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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tom Guycott]

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.

And that is the main problem. It's not so much "make everyone look good", because they really aren't doing that, it is expecting the next big thing to just develop into a homegrown, top-tier, multimedia superstar inside of 6 months... and if they can't make that happen, that talent is essentially worthless and jobs to the next 6 month project. They derail a guy/gal/team/angle/division at the expense of another, then subsequently tear down the thing they built to go a different way.

They rarely let fans take the journey with the developing rising star anymore. Revisionist WWE history will make it seem as if Austin 3:16 took the world by storm the second he walked in the door. Or, that The Rock just showed up out of nowhere and electified everyone. These guys took YEARS to get to the top. They had feuds, rivalries, face and heel turns, secondary title runs, show-stealing matches, and a few legendary promos sprinkled in over that length of time... time for them to become three dimensional characters. CM Punk wasn't big because he was an eye-rolling "indy darling" (which shouldn't always be uttered with such disgust... just because a guy makes a name for himself elsewhere shouldn't automatically earn him scorn.) Not picking on the guy, but to expect this to *just happen* for Roman Reigns was just foolishly presumptuous.

As Fan said, Bray Wyatt should have been approaching Undertaker-esque levels of phenom about now. Mankind promos and Deadman dominace in Kane-like angles. Instead, he's become a glorified manager- a player/coach who goes in and lays down for the babyface of the week. When they split off Harper and Rowan, it was like they wanted all three to just *be over* as singles competitors. They had Bray just tread water, seemed to give some sort of push to Harper, and decided selling sheep masks to the kids was all they needed to present Rowan as a babyface. After that short lived and wholly unnecessary breakup, where they DIDN'T EVEN DO THE OBVIOUS of having Harper and Rowan have a massive, proper feud, they get back together as a tag team because reasons until Erik got hurt. So now, Harper, who is doing essentially nothing, is back with Wyatt doing essentially nothing. But hey, look how massive that new guy flanking him is, huh?! He's looking imposing enough to be world champion in 6 months, right?? The focus isn't remaining where it should be. In this stable, the biggest guy shouldn't necessarily be the biggest threat. Bray should be this wicked mastermind, Luke should be his loyal leftenant, and the new guy should be a wild-card. Instead, he's the focus at the expense of the other two. Until his shelf-life of being big and tall expires. Then he'll be lost in the shuffle too and job on a regular basis to the next guy they want to build instantly, only to derail that momentum for the *next* guy...

[The CyNick]

The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.

Foley lost to tons of guys.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

[Tom Guycott]

The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.

Foley lost to tons of guys.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

It's not that Hunter was jobbing to Marc Mero. It's that he wasn't being pushed and penciled in to be world heavyweight champion back then, only to have them go "oh, nevermind". Sure, he ended up being an idea of what they wanted in a prototypical "guy" in the midst of being overshadowed by better, but SOME of that was bad luck, and he still had room and time to grow. He SLOWLY and believably "became better" (read: moved up the card) over time. His character evolved. He got things to do that didn't just disappear as corners were written into or something new came along and all of the focus had to be shifted to that instead of HHHs current angle.

And you can ask anyone here that I am far from a banner carrier for HHH, but if he had a time machine and were placed in the mix now with everything he had then, he would end up as a tremendous flop; and most of that would be through no fault of his own. They wouldn't let him organically work his way up the card... he would get a push to the moon, then, when the fans clearly vocalize they aren't buying that, they make him languish in the lower midcard/curtain jerk jobber who barely gets TV time until he gets a "he's still employed?" Timer like JTG had online. He wouldn't get a fair shake or time and exposure to grow organically.

[The CyNick]

But that's not even true. A lot of people on here act like everyone went on this steady upward trajectory to the top. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hunter was at a certain level, then was pushed down, then back up, then right to top with the original DX, then kinda back down to mid card with face DX, then slowly up from there. Then as champ he was booked like a CS heel. It wasn't until his 3rd run as world champ that they really started to make him a killer, and primarily that was because Foley was a crazy person willing to do anything.

Rock had an early push, then fell off the face of the earth, then up and down. Until he reached the heights he did.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I'm pretty sure well all remember that. The key with the attitude era was they were forced into certain situations to put immensely talented and ready guys into certain spots which helped the company succeed. They were forced because they had competition. Now they don't. So when things get stagnant and mediocre, they can just remain as such. Yeah their is some nibbles and bites of change, but then Vince goes "Nah I'm not feeling this" and kind of goes back to status quo and we get backstage segments with fart jokes.

[Heyman]

The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.


I disagree. Once a wrestler proved themselves worthy of a push, the WWE got completely behind said guy and pushed him huge. Austin in 97', Rocky/Hunter in 98/99, Angle (to a certain extent) in 2000/2001, Lesnar in 2002, Orton/Cena/Batista in 2004. Nowadays, this 50/50 non-sense in an effort to make everyone look credible, is having an adverse effect.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.
Yes, but that was before their big pushes. The WWE didn't start going 'crazy' with Rocky and Hunter until shortly before Summerslam 1998. After that, both guys were protected big time and only lost to 'bottom feeders/mid carders' in an extremely flukey way.


