Welcome to the Weekend edition of the PDC, where anything goes! This week, we're going to take a look at a particular article in the latest issue of RAW Magazine, the one with the stunning Stacy Keibler and the knock out Torrie Wilson on the cover in American bikinis. Yes, you've seen the issue on magazine stands.
For something to read at work, my brother occasionally buys up wrestling magazines. This month, he purchased the Triple H magazine, the latest edition of "The Wrestler", and RAW magazine. Just the other day, he told me about how RAW magazine took a shot at the internet. Just for the hell of it, I checked it out, and I feel that the article deserves a response in the PDC. That's what you'll see in this weekend's edition.
Oh by the way, I probably wrote the most positive Smackdown review that I've seen among the columnists, that I know, from the latest edition of Smackdown. I really hope you Tito-haters notice it, and maybe, just maybe, acknowledge it instead of hiding until I rip a show apart in the future.
On to the PDC!
First of all, he rants about how the "smarts" of the internet try to race to be the first to explain why the WWF will fail. I can agree with that attitude that some internet columnists aim for, but I do NOT want the WWF to fail. I just don't personally like seeing Vince McMahon on for a lot of television time, as I feel that the product could be better. I certainly do not want the WWF to fail, as I have never said that. If it failed, then what could I write about every day? What would I watch, in hopes of being entertained, on Mondays and Thursdays? If I wanted it to fail, I'd just turn off the television and walk away from the stuff I grew up watching.
I found Mr. Williams to be very funny when talking about the Invasion angle. He said that the "wise" internet people claimed it was the worst executed angle in wrestling history. It's certainly up there, and Aaron screws himself by saying that the ECW part of it was a surprise. Now that's bluff, as the WWF creative team quickly came up with that idea after bad crowd reactions to the Buff vs. Booker T match and other WCW matches attempted on WWF television. It was NEVER planned ahead of time, nor was it set up as a back up plan. Yet this shill claims that the WWF was planning on doing this, the whole time.
Then, he goes on about how Invasion drew one of the biggest buyrates in WWF history. Yeah, I'll agree with that point to, and that occurred from every WWF, WCW, and ECW fan wanting to see interpromotional matches that they've waited to see ever since the WWF bought WCW. That's why it jumped on the buyrate. Want proof of that? Just take a look at the buyrates for the surrounding Pay Per Views, including two of the "big 5" Pay Per Views, like King of the Ring and Summerslam. After Wrestlemania 17, buyrates became lower than what the WWF was pulling in from 1998 through Wrestlemania 17. Invasion was just that one show that everyone wanted to see for the long-awaited interpromotional matches.
And if the Invasion angle was a so-called success, in Mr. Williams's mind, then why was it completely scrapped to start a new storyline after Survivor Series? Instead of the WWF divisions like they are doing now, it was supposed to be WCW/ECW having their own wrestling show, and the WWF having their own show. But it wasn't, because obviously, the WCW/ECW faction wasn't working.
Next, Aaron Williams takes a look at ratings, and how many are quick to judge them on a one week basis. Just put it this way, whenever a big angle or storyline occurs, like the return of Ric Flair, the ratings go up. Whenever the WWF does a RAW after the Pay Per View, the rating usually goes up. When the WWF, for instance, has the same material for each show, like the APA or Big Show squashing Alliance members or having many segments of the McMahons talking, ratings tend to go down. He says a 0.2 drop spells doom, in the internet smart's mind. Then what about a 0.5 or higher of a decrease? Yes, I've had lots of statistics, Mr. Williams, and I have mentioned slight increases or decreases as questionable, for they might not be statistically significant. But when you see a 0.5 or more drop, which if you want me to load up Microsoft Excel to prove, then yes, that's statistically significant of a drop in the ratings, especially in one week.
I do agree with the notion that it is hard for the WWF to be great for all of their over 400 hours of programming. I've mentioned, several times, that the WWF seems burned out on some storylines because of the non-stop pace, which I definitely admire. The shows I trash are ones like the Vince McMahon Kiss-My-Ass-Club shows, where Vince takes up a lot of television time to set up a tasteless angle. Like Williams said in a later paragraph that the shows attract fans of different tastes and interests, meaning that the WWF shows have a lot of variety. Seeing Vince McMahon for a good bit of the show does NOT mean variety, as it's only appealing to one group of people who enjoy seeing Vince McMahon ego-tripping with his Kiss-My-Ass-Club angle, instead of having more parts of the show dedicated to other tastes.
The dedication to long, and drawn out angles, like Vince's Kiss My Ass Club angle shows hypocrisy for Aaron Williams, as he makes an example that if the WWF devoted its whole shows to "technical wrestling", their so-called problems won't be solved. So if the WWF dedicates their whole shows to one thing, like say a McMahon angle, then would it be the same as what would occur from techinical wrestling? It must not be of variety then, and that's my example for the WWF's diverse audience.
But for this whole article, it's funny to see a PAID WWF employee lashing out at the internet wrestling community, who do NOT get paid to write their opinions about the WWF, unlike Mr. Williams, who must write all positive things or be in question from his company. It's said that only around 10% of the current wrestling fanbase actually care about or participates in internet wrestling discussion. But yet Mr. Williams, probably coaxed by his employer, the WWF, decided to show himself as a shill and defend the company who pays his bills.
I hope Aaron Williams and RAW Magazine have enjoyed my plug or mention of their material. I do want to say that the Rock vs. Hulk Hogan article was the most ridiculous thing that I've ever read, which is also in this current issue of RAW Magazine. I like how they shill and claim that the Rock has no weaknesses, while they are sure to cheaply mention a few for Hogan.
AOL Instant Messenger: BookerTito - It's recommended that you send your questions or feedback as your first message so that it could be answered, instead of saying "hi", "hey", "what's up" or whatever else. Just get to the point, please, to make it easier since I get drilled with messages.
WRESTLEPALOOZA.com - Audio Show, Columns, News, and more!
KOLTERSHOCK!!! - A site that you shouldn't view with small children present!
@That's all for today. I don't normally care to criticize someone's written work, but I felt the need to do so in this case, especially when it's from the WWF and done with arrogance. I'll see you Monday with my thoughts on HBK on Excess, along with some RAW Hype.
Take Care, and Thanks for Reading.