What was the point in HHH capturing the title?

[Icame4Hookers]

The title now won't be defended until Wrestlemania.

So having fastlane is pointless......

[drave]

Gotta find out who he is dropping the title to @ WM.

That is the point of Fastlane. It'll be another "free PPV" to boost network subscribers - also a point of it.

[Emperor Smeat]

Originally Posted by drave Gotta find out who he is dropping the title to @ WM. That is the point of Fastlane. It'll be another "free PPV" to boost network subscribers - also a point of it.

This. By making the Rumble for the title this year, WWE still needs to have a big match to find out who gets to be the official #1 contender for the belt at Mania.

Fastlane gets more hype than usual as part of the trade off this year from the Rumble.

[Shisen Kopf]

WWE Champ gets more hookers than not having a belt. HHH won it 4 hookers.

[Big Vic]

HHH should defend it against Ziggler or something, it won't hurt Ziggler because his career is dead in the water anyway.

[Stickman]

He won the belt so WM has a credible champ. Nobody on the roster other than Lesnar is credible.

[Mr. JL]

Yeah, pretty stupid. Missed an opportunity to push one of the newer stars. They could have done any number of things and it would have been better:

Roman Reigns gets thrown over the top rope. Rumble match continues and Ambrose is the last man standing with number #30 still yet to have been called on. Triple H/Vince/Steph music hits... and they announce number 30 drum roll... Roman Reigns comes out shakes their hand, runs to the ring tosses out Ambrose. Instant heel.

Turn Ziggler

Put the belt on Bray Wyatt, Del Rio, AJ Styles

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by Mr. JL Yeah, pretty stupid. Missed an opportunity to push one of the newer stars. They could have done any number of things and it would have been better: Roman Reigns gets thrown over the top rope. Rumble match continues and Ambrose is the last man standing with number #30 still yet to have been called on. Triple H/Vince/Steph music hits... and they announce number 30 drum roll... Roman Reigns comes out shakes their hand, runs to the ring tosses out Ambrose. Instant heel. Turn Ziggler Put the belt on Bray Wyatt, Del Rio, AJ Styles

Originally Posted by Mr. JL Yeah, pretty stupid.

[Stickman]

Originally Posted by Mr. JL Yeah, pretty stupid. Missed an opportunity to push one of the newer stars. They could have done any number of things and it would have been better: Roman Reigns gets thrown over the top rope. Rumble match continues and Ambrose is the last man standing with number #30 still yet to have been called on. Triple H/Vince/Steph music hits... and they announce number 30 drum roll... Roman Reigns comes out shakes their hand, runs to the ring tosses out Ambrose. Instant heel. Turn Ziggler Put the belt on Bray Wyatt, Del Rio, AJ Styles

Del Rio was probably the most boring champ ever. I enjoyed Swagger and Ziggler as champ more than Del Rio

[Mr. JL]

Originally Posted by Stickman Del Rio was probably the most boring champ ever. I enjoyed Swagger and Ziggler as champ more than Del Rio

I am not a big Del Rio fan either but like I said, they could have picked just about anybody else and it would have been more beneficial in the long run.

[NormanSmiley]

Originally Posted by Stickman He won the belt so WM has a credible champ. Nobody on the roster other than Lesnar is credible.

So having someone credible hold the belt to give it to someone they haven't been able to make credible in 14 months Will give the situation credibility? You should fill out an application in stamford, you would probably be given head writer position.

And just so we are clear. A past his prime 50 year old guy who hasn't worked a match since mania 31,cuts exhausting 20 minute promos, and who will need the rock or austin at the match to save it is your definition of credible?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Trying to create sympathy for Roman and add more to the feud vs HHH. Roman will win at fast lane because Brock will get screwed by Wyatts and Ambrose is jobber to the stars and Roman gets his mania moment defeating the authority.

Pretty bland stuff on paper but done right it could work. Still think they should stray from their comfort zone and not be so stubborn but this is what they do.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Trying to create sympathy for Roman and add more to the feud vs HHH. Roman will win at fast lane because Brock will get screwed by Wyatts and Ambrose is jobber to the stars and Roman gets his mania moment defeating the authority. Pretty bland stuff on paper but done right it could work. Still think they should stray from their comfort zone and not be so stubborn but this is what they do.