Same thing with Cena. Obviously - in 2002/2003, Cena was doing his fair share of jobs as part of 'paying dues', but once he proved himself worthy, etc., the WWE strapped a rocket to his chest and protected him greatly. Hence - Cena's rapid rise and dominance throughout 2004, which allowed him to get to the top in 2005.


Orton from late 2003-Summerslam 2004 = same thing. Batista from around mid/late 2004 - Wrestlemania 2005 = same thing.

Foley lost to tons of guys.
During his peak (mid 1997-2000), who did Foley really lose to outside of Austin, Kane, Undertaker, Rocky, and Hunter? He lost to NAO who were being groomed to be the top tag team in the WWE.


Between 1997-2000, a clean win over Foley in a feud usually indicated that said wrestler was going to get pushed big time. A victory over Foley usually meant something special.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think the WWE could have done a better job in elevating certain guys that clearly deserved better (i.e. Rusev).


Do you mean to tell me that CM Punk circa 2011 wasn't worthy enough to break away from the pack? How did Hunter squashing Punk in 2011.......when Punk was white hot.......help Punk or the business at all?

[The CyNick]

I will admit a bias when it comes to Punk. I think he's a heck of a worker, but I never saw him as someone who could be "the guy". He just looks like someone who came off a 4 day heroin binge. If I were WWE I wouldnt want him to be the face of the franchise, and I think he's the type of guy who would limit the growth of the company.

That said, I dont think one win or one loss to a guy with Hunter's stature will hurt your push no matter who you are. Just like Austin never got hurt losing two huge matches to Bret Hard squeaky clean. If you have talent, the fans will see that. Heck, Daniel Bryan lost to Wyatt and he was still the most over guy in the company for a period of time.

I think Punk got over to the portion of the audience that likes him, and he did great. But I dont think he had the ability to be a guy like Austin or Rock who brought in casual fans.

Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

So I dont have sympathy for a guy like Kevin Owens who got to debut in a program with the guy who has run the place for a decade. Thats a big deal. Do you think Neville would have preferred working three high profile matches with Cena or that program with the actor guy and Stardust? Its up to Kevin Owens to scratch and claw and prove he is BETTER than Cena, so he can take his spot. Thats what I think guys are missing today.

I do understand what you are saying about it appearing that back in the Attitude Era there appeared to be more clearly defined levels. Opening card guy, then IS tile level guys, then main eventers, then your top guy. Now its more of a thing where one month you could be working a program with a main eventer, but then next month you are in some random IC level program. Is that hurting getting guys to the next level? Possibly. But Im not convinced. I still maintain if you have the talent, you cant be held down forever.

[Vastardikai]

Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

Mankind won most of their early encounters. Including a Boiler Room Brawl that saw Bearer turn on Taker.

[Damian Rey]

I cannot fathom the logic in arguing performers in a scripted sport "scratch and claw" or that guys are "missing" such a trait in an environment where their development and direction is determined by somebody else no matter their talent or desire. Makes no sense.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well maybe if Kevin Owens were talented enough to put on good matches with Cena instead of the three shitty ones he had, he'd be over! Or if Bray Wyatt could cut a halfway decent promo, he wouldn't have become a boring, directionless character! Definitely their fault. Not the brilliant writers.

I mean... these are the guys who wrote such meticulous, well thought out things as"Brie Bella has gone from Nikki's mortal enemy/slave for a month to her best friend in such a flawlessly written transition, you didn't even notice!" and "Wade Barrett is a badass bareknuckle fighter as these vignettes hyping his return will show you... SWERVE! He's a generic chicken shit heel a week later!". Probably should release those shitty guys like Owens and Wyatt and sign some guys who can shine under their brilliant light.

[Tom Guycott]

But that's not even true. A lot of people on here act like everyone went on this steady upward trajectory to the top. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hunter was at a certain level, then was pushed down, then back up, then right to top with the original DX, then kinda back down to mid card with face DX, then slowly up from there. Then as champ he was booked like a CS heel. It wasn't until his 3rd run as world champ that they really started to make him a killer, and primarily that was because Foley was a crazy person willing to do anything.

Rock had an early push, then fell off the face of the earth, then up and down. Until he reached the heights he did.

I'm pretty sure well all remember that. The key with the attitude era was they were forced into certain situations to put immensely talented and ready guys into certain spots which helped the company succeed. They were forced because they had competition. Now they don't. So when things get stagnant and mediocre, they can just remain as such. Yeah their is some nibbles and bites of change, but then Vince goes "Nah I'm not feeling this" and kind of goes back to status quo and we get backstage segments with fart jokes.

Exactly. It's not that there isn't a constant upward gain, it's that pretty much any momentum someone has gained in recent history has had that momentum over-calculated (Ryback, for example) or WWE hits the reset button (Cesaro).

