DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

The one major difference between the current WWE era and the Attitude era, was that the Attitude era knew that only a select few stars ever have a realistic shot of being "THE" guy. In knowing that, the WWE protected those guys by having them win almost all of their matches (unless facing the top 1-2 stars of the company) while grooming them to the top of the card.


Its almost as though once the WWE knew who they wanted to push, they booked them very strongly and were extremely careful as to who and when they jobbed to.


The majority of other wrestlers on the card were simply filler - and were there to only add to the entertainment of the overall product:


For example:


In 1997 - you had Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Undertaker as your big 3 main-eventers. Once the WWE knew that they intended to push Austin, they were extremely careful in protecting his character while pushing him to the moon. You never ever saw Austin jobbing in random matches, etc.


1998-1999 - Same thing. Austin and Undertaker were your two biggest main-eventers, while The Rock and Triple H were your rising stars. The WWE chose Triple H and The Rock to be their "next guys," and did almost everything in their power to not have them job to random people. Rocky and Hunter were protected a shit tonne. Guys like Kane and Mankind also won about 90% of their matches, and pretty much only jobbed to the guys I've mentioned on this list. By keeping Kane and Mankind strong, it meant so much more to those that were actually successful in defeating those two.


Guys like Godfather, Val Venis, Al Snow, Bossman, Jeff Jarret, Ken Shamrock, X-Pac, etc., etc., etc. all had ZERO chances of becoming a main-eventer (and were deliberately booked as such), but it didn't matter - they were simply there to add to the overall value and entertainment of the show.


In 2000 - same thing. Rock and Hunter were your two biggest stars, and the WWE did whatever they could do elevate Kurt Angle. The only time Angle ever lost, was in "fluke defeats," or to Rocky, Hunter, Taker, and Big Show (while Show was still seen as a credible main-eventer).


Long story short - the WWE had an established 'internal' structure/pecking order within the roster, in terms of who was going to get pushed. You had your current main-eventers (Bret, Shawn, Taker, Austin, Hunter, Rocky), you had your 'pretend' main-eventers that won 90% of their matches and then ultimately jobbed to the selected 1-2 rising talents (i.e. Kane, Mankind, Big Show), and then you had your 1-2 rising stars (i.e. Austin, Rocky, Hunter, Angle, Lesnar, Orton, Cena). Everyone else was just there to add value and entertainment to the show.



Fast forward to today's WWE product, and it seems like the biggest reason why the WWE cannot 'elevate' their stars to the level that they need to be at, is because they aren't booked as strongly as they should. If the WWE really wants to have success in creating "the next guy," they need to book him VERY VERY strong, and not have him job to random people.


Although the WWE have finally started to "clue in" to this (i.e. outside of his loss to John Cena, Kevin Owens is flat out dominating his opponents), I can't help but feel that the WWE really missed the boat with Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Bray Wyatt, Cesaro, etc., etc.


It just seems that in an effort to "make everyone look good," the WWE kind of self-sabotaged themselves by making these superstars look less special. If you want Roman Reigns to be your next guy?!?! Great! Just don't have him job to Bray Wyatt.


Even when the WWE were pushing Daniel Bryan back in 2014, they had him job cleanly to Bray Wyatt. My question, is why?!? This would be the equivalent of having had Austin job to Owen Hart in 1998, before defeating Shawn Micahels at Wreslemania 14.




CONCLUSION: If the WWE wants to slowly get back to their Attitude era ways, a significant step in the right direction would be to


1) Pick the 1-2 stars that you want as your new main-eventers over the next 1-2 years


2) Book them strong as fuck (and ONLY make them job to your top star - i.e. John Cena in this case)


3) Do not attempt to "push everyone" and realize the reality that 90% of WWE superstars won't get to the main-event level and as result, should only be used to add entertainment value to the show, while jobbing to those 1-2 selected guys. In the Attitude era, guys like Godfather, Val Venis, Al Snow, X-Pac, Road Dogg, Ken Shamrock, Bossman, etc., etc., etc., were never going to be main-eventers, but were used in such a way that they added tremendous value and entertainment to the overall show.