We all knew Batman would beat Bane in the end. It's the journey that is key.

[drave]

Originally Posted by The CyNick We all knew Batman would beat Bane in the end. It's the journey that is key.

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD ON!!!!!!

You cannot liken someone like Bane to fucking HHH.

HHH is to Reigns what Joker is to Batman - he is THE villain. Depending which world you come from, Batman wins some, Batman loses some.


Your analogy does not work! NET LOSS IN RATINGS ON THE WAY!!!!!!

HIGH FIVES TURN INTO HIGH FISTS!!!


WE'RE OUTTA TIIIIIIIIIIME!

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick We all knew Batman would beat Bane in the end. It's the journey that is key.

Your post agrees with mine. Just saying that if you were trying to argue

[Icame4Hookers]

He's not wrestled all year, then coms back and wins. It's unfair
and just shows shagging the bosses daughter get's you to high places.

[road doggy dogg]

Icame4hookers vs Jazzy Foot in an owenbrown-on-a-pole match at Fast Lane... can't w8

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg Icame4hookers vs Jazzy Foot in an owenbrown-on-a-pole match at Fast Lane... can't w8

Good lord no. I was hoping for a handicap tits match between myself and Charlotte and Paige. I have to honk their tits to win and they have to give me a blowjob in order for them to win.

[Blue Demon]

I think just to get it off Roman and have him as a transitional champ to get someone else in? Let's see how this plays out. Reigns hasn't exactly been getting the desired crowd reaction.

[The CyNick]

HHH as champ is what's best for business.

[Icame4Hookers]

Originally Posted by The CyNick HHH as champ is what's best for business.

From Stephine's pussy yes. because I bet he wears the belt during sex

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Icame4Hookers From Stephine's pussy yes. because I bet he wears the belt during sex

You stay classy buddy

[drave]

There you have it folks. No need to watch until after Mania as THEE Dale Newstead just laid it out.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Icame4Hookers The title now won't be defended until Wrestlemania. So having fastlane is pointless......

Were the PPVS that Lesnar didn't appear on during his reign useless? No. Having the champion absent (or at least inactive) on lesser PPVS builds the credibility of the title and makes appearances by the champion a premium attraction. I was very disappointed when Rollins went to defending the title on every show. They could have built him as lazy and arrogant by having him lounging backstage during those shows while "lesser mortals" scrapped over who got to face him next. Would have given enough him some heel cred that he lacked and MAYBE he wouldn't have gotten hurt.

[Anybody Thrilla]

There was no title defense at last year's Fastlane either.

[Big Vic]

Cat-woman beat bane in the end.

[drave]

Bane would be more like.... Sheamus in this instance. Of course we all know Sheamus loses because reasons.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I actually would be OK with it if they decided to have Jericho cost Ambrose at the end of the match to Reigns to set up what I think would be at least a mildly intriguing match and possible feud between Ambrose and Jericho as Jericho chases his elusive 10th Intercontinental Championship @ WM 32.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR I actually would be OK with it if they decided to have Jericho cost Ambrose at the end of the match to Reigns to set up what I think would be at least a mildly intriguing match and possible feud between Ambrose and Jericho as Jericho chases his elusive 10th Intercontinental Championship @ WM 32.

They really shouldn't backdoor Reigns into the win at Fastlane. He needs to look as strong as possible. If I was booking I would just have him win clean. Then you can do the shinanigans with Bray and maybe Jericho to further those storylines.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

But you don't understand my viewpoint because you are of lesser intelligence than most. If you are in any position of power, I weep for our society.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

AS I SAID you buttfuck, it doesn't matter if you know what 95% chance will happen, if tv's good then tv's good. I also thought royal rumble was good and didn't mind HHH winning.

It's just more of the same old, and my MAIN criticism is it would be nice if they thought out of the box. That doesn't mean hotshot booking, it just means straying from the comfort zone even if there are bumps in the road.

I will say, they're willing to ignore bumps in the road when it's Roman or Hunter... but heaven forbid Dolph Ziggler doesn't deliver.

There are two sides to everything. Given I have basic critical thinking skills, I am able to weigh out both sides.