Go back to when Zack Ryder had his massive popularity spike. Naysayers act as if he didn't deserve it or that fans instantly wanted him as WWE Champion. It is this "all or nothing" line of thinking WWE has come to adopt that has hurt guys in the long run. Instead of using his self-made internet fame as a stepping stone to more TV time, better booking, and storylines to keep fans invested, they kept him off TV, save for backstage cameos. He barely got matches, and usually when he did, he wasn't picking up the win. Eventually, this leads to fans feeling like chumps for liking the guy and not getting any payoff. Yes, he got a short US title run, but that was after he was cooling off, and it didn't help matters that they didn't keep him at that level. They dropped him back down the card where he remained until only recently, and that's on the NXT tag scene.

I legitimately feel WWE is just trying to "create" not just the next breakout superstar, but specifically, the next Rock. And I'm not meaning that in any similarities and family ties with Roman, I mean that they want to manufacture a fan favorite, bill him as a legit WHC contender, and farm him out to Hollywood while still under the WWE banner instead of him deciding to move on after having done everything in wrestling. And if nobody has that instant spark, then they aren't worth investing effort into... at least until, say Cena gets injured or Brock has an MMA fight looming and they go into panic mode. They wouldn'thave to panic if they quit losing interest and build reps credible enough to stand in.

One of my favorite matchups in recent WWE history is Dolph Ziggler and Kofi Kingston. Whenever they have a 1 on 1, they tear the goddamn house down. In all the time they've been in WWE, these two should have been headlining PPVs by now, and it would have been believable, because they could have been built to be actual title threats. Instead, they constantly tried to keep Kofi as the kid friendly high-flyer, and Dolph was (and still is) being used as a prop in stories happening to the women around him... Vicki, AJ, Summer Rae/Lana. The best setup they gave the guy was that Survivor Series win, and... they didn't do shit with it. Cesaro got a false start becoming a Real American, thenanother becoming a Heyman Guy, then another with AtG Battle Royal win... each time, he either fucked off of TV or transitioned away with haphazard akwardness. The best time for Curtis Axel to be on his way was with Heyman, and they took that opportunity to make him look like a foolish meatshield instead, then made him go away.

Again, too much "all or nothing". Nobody will ever be important if they're all pushed then completely dropped. Nor will they gain anything by simply going by "the look" before there is any character of substance for fans to attach to... and then just dismissing the people the fans are actually getting behind because they "don't see why". They have 5 hours national TV time a week (not counting The Network), they have gotten more people over more reliably back when they only had 1 hour live and a weekend syndicated pre-taping. Its baffling.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I will admit a bias when it comes to Punk. I think he's a heck of a worker, but I never saw him as someone who could be "the guy". He just looks like someone who came off a 4 day heroin binge. If I were WWE I wouldnt want him to be the face of the franchise, and I think he's the type of guy who would limit the growth of the company.

That said, I dont think one win or one loss to a guy with Hunter's stature will hurt your push no matter who you are. Just like Austin never got hurt losing two huge matches to Bret Hard squeaky clean. If you have talent, the fans will see that. Heck, Daniel Bryan lost to Wyatt and he was still the most over guy in the company for a period of time.

I think Punk got over to the portion of the audience that likes him, and he did great. But I dont think he had the ability to be a guy like Austin or Rock who brought in casual fans.

Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

So I dont have sympathy for a guy like Kevin Owens who got to debut in a program with the guy who has run the place for a decade. Thats a big deal. Do you think Neville would have preferred working three high profile matches with Cena or that program with the actor guy and Stardust? Its up to Kevin Owens to scratch and claw and prove he is BETTER than Cena, so he can take his spot. Thats what I think guys are missing today.

I do understand what you are saying about it appearing that back in the Attitude Era there appeared to be more clearly defined levels. Opening card guy, then IS tile level guys, then main eventers, then your top guy. Now its more of a thing where one month you could be working a program with a main eventer, but then next month you are in some random IC level program. Is that hurting getting guys to the next level? Possibly. But Im not convinced. I still maintain if you have the talent, you cant be held down forever.

You do know it's scripted, right?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Exactly. It's not that there isn't a constant upward gain, it's that pretty much any momentum someone has gained in recent history has had that momentum over-calculated (Ryback, for example) or WWE hits the reset button (Cesaro).

Go back to when Zack Ryder had his massive popularity spike. Naysayers act as if he didn't deserve it or that fans instantly wanted him as WWE Champion. It is this "all or nothing" line of thinking WWE has come to adopt that has hurt guys in the long run. Instead of using his self-made internet fame as a stepping stone to more TV time, better booking, and storylines to keep fans invested, they kept him off TV, save for backstage cameos. He barely got matches, and usually when he did, he wasn't picking up the win. Eventually, this leads to fans feeling like chumps for liking the guy and not getting any payoff. Yes, he got a short US title run, but that was after he was cooling off, and it didn't help matters that they didn't keep him at that level. They dropped him back down the card where he remained until only recently, and that's on the NXT tag scene.

