Defending David Arquette's title win

[We Are Legion]

This is a topic that has always drawn tons of overwhelming negative criticism from wrestling fans and many people within the business. But I wanted to shed a new perspective on this incident so maybe a few of you will form a new opinion on it aside from what WWE wants you to think of it based off their relentless dvd smear jobs.

To understand this incident, you have to ignore for a minute the names of the people involved. Ignore the fact it was David Arquette and just look at this situation for what it was. It was a Hollywood outsider being heavily involved in the wrestling product in attempt to draw the interest of viewers who were outside the core WCW audience, which at the time were mostly die hard WCW fans and no one else. Looking at it from that perspective, and again, ignoring the fact the Hollywood name was "David Arquette", this is a situation that can be very closely compared to The Rock's current title reign. And although that may sound ludicrous to some, let's really take a close look at the facts surrounding this situation.

In 2000, WCW produced the movie "Ready to Rumble" that despite it's critical reception was a very popular movie that year and did very good numbers at the box office as a result of the popularity of professional wrestling at that time. WCW had an opportunity to promote their movie and simultaneously attract new viewers to their fledgling wrestling product by involving the star of that movie with WCW television. As long as we're still ignoring the fact that star is David Arquette, this would probably sound like a great idea to anyone, even today. The WWE obviously saw the same potential in paying The Rock the insane salary they are now to make very infrequent appearances and carry the WWE Championship in order to attract the exact same target mainstream audience among cinema fans. Some fans would say to this, "Well David Arquette was never an A-list Hollywood actor", okay? And The Rock is? They don't have to be. The concept is to attract the mainstream audiences that would not normally watch your product. PERIOD.

Did it work? Here's a fact: The average Nitro rating for the month of April, the month Arquette won the championship, was 2.8, which was up from the 2.3 average rating the month before. WWE's ratings kept climbing throughout the month of April, so clearly these weren't WWE viewers that WCW "stole". They were brand new viewers being attracted to the wrestling product. Much more valuable. And though 5/10ths of a rating difference may not sound like a huge improvement to some, it clearly made an immediate impact.

Now let's take a look at a common myth orchestrated by WWE, that Arquette's title win "degraded the prestige of the WCW Championship". There's no soft way I can say this, so I'll just say it point blank: That is complete and utter bullshit and there's absolutely no evidence to support that claim, no measurable way to prove this, nothing. It was an opinion shared by old Jim Crockett wrestling purists (all terrible businessmen, which is why their company was sold to Ted Turner in the first place) who took it completely personally (of course) as an insult to their family's legacy, different factions of the WCW locker room who wanted to hot-shot the title around every single month the way they were doing throughout that year because Arquette's win deviated from their own agendas, and WWE propagandists who still insist on driving more nails into WCW's coffin in order to kiss Vince McMahon's ass and insist WCW never did anything good. It's all bullshit and this really needs to be realized. Was the WWE Championship devalued when Vince McMahon won it in 1999? No.

Arquette's win definitely did not devalue the belt. Fact is, the completely shady nature in which he won it was such a complete fluke, it was meant to be received the way it was at the time. If Arquette beat Hulk Hogan clean in the middle of the ring 1-2-3, then fine, I would fully concede that assertion, but that's hardly what happened. For some reason, people today assume that WCW did this because they legitimately felt Arquette was a worthy champion. This couldn't be further from the truth. It IS true however that the WCW Championship had become devalued, but Arquette was not the reason. If you want to blame that on anything, consider how many times that belt was flat out vacated that year. Between September 12, 1999 and April 10, 2000, the WCW Championship was vacated 6 times. 6 times in 7 months, the WCW Championship changed hands without anyone being beaten for it and ALL of that happened before David Arquette won it. There's a lot of people you can blame for the title's decline, but Arquette is certainly not one of them. And it always peeves me when people argue topics like this by reciting WWE's dvd commentary word-for-word because this is a clear-cut example of how you're only getting one side of a story and one opinion.