[The CyNick]

Its fair to be critical, but when the train is chugging along really well its tough to justify making drastic changes.

SNL has used the same formula for their show. They never take big risks. Show has been on the air for 40 years. At the end of the day, thats what WWE TV is closest to. Its a variety show. Not everything is going to appeal to everyone. I used to love SNL, never would miss an episode, but then somewhere in the Tina Fey era, I couldnt take the show anymore (turned into leftist propaganda), so I stopped watching. Haven't watched since. But just because The CyNick isnt enjoying the show, doesn't mean Lorne Michaels should read my complaints to the Variety Show Observer Newsletter and suddenly reverse course on his show. The show is still pretty successful. I look at it like we've decided to go our separate ways, no harm no foul. They can pretend Tina Fey is funny, and I will enjoy my Donald Trump campaign speeches in peace.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by The CyNick ....I will enjoy my Donald Trump campaign speeches in peace.

hmm so Cynick is a racist.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Its fair to be critical, but when the train is chugging along really well its tough to justify making drastic changes. SNL has used the same formula for their show. They never take big risks. Show has been on the air for 40 years. At the end of the day, thats what WWE TV is closest to. Its a variety show. Not everything is going to appeal to everyone. I used to love SNL, never would miss an episode, but then somewhere in the Tina Fey era, I couldnt take the show anymore (turned into leftist propaganda), so I stopped watching. Haven't watched since. But just because The CyNick isnt enjoying the show, doesn't mean Lorne Michaels should read my complaints to the Variety Show Observer Newsletter and suddenly reverse course on his show. The show is still pretty successful. I look at it like we've decided to go our separate ways, no harm no foul. They can pretend Tina Fey is funny, and I will enjoy my Donald Trump campaign speeches in peace.

I agree once more. My argument is the show doesn't need to suck. The problem is it also doesn't need to be good.

It is largely agreed that SNL isn't very good anymore. It's just not. It's a staple, a lot like WWE, a lot like Simpsons. It's a brand. Business wise, it's GREAT. They sling merch, they are in good standings with advertisers, with network. But when things are around too long they often lose the fire, edge and passion which made them awesome to begin with.

I've made your point about a bajillion times. They don't NEED to change their formula, but all we're saying is dips in the ratings while not a big deal in the grand scheme (since you know, there is no competition) would suggest a deciline in the product. Not always, but often. And 3. some odd ratings just aren't that great. Walking Dead for instance, does a 7.0, what RAW used to do. There is NO REASON that RAW can't do that, other than it doesn't need to and the product just is not that good.

And I love wrestling so I watch new wrestling sometimes (Like Royal Rumble) and in the case of the rumble I enjoyed it because I don't watch too much and all in all it was a decent show though I didn't really care about the Roman/HHH stuff that much... not to say it was poorly done by any means, just it means fuckall. More paint by the numbers corporate style inside the box booking.

But it must be said WWE is more than capable of consistently being good, they just aren't. At it's height as a product, (I would equate this to the 1980s and 1998 and 2000-mid-way through 2001) everything intertwined and everything everyone did the most part (Barring your usual wrestling dreck that's par for the course) mattered. There was always a method to someone's madness. Characters developed.

It was NOT a variety show. The attitude era while fondly remembered for some of the shittier stuff for whatever reason, had the backbone of intricate booking at its height. Survivor Series 1998 was masterful, HHH vs Cactus Jack at royal rumber 2000, masterful. At the same time, there was always dumb shit like Austin dropping HHH from a crane or buried alive matches. But the realness of the characters and their promos was able to break through a dimension where the audience gave leeway to some of the silliness.

Now, guys go out there and they say their lines, do about a bajillion different moves and it doesn't mean anything. Because they aren't allowed to really develop.

I feel terrible for Roman Reigns because he has been mis handled much like Diesel was in 1996. Diesel would have been hella easy to book if Vince could have pulled his head from his ass in that time, but he was stuck in the past, the same as he is with Roman Reigns. People liked Reigns initially because he was a badass and lit dudes up. Now they've made him a "sports entertainer" and he has to do all this stuff that makes no sense and doesn't seem organic.