I legitimately feel WWE is just trying to "create" not just the next breakout superstar, but specifically, the next Rock. And I'm not meaning that in any similarities and family ties with Roman, I mean that they want to manufacture a fan favorite, bill him as a legit WHC contender, and farm him out to Hollywood while still under the WWE banner instead of him deciding to move on after having done everything in wrestling. And if nobody has that instant spark, then they aren't worth investing effort into... at least until, say Cena gets injured or Brock has an MMA fight looming and they go into panic mode. They wouldn'thave to panic if they quit losing interest and build reps credible enough to stand in.

One of my favorite matchups in recent WWE history is Dolph Ziggler and Kofi Kingston. Whenever they have a 1 on 1, they tear the goddamn house down. In all the time they've been in WWE, these two should have been headlining PPVs by now, and it would have been believable, because they could have been built to be actual title threats. Instead, they constantly tried to keep Kofi as the kid friendly high-flyer, and Dolph was (and still is) being used as a prop in stories happening to the women around him... Vicki, AJ, Summer Rae/Lana. The best setup they gave the guy was that Survivor Series win, and... they didn't do shit with it. Cesaro got a false start becoming a Real American, thenanother becoming a Heyman Guy, then another with AtG Battle Royal win... each time, he either fucked off of TV or transitioned away with haphazard akwardness. The best time for Curtis Axel to be on his way was with Heyman, and they took that opportunity to make him look like a foolish meatshield instead, then made him go away.

Again, too much "all or nothing". Nobody will ever be important if they're all pushed then completely dropped. Nor will they gain anything by simply going by "the look" before there is any character of substance for fans to attach to... and then just dismissing the people the fans are actually getting behind because they "don't see why". They have 5 hours national TV time a week (not counting The Network), they have gotten more people over more reliably back when they only had 1 hour live and a weekend syndicated pre-taping. Its baffling.

The Ryder stuff really didn't play to his strengths. The dude has shown pretty much no growth or improvement over the past four years, but he was over and should have been presented better. I don't know how much of it was Vince and how much of it was Ryder himself, but trying to have him "act" in storylines with Kane? Dumb. But Ryder just needs to want it more, I guess.

The push abandonment of Cesaro have sincerely ruined my interest in professional wrestling. I'd also include the plateauing of Dean Ambrose. It's a similar situation with two very different talents -- they can't buy a major singles win.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

the thing is, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-carder.... as long as the mid-carders are presented as a big deal. Not just "another" guy. WWE/WWF at their strongest always had an incredibly credible mid-card, with versatile guys who people would pay to see. It was all part of the act. Nowadays, there's amazing mid-card talent, but they aren't given anything that isn't generic. Nothing to stand out. They literally could have anybody placed in their feuds and it wouldn't make a difference.

If you have a strong mid card, then anybody working with anybody looks credible because everybody is over.

[XL]

What exactly does a guy need to do to "grab the brass ring"/"show he wants it badly enough"?

[Mr. Nerfect]

the thing is, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-carder.... as long as the mid-carders are presented as a big deal. Not just "another" guy. WWE/WWF at their strongest always had an incredibly credible mid-card, with versatile guys who people would pay to see. It was all part of the act. Nowadays, there's amazing mid-card talent, but they aren't given anything that isn't generic. Nothing to stand out. They literally could have anybody placed in their feuds and it wouldn't make a difference.

If you have a strong mid card, then anybody working with anybody looks credible because everybody is over.

Agreed. It really bothers me when a guy loses an IC Title match one month and then goes over and challenges for the US Title the next. There was a period recently where the challengers for the IC and US Titles literally just swapped over.

[BigCrippyZ]

What exactly does a guy need to do to "grab the brass ring"/"show he wants it badly enough"?

This is a great question. With VERY few exceptions, EVERY segment, promo, interview and match is so scripted, planned and controlled, often by the same people working behind the scenes, who (apparently) rehash the same shitty ideas over and over again with no long term plans or direction.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Tnere was a time where being just a CHALLENGER for the IC title meant you were a big deal.

[XL]

This is a great question. With VERY few exceptions, EVERY segment, promo, interview and match is so scripted, planned and controlled, often by the same people working behind the scenes, who (apparently) rehash the same shitty ideas over and over again with no long term plans or direction.

You hear all the time about how guys should question and challenge more, go directly to Vince, come up with their own creative, etc. but I just can't see how any of that pays off without guys being labelled as "difficult". They talk about nobody having "passion" or "wanting it" but there are clearly guys on the roster that do.

[The CyNick]

Mankind won most of their early encounters. Including a Boiler Room Brawl that saw Bearer turn on Taker.

No.

He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating.

Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

[The CyNick]

You do know it's scripted, right?

Yup.

What does it have to do with the discussion?

[The CyNick]

The Ryder stuff really didn't play to his strengths. The dude has shown pretty much no growth or improvement over the past four years, but he was over and should have been presented better. I don't know how much of it was Vince and how much of it was Ryder himself, but trying to have him "act" in storylines with Kane? Dumb. But Ryder just needs to want it more, I guess.

The push abandonment of Cesaro have sincerely ruined my interest in professional wrestling. I'd also include the plateauing of Dean Ambrose. It's a similar situation with two very different talents -- they can't buy a major singles win.

