AEW not changing the game?

We do agree on a lot of topics here. The only thing is everyone keep using the pandemic as an excuse and every point I made is something that happened before the pandemic or would have happened regardless. The women's wrestling was bad before and continues to do so. The rankings and win-loss records were around from the start, and the jobber stuff happens all the time.

Well I like AEW and I’m glad I’m getting some alternative to wwe. TNA and ROH failed at that. I know NXT is different from raw and smackdown, but at the end of the day it’s a wwe show and a lot of the wrestlers that are used well in NXT become nothing on the main roster because Hunter creates and then Vince kills! I don’t even go back and forth like I used to in the Monday Night War era. I just watch AEW.

i think you're looking in the wrong places then. aew will continue to feature classic wrestling tropes (good vs bad, david vs goliath, etc) but also, much like lucha underground, are presenting their product in a way that mixes elements more of fantasy and comic book style action than actually reality based pro wrestling. that's why marco stunt can land offense. that's why riho could be women's champion. that's why orange cassidy can fight with his hands in his pockets.

as for aew 'changing the game', i was never worried about that. i knew their product wasn't going to be the exact product i want to see, but i was hopeful that they would tell developed stories that keep a good pace and play out. not a never ending miz vs ziggler feud. stories that make sense. and we have gotten that tenfold in my opinion. so i'm more than happy with what aew has done so far.

well now that you know what the company is, maybe it isn't for you.

and marko stunt is heavily marketable, especially in jurassic express. the average tv watcher does not take wrestling seriously whatsoever, he is damaging nothing. he's different, talented, and connecting to the audience.

So I decided to go back and re-read some of the original articles about AEW, etc. Just out of curiosity to see what I could further add to the discussion.  The discussion seems to have stalled, but as a huge AEW fan, I do think it's an interesting topic as long as no one is overly worked up about it.  


I'm certain there were more, but the comments I could find easily about being sports oriented/their mission statement were: ". I want to be the sports-centric alternative in the pro wrestling world and I think we’re on a good path to get there.”  "“One thing we really strongly want to present is wins and losses mattering again in pro wrestling. That takes more than the W and the L column,” he said. “We’re talking about percentage of times someone loses to this particular maneuver, percentages against somebody of this height, a whole by-the-numbers approach that really intrigues me. It’s not a cornerstone of AEW necessarily but it’s a great peripheral element we’re working on and that’s going to be exclusive to us."  -- Cody

"Focused on producing fast-paced, high-impact competitions, AEW offers fans less scripted, soapy drama, and more athleticism and real sports analytics, bringing a legitimacy to wrestling that it has not previously had. Wrestlers will also be given more freedom to explore their characters and highlight their athletic abilities. Introducing statistics to wrestling for the first time ever, AEW will raise the stakes for its matches and deepen fan engagement by tracking each competitor’s wins and losses as the wrestlers pursue championships, analyzing their moves, assessing damage to their opponents, and providing insights into their winning streaks." -- Press Release.

Obviously, the analytics have not come through yet beyond wins and losses.  Whatever the reason for it, I'm not sure. Maybe they just got too bloody busy and realized that was overly ambitious, perhaps they will show up a little further down the road, perhaps not.  The company has existed for a year, and been on TV for about 8 months. Realistically that's about enough time to start compiling some actual statistics on the day 1 talent. Is someone working on it? I have no idea of course.  Honestly, do I really care? Not really.  If they go back on the idea of having those background statistics I don't think it's the worst thing they could go back on.  I know Tony Khan is a numbers guy, so I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing this show up in the future as the numbers become more statistically significant, rather than reading like a batting average after 5 MLB games for a lot of the newer guys.  Beyond W-L, they were supposed to be an extra thing anyways, not the entire basis for the product, so whatever.  Sounds like a cool idea as a background thing, but I'm not gonna be crying myself to sleep if it doesn't happen. 

The Wins and Losses do matter. I think they've shown they matter.  Look at almost every title opportunity, and it was a person at or near the top of the rankings. The 4 way matches or #1 contender matches have been with people high in the rankings, not people at the bottom.  Why have number 1 contender matches when you have a #1 ranked person?  Put another way, why do sports have playoffs? Why do we have wild-card slots? You don't get the stanley cup for winning the presidents trophy.  You get the stanley cup for winning the playoffs. #1 seeds get knocked off all the time. Combat sports? How many #1 ranked UFC fighters get title shots? It's not all the time. Tennis grand slam? Gotta play through a 256 person bracket.  #1 rank =/= #1 contender in this company. If that's a huge issue for contention, I mean go hard, but I think there are essentially infinite sports examples where that non-equivalency is also evident. Could you argue that perhaps the #1 contender should have an advantage? Sure, and that would actually be kinda cool. How it would work I have no idea, but I'd be down to see some creativity there. 

