From: wen5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Stan T2 Wen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Subject: Re: Time to change?
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: wen5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <92202.152445JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>The Changes in wrestling I see in the Future:1. Higher pay and greater exposure for rookie wrestlers to attract
>new, younger talent.  Don't have to pay "jobber dues" before getting
>a big push.  See if a few of these guys start going into the action-
>movie biz like the kickboxers have started doing.

I think you're right.  Think of the young stars (by no means an
indicator of wrestling ability): Tatanka, Van Hammer, Steve Austin who
have gotten instant pushes.  Lex Luger shot straight to the top when
he entered wrestling.  I can remember many pre-stardom job stints by
veteran wrestlers like Arn Anderson, Hellwig, Rick Rude...

>  2. An either/or thing:
>     A.) More syndie shows, with only a couple of big PPV per-year.
>No more Clash type shows.  Fewer house shows, and these very small.

This seems to be a partial trend by Bill Watts and WCW, cancelling all
the pay shows and showing more name vs. name matches on the syndies.  I
remember the shows just before Kip Frey took over.  So many squashes.  Main
events of Young Pistol Tracey vs. Big Josh.  Now we get PPV clips and
some replays of house show tapings.

>     B.) Increase in big house shows, maybe once a month.  Shown on
>PPV for those not in the immediate area.  Syndies fade out.  The
>wrestling feds. become nomadic.  Arrive in town, set up for onehuge
>show with everyone they show there, then show up a month later in
>another city.  This would also be good for recruiting young talent:
>less time on the road, more time with family.

A return to the Stone age?  I can't see this for the simple reason that
wrestling MUST be marketed by TV.  Otherwise, nobody cares.

>  3. Expect to see less angles and increased violence.  Bonuses for
>taking hard shots/juicing.  Will have to become more *real* now that
>so many of the kids of the 80's have grown up and gotten into the
>Van Damme movies.  This could continue until a new generation of kids
>get into wrestling.  Then the angles will come back.

I think this will be the case in WCW.  WWF is apparently so aimless that
they won't get anything done in terms of policy or angles until Pat
Patterson returns.

>  4. A greater emphasis upon good-looking wrestlers.  The fitness craze
>means people won't want to see fat or non-muscular wrestlers, despite
>their skills.  Expect to see more and more body-builder types getting
>into wrestling, both as jobbers and as stars.  It's happening already,
>check out the physiques on many WCW & WWF jobbers: often-times they
>are in better shape than the star wrestler.  These are the ones who will
>start getting pushed sooner and sooner.

Are you talking about mid-level jobbers or squash-a-nobody jobbers?  I
see flab everywhere in the WCW: Larry Santo, Bob Cook, Scott Sandlin,
Sonny Trout, Jobbin Joey Maggs, Johnny Rich.  I think you're correct
that the superstars will always look at least as muscular as Sting, but
I think the roided jobber look of 1990-91 WWF is a done thing because of
the steroid scandal.

-- 
__________  ______
  _|       _\      Stan T2 Wen    wen5@midway.uchicago.edu
  _|     _____/                     chimera@minds.bsd.uchicago.edu
  _|    ________      "I think it was his eye, cold and blue like a vulture's."