Do you think Cesaro cuts a main event level promo?

[The CyNick]

Tnere was a time where being just a CHALLENGER for the IC title meant you were a big deal.

That was 1985 dude

[The CyNick]

You hear all the time about how guys should question and challenge more, go directly to Vince, come up with their own creative, etc. but I just can't see how any of that pays off without guys being labelled as "difficult". They talk about nobody having "passion" or "wanting it" but there are clearly guys on the roster that do.

Do you know what Cesaro did to get in trouble most recently?

[Heyman]

Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts'


Cena and Batista weren't the greatest in the ring, Orton was a prima-donna with a shitty attitude, while Lesnar's mic skills were quite sub-par. Although Lesnar was a tremendous wrestler obviously, his ring psychology and the "sports entertainment" side of things, etc. needed some significant work (perhaps like Cesaro does today).


However - despite the shortcomings of the aforementioned four wrestlers, all four guys were pushed extremely hard once the WWE deemed them ready. Why?!!? Because - The Attitude Era for the WWE had ended, and the company desperately needed new stars to replace Austin and Rocky.


Hence - despite Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar being kind of 'green' and having various 'warts' as performers, the WWE bit the proverbial boner and pushed them hard......and all 4 men achieved great success.


-Orton and Batista became solid main-eventers
-Cena became the Franchise of the WWE (10 years and counting)
-Lesnar became a huge star in both the wrestling world and MMA world.


Was it all rosy? Of course not. Lesnar had the world handed to him, and then decided to leave. Orton became a huge pain in the ass backstage and his pushes were cancelled often times. Batista's ego also spiralled out of control for awhile (before Booker T knocked the shit out him backstage). Anyone with pubic hair disliked Cena's character post Spring 2005.


However - I would argue that the positives of pushing Cena, Orton, Batista, and Lesnar CLEARLY outweighed the negatives.


Fast forward to today, and I think the WWE is in a similar spot to where they were in 2002/2003. The John Cena era is in its twilight, and the company needs new stars to take the "reigns" (Roman Reigns!) so to speak.


Are Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, and Cesaro perfect? No. All 4 wrestlers have their warts.......just as Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar had their warts and shortcomings. However - I think it might be a wise strategy for the WWE to simply strap rockets to their chests and push the hell out of them.


Even though Rollins is heel - book him strong. Have him dominate his opponents with amazing speed, skill, etc. If the fans start cheering, good on them. Make Rollins look as amazing as possible. Ditto for Reigns. Have Reigns dominate everyone in site. If the fans don't like it, tough noogies. Hell - you can flip Rollins/Reigns if it gets real bad.


Wyatt and Cesaro - push them strong as well. Cesaro has paid his dues. Fans are ready to ejaculate their penises over Cesaro. Wyatt also needs to be booked strong again before fans start losing interest in his creepy promos (that almost never come to fruition).


Push
-Reigns
-Rollins
-Wyatt
-Cesaro


Strong as fuck, and make them this generation's version of Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista.

[Vastardikai]

No.

He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating.

Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

Exactly 1 time, you say? (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/542052-cvc-undertaker-versus-mankind-the-best-and-most-bizarre-rivalry-ever)

[XL]

To be fair, even after the initial 2 wins, Mankind ended up buried. Literally. But then, so did Taker.

[Big Vic]

No.

He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating.

Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.
Mankind won the 2 first encounters an take won the rest:

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Monday Night Raw Taping (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/monday-night-raw-taping-991.html)
Nov 18th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Survivor Series '96 (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/survivor-series-3996-59.html)
Nov 17th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF In Your House 11: Buried Alive (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/in-your-house-11-buried-alive-58.html)
Oct 20th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. </td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>"Buried Alive"</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF MSG Show (Sep '96) (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/msg-show-sep-3996-5155.html)
Sep 29th 1996</td><td width="22%">Shawn Michaels (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/shawn-michaels-96.html) & The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Goldust (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/goldust-123.html) & Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/ca.gif WWF Xperience (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/xperience-21124.html)
Aug 24th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. </td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>casket</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF SummerSlam '96 (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/summerslam-3996-56.html)
Aug 18th 1996</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td>"Boiler Room Brawl"</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Monday Night Raw Taping (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/monday-night-raw-taping-974.html)
Jul 22nd 1996</td><td width="22%">Ahmed Johnson (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/ahmed-johnson-198.html)</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Goldust (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/goldust-123.html), Justin Bradshaw (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/justin-bradshaw-207.html), Mankind, Marc Mero (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/marc-mero-208.html), Owen Hart (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/owen-hart-101.html), Savio Vega (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/savio-vega-166.html), Steve Austin (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/steve-austin-205.html), Sycho Sid (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/sycho-sid-140.html), The British Bulldog (http://profightdb.com/wrestlers/the-british-bulldog-29.html), The Undertaker</td><td>11-man battle royale</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF King of the Ring '96 (http://profightdb.com/cards/wwf/king-of-the-ring-3996-54.html)
Jun 23rd 1996</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td></tr></tbody></table>

[The CyNick]

My bad. I forgot the KOTR. Still. Same idea. Mankind wins early, Taker came back and dummied. At the end Mick was back in the mid card and Taker was still headlining.