[Mr. Nerfect]

This seems like solid reasoning to me. At some point, fans are going to get sick of seeing their favorites lose as much as they win. The idea of heels losing even when they are champions is detrimental too. If you're sending the message that the win matters for the good guy, then the loss needs to matter for the bad guy. You can't pay Paul without robbing Peter. But the company constantly sends the message that the wins and the losses don't matter. They don't want anyone looking any poorer, but no one looks any richer either.

I think the WWE is also afraid they will get top stars. Whether it's Bobby Lashley or Brock Lesnar to blame for this is debatable, but it seems that the WWE wants everyone to have some sort of "TV acceptable" level of being marketable, without anyone truly getting over to the point where they could leave and be a success anywhere else. Keep everyone warmish without being hot seems to be desired goal. The only thing is that with only so much emotional investment people can have, this is spread more and more thinly.

A thought experiment I often do: Can you think of any contracted performers that the WWE could absolutely not be the same without in 2015? The only person who really comes to mind is John Cena. Now, they wouldn't release Randy Orton, but does anyone really notice his semi-frequent absences from television?

And a lot of this does stem from the WWE's desire to be "entertainment" and not "professional wrestling." I'm sorry, but it's true. Part of the attraction in professional wrestling is having two guys with a simulated conflict fighting over a belt as proof as to who is the best. That means they have to be better than a bunch of guys. That means they can't lose to all the other guys. If wrestling found a more "sports-based presentation," as I believe the lingo is these days, then more and more guys might tend to get over and begin to sell merchandise, get people into arenas, etc.

[Mr. Nerfect]

One thing I was thinking about the Attitude era this morning:

There didn't actually seem to be as much pressure on direction. There was clearly one, but fans didn't stop and say "I don't like what they're doing right now" in such an analytical way. I'm not saying it didn't happen, that people didn't have their golden boys and all that -- or that even the modern fan should take criticism for this -- but that things were told with such conviction and with pay-offs that you'd send the message "Such and such is a star," so Joe Blow on the internet couldn't really say "Hmm, no he isn't -- I don't think he's got enough mic skills" or whatever.

[Heyman]

The Attempt to "push everyone" has also lead to the devaluation of the mid-card titles in my opinion


Since the Attitude Era didn't attempt to "push everyone," which lead to an acceptance amongst the wrestlers that not everyone on the roster was going to get a main-event push, it lead to the Intercontinental Title and European Titles to actually mean something.


Nowadays, you have all these guys that have won IC titles (with the false expectation that they'll become credible main-eventers one day), which has to lead to many of these "wannabe main-eventers" being artificially "above" the IC and US titles. Why? Because - many of these wrestlers have been transitional world champions in the past.


Guys like Sheamus, The Miz, Jack Swagger, Dolph Zigger, etc., etc., should be heavily involved in the IC title making the division an exciting one, but because of the WWE's "push everyone" mindset, this is not the case.


Now - you have all these guys that are "artificially" above the division when they really shouldn't be.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Noid This seems like solid reasoning to me. At some point, fans are going to get sick of seeing their favorites lose as much as they win. The idea of heels losing even when they are champions is detrimental too. If you're sending the message that the win matters for the good guy, then the loss needs to matter for the bad guy. You can't pay Paul without robbing Peter. But the company constantly sends the message that the wins and the losses don't matter. They don't want anyone looking any poorer, but no one looks any richer either.

Good point Noid.


Here's the difference between the way Triple H was booked in 1999, compared to Seth Rollins at current. Although Triple H was initially made to look a little cowardly as a heel (i.e. being dependent on cowardly underhand tactics to win matches), the WWE eventually transitioned him into a guy that flat out defeated you with skill and brutality.


They made Triple H destroy Mick Foley in three straight matches.....cleanly!