Is there a way this situation could have worked better for WCW? I definitely believe that if it hadn't been David Arquette and the star of "Ready to Rumble" had been a more impressive Hollywood star, someone with a more intimidating physical presence like a Vin Diesel or a Schwarzenegger, then I sincerely believe this idea could have worked out better. But WCW didn't have a Vin Diesel in their movie. They didn't have Schwarzenegger. They had David Arquette, that was who they had to work with, and that's who they used. Call it a crappy hand, but they followed through on this angle with what they were given and it really wasn't the terrible idea many people seem to think it was. It was an opportunity to attract mainstream viewers, and and least briefly, it worked. And if WCW had a consistent force driving the direction of their company, it might have even led to something good in the long run, but they didn't have that. Their television never had any long-term plans or goals and the whole opportunity was wasted and handled poorly by the company. But the idea itself to crown a Hollywood actor champion was not a bad idea.

What are your thoughts on this incident?

 

[Deezy]

Firstly.....I laughed out loud quite literally here.

Secondly, WCW's title was worthless when they gave the belt to Jarrett so Arquette was an improvement, and ratings grew a little after he won, because people wanted to see if this shit was true and ratings dropped even further after this was over.

Thirdly, I actually liked Ready To Rumble and still own the DVD.

Fourth, this guy was a scrawny as fuck and his whole run was treated like a joke on Nitro, and on whatever the equivalent to TMZ was back then. And it made WCW look like a joke as well, sure they were desperate at this point and looking to involve celebs, WWE did this too with the guest host shit a few years ago.....But WWE didn't put a belt on Seth Green!!

Also wrestling purist is a figment of the "It's still real to me dammit!!" imagination of people who know this is worked, but still treat it like it isn't tbh.

 

[Cwalker]

I think everyone knows why it was done, so that part is understandable. I watched a shoot from Vince Russo fro a few years ago and he said after Arquette won the title, WCW was on the cover of mainstream magazines like USA Today, etc. So the reason why they did it is perfectly fine.

But it's hard to simply gloss over the fact that "Ready To Rumble" while admiteddly an enjoyable movie, wasn't an A movie with A-List actors. I understand the comparsion between Rock and Arquette, but you can't ignore the fact that you're comparing a great actor who has had almost all of his movies be box office hits to a guy who even in his prime wasn't a draw.

Like Deezy said, the WCW title literally meant nothing by the time Arquette won it and whie I don't think it was a bad move putting the belt on him, it wasn't going to be the draw they thought it would be. They worked with what they had and it drew shirt term interest, nothing major.

I will agree with you that they need to kill the noise on Arquette devaluing the Championship because with as many times as it was vacated, it damn near had no value anyway.

 

[zigglerHEEL]

I had stopped watching Nitro for the most part by the time this all went down and I remember thinking that if they wanted to get fans back that they had lost, this was certainly not the way to do it.... Sure they brought a small new group of fans in for a few weeks/maybe months but they should have been trying to find a way to bring back a larger group of the fans they had lost... I also read somewhere a while back that Arquette himself did not want to go forward with the angle and had to be convinced by Russo and Bischoff that it would be good for both WCW and Ready to Rumble... I also agree with you guys that it couldn't possibly devalue a championship that had already been completely devalued throughout the previous months... If I were still religiously watching WCW at the time I may have been a little more aggravated and turned off by the angle but since i wasn't, I didn't care much at all

 

[The Cork]

Deez basically summed up this shit for me.

OP, I agree with you on one thing tho, the title couldn't of been less prestigous than when Nash and Hogan played pass the parcel with it, so putting it on a celeb wasn't a bad idea. The choice of celeb, however, was awful.

Arquette looks, sounds and is a huge pussy. If they'd pulled this stunt with a Michael Jai White or similar (I know he wasn't in the movie, but yeah) then I don't think anyone would of minded. They might as well of gave the strap to Rodman or Jay Leno, at least they had mic skills.

 

[The New F'n Show]

I see your point and it's not bad but I was still a WCW viewer at that time (wouldn't say fan) and I hated everything about it. I liked the movie but the title win wasn't even that "O MY GOD ARQUETTE WON THE TITLE" as much as it was "What the Fuck, are you kidding me?" The heel turn to put it back on Jarrett was even worse. It didn't ruin the prestige of the title though, the Finger Poke of Doom did that.

 

[Keith]

This is a topic that has always drawn tons of overwhelming negative criticism from wrestling fans and many people within the business. But I wanted to shed a new perspective on this incident so maybe a few of you will form a new opinion on it aside from what WWE wants you to think of it based off their relentless dvd smear jobs.