Mind you, he's a talented enough guy and has made SOME of it work, but jesus christ they literally push this guy out there every week and he's been booed probably 70% of the time (from what I can gather, as I do keep up with reports).

As soon as Vince stuck his grubby little hands into Roman, there has been a disconnect. It's so obvious. Then you have guys like Cesaro, who with all his faults, has remained a crowd favourite through the effort he puts in and is made to look average at best, constantly.

Now Cesaro isn't my choice for THE guy, but you're telling me with the same attention received by Reigns from Vince and the company, he wouldn't be at least equally as successful or moreso than Roman has been thus far?

So you protect SOME guys who maybe aren't worth the protection because you've invested time in them, but other guys who are consistent should just be happy to be part of the team.

I mean this is your usual corporate nonsense at the end of the day. But the pro wrestling I grew up with is dead and is now either Japanese which I don't connect with, ROH which is MEH, TNA which is don't get me started or the corporate brand of WWE.

I love pro wrestling, and I will gripe about its state because I WANT to be able to watch it and it annoys me that I don't have much of an alternative. The group with the resources to produce something compelling every week, chooses to coast.


My point of view is fair and not hard to understand. Your point of view is obtuse and down right insulting and irritating for the most part. You're totally free to your opinion, but we're free to tell you that you're borderline autistic.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead I agree once more. My argument is the show doesn't need to suck. The problem is it also doesn't need to be good. It is largely agreed that SNL isn't very good anymore. It's just not. It's a staple, a lot like WWE, a lot like Simpsons. It's a brand. Business wise, it's GREAT. They sling merch, they are in good standings with advertisers, with network. But when things are around too long they often lose the fire, edge and passion which made them awesome to begin with. I've made your point about a bajillion times. They don't NEED to change their formula, but all we're saying is dips in the ratings while not a big deal in the grand scheme (since you know, there is no competition) would suggest a deciline in the product. Not always, but often. And 3. some odd ratings just aren't that great. Walking Dead for instance, does a 7.0, what RAW used to do. There is NO REASON that RAW can't do that, other than it doesn't need to and the product just is not that good. And I love wrestling so I watch new wrestling sometimes (Like Royal Rumble) and in the case of the rumble I enjoyed it because I don't watch too much and all in all it was a decent show though I didn't really care about the Roman/HHH stuff that much... not to say it was poorly done by any means, just it means fuckall. More paint by the numbers corporate style inside the box booking. But it must be said WWE is more than capable of consistently being good, they just aren't. At it's height as a product, (I would equate this to the 1980s and 1998 and 2000-mid-way through 2001) everything intertwined and everything everyone did the most part (Barring your usual wrestling dreck that's par for the course) mattered. There was always a method to someone's madness. Characters developed. It was NOT a variety show. The attitude era while fondly remembered for some of the shittier stuff for whatever reason, had the backbone of intricate booking at its height. Survivor Series 1998 was masterful, HHH vs Cactus Jack at royal rumber 2000, masterful. At the same time, there was always dumb shit like Austin dropping HHH from a crane or buried alive matches. But the realness of the characters and their promos was able to break through a dimension where the audience gave leeway to some of the silliness. Now, guys go out there and they say their lines, do about a bajillion different moves and it doesn't mean anything. Because they aren't allowed to really develop. I feel terrible for Roman Reigns because he has been mis handled much like Diesel was in 1996. Diesel would have been hella easy to book if Vince could have pulled his head from his ass in that time, but he was stuck in the past, the same as he is with Roman Reigns. People liked Reigns initially because he was a badass and lit dudes up. Now they've made him a "sports entertainer" and he has to do all this stuff that makes no sense and doesn't seem organic. Mind you, he's a talented enough guy and has made SOME of it work, but jesus christ they literally push this guy out there every week and he's been booed probably 70% of the time (from what I can gather, as I do keep up with reports). As soon as Vince stuck his grubby little hands into Roman, there has been a disconnect. It's so obvious. Then you have guys like Cesaro, who with all his faults, has remained a crowd favourite through the effort he puts in and is made to look average at best, constantly. Now Cesaro isn't my choice for THE guy, but you're telling me with the same attention received by Reigns from Vince and the company, he wouldn't be at least equally as successful or moreso than Roman has been thus far? So you protect SOME guys who maybe aren't worth the protection because you've invested time in them, but other guys who are consistent should just be happy to be part of the team. I mean this is your usual corporate nonsense at the end of the day. But the pro wrestling I grew up with is dead and is now either Japanese which I don't connect with, ROH which is MEH, TNA which is don't get me started or the corporate brand of WWE. I love pro wrestling, and I will gripe about its state because I WANT to be able to watch it and it annoys me that I don't have much of an alternative. The group with the resources to produce something compelling every week, chooses to coast. My point of view is fair and not hard to understand. Your point of view is obtuse and down right insulting and irritating for the most part. You're totally free to your opinion, but we're free to tell you that you're borderline autistic.