With Rollins, we aren't really getting that impression. He looks like a guy that is a complete transitional champ that is only there because he's "The Authority's Golden Boy." Almost all his victories look flukey and cowardly. At some point, you have to make Rollins dominate a credible wrestler cleanly.

I think the WWE is also afraid they will get top stars. Whether it's Bobby Lashley or Brock Lesnar to blame for this is debatable, but it seems that the WWE wants everyone to have some sort of "TV acceptable" level of being marketable, without anyone truly getting over to the point where they could leave and be a success anywhere else. Keep everyone warmish without being hot seems to be desired goal. The only thing is that with only so much emotional investment people can have, this is spread more and more thinly.

You are 100% correct here, but the WWE has to realize that this strategy is a failure. From what I see, the WWE has completely shit the bed with Bray Wyatt, Rollins, Rusev, Cesaro, Orton, Reigns, etc. Kevin Owens is really the only guy that they've booked quite well, but even for Owens, his real push will be a bit further down the road.


WWE really needs to pick 1-2 of the above (i.e. Reigns, Rollins,), and start booking them strongly. Reigns should absolutely destroy Wyatt in the next PPV, and then completely dominate Strauman or whatever his name is as well. On Rollins' end, he needs to demolish Kane, and whoever he faces after that.

A thought experiment I often do: Can you think of any contracted performers that the WWE could absolutely not be the same without in 2015? The only person who really comes to mind is John Cena. Now, they wouldn't release Randy Orton, but does anyone really notice his semi-frequent absences from television?

yeah, Cena really is the only guy.

And a lot of this does stem from the WWE's desire to be "entertainment" and not "professional wrestling." I'm sorry, but it's true. Part of the attraction in professional wrestling is having two guys with a simulated conflict fighting over a belt as proof as to who is the best. That means they have to be better than a bunch of guys. That means they can't lose to all the other guys. If wrestling found a more "sports-based presentation," as I believe the lingo is these days, then more and more guys might tend to get over and begin to sell merchandise, get people into arenas, etc.

I agree with this. However - I will get back to my main point - that the WWE needs to go back to protecting it's 'selected' 1-2 guys of tomorrow, instead of trying to make everyone look good.


They actually were doing a terrific job with Rusev, until they split him with Lana and put him in that stupid angle with Ziggler/Summer Rae.

[Heyman]

Sheamus defeating Orton, and then losing to Orton


Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Sheamus cleanly defeats Orton at Summerslam, and looks strong doing it, and then ends up having to job cleanly to Orton a few weeks later. My question, is why?!?!


Sheamus' character has been re-invigorated with his new image/theme, etc., while Orton is slowly on his way out (i.e. moving towards a part-time schedule). What was the point in having Orton getting a clean victory back? In the Attitude era, I don't think this would have happened. Sheamus would have won....maybe two times cleanly, and would have gone on to bigger and better things.


#Details

[Damian Rey]

You guys are way off. None of the current roster has taken the ball and ran with it when give the shot. That's why Cena is still the man.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Nobody can be given the ball when Cena is there. They call him the face that runs the place and it's true besides Vince. Only time they get a shot is when Cena goes down from injury.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey You guys are way off. None of the current roster has taken the ball and ran with it when give the shot. That's why Cena is still the man.

Well the last time I checked, wrestling results are still pre-determined, and so a wrestler can only "take the ball and run with it" if they are booked as such.


Can your argument be applied to guys like Reigns, Rollins, and Wyatt? I would agree with you there. I think all three of these guys have some significant weakneses in certain areas, which might be why the WWE haven't fully gone to town with these guys.


For a guy like Daniel Bryan however who was WHITE HOT back in early 2014, he had to job to Bray Watt CLEANLY at the Rumble. The WWE felt that there would be a greater benefit in using Bryan's momentum/heat/popularity to make help Bray Wyatt build credibility......as opposed to making Bryan look like "the man" (which what they would've done in the Attitude Era).


