both have been able to engage fans in a way that makes them want to be part of the show - and better, they encourage it. So when you discuss if talent are draws, engagement and fan participation is a big thing to look at because that’s ultimately what wrestlers should be doing - that’s what leads to monetization of them.
So while Rollins may be an effective heel in a role, it’s guys like Marty selling merch or MJF getting fans to literally attack him.
I think where WWE does very well is that theybuse the machine to blast fans with how to engage and get the reaction (I.e Burn It Down) but it only can do so much for guys because it’s not organic. And fans don’t feel like it’s color by numbers viewing.
2 Likes
Agree a lot with what you say but feeling like a big fish in a small pond is part of being a star. And if Cody went back to WWE he’d be a massive star and that’s because he was behind All In and AEW. So basically it’s possible that guys are built better in one place while being known by more people for their WWE run.
Jericho felt like a midcard old timer in WWE.
He feels like a star elsewhere and it’s made him more of a star.
If anyone wants to have the debate - and it’s fun - @Breng77 is on to something - you have to immediately acknowledge wwe stars are more popular by virtue of numbers. And that’s wwes inherent advantage then. Now. Forever.
1 Like
A Big fish in a small pond feels like a star but if we are talking about people transcending the industry as stars it isn’t really being a star. For instance I was by every measure a star runner for my College,
(Broke 7 different school records, first to make the NCAA championship in history.) but that was because the school historically wasn’t very good and no one would claim I. The grand scheme of running that I was a star. So yes a big fish in a small pond is a star, but only in comparison to those fish and not the whales in the ocean. You are right about Jericho seeming a bigger star now, but he is that because he was a reasonably large older whale who moved into the pond.
Would Cody be a star if he went back to WWE? I’m not sure. He certainly could be or he could go back where he was because WWE booking and creative.
I think you can easily argue that the AEW stars from are bigger stars then they would have been had they remained in WWE because they had all reached their “WWE level” and probably wouldn’t have changed much before new guys pushed them down the card.
However, I often think as hardcore fans we think more interested in seeing means bigger star. I have little interest in any Brock matches but he is the industry’s biggest active star, by almost any metric you want to use.
2 Likes
And the problem with all of it in WWE is that because of these huge TV deals, they can move away from the traditional way of creating stars and do whatever Vince wants.
It’s why we have Reigns main eventing mania after mania despite not being the most popular guy. It’s why Corbin is in a top heel position.
The show is all about entertaining Vince. Wrestlers have to speak how he wants them to speak and wrestle how he wants them to wrestle. So as a result everyone sounds the same and looks the same. No one stands out
Competition hopefully changes that because WWE has an incredible talent roster but they’re insulated with TV money and can do whatever they want
2 Likes
I think it is more than that, I think Vince like power, and if your stars are bigger than the brand they have the control. I think he was not happy when his huge names jumped ship, or retired early, or left for Hollywood.
I’m more questioning the idea of it being some sort of revolution. You should pay attention to all of the words I used.
It’s a successful wrestling promotion but it’s not anything new or revolutionary.
For the first time in 20 years, essentially a generation of both fans and talent, there is a viable North American alternative to the status quo. To many on both sides of the curtain, I’d say this is both new and somewhat revolutionary.
1 Like
That’s nonsense.
First off, AEW’s content isn’t anything new, it’s typical pro-wrestling. Secondly, TNA and ROH say hello. It’s not a revolution.
It’s possible to be an AEW fan without putting a holier than thou, “these guys are wrestling saviours” framing around AEW but I see too many people doing exactly that.
Do you enjoy just playing devils advocate? Or do you really truly think main roster WWE with Roman Regins vs Corbin is better than AEW to watch?
1 Like
In terms of in-ring product, I don’t think anybody is saying that no other promotions have presented this type of wrestling before.
However, at the level it is performing in North America, no other non-WWE promotion in the last 20 years can touch it from a business perspective. From tickets sold, to PPV buy rates.
A competitive alternative at a mainstream level has not existed.