The last part from those comments I found is just having it being sports-centric and not soap-opera based.  Is everything sports centered? Certainly not. I'm not going to try to argue for a second that OC is sports oriented, that the Stampede match was (at least beyond being the Airplane equivalent of a wrestling match), or that literally anything about Matt hardy is. I think a fair amount is though.  Beyond wins and losses above.  Look at how many wrestlers have managers/coaches. Tazz manages and likely coaches Cage. (I don't think it was an accident Cage's offense in that match was very suplex centric haha).  Arn coaches Cody, and has his playcard all the time, which I freaking love.  That part is pretty sports centric I'd say. Title matches have a real big fight feel to them.  Title matches also have a longer leash for violence, i.e. it's harder to get a DQ.  It's much harder to get a penalty in the NHL playoffs. MUCH harder. It's like a totally different game. (Yeah, I'm Canadian, hockey references are just how we roll).  They mention the rankings pretty consistently, they talk about everyone having the goal of the title. They've tried weigh-ins. Most everyone is chasing after the titles. (I'm not sure if Orange Cassidy knows there is a title yet or not).  There are plenty of other small things I've noticed that feel very sports like, but I can't think of every single example on the spot. 

I couldn't find the quote, but I remember Cody talking a lot about it having "something for everyone" and kind of stepping back on the sports thing a bit too.  Not in a "we don't want to be sports based" kinda  way, but more in a "Hey, yes we're sports based, but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be storylines, or comedy, or anything like that. It's our big driver, but you'll still get those other elements of pro wrestling".  The idea was that they would have something for everyone. You didn't have to like everything they did, but hopefully you could find some things you really liked.  I wish I could find the actual quote or interview because I think it cleared a lot of that up. People got really hung up on the statistics part of the release and he addressed it.  I think they've definitely met that criteria.  Whatever your style of wrestling, you'll probably find something on the cards that suit your fancy.  Maybe not all of it, and some shows may be better than others, but overall. 

Long post, so TL;DR -- W/L do matter, see the evidence provided, It has been relatively sports oriented overall, again see comments. Wasn't supposed to be only sports oriented, and I don't know where the rest of the statistics are or if they are coming. 

He actually completely 100% in very clear and precise terms explained exactly this...

I think something we need to remember is that we're watching a company start from literally nothing and learn as it goes. We've never seen that before. Both WCW and TNA were NWA products with experienced teams of producers and bookers before they launched. ECW was an NWA property and, until it went to TNN, was a highlight show every week and not a live broadcast. WWE was part of the NWA as the WWWF and had experienced teams there as well.

Something else to note is that when companies like WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA launched, live wrestling broadcasts were about filming live arena shows during a time when companies made the lion's share of their revenue through ticket sales. Now the model has changed so that the live arena event revolves around is televisual presentation. Companies like WWE and WCW got to evolve from one to the other over time and WWE is still finding its footing even now; AEW is a brand new thing that, because of its position on TNT, has to be the finished article already!

I would liken it to when NXT very first launched in 2012, and they had to introduce EVERYONE at once to an audience that didn't know any of the roster. They had guys from the main roster coming in to boost ticket sales for Full Sail and put over the new people. The trouble AEW has is that the established guys like Kenny, The Bucks, Lucha Bros, P&P, Cage, Archer, SCU, Angelico and Jack Evans, Colt, Jimmy Havoc, Allie, Bea etc. are all established guys in small companies that a casual fan might never have even heard of. So they come in and those of us who watch a breadth of wrestling go 'these guys are stars, why aren't they being pushed as the face of the company?'but they still need to build up to stardom for all the new eyes watching them. That leaves the burden of bringing in guys like Hager, Mox, Jericho, Dustin, Spears, Pac, Hardy, Brodie and Cody to give casual fans a bit of a measuring stick by which they can gauge how they're supposed to feel about the established but stil emerging stars listed above AND all the new guys that AEW has basically discovered.

It's well hard. I wouldn't know where to begin.

So you agreed with my post without knowing, then claimed it doesn't matter, then admitted to not even reading my post?