|
|
Post by Swarm on Dec 11, 2007 19:47:47 GMT -5
This topic cracks me up any time someone brings it up: the reason why a company would use eye candy types instead of putting in more of an effort to find good looking girls who can also wrestle is this: NOBODY CARES. And therein lies the issue, as you claim that nobody cares about women who can actually wrestle. I will admit that they are a small minority, but some people DO care, and to dismiss their criticisms is basically saying that their opinions either don't matter or are wrong. Yep. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Mondello on Dec 11, 2007 20:01:38 GMT -5
Professional wrestling is a niche market, period. Unfortunately we don't have any mainstream promotions that are really interested in catering to those viewers who populate that niche. WWE pretty near has a monopoly on the business because it was able to turn a circus sideshow act into mainstream entertainment for the masses. That's why we'll never see a women's division that is populated by women who are hired for their ability over their looks. It's just not what that key demographic is interested in watching. TNA claims to be the WRESTLING ALTERNATIVE, but we all know that's not true. It's reaching for the same demographic that WWE does, where great bodies > great skills.
I don't agree that nobody cares, but truly not enough people care for them to want to change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dvdmorse on Dec 11, 2007 20:57:44 GMT -5
Professional wrestling is a niche market, period. Unfortunately we don't have any mainstream promotions that are really interested in catering to those viewers who populate that niche. WWE pretty near has a monopoly on the business because it was able to turn a circus sideshow act into mainstream entertainment for the masses. That's why we'll never see a women's division that is populated by women who are hired for their ability over their looks. It's just not what that key demographic is interested in watching. TNA claims to be the WRESTLING ALTERNATIVE, but we all know that's not true. It's reaching for the same demographic that WWE does, where great bodies > great skills. I don't agree that nobody cares, but truly not enough people care for them to want to change it. Perhaps true, but I don't think that was the issue here. I doubt that the posts on this board will change anything in either WWE or TNA. But the subject of who has a better product is certainly legitimate, and the criteria for making that judgment is not so easily agreed on that one should just dismiss the opinions of others. In other words, some of us do care, and on these boards that should be good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 11, 2007 21:05:19 GMT -5
Sorry yeah , I might by wrestling . Even looks is 50/50% in my opinion I need a Bazzy conversion chart to understand this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Hegemony on Dec 11, 2007 21:22:40 GMT -5
And therein lies the issue, as you claim that nobody cares about women who can actually wrestle. I will admit that they are a small minority, but some people DO care, and to dismiss their criticisms is basically saying that their opinions either don't matter or are wrong. Yep. As I said, both typical and sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Mondello on Dec 11, 2007 21:44:58 GMT -5
Professional wrestling is a niche market, period. Unfortunately we don't have any mainstream promotions that are really interested in catering to those viewers who populate that niche. WWE pretty near has a monopoly on the business because it was able to turn a circus sideshow act into mainstream entertainment for the masses. That's why we'll never see a women's division that is populated by women who are hired for their ability over their looks. It's just not what that key demographic is interested in watching. TNA claims to be the WRESTLING ALTERNATIVE, but we all know that's not true. It's reaching for the same demographic that WWE does, where great bodies > great skills. I don't agree that nobody cares, but truly not enough people care for them to want to change it. Perhaps true, but I don't think that was the issue here. I doubt that the posts on this board will change anything in either WWE or TNA. But the subject of who has a better product is certainly legitimate, and the criteria for making that judgment is not so easily agreed on that one should just dismiss the opinions of others. In other words, some of us do care, and on these boards that should be good enough. Completely agree, and did not intend to convey otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Dec 11, 2007 22:08:35 GMT -5