To understand this incident, you have to ignore for a minute the names of the people involved. Ignore the fact it was David Arquette and just look at this situation for what it was. It was a Hollywood outsider being heavily involved in the wrestling product in attempt to draw the interest of viewers who were outside the core WCW audience, which at the time were mostly die hard WCW fans and no one else. Looking at it from that perspective, and again, ignoring the fact the Hollywood name was "David Arquette", this is a situation that can be very closely compared to The Rock's current title reign. And although that may sound ludicrous to some, let's really take a close look at the facts surrounding this situation.

In 2000, WCW produced the movie "Ready to Rumble" that despite it's critical reception was a very popular movie that year and did very good numbers at the box office as a result of the popularity of professional wrestling at that time. WCW had an opportunity to promote their movie and simultaneously attract new viewers to their fledgling wrestling product by involving the star of that movie with WCW television. As long as we're still ignoring the fact that star is David Arquette, this would probably sound like a great idea to anyone, even today. The WWE obviously saw the same potential in paying The Rock the insane salary they are now to make very infrequent appearances and carry the WWE Championship in order to attract the exact same target mainstream audience among cinema fans. Some fans would say to this, "Well David Arquette was never an A-list Hollywood actor", okay? And The Rock is? They don't have to be. The concept is to attract the mainstream audiences that would not normally watch your product. PERIOD.

Did it work? Here's a fact: The average Nitro rating for the month of April, the month Arquette won the championship, was 2.8, which was up from the 2.3 average rating the month before. WWE's ratings kept climbing throughout the month of April, so clearly these weren't WWE viewers that WCW "stole". They were brand new viewers being attracted to the wrestling product. Much more valuable. And though 5/10ths of a rating difference may not sound like a huge improvement to some, it clearly made an immediate impact.

Now let's take a look at a common myth orchestrated by WWE, that Arquette's title win "degraded the prestige of the WCW Championship". There's no soft way I can say this, so I'll just say it point blank: That is complete and utter bullshit and there's absolutely no evidence to support that claim, no measurable way to prove this, nothing. It was an opinion shared by old Jim Crockett wrestling purists (all terrible businessmen, which is why their company was sold to Ted Turner in the first place) who took it completely personally (of course) as an insult to their family's legacy, different factions of the WCW locker room who wanted to hot-shot the title around every single month the way they were doing throughout that year because Arquette's win deviated from their own agendas, and WWE propagandists who still insist on driving more nails into WCW's coffin in order to kiss Vince McMahon's ass and insist WCW never did anything good. It's all bullshit and this really needs to be realized. Was the WWE Championship devalued when Vince McMahon won it in 1999? No.

Arquette's win definitely did not devalue the belt. Fact is, the completely shady nature in which he won it was such a complete fluke, it was meant to be received the way it was at the time. If Arquette beat Hulk Hogan clean in the middle of the ring 1-2-3, then fine, I would fully concede that assertion, but that's hardly what happened. For some reason, people today assume that WCW did this because they legitimately felt Arquette was a worthy champion. This couldn't be further from the truth. It IS true however that the WCW Championship had become devalued, but Arquette was not the reason. If you want to blame that on anything, consider how many times that belt was flat out vacated that year. Between September 12, 1999 and April 10, 2000, the WCW Championship was vacated 6 times. 6 times in 7 months, the WCW Championship changed hands without anyone being beaten for it and ALL of that happened before David Arquette won it. There's a lot of people you can blame for the title's decline, but Arquette is certainly not one of them. And it always peeves me when people argue topics like this by reciting WWE's dvd commentary word-for-word because this is a clear-cut example of how you're only getting one side of a story and one opinion.

Is there a way this situation could have worked better for WCW? I definitely believe that if it hadn't been David Arquette and the star of "Ready to Rumble" had been a more impressive Hollywood star, someone with a more intimidating physical presence like a Vin Diesel or a Schwarzenegger, then I sincerely believe this idea could have worked out better. But WCW didn't have a Vin Diesel in their movie. They didn't have Schwarzenegger. They had David Arquette, that was who they had to work with, and that's who they used. Call it a crappy hand, but they followed through on this angle with what they were given and it really wasn't the terrible idea many people seem to think it was. It was an opportunity to attract mainstream viewers, and and least briefly, it worked. And if WCW had a consistent force driving the direction of their company, it might have even led to something good in the long run, but they didn't have that. Their television never had any long-term plans or goals and the whole opportunity was wasted and handled poorly by the company. But the idea itself to crown a Hollywood actor champion was not a bad idea.