[The CyNick]

Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts'


Cena and Batista weren't the greatest in the ring, Orton was a prima-donna with a shitty attitude, while Lesnar's mic skills were quite sub-par. Although Lesnar was a tremendous wrestler obviously, his ring psychology and the "sports entertainment" side of things, etc. needed some significant work (perhaps like Cesaro does today).


However - despite the shortcomings of the aforementioned four wrestlers, all four guys were pushed extremely hard once the WWE deemed them ready. Why?!!? Because - The Attitude Era for the WWE had ended, and the company desperately needed new stars to replace Austin and Rocky.


Hence - despite Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar being kind of 'green' and having various 'warts' as performers, the WWE bit the proverbial boner and pushed them hard......and all 4 men achieved great success.


-Orton and Batista became solid main-eventers
-Cena became the Franchise of the WWE (10 years and counting)
-Lesnar became a huge star in both the wrestling world and MMA world.


Was it all rosy? Of course not. Lesnar had the world handed to him, and then decided to leave. Orton became a huge pain in the ass backstage and his pushes were cancelled often times. Batista's ego also spiralled out of control for awhile (before Booker T knocked the shit out him backstage). Anyone with pubic hair disliked Cena's character post Spring 2005.


However - I would argue that the positives of pushing Cena, Orton, Batista, and Lesnar CLEARLY outweighed the negatives.


Fast forward to today, and I think the WWE is in a similar spot to where they were in 2002/2003. The John Cena era is in its twilight, and the company needs new stars to take the "reigns" (Roman Reigns!) so to speak.


Are Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, and Cesaro perfect? No. All 4 wrestlers have their warts.......just as Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar had their warts and shortcomings. However - I think it might be a wise strategy for the WWE to simply strap rockets to their chests and push the hell out of them.


Even though Rollins is heel - book him strong. Have him dominate his opponents with amazing speed, skill, etc. If the fans start cheering, good on them. Make Rollins look as amazing as possible. Ditto for Reigns. Have Reigns dominate everyone in site. If the fans don't like it, tough noogies. Hell - you can flip Rollins/Reigns if it gets real bad.


Wyatt and Cesaro - push them strong as well. Cesaro has paid his dues. Fans are ready to ejaculate their penises over Cesaro. Wyatt also needs to be booked strong again before fans start losing interest in his creepy promos (that almost never come to fruition).


Push
-Reigns
-Rollins
-Wyatt
-Cesaro


Strong as fuck, and make them this generation's version of Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista.

Its not that easy though.

If you saw RAW you would see that Reigns is not ready to carry the ball. They could protect him with a mouthpiece, but to be a real top guy week in week out you need to be able to speak. Roman struggles. At best he should be a silent heel with a guy like Heyman.

Rollins is being pushed and I think will slowly be booked to win more matches. He beat Sting, he will beat Kane, and we'll see what's next.

Wyatt is a strange one. I enjoy the uniqueness of his promos. I love the whole presentation of his character, but I don't think he connects well with the audience when it comes to promos. He's an example of a guy who works to the hardcore fans. I think fans like holding up their cell phones for his entrance, but then they get quiet. I think he's a guy who can occasionally main event, but never be the man.

Cesaro I'm on the fence about. I've seen him improve a lot in the last year, and i would love to see him get a real one on one program to see what he does with it. He reminds me of Reigns in terms of promos, but I feel he has more natural charisma.

Theres no need to force guys into main event status. They tried to push Reigns quickly and the fans rejected it at least partially. Cena is still there and going strong. But he needs new dance partners. I think Big E has really elevated his game. I wish Xavier Woods was bigger. I think Kevin Owens is the best new guy they have. And in NXT I'm curious where Apollo Crews ends up.

[XL]

Where will Apollo Crews end up? A place called Midcard Hell; population 1,203.

[Innovator]

I think they'll strap the rocket to Crews, he's everything Vince loves

[XL]

Don't get me wrong; he's great but WWE just have such a bad track record.

[The CyNick]

When WWE gets a 5 tool player they usually hit it out of the park.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Do you think Cesaro cuts a main event level promo?

It depends on how you define it. He's not great with scripted WWE-style monologues, but he's improved a lot with them. I think he if he were allowed to keep it short, sweet and to his own personal flavor, he could get quite good.

He actually had a mouthpiece last year. A mouthpiece that was party to the ending of The Undertaker's streak. It was a beautiful legacy to bestow upon the next generation of wrestler. But then they had to have the world-beater go and get beaten by the world.

[#1-norm-fan]

When WWE gets a 5 tool player they usually hit it out of the park.

Johnny Curtis is the perfect WWE Superstar. Just sayin'.

[#1-norm-fan]

Also, Ryback was everything Vince loves. They booked him as a monster, put him in the main event picture, and unlike Reigns... the crowd fucking ate it up. Everything went right.