CM Punk - same thing. When he was initially white hot back in 2011, they had him job cleanly to the semi-retired HHH in order to use Punk's momentum to rebuild Hunter. #MakeEveryoneLookGood.


During the Attitude era however, Punk would never have lost that match.


Sorry Damien Rey, but I don't really understand your criticism of my post.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon Nobody can be given the ball when Cena is there. They call him the face that runs the place and it's true besides Vince. Only time they get a shot is when Cena goes down from injury.

Bryan and Punk had legit chances. If not for Bryan's unfortunate injuries, I think he would've had a legit shot. However - even in Bryan's push that year, I saw some stupid things. In 2014 RR for instance - how do you job Bryan cleanly to Bray Watt? That would NEVER have happened during the Attitude Era.


Same thing with Punker in 2011. How do you have him job to the semi-retired Hunter while Punk was still white hot? Again - wouldn't have happened in the Attitude era.




Attitude era = continuing the momentum of someone that is "white hot" > trying to make everyone look good.


Current era = opposite of the above.

[Damian Rey]

I'm being facetious fellas. My real response is coming shortly.

[Damian Rey]

I completely agree with both yourself, Heyman, and Noid as well. The 50/50 booking That's been done over the last decade has only hurt the company's ability to create big names.

Creating a pecking order of guys from top to bottom and protecting those guys accordingly is an easy and logical fix. How they've booked Lesnar and Cena is how they should book all their top guys. Obviously not to the sam level. But the conscious effort to protect them so that if and when the lose it means something, will only deepen the care fans have for the performers and create a sense of importance.

[Sixx]

Hey, another thread for CyNick to hijack.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Common sense in wrestling dictates 50/50 booking gets you no where. Pretty much a show full of jobbers.

[Rammsteinmad]

Just watch MMA instead.

[Kris P Lettus]

I had a similar thought the other night when Michael Cole was freaking out the same way about Braun Stroman the exact same way he was talking about Lesnar ten minutes prior this past RAW. I thought "if Lesnar and Stroman ever were in the same ring at the same time, Cole would bust a nut and die happy".

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Heyman Bryan and Punk had legit chances. If not for Bryan's unfortunate injuries, I think he would've had a legit shot. However - even in Bryan's push that year, I saw some stupid things. In 2014 RR for instance - how do you job Bryan cleanly to Bray Watt? That would NEVER have happened during the Attitude Era.

It was more important at that point to put Wyatt over than it was Bryan. Wyatt could have been a main event heel for years to come. The way he's been booked since then has been absolute shit but making Wyatt look scary good was the right move at that time.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Common sense in wrestling dictates 50/50 booking gets you no where. Pretty much a show full of jobbers.

Exactly. Whenever there's parity in a legit sport it's looked at as a bad thing. You need teams to stand out for other teams to beat/gauge themselves against in order to raise their stature. Why in the hell would you intentionally build parity in a scripted sport? You need quite a few levels of credibility. Not "Main eventers, shit, B-show level shit."

[Innovator]

Now it's

-John Cena and Brock Lesnar

-Everyone else on RAW

-Superstars/Catering

[Innovator]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Common sense in wrestling dictates 50/50 booking gets you no where. Pretty much a show full of jobbers.

The observer just pointed out (DIRTSHEETZ) that Rollins is 1-15 in his last 16 matches., 1-8 if you remove house shows.

Your World Champion should never be below a 75% win percentage.

[#1-norm-fan]

Can't wait to see that dastardly heel who gets beat 8 times out of 9 FINALLY get his comeuppance in a HUGE PPV main event situation.

[Damian Rey]

Fan you're so handsome

[Heisenberg]

Adam Rose said "Poop" in his recently brief promo, that was promise, but if he doesn't yell "Piss" within the next 2 months I'm out

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Can't wait to see that dastardly heel who gets beat 8 times out of 9 FINALLY get his comeuppance in a HUGE PPV main event situation.

Comeuppance usually means just the odds are twisted in the other way making him feel somewhat sympathetic because it's unfair now on the opposite. (Bound For Glory) So, they screwed it up.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan It was more important at that point to put Wyatt over than it was Bryan. Wyatt could have been a main event heel for years to come. The way he's been booked since then has been absolute shit but making Wyatt look scary good was the right move at that time.

I would agree if the plan was to build Bray Wyatt to being an eventual major challenger to Daniel Bryan. Wyatt wins (relatively cleanly, despite injury), and then Bryan wins the Royal Rumble. This also allows Wyatt's win to appear more than injury-related fluke.
"Yeah, you were hurt, Bryan -- but you would win the Rumble that night, and I still beat you."
Hell, you could have taken it further.
"I was the one who pushed you to grab the brass ring again. Your greatness is all an illusion I gave you as your GOD!"

The loss upset me, but my logical brain overrided my emotional one right after it, and I thought "Hang on -- this could be brilliant..." Alas.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Heyman The Attempt to "push everyone" has also lead to the devaluation of the mid-card titles in my opinion Since the Attitude Era didn't attempt to "push everyone," which lead to an acceptance amongst the wrestlers that not everyone on the roster was going to get a main-event push, it lead to the Intercontinental Title and European Titles to actually mean something. Nowadays, you have all these guys that have won IC titles (with the false expectation that they'll become credible main-eventers one day), which has to lead to many of these "wannabe main-eventers" being artificially "above" the IC and US titles. Why? Because - many of these wrestlers have been transitional world champions in the past. Guys like Sheamus, The Miz, Jack Swagger, Dolph Zigger, etc., etc., should be heavily involved in the IC title making the division an exciting one, but because of the WWE's "push everyone" mindset, this is not the case. Now - you have all these guys that are "artificially" above the division when they really shouldn't be.

I was literally *just* thinking about this.

The reason the IC and US Heavyweight Titles existed within their respective companies (or "territories") was because of the fact that professional wrestling was presented a lot differently then. The World Champion would either be touring or not on every show. The IC or US Champion would provide a beacon, if not exclusively for "the future," or the "workhorse" of a company -- a "guy." He may not be the guy, but he has something everyone wants. It was an underline to a guy's name.

Hot-shotting the title around may have hurt that, as has the way wrestling television is presented. Now the World Champion is usually on every show. So what does being the IC or US Champion mean? Especially now that both titles exist in WWE?

I think the easy fix is to re-establish divisions. Believe it or now, since my matured appreciation of the old-school presentation of wrestling (clarification: the simplicity and logic of wrestling), I am NOT a major fan of top-ten rankings and the such. I feel that a product that needs to be as flexible as professional wrestling should have a more organic and, dare I say, "emotional" feeling to it.

That being said, the IC and US Titles have very little added emotional investment from the guys who hold them. And that's not the fault of the guys. John Cena has been far and away the best United States Champion the WWE has ever had. Why? Because you believe that being able to call himself the United States Champion means a whole hell of a lot to him. In my opinion, Jack Swagger could easily be presented in the same league. He's not, but he definitely could be a guy that is always chasing that title.

I don't know if I've ever published this on this website, but I had this idea for Fandango where he would be the IC guy. To explain the origins of his gimmick, I had this idea that it would somehow be presented that when Pat Patterson became the first Intercontinental Champion, the big post-tournament celebration that took place in Rio de Janeiro featured Fandango's parents as dancers. The loser of the match (I don't know if there is a kayfabe explanation to who this was, and always assumed it was an unknown, but did read an example somewhere that surprised me in their celebrity -- but it doesn't really matter) would have gotten drunk in a self-pitying fashion and made a pass at a young Fandango's mother. Fandango's father -- not a professional fighter, but a proud man -- threw a punch at the ex-South American Champion, which enraged him, but security broke it up. The young Fandango would have watched and thought "Wow...when I grow up, I'm going to be the Intercontinental Champion..."