What are your thoughts on this incident?

Hello Vince, see you are enjoying life on the unemployment line AGAIN!! Unlike Scott I won't go easy on you lol.

First of all your point falls down by comparing Arquette and Ready to Rumble to the Rock. Not seen the film, but it bombed at the Box Office, so I don't know why you are trying to change history and claim it was a success. Also the reason the Rock returning has been a draw is because of his history in WWF/WWE as one of its biggest ever names, it is not because he is a big movie star, pretty much all the fans tuneing in to see him are fans of his from the 90s/ early 2000s.

Your point on them trying to attract fans outside WCW's hardcore fanbase is flawed, because unlike the WWF fans, WCW fans were rised watching a more wrestling based product, and they liked it more than the flashy sports entertainment one, which is why WCW was in the state it was in at time, because they weren't supplying what the fans wanted. They always had the fan base to be a success, but they slowly drove them away.

deezy might have a point on the leap in ratings, but it wasn't that big a leap and I bet it didn't last very long, meaning that overall this did have a damaging effect on business because it turned more long time, hardcore fans away.

Also this idea that attracting Hollywood is good for business has never panned out for me, wrestling is about the basics of getting the guys in the ring over, making them seem interesting and their desputes eye chatching. The worlds of Hollywood and Wrestling are two different ones, which is why people hate those dumb back stage segments on raw now.

 

[Troy]

To start with the ratings didn't increase with his title win. He won the title on the April 26th episode of Thunder when he pinned Eric Bischoff in a tag team match. The Nitro episode two days earlier on April 24th pulled a 3.1 rating. The first Nitro after his title win on the 1st of May drew a 2.5 rating so the rating actually dropped close to 20% which is a huge drop and as RAW's rating only jumped 0.3 it is clear that the fans didn't just switch over to RAW they actively turned off Nitro because of the title change. The rating then increased to 2.8 the week after, May 8th, when Arquette was no longer champion as he dropped the title to Jarrett on May 7th. The rating then increased again the next week, May 15th, to a 3.1. It was a huge ratings failure for WCW so there is no way that it can be claimed that it drew in more viewers for them since the facts prove otherwise.

The whole scenario surrounding the title change was just so ridiculous that it was bound to fail. Having a World Heavyweight title change hands in a tag team match involving two non wrestlers is just so mind-numbingly stupid. It definitely devalued the title having it change hands in that kind of match let alone having it go to a guy that wasn't even involved with wrestling outside of the movie. Vince Russo's World title win made a hell of a lot more sense and did less damage to the title than this title change, at least Russo was involved in wrestling and was a regular character. The same can be said for Vince's title win, he was a regular on screen character for years and wrestled on and off quite a few times, plus at least Vince actually looked the part. Arquette was a very scrawny guy and just looked so out of place in the ring, he didn't look like he could hurt a fly let alone "beat" these wrestlers even if it was a fluke.

I agree that the title didn't have that much prestige at the time but there is no way that this title change didn't hurt the title. At least before when the title wasn't vacated it was being held by some of the top names in the company and by actual wrestlers.

The comparison to The Rock just doesn't hold either. Whilst both won the titles whilst Hollywood actors, The Rock did also have a little bit of history with WWE since he is one of the greatest WWE wrestlers of all time. Arquette had no prior wrestling affiliation and didn't have that background that The Rock has. It would have been better for WCW if they could have actually signed an actor that had some size to him to play the role. At least for No Holds Barred WWF signed a big guy in Tiny Tim Lister to play Zeus. He looked the part whereas Arquette never did. WCW were right to integrate Arquette into the product but by putting their top title on him they made a huge mistake. What they should have done was have had him help the top babyface of the time win the world title instead. He should never have been in a position to actually win the title himself.

What I will say that is Arquette was great in how he donated all the money he received from his WCW appearances to charity which was a great gesture on his part.

 

[Alton]

The same can be said for Vince's title win, he was a regular on screen character for years and wrestled on and off quite a few times, plus at least Vince actually looked the part. Arquette was a very scrawny guy and just looked so out of place in the ring, he didn't look like he could hurt a fly let alone "beat" these wrestlers even if it was a fluke.




http://www.prep4sure.com/