... So naturally they started making him job to everyone including Mark Henry CLEAN at WrestleMania and then turned him heel and fed him to Cena.

Genius.

[#1-norm-fan]

Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over.

... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Brilliant.

[Damian Rey]

Ryback is like the example. He should be a much bigger deal.

Johnny Curtis should be a star by now.

[Heyman]

Its not that easy though.

If you saw RAW you would see that Reigns is not ready to carry the ball. They could protect him with a mouthpiece, but to be a real top guy week in week out you need to be able to speak. Roman struggles. At best he should be a silent heel with a guy like Heyman.


To be honest, I've only watched RAW about a dozen or so times over the past 5-6 years.


But again - you said it yourself - His flaws can be covered, just as Lesnar's weak promo abilities were covered by Heyman back in the day.


And like I said - why is there this notion that a wrestler has to be "almost perfect" in order to get a rocket strapped to his chest? As I pointed out, guys like Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'shortcomings' in different ways, but the WWE still pushed them once they got to a certain level..........and they pushed them HARD.


If Reigns is/was struggling and was getting booed out of the building, why not roll with it like they did with Cena? (i.e. Cena kept getting pushed despite fans over the age of 12 hating on him). Keep pushing Reigns and you could always turn him heel if reactions continue to be "loud boos."

Rollins is being pushed and I think will slowly be booked to win more matches. He beat Sting, he will beat Kane, and we'll see what's next.


In Rollins' case, have him be the opposite of Reigns (i.e. a heel that eventually gets major love/face reactions from the crowd due to him cleanly and dominantly defeating the opposition with pure skill, speed, and athleticism.

Wyatt is a strange one. I enjoy the uniqueness of his promos. I love the whole presentation of his character, but I don't think he connects well with the audience when it comes to promos. He's an example of a guy who works to the hardcore fans. I think fans like holding up their cell phones for his entrance, but then they get quiet. I think he's a guy who can occasionally main event, but never be the man.

Cesaro I'm on the fence about. I've seen him improve a lot in the last year, and i would love to see him get a real one on one program to see what he does with it. He reminds me of Reigns in terms of promos, but I feel he has more natural charisma.


Everything you said is true here, but again - why is there this operating assumption that "a guy has to be almost perfect in order to receive a huge push?" Again - I point to the Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista comparison.

Theres no need to force guys into main event status. They tried to push Reigns quickly and the fans rejected it at least partially. Cena is still there and going strong. But he needs new dance partners. I think Big E has really elevated his game. I wish Xavier Woods was bigger. I think Kevin Owens is the best new guy they have. And in NXT I'm curious where Apollo Crews ends up.


Even though Reigns received negative reactions, the reactions were still huge. Why not roll with it? Why not slowly turn Reigns heel with those types of reactions? (while at the same time, having Reigns booked as a guy that dominates his opposition).

[The CyNick]

It depends on how you define it. He's not great with scripted WWE-style monologues, but he's improved a lot with them. I think he if he were allowed to keep it short, sweet and to his own personal flavor, he could get quite good.

He actually had a mouthpiece last year. A mouthpiece that was party to the ending of The Undertaker's streak. It was a beautiful legacy to bestow upon the next generation of wrestler. But then they had to have the world-beater go and get beaten by the world.

Yeah but then thats limiting. For better or worse, to headline, almost every guy needs to be able to carry a promo. You can make exceptions for guys with certain gimmicks, but the reality is you need to develop the skill to hang.

It was okay to put Heyman with Cesaro while Lesnar was off, but it lessens Heyman's impact if he has a stable of guys. And as babyface, I dont think a manager makes sense.

[The CyNick]

Also, Ryback was everything Vince loves. They booked him as a monster, put him in the main event picture, and unlike Reigns... the crowd fucking ate it up. Everything went right.

... So naturally they started making him job to everyone including Mark Henry CLEAN at WrestleMania and then turned him heel and fed him to Cena.

Genius.

I never understood the appeal of Ryback. I think he was another guy who would only take you so far. Yeah fans like chanting "feed me more" but outside of that, when I hear him cut a promo, I dont think headliner. And his matches leave something to be desired. Also not sure of any backstage issues with him which could have hurt his push.

[The CyNick]

Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over.

... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Brilliant.

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

[The CyNick]

To be honest, I've only watched RAW about a dozen or so times over the past 5-6 years.


But again - you said it yourself - His flaws can be covered, just as Lesnar's weak promo abilities were covered by Heyman back in the day.


And like I said - why is there this notion that a wrestler has to be "almost perfect" in order to get a rocket strapped to his chest? As I pointed out, guys like Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'shortcomings' in different ways, but the WWE still pushed them once they got to a certain level..........and they pushed them HARD.


If Reigns is/was struggling and was getting booed out of the building, why not roll with it like they did with Cena? (i.e. Cena kept getting pushed despite fans over the age of 12 hating on him). Keep pushing Reigns and you could always turn him heel if reactions continue to be "loud boos."