Walking Dead is one of the few shows on TV I watch. The Walking Dead comparison is really not fair. Call me in 20 years if Walking Dead is still on cable, and they are still doing a 7.0. Not to mention Walking Dead has to write one hour of entertaining TV per week, for what? something like 16 weeks per year. That's 16 hours PER YEAR! WWE covers that much programming is less than 3 weeks. So its not exactly a fair comparison.

If you follow people's comments on Walking Dead on Twitter, it can be similar to what you read on sites like this about the WWE. Shows like this last for 5-6 years, and then they end, and people move on to something else. I would say similarly, sports entertainment had their run in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was the hot product, so you get casual fans. The problem with casual fans is they come and they go.

To me, the fact that not only has RAW specifically been on for 20+ years (an amazing feat accomplished by very few episodic shows), they have produced literally thousands of hours of content (another feat that puts them in even more rarefied air), but they have managed to do that while still consistently being #1 or near #1 on cable every single week. So guys like you will say "oh they SHOULD be doing a 7", but really you have no fucking clue how amazing their run has been, and how difficult it is to create product week after week that continues to appeal to as many people as WWE TV does.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Walking Dead is one of the few shows on TV I watch. The Walking Dead comparison is really not fair. Call me in 20 years if Walking Dead is still on cable, and they are still doing a 7.0. Not to mention Walking Dead has to write one hour of entertaining TV per week, for what? something like 16 weeks per year. That's 16 hours PER YEAR! WWE covers that much programming is less than 3 weeks. So its not exactly a fair comparison. If you follow people's comments on Walking Dead on Twitter, it can be similar to what you read on sites like this about the WWE. Shows like this last for 5-6 years, and then they end, and people move on to something else. I would say similarly, sports entertainment had their run in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was the hot product, so you get casual fans. The problem with casual fans is they come and they go. To me, the fact that not only has RAW specifically been on for 20+ years (an amazing feat accomplished by very few episodic shows), they have produced literally thousands of hours of content (another feat that puts them in even more rarefied air), but they have managed to do that while still consistently being #1 or near #1 on cable every single week. So guys like you will say "oh they SHOULD be doing a 7", but really you have no fucking clue how amazing their run has been, and how difficult it is to create product week after week that continues to appeal to as many people as WWE TV does.

7 is astronomical, but I was overstepping to make a point. Taking into account some of the valid points you have made, (because you actually took the time to make some sense here) I think all in all ratings in the low mid 4s even creeping in high mid 4s would indicate the product operating at full potential.

Wrestling is just not as hot as it was. Wrestlemania is big but that's it. Maybe rumble and summerslam as well. There has always been down periods but then there was an up period to even it out. We are all waiting for wrestling as a whole to really come back with some weight, and the neat and tidy corporate inside the box while indicative of a nicely run brand and commodity does not speak for wrestling and the integrity of the brand.

[Simple Fan]

Tina Fey=Roman Reigns

[Icame4Hookers]

Who wins the title at Mania? Not Brock that's for sre.

[Simple Fan]

Pretty sure its dead locked to give Roman his WM moment.

[Mr. JL]

Originally Posted by Simple Fan Pretty sure its dead locked to give Roman his WM moment.

So the WWE runs the Triple H vs Roman Reigns match... Triple H ends up with the bigger face POP and cheers, Roman gets pretty much booed all to hell but wins the match with WWE hoping for a babyface reaction and the WWE maintains the status quo of unsuccessfully making Roman Reigns THE babyface of the company for yet another year.