WWE Journal

There's very little need for an introduction, since the title gives away the subject in a rather self-explanatory way. In short, this is a WWE blog. So if anyone feels like weighing in with a load of garbage about the wrestling industry (e.g. "YOU MORON! IT'S ALL FAKE! YOU CAN'T WATCH SOMETHING THAT'S FAKE! YOU MORON! I'm away to watch Friends now."), then your feedback can go screw itself. Other than that, all comments are welcome.

With that, I shall begin. Saturday Night's Main Event featured a welcome return to network TV for the WWE, re-establishing a tradition that goes back 20 years. Unfortunately, it tanked. Not the show itself, which featured the cream of the crop from RAW and Smackdown, a string of entertaining segments, an exciting opener and a dramatic main event. But the rating was, for want of a better word, horrendous. A 3.2, to be precise. For comparison, Saturday Night Live usually draws between 6.0 and 7.0, and RAW itself has drawn between 4.0 and 4.5 all year. To the untrained eye it's a baffling one, but closer inspection reveals a string of problems the show had before it even started.
Firstly, wrestling's reputation is in the toilet. No prime time show receives less ad revenue per break (ie. the products advertised on Smackdown are of low value, as the TV industry thinks wrestling fans are the least wealthy demographic in America). Crucially, the teenagers and young adults have been driven away from wrestling by a string of frankly ridiculous storylines. Did anyone think a negrophillia plot is what the company needed in 2002? Vince McMahon and the RAW scriptwriters did. So that's what we got. For the record, the ratings immediately plummeted to 3.0, almost record lows. Did anyone think it would be acceptable to sell out Eddie Guerrero's legacy for a cheap, thoughtless angle involving Randy Orton insulting is memory? Vince McMcahon and the Smackdown scriptwriters did, so that's what we got. Smackdown ratings have stayed below 3.0 since the tacky storyline, and the No Way Out grudge match for Eddie's honour is rumoured to have drawn a similarly poor buyrate. Do I notice a pattern emerging here?


Losing it: McMahon

Thirdly, Triple H has practially run RAW for four years, and people are suffering from HHH fatigue at the moment. So when he took an eight month break from the main event, I breathed a sigh of relief. I was then re-fatigued as he returned to the main event on NBC on Saturday Night. And shock horror, the rating tanked. Now bear in mind, HHH is one of the greatest wrestlers ever. The way he plans out his matches meticulously, brings logic and structure to his storylines and performs flawlessly in the ring is magnificent. He undoubtedly deserves many world title reigns. But TEN? Even the most fanatical HHH fan (I'm presuming there are some out there) would have to admit that's stretching it a tad. Regin No. 11 is predictably starting in a few weeks when he makes John Cena look like a jabroni, and then it'll be off into the horizon, chasing Ric Flair's more meaningful record of 16 world titles. The problem is, no-one takes his quest seriously. Everyone knows that in real life he married the boss's daughter, and can thus muster up another title shot whenever he feels like it. No matter how good he is, it's a fact that he hasn't moved business in the right direction as champion, in the way Batista, John Cena and Edge have recently. You remember Edge, right? The guy who brought RAW its highest ratings since the brand extension in 2002? He's now languishing in the mid-card in a hastily arranged storyline, while the 'King of Kings' plods to his pre-arranged coronation on April 2nd. I doubt the TV audience were filled with glee when they heard that SNME was headlined by matches involving McMahon-Helmsleys. Just because it worked in 2000, doesn't mean it'll work in 2006.

With that said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for HHH's talent. Honest.

The show itself was, as I said, very entertaining. JBL was gold in his segment with Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mickie James continued to amaze the world by being part of an interesting women's storyline (did they swap scriptwriters for this?), and we were spared a Boogeyman match. No offence mate, but you were one of the long line of people called up too quickly from OVW. A year from now and your wrestling will probably be up to scratch, by which point it'll be too late. And they say society learns from its mistakes. Still no sign of Stacy Keibler though. The obvious idea is for her to save Torrie Wilson from Candice "Don't call me arrogant" Michelle and Victoria. So obvious that they'll probably overlook her for some heinous angle involving a midget and The Boogeyman's worms. You think I'm joking? While berating the WWE for attempting to relanuch SNME, the press clearly declared their interest in seeing Stacy again. One news outlet said something along the lines of, "We have no interest in watching HHH and The McMahon's step in the ring again. Now book Stacy Keibler, the most famous wrestler in America today, on the show - then we're talking." But they didn't. I guess they couldn't be bothered thinking up a storyline for her. Again.


Keibler: Not booked

RAW was a decent show this past Monday, although the show only really realises its potential when it comes from Texas, the only state in America with a half-decent crowd. When they go the North-East it's like someone's sat a wet newspaper in front of the crowd, they're so quiet. Unless they're booing the frig out of John Cena, of course. Wake up guys.

I have no idea what happened on Smackdown yet, as I don't read the spoilers. They ruin the entertainment value of the show. Bit like Mark Henry. I know, that was malicious.

WrestleMania Big Time Countdown: 10 days. I can't wait. Sort of.