TNA did great TV ratings for a few years, but that never translated into them making a profit. They never had the same level of fan investment, that equaled fans paying for their product. Their highest PPV buy rates did half of the average AEW PPV buy rate.
ROH, while has (had) a strong fanbase, unfortunately never translated to it becoming a strong TV product, and consistent major arena ticket seller.
Again, in a generation, this is the first “big time” alternative to the WWE in North America. Based on financial success, and fan engagement, I don’t see where this is up for debate?
3 Likes
At what point did I say any of that? 
You guys keep on inventing things out of nowhere.
A different wrestling promotion existing doesn’t mean it’s providing anything new. It’s not. “It’s not WWE so it’s a revolution” doesn’t fly when that “revolution” is doing the same thing as every other wrestling promotion and is a lot closer to WWE main roster’s variety show than it is to being a more serious, “sports based”, “let’s not do dumb shit” alternative.
Cool. Ignore everything I wrote, and stick to your talking points. Great chat.
Whether or not you enjoy the content of their show, doesn’t negate their success, nor does it change the fact that again, for the first time in 20 years, their exists an non-McMahon vision of wrestling, selling out arenas / doing several thousand fans in North America, on a weekly basis.
1 Like
Summary of what you wrote: “It’s not WWE so it’s a revolution. Other promotions don’t count because they’re broke and have no fans.”
A successful wrestling promotion isn’t necessarily a revolutionary one. Simply being a different option isn’t them changing how things work.
I never said either one of those things about ROH or TNA. In face, ROH is far from broke - and could be in AEW’s position had Sinclair chose to step-up at any point in the last decade of ownership, and chose to be comparative. Instead, they were happy with owning ROH as cheap TV product for their stations.
While I understand you were clearly looking for a different product in AEW to be “revolutionary” in your eyes - the fact is, in a short time, they’ve changed the business as a whole.
As I’ve already stated, WWE is handing out insane amounts of money for mid-card acts. ROH has finally started spending as well.
For the first time in 20 year, a major cable outlet is PAYING a premium price for a NON-WWE product. Actually, for the first time ever, as WCW never got a rights fee, and I don’t think ECW ever got much from TNN… And I don’t think TNA ever got much of a financial bump from Spike.
What you choose to accept as “revolutionary” doesn’t stop the facts I’ve laid out from being true.
1 Like
AEW is revolutionary and not because of what they claim to be or the product they are delivering. Nobody would argue that their in-ring or creative or concepts are revolutionary.
But when you are talking about changing the industry from the status quo it’s hard to ignore some basic facts. They are running a viable, weekly live TV show at the scale of WWE and successfully selling PPVs at a clip comparable to WWE pre-Network. No company can make that claim since WCW. Does that make it revolutionary, absolutely not. But here is what does. In reaching the success they have so quickly, they have 1000% revolutionized what it means to be a Wrestler in the 2000s where you can now use leverage or choice to demand fair or even over-compensation. That is a revolution within the industry. It is also a revolution that because they will be on a major network for the next few years that new fans coming to learn about pro wrestling may have a choice of what to watch and support. In itself that’s not revolutionary but if we get to a point where 1 out of every 2 fans says they got into wrestling because of AEW not WWE then that would further the case - we won’t know that for years.
2 Likes
While AEW hasn’t been innovative with their product (if anything they’ve gotten back to old school storytelling), they have had a huge impact on the business itself. No pun intended.
If the rumours are true, WWE’s stock plummeted as an indirect result of AEW (vince wanting to sign everyone to huge contracts; Barrios and Wilson wanting some fiscal responsibility)
If that isn’t changing the current landscape, then I don’t know is. You can argue over the pointless terms like “revolution” and “war”, but that isn’t really the point, now is it?
1 Like
They’re providing some competition and they’re another option for wrestlers. I wouldn’t disagree with any of that.
My point was about how AEW hardcore fans act as if the AEW product and the promotion itself is special, unique and above criticism. None of those things are true.