I don't agree that nobody cares, but truly not enough people care for them to want to change it. That's pretty much it. Whenever someone makes a post like this they use it as a way of criticizing the WWE. As if they are doing something terrible by NOT having legitimate wrestlers. The point I was presenting both times I posted was that the WWE has no REASON to have legitimate women wrestlers because the potential number of viewers it would draw would be so minimal - and the possibility of tunrong off it's established audience so great - that it would essentially be stupid to even try. The WWE is a *business* making *business* decisions. It hasn't been a PRO-RASSLIN promotion in roughly 30 years. If the topic is "who has the beteer workers" then that's fine. But if someone actually criticizes the WWE for not having better female workers, I think it's perfectly fair to point out the criticism is almost entirely worthless. Might as well criticize the E for not having a stong midget division or a large number of transgender workers. |
|
|
|
Post by dvdmorse on Dec 11, 2007 23:34:04 GMT -5
I don't agree that nobody cares, but truly not enough people care for them to want to change it. Whenever someone makes a post like this they use it as a way of criticizing the WWE. As if they are doing something terrible by NOT having legitimate wrestlers. The point I was presenting both times I posted was that the WWE has no REASON to have legitimate women wrestlers because the potential number of viewers it would draw would be so minimal - and the possibility of tunrong off it's established audience so great - that it would essentially be stupid to even try. The WWE is a *business* making *business* decisions. It hasn't been a PRO-RASSLIN promotion in roughly 30 years. If the topic is "who has the beteer workers" then that's fine. But if someone actually criticizes the WWE for not having better female workers, I think it's perfectly fair to point out the criticism is almost entirely worthless. Might as well criticize the E for not having a stong midget division or a large number of transgender workers. I don't agree. The question was who has the better divas--whether as better wrestlers or better looking women. You can explain why the WWE does not bother to have better wrestlers all day, and it still does not change or address the original question. Some of us like to watch good wrestling, so, whatever the reasons may be, which federation has better female wrestlers is relevant. An explanation of the WWE's position does not negate the issue that was raised in the first place. Oh, and on the subject of which federation has the better looking women, I'd like the WWE better if they still had Crystal and if they did not bury Layla on the useless pseudo-ECW show. Jillian Hall and whatshername the Glamazon just do not impress me much. |
|
|
|
Post by JamieOD on Dec 12, 2007 3:58:33 GMT -5
Might as well criticize the E for not having a stong midget division or a large number of transgender workers. I miss Max Mini. Those lucha midgets from the mid 90s were fun to watch. Back to the point, some of the divas are improving. Candice Michelle has been improving up until her injury. |
|
|
|
Post by Hegemony on Dec 12, 2007 9:55:18 GMT -5
Whenever someone makes a post like this they use it as a way of criticizing the WWE. As if they are doing something terrible by NOT having legitimate wrestlers. The point I was presenting both times I posted was that the WWE has no REASON to have legitimate women wrestlers because the potential number of viewers it would draw would be so minimal - and the possibility of tunrong off it's established audience so great - that it would essentially be stupid to even try. The WWE is a *business* making *business* decisions. It hasn't been a PRO-RASSLIN promotion in roughly 30 years. If the topic is "who has the beteer workers" then that's fine. But if someone actually criticizes the WWE for not having better female workers, I think it's perfectly fair to point out the criticism is almost entirely worthless. Might as well criticize the E for not having a stong midget division or a large number of transgender workers. I don't agree. The question was who has the better divas--whether as better wrestlers or better looking women. You can explain why the WWE does not bother to have better wrestlers all day, and it still does not change or address the original question. Some of us like to watch good wrestling, so, whatever the reasons may be, which federation has better female wrestlers is relevant. An explanation of the WWE's position does not negate the issue that was raised in the first place. Oh, and on the subject of which federation has the better looking women, I'd like the WWE better if they still had Crystal and if they did not bury Layla on the useless pseudo-ECW show. Jillian Hall and whatshername the Glamazon just do not impress me much. Great Post. Furthermore, if we did want to debate WHY WWE uses the women that they do, ratings really cannot be used as proof to support these decisions. Over the past two years (if not longer), there has been little evidence that the WWE Diva has any positive impact on ratings. In fact, they usually are involved in segments that lose total viewers according to Nielsen Media Research (ECW Strip Poker any one?). And they certainly have little impact on PPV buys. As for why they shouldn't use these untrained models as professional wrestlers, how about the safety of these women and those they work with? |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 12, 2007 10:10:49 GMT -5
I thought I read where the diva search has always been a big ratings draw. Maybe I was wrong.
