If there's one thing that defines sports fans and wrestling fans alike, it is the inability to be content. Specifically in wrestling, it seems that no matter what kind of show is put on, the fans are quick to point out the low points of the show. Perhaps it's just human nature to have an eye for flaws, but because of the internet and growing technology, the voice of disdain often resonates throughout an entire growing internet wrestling community. As a member of that community, I have been able to listen and communicate with many individuals to get a feel for what these type of fans look for and what makes them tick. The one comment/criticism that I cannot understand though is the PG rating in the WWE. Often times, this rating is thrown out as a basis for the argument that some make at a "declining product" in their eyes. This is a common argument, but one I simply cannot buy. I don't believe for one second that the PG rating has much of an effect on the product, and I think that if there was nowhere to find the rating, nobody would know the difference.
My perspective on this matter comes from seeing professional wrestling in its many forms since it became "mainstream". Although I was a baby when Hulkamania first ran wild, I became aware of professional wrestling at the end of the Hogan era. This was a man who preached the good life and took on all sorts of evil, ranging from corrupt millionaires to loudmouth Canadians, to even corrupted Giants. By the time I became a viewer, the evil he was fighting was in the form of a bleach blonde egomaniac and a dark, brooding, 7 foot monster. Absolutely none of these characters were ever presented with a discernible good side, and for a child watching the shows, you wanted the good guy to prevail over the evil. Clearly, the product at this time was directly marketed at kids, though adults certainly bought the Hulkamania thing too. Hulk was so mainstream that it became cool to watch his matches. Of course, my parents never fully accepted my early love for wrestling, but not because the product was inappropriate. They just had no experience with it and didn't like it sight unseen. Looking back, I honestly see no reason why a child with brain enough not to repeat the moves he or she sees shouldn't have been able to watch that programming. In fact, I could argue that professional wrestling was more than ok for the young audience until about 1996.
In 1995, things changed with WCW going head to head against WWF. Competition can bring the best out of those involved, but it can also bring out the worst. While interest in professional wrestling started to grow, a cost became associated with that growth. That cost was its reputation. Signs of inappropriate nature began to surface at the time, including but not limited to Brian Pillman pulling a gun on Steve Austin in his home, the increasingly bad language, and the hiring of scantily clad valets. It was clear that wrestling was gearing it's product to an older audience, and by 1998, viewership was way up for both products. While WCW had one major storyline that worked from 1996-1997, it was beginning to grow stale and new ideas were cluttered and painful to watch in many cases. WWF on the other hand had a major storyline begin in 1998, but I'd argue that some of the other stories and other things taking up airtime started to border on smut tv. My personal interest had faded on wrestling a few years back, but certain things like Degeneration X and The Rock appealed to me and I began to watch again. I was also a fan of the Stone Cold vs. McMahon saga, though it grew tiresome after a length of time. While many were avid viewers of this increasingly degrading and lowest common denominator product until the "Attitude Era" ended in about 2003, I was unable to make it that far. Even though I enjoyed certain performers, I could not deal with the levels that wrestling was stooping to by that time. I stopped watching wrestling by about the end of 2000 as for me, it had gone too far.
I have enjoyed wrestling for the stories, the athleticism, the entertainment. I never understood the place for the raunchy stuff in a quality product. My feeling is that if you have good writing, you do not have to stoop to certain levels to get viewers. After the peak of smut TV in about 2000, the product slowly cleaned up over the years. Sure, there was still some pretty faulty language and certainly a ton of sexual innuendo, but little by little, the focus went back to the stories and the performers. Then, in many fans eyes, wrestling died.
About 2 years ago now, a noticeable change was visible at the beginning of every WWE broadcast. The letters "TV-PG" appeared on screens to the disdain of Attitude Era viewers who were now lonely young adults still stuck in 1999. Through biased eyes, many of these viewers began to dismiss the current product as "childish" without so much of a reason more than the label they saw at the beginning of the broadcast. Having been a veteran of broadcasts before and after the official change, I never saw that much of a difference.
If you want to pick at it, the noticeable differences are a slightly cleaned up language, divas wearing a little less revealing clothing, less sexual innuendo, and a complete lack of blood. For some reason, the latter is a cause for concern for a part of the audience. Perhaps the image of Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13 still lingers in their minds. Perhaps the rise of MMA has given them a new thirst for blood. Either way, I've always felt that blood should be very limited on wrestling programming anyway, and if the lack of blood causes you to be dissatisfied with a wrestling program, then I don't think you were watching for the right reasons in the first place. As for the rest of the examples, the only justification I can find is that adults are the ones fighting and often portray themselves in feuds as having undying hatred for another man or woman. That anger in real life will often bring out the worst in people and invoke violence and foul language. Perhaps to some viewers, it seems unnatural to sensor the language of grown men and women who are supposedly hating each other. However, if you actually watch the product and don't make that judgment based on outside factors, you can see that most, if not all of the performers are able to show emotion with their words and actions and not cross the line with language or violence to the point of bloodshed. As for the sexual stuff and the divas clothing, all I can say there is that if the little extra clothing the divas are wearing now is reason to knock the product and not want to watch it, perhaps you shouldn't. Buy a Maxim or Playboy if you are 18. Wrestling was never and should never be about seeing women in thongs. It was part of programming in the late 90's, but the divas are still, for the most part, beautiful women, but now there is just a little more mystery. To me, that should still suffice the sexual appetite of male viewers and not offend the parents who are letting their children watch today's programming. However, none of these examples come anywhere close to defining the product.
Wrestling has been about stories settled with predetermined matches forever. The simplicity is still there today even within the complexity of a 2 hour show with many different stories. Ultimately, the idea is to write television for a few weeks hyping a conflict between two sides, and advertising those sides to settle their differences on Pay Per View. The goal is for people to be so intrigued that they will buy that Pay Per View, making the company money. While the peak of PPV buys occurred during the famed Attitude Era, I would argue that the majority of those who bought those Pay Per Views did so to see the conflicts of Steve Austin and Vince McMahon resolved, did so to see Triple H get beat once he became the top heel, did so to cheer for the Rock. Even though the TV product included elements of low-brow entertainment, it was always the strong storylines that made the money. Today, those storylines still exist. At this very moment, Randy Orton's protegees are turning on him and he will be faced with two men that have a grudge against him for the way he treated them, you have a 12 year old grudge with Bret Hart and Vince McMahon that just won't die, you have Shawn Michaels obsession with the Undertaker leading to him putting his career on the line just to have the chance to face him again, you have former tag team partners set to meet for a title and the chaser wanting to get revenge for the bad things the champion said while his former partner was sidelined with an injury, and lastly, you have two megastars set to meet for a title with one being drawn to the darkside to help Vince with his plot to humiliate Bret Hart. If all those stories aren't enough to entice a viewer, and that viewer needs all those men to bleed and for some of them to have valets walking out in thongs, then perhaps they will not be satisfied with the current product. However, even without those elements, the stories should be intriguing enough for adults and children alike. This isn't exactly Sesame Street. This is wrestling, and the very fact that every conflict is solved with a fight makes the product, by nature, not so child friendly. All I'm saying is that wrestling really hasn't changed all that much except for a label, and if that label is enough to make someone question the product, then they don't understand the product to begin with. The WWF was born as a "PG" product, but went more "adult" to win a war. Even Vince McMahon will admit that the over the top elements were a desperate act to beat another company. Today, that desperation is unnecessary, even with an upstart company trying to jump in to compete. The WWE has returned to its roots in putting on programming that can appeal to all age demographics, which is the way it should be. After all, the more people you can appeal to, the better it is for business, right?
Written by:
