Quote:
| Well, LS already mentioned about the ratings disagreeing with you. |
The rating were low, they were before, during and after. But the week after he won the title they did do better than usual. I'm not claiming it was a great number, it was probably only a few thousand people at best. But him becoming champion still did more than anoybody else around that time.
Quote:
| As well, I know that "hardcore fans" weren't the only ones who thought that the Arquette title reign was unimaginably stupid. Hardcore fans are the only ones still discussing it now, because casual or non fans are not likely to be discussing pro wrestling history... |
When I'm on about hardcore fans still talking about it, I'm mostly on about how much enjoyment they get/got from the angle. Most title reigns aren't worth remembering. But for some reason people still talk about what is an irrelevant title reign.
Nobody talks about other reigns from WCW around that time. Not even Vince Russo.
I fail to see how Arquette was in any way a worse champion than Russo.
Quote:
| But at the time, pretty much everyone I knew who heard about it - whether they were hardcore fans, casual fans, or non-fans - thought it was stupid. |
I'm not debating how stupid it was. But it is wrestling. It's nowhere near as stupid as a lot of things you see.
Quote:
| Even those who couldn't name a single wrestler on WCW's roster recognized that having an actor take the world title was dumb. I won't claim that my group of friends can be used an entirely accurate barometer of overall attitude towards that, but given that not one of them found any real positive in it, it does tell me at least something. |
A failure or not, one positive is that they were trying to attract attention. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Quote:
| You say that Arquette did more good than many of the other champions of that era. That's your opinion, but he also did much much more harm. |
How did he do harm when nobody was really watching the show anyway?
Quote:
| Having a non-wrestler as your champion devalues the other workers. |
I think there have been several champions over the years who most would classify as non-workers.
Quote:
| Everyone knows wrestling is a work and not a sport, but its still presented that these guys in the ring are supposed to be elite athletes who are the best at what they do. The champion is the best of the best. So when the guy who is supposed to be "the best of the best" is an actor, it makes everyone else look weaker. |
It's a fair point. But world champions haven't been presented as the best of the best in a long time.
Quote:
| So while having a celebrity non-wrestler become champion (Trump or someone else) might bring in an a small influx of non-fans out of interest, how many would stick around and how many would start shelling out $50 a month to watch the PPVs? |
Depends. Have Trump refuse to defend the title and you could almost guarantee that when he did defend it people would want to see the match.
All angles involving celebrities are short term. It's a break from the norm.
Quote:
| And while you are correct that the names like Cena and Triple H would still be there, the fact that you would have that non-wrestler beating one of these guys for that title would hardly make them look like real badasses. |
Well, Triple H can seemingly only win by using a sledgehammer and Cena is 0-1 against Kevin Federline.