This would have made Fandango older than Johnny Curtis' shoot age, but I think that would have added to the mystique of his originally mature and manipulative gimmick (he did lure Chris Jericho -- one of the greatest Intercontinental Champions of all-time -- into a WrestleMania debut match for himself). It would have explained a real emotional connection to the IC Title for Fandango, and he could always be a guy you could switch the belt back to give new guys trial runs.

Now guys win a title, they lose a title, they win another title, they lose another title, they challenge for a title, they lose, they challenge for another title, they win. It has been reduced to a flavor of the month prop. For these titles to exist and mean something in 2015, then they need someone actually gunning for them because of what they are and what they represent. That way they actually are and represent something.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't think the title needs to mean you are the "#2 contender," or the "best technical wrestler." Far from it. But I do think they need to mean something, so that the guys that aren't holding it have a reason not to be.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Heyman, I don't think the WWE needs 1 or 2 guys. I don't think they need to smash guys over. Sometimes that can help, but sometimes it can hurt. They tried that with Roman Reigns and it blew up big time. And that is partially because the end-game is so apparent, and the plan transparent.

But I've heard some legendary bookers talk about their "pillars." Four or five guys they book around and protect. That makes sense, but with the way wrestling is presented again, I think some guys could use cooling off periods. That being said, I think you can definitely book people at a time like they are a pillar. Make Randy Orton the "pillar" of the US Division over a period of time where he is challenging for the only title he has never won. Obviously you do have a grander plan than that when you have a long-term viable star on your hands, but I don't think it needs to be a rigid 1-2 guy "beat everyone" plan.

That being said, they really need to commit to the guys they do want to be stars. Cesaro and Dean Ambrose immediately come to mind when I think of babyfaces that lost so much potential steam because they couldn't beat a guy when it counted. Why should fans invest in guys they can't place a bet on without missing out on their weekend beer or most recent house payment? Eventually a guy needs to return dividends so that you can say "HA! My boy did it!"

Give those blokes a chance and maybe they pan out in bigger ways than you thought. Maybe they don't catch fire and you can choose a new pillar.

[Innovator]

I think the monster push to Roman didn't work because out of nowhere 1) Roman turned into Cena with the jokes and stopped being what made him stand out in the Shield, 2) Instead of building him up, WWE shat on everyone else to make Roman look better in comparison, and 3) Brock Lesnar exists

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I'm pretty sure my boys at Squared Circle Gazette made the point that WWE doesn't really understand what good people actually do or how they act. Pretty much, when the WWE isn't trying to crazy push someone and just kind of leaving them to their own devices they get over because it's organic, and as soon as they sink their greasy claws into them, and the fans sense something in the room stinks, they crap all over it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It wasn't the right time for Reigns. His ability wasn't there yet. And it still isn't, in my opinion. He's great in bursts, but the dude needs more of a journey. What great solo story has he had as a singles guy?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead I'm pretty sure my boys at Squared Circle Gazette made the point that WWE doesn't really understand what good people actually do or how they act. Pretty much, when the WWE isn't trying to crazy push someone and just kind of leaving them to their own devices they get over because it's organic, and as soon as they sink their greasy claws into them, and the fans sense something in the room stinks, they crap all over it.

This is a great suggestion. Do you think part of it could be because the company is run by Vince McMahon, who does have that jock-bully mentality, and most people are either trying to present ideas that Vince likes so they don't get shut down?

By the way, recently got into SCG once I started listening to more podcasts. They are TREMENDOUS! I do get legitimately disappointed when Karl Jones isn't on an episode.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

HAHAHA Karl is the fucking best. You need the curmudgeon on the show to balance the rest of the blokes (Who are all equally awesome and funny).

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

My main issue is a good babyface needs to be sympathetic. There needs to be a real struggle and they need to show wrinkles in their character. But it needs to be real. If it's not real how in the fuck can fans connect with it? If WWE wants to portray its storylines like a soap opera, then be on the television every day between 11-4pm and just go through the motions. You're on at prime time, so have a prime time level product.

