Who SHOULD take over after Vince?

Originally posted by Kondor I'll have to disagree. I don't see it as the same as a fan getting bored at the same ol' same ol' thing. I see it as a regression of the company. In the past couple decades they have more matches end in outside interference or thrown out altogether (and nobody seems to care, including the broadcasters), shorter Title reigns (despite having more Titles), hardly any actual Title chases, less meaning behind every feud, more emphasis put on character and less on actual ring talent, more and more promo time and less and less match time, more dumb childish skits, twice as much time advertising for the next PPV, and in general the show seems less and less real. The cleanliness and PG rating are just the icing on the cake. The way I see it it's not like you meet someone, get in a relationship, and get bored as you said. It's more like you meet someone who's smart and intelligent, maybe she or he can elaborate on Shakespeare or pressing political issues of the day, you fall in love; and then she or he suddenly starts speaking in nursery language, eats with her or his fingers, and wants to play with toddler's building blocks. The show has changed indeed.

 

Originally posted by ihatethatmonkee i agree with the sentiment, but the various points you make are a reaction to the fact that 1)there is more WWE television output now than at nearly any other point in it's history and 2) there is no competition for WWE anymore, thus the product as a whole is not edgy. that's not counting the fact that WWE is now a publicly floated company that is accountable to shareholders. PPVs need to be pushed heavily to ensure maximum buyrates,

I think that you are partially right but there is more to it. I'll have to disagree that the degeneration of what the WWF/E has presented in recent years is entirely due to a lack of competition or an increased TV schedule. I attribute it to the greed of the bookers; and that in turn caused the attention span of the average professional wrestling to shrink. Pay per views as a medium was the biggest money maker in wrestling when it first came out (and of course it still is today), and obviously once pay per view proved itself promoters wanted to have as many of them as possible. So thus was born a need to increase the number of Title changes as you eluded to. But that in turn made Bruno Sammartino length Title reigns look long and boring. Thus the fans' attention span is shorter. But... an increased amount of pay per views could have been instituted without the increased Title changes; but with the possibility of Title changes always remaining. The tag and secondary belts would change hands every few months and the World Title belt every few years. But Vinnie Mac and the other promoters didn't go that route. They gave the fans the instant satisfaction instead; and the fans became accustomed to it. Plus, prior to, say, the beginning of the Monday night wars in 1995, a majority of wrestling broadcasts consisted of stars squashing jobbers. But with a need to compete, neither company could do that anymore. And there was more and more a need for that immediate action; that quick fix. Both companies thought that the more promos featuring big names there were (instead of actual wrestling), along with increased Title changes the more interesting their show was. And the fans attuned in turn to that trend. So there is no true competition anymore, ok. But they can no longer go back to the old way of mid carder vs unknown for two hours plus one main eventer match to close the show. The ceiling has been broken. So you are right when you say it's increased TV plus due to a lack of competition; but to me it's those things that caused the real issue, shorter attention spans. 

As for the lack of edginess, you are right that after WCW was purchased the presentation of WWE got a lot less edgy as there was no need for them to compete with anyone. So on a side note that trend was present long before Linda ran for the Senate. Yet they can still have quality wrestling without being edgy. They can focus on [gasp] actual quality wrestling matches with or without envelope pushing promos and with or without middle fingers. In fact arguably the edgyness in the first place was part of the problem of why they got away from wrestling in the first place.

The outright regression in the intelligence of segments, like some stuff the 2006-2010 version of DX does, or anything Hornswoggle does is best explained by a change in WWE's target audience; they want to appeal to kids. 

As for increased PPV advertising; I understand the Chairman's (and now the stockholders') desire to increase revenue; but advertising it so much on each and every show takes away from the quality of the show and that is part of the problem. Not to mention the fact that they have found a way to advertise the next PPV without actually advertising it. One trick is they have a tease, either two people who are scheduled to meet each other one on one at the PPV meet on opposite sides in a tag team match (and only tangle a tad bit if at all); or one guy is in a match and his PPV opponent interferes in a match (so thus it has no winner). And then the broadcasters say "what will happen when so and so meets so and so at [insert name of next PPV here]!!!" In either case, the focus is on hyping up the next PPV, whereas beforehand they could actually focus on having a real winner in a great wrestling match on their regular TV shows. And before anyone tells me they need to save big matches for the next pay per view/supershow, I agree; but that can be done and still have a quality free TV show at the same time, only with a slightly lesser match billing.

Originally posted by ihatethatmonkee less wrestling is due to the focus on entertainment,

Yes, that is exactly what I'm complaining about.
 

I think Paul, if he was to take over, would definately try his hardest to keep the buisness rolling, because he is very passionate for the buisness.

I believe Steph and Triple H are the hair to the throne

Originally posted by badguy When Vince goes, I really doubt Steph, Paul or even Shane could keep the business as healthy as it has been under Vince, Vince changed the face of this business and has kept it that way, in what way could Steph, Paul or even Shane do to keep changing it? Seriously? When Vince goes, the WWE will more than likely die out.

What?  On what do you base that argument?  Stephanie McMahon pretty much runs the show these days, and Vince just pretty much oversees what she produces, and tweaks it where he sees fit.  I thought this was pretty well known.  Steph has been placed and sorry for the word but groomed to take over the company for a few years now, and many people speculated that's the real reason why Shane fell out with the business.  Vince may still be the monarch but Steph runs parliament.