On a related topic, did anyone other than myself yell out, "Oh s--t!" when Layla gave Kelly that discus-style kick last night?
I haven't seen a replay so maybe Kelly just sold it good, but it looked like Layla damn near knocked her out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on Dec 12, 2007 10:52:42 GMT -5
For an interesting contrast, pretty much every argument in this thread could have the words "diva" and/or "women" replaced with "tag teams" and not much would change.
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Dec 12, 2007 12:23:59 GMT -5
I thought I read where the diva search has always been a big ratings draw. Maybe I was wrong. No Hegemony is wrong. The first two Diva searches did gigantic ratings. LWPD even made a post about it. |
|
|
|
Post by dvdmorse on Dec 12, 2007 12:56:12 GMT -5
For an interesting contrast, pretty much every argument in this thread could have the words "diva" and/or "women" replaced with "tag teams" and not much would change. Somehow I just can't see myself getting too interested in a debate over whether the World's Greatest Tag Team is better looking than LAX.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hegemony on Dec 12, 2007 17:16:01 GMT -5
You are right, the Diva Search (at least the first two) was a success in terms of ratings. Although, with TV contracts structured the way they are, I don't know why ratings are even a point of emphasis any longer. Sorry for forgetting about the Diva Search, although I tried hard to block it out of my mind.  However, for every instance of ratings success, there are innumerably more examples of WWE Divas losing audiences, with ECW strip poker being one of the most notorious. Here is what Alvarez had to say about this event: "Strip Poker did a 1.8, also not a surprise since the girls haven’t meant jack **** in the ratings in a long time. In fact, at this point they are officially a detriment." This was in 2006, and the past year or so has not seen any significant difference in this trend. For example, a quick glance at Nielsen numbers indicates that on the 11/12 Raw the diva segment lost 352,000 viewers, and on the 11/19 Raw they lost 574,000 viewers. The limitations of quantitative data such as this really doesn't tell us too much, but suffice to say that these instances are not indicative of any ratings success. This is an interesting topic that after the semester ends I would like to investigate further. So for now, my part in this will have to be continued at a later time. i would like to track this trend in more detail down the road though... |
|
|
|
Post by Aquinas on Dec 12, 2007 17:34:24 GMT -5
If given a choice between
A) The status quo with 'divas' in the WWE
B) More women who can actually wrestle
C) Absolutely no women/divas in WWE (or TNA) at all
I'd take C in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by daytondave on Dec 12, 2007 18:25:20 GMT -5
Interesting question, Aquinas. I posted it as a poll in the "Pro Wrestling Polls" section.
Myself, I enjoy the change of pace in the ladies' matches and I would choose "B".
|
|
|
|
Post by Swarm on Dec 12, 2007 19:23:02 GMT -5
All I know is there have been *25* Promoter Madness winners in the past two years, one of which is a female, and only *one* female *wrestler* has been created, and that was by Troy Xavier, who is obsessed with women, God Bless his heart.
deliriousdave did create Nurse Elizabeth with his ever so cool Dr. Payne character, but she does not wrestle.
Jim's Panda may be a chick hard to tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Dec 12, 2007 23:25:20 GMT -5
If given a choice between A) The status quo with 'divas' in the WWE B) More women who can actually wrestle C) Absolutely no women/divas in WWE (or TNA) at all I'd take C in a heartbeat. Man, absolutely. I have no problem with managers/valets. Hot women are cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Aquinas on Dec 12, 2007 23:49:58 GMT -5
If given a choice between A) The status quo with 'divas' in the WWE B) More women who can actually wrestle C) Absolutely no women/divas in WWE (or TNA) at all I'd take C in a heartbeat. Man, absolutely. I have no problem with managers/valets. Hot women are cool. I'm all for hot women in general too, and I don't include valets/managers in C. |
|