Instead of having guys get hit by cars, and go after one anothers families and get thrown of bridges and light people on fire... you know... have them care about their wrestling careers and wins and losses. Have them be actually completely devestated when they lose... EVERY TIME. Talk about free agency... talk about real allegiances and loyalty, make it an actual factor. Talk about wins and losses against certain wrestlers, real strategies they need to use to win. Don't pick and choose when we're watching wrestling and when we're watching Saturday Night Live. Otherwise it's just a show that happens, and nothing else.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

You want to see how to book a proper man/woman angle? Look no further than your own product circa 1991 with Jake Roberts and Randy Savage. Or look to the NWA with Dusty Rhodes and Tully Blanchard. Realistic feuds involving valets, where actual emotions were involved, and fans could actually get involved because there were true emotions.

Not this absolute horse shit with Rusev and Ziggler. Who the hell could think that shit is passable television?

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Who the hell could think that shit is passable television?

I've got two words for you...

Vince McMahon

[Emperor Smeat]

50-50 booking can work if the goal is to develop a mega rivalry like in the vein of Stone Cold vs Rock. That was a rivalry that started back in the IC level and grew over time to become one of the defining feuds of the Attitude Era.

The main reason it never worked with Cena vs Orton was because the WWE refused to make Orton be equal to Cena and them being lazy once they already had their mega star. Instead of being this generation's Rock-Austin, it felt way more forced or stale instead.

Besides already being too reliant on Cena only, the other biggest problem with WWE's 50-50 booking is it almost never leads to anything big in the long run. Either its just meaningless matches or things getting cut short because the WWE had nothing actually planned. Almost every feud going on right now has that problem and its not just due to wins being traded back and forth.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

yeah that's the problem with the lack of continuity

[BigCrippyZ]

Because of all the reasons above, I've pretty much stopped watching the current product. Until Vince dies, steps down or I hear of a major consistent improvement, I'm not tuning into RAW or any other shows every week/month.

The last time I watched RAW was a random one in June and the last time I've watched RAW two weeks in a row was the RAW before and after WM this year. The last PPV I watched was WM.

I'm just totally disinterested in the product and the storylines and guys they're pushing. I was really into Ambrose, Wyatt and Rollins but they've really fucked all of their feuds and characters up so poorly that I just gave up. Love Lesnar but he's only around occasionally and honestly, I don't care about seeing him go up against Taker again.

That being said, I'm sure I'll watch WM next year and some during WM season in the lead up to the event. WM is like the Super Bowl at this point and I will tune into WM if I can get it for $10. That and they always seem to make WM and the buildup a little better than average.

I think the talent is great, probably better than most other rosters they've ever had and you could argue the best roster ever. Everything else about the show is horrible. Completely and utterly boring, uncompelling, inconsistent, nonsensical crap.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Noid I would agree if the plan was to build Bray Wyatt to being an eventual major challenger to Daniel Bryan. Wyatt wins (relatively cleanly, despite injury), and then Bryan wins the Royal Rumble. This also allows Wyatt's win to appear more than injury-related fluke. "Yeah, you were hurt, Bryan -- but you would win the Rumble that night, and I still beat you." Hell, you could have taken it further. "I was the one who pushed you to grab the brass ring again. Your greatness is all an illusion I gave you as your GOD!" The loss upset me, but my logical brain overrided my emotional one right after it, and I thought "Hang on -- this could be brilliant..." Alas.

Or if it was just to put Wyatt over period. Bryan aside. His problem now is that he can't back up his words and it makes all those scary sounding promos laughable. When he beat the big fan favorite of the day cleanly, it went so far in giving him that aura that a character like him needs. The "Undertaker auru" if you will. It should have been the start of something huge for him. Instead... Yeah. He's just another guy nowadays.