In Rollins' case, have him be the opposite of Reigns (i.e. a heel that eventually gets major love/face reactions from the crowd due to him cleanly and dominantly defeating the opposition with pure skill, speed, and athleticism.




Everything you said is true here, but again - why is there this operating assumption that "a guy has to be almost perfect in order to receive a huge push?" Again - I point to the Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista comparison.




Even though Reigns received negative reactions, the reactions were still huge. Why not roll with it? Why not slowly turn Reigns heel with those types of reactions? (while at the same time, having Reigns booked as a guy that dominates his opposition).

Cena never struggled cutting a promo like Reigns does. Cena eventually became hated by a small portion of the audience. But it wasnt go away heat. To me Reigns got a crazy amount of go away heat on Monday. You could put him with a manager to prevent him from talking (kinda like the role he had in The Shield), but again, thats limiting. I mean it basically means he cant be the #1 baby. Probably needs to be turned heel ASAP.

Cena is far and away better than anyone else on the roster, espcially the new wave of guys trying to move up. So lets not include him in any comparisons. If they had another Cena, that guy would be headlining with Cena. Lesnar was a freak of nature and a super athlete. Again, nobody they have now is close to him.

Orton and Batista had some warts (Batista more than Orton) and they did get big pushes, but both guys were super talented. Batista had a really unique look, and was good enough in the ring. Orton was more of the total package, but just needed experience. Again my thing is, if these guys are not ready or not good enough, why push them? You got lots of other guys who would like the shot. Keep throwing things against the wall until something sticks.

[XL]

Also, Ryback was everything Vince loves. They booked him as a monster, put him in the main event picture, and unlike Reigns... the crowd fucking ate it up. Everything went right.

... So naturally they started making him job to everyone including Mark Henry CLEAN at WrestleMania and then turned him heel and fed him to Cena.

Genius.

That's just part of a bigger story. You'd be able to see that if you'd get your head out of Meltzer's ass!

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

None of those guys are headline material. Is anybody even saying they are? But each of them could be more valuable to the product than they are, and that's on creative/Vince.

[Innovator]

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

Before he turned into a comedy act, Sandow definitely could've been a midcard-upper midcard player

[Heisenberg]

There should be chemistry experiments going on backstage and guys paired up based on how organic they are together.

WWE doesn't Science enough brah.

They should take anyone that the crowd loves(Cesaro atm, modern day DB) and pit him against someone that they want(Rollins, Cena) and boom they have a main event that everyone can stomach.

Sandow could have been in that equation, but now he has to come back possibly in a new gimmick and start all over.



I'm speaking for my demographic, 18-34 aged gentlemen, but the current Roman Reigns/Wyatt Family stuff is old and predictable. Sure, they can put on matches like no other, but w/o a good reason for them to fight it's pointless.

The Cesaro and Rollins/Cena feud is served on a silver platter. The Fans v.s. WWE. Cesaro doesn't have to do much, just let the fans do the work. He just has to point at his sections and go out there every once in awhile and make fart jokes during vignettes.

Preaching to the choir though

[The CyNick]

That's just part of a bigger story. You'd be able to see that if you'd get your head out of Meltzer's ass!



None of those guys are headline material. Is anybody even saying they are? But each of them could be more valuable to the product than they are, and that's on creative/Vince.

Rryback is the IC champ and on RAW every week. That's upper mid card. Probably right where he belongs.

IMO Sandow at best is a tag guy or maybe should just be a mouthpiece for someone. Either way I don't think people decide to or not to watch based on his spot on the card. He was never going to be a difference maker.

[Big Vic]

They should have done SOMETHING with Sandow after his Mizdow run.... like anything.

[Emperor Smeat]

Before he turned into a comedy act, Sandow definitely could've been a midcard-upper midcard player

Could have been by now had the WWE not squandered his MitB run by doing the typical push killing because they sudden lost interest and rather be focused on Cena again.

[Big Vic]

I think he lost the MITB case because They wanted to combine the belts and thought "shit we gotta get rid of this briefcase soon."

[Evil Vito]

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

<font color=goldenrod>Oh shit, CyNick just talked down about Fandango to #1-wwf-fan. I think the seeds might be planted for our matchup for Real TPWW Fights #2.</font>

[Emperor Smeat]

I think he lost the MITB case because They wanted to combine the belts and thought "shit we gotta get rid of this briefcase soon."

Yeah that played a big role. As well as the WWE suddenly wanting another Cena-Orton feud when the crowds were against that idea.

Him losing the case wasn't horrible in general, just the way it was done and how he got treated afterwards. Don't think he ever wanted revenge or anything but just took the loss and then did nothing of importance till the Mizdow gimmick.

[Damian Rey]

I don't know why everyone has to be headliner material to be taken seriously or given meaningful investment. It doesn't have to be this black and white, headliner or bust mentality. That's why they're in the current predicament they're in with no credible main eventers except Cena and Lesnar.

In all reality, you're only really going to have one headline, face of the company attraction. It was Hogan, or Austin, and now Cena. Those three are clearly not interchangeable. However, if you book the next level of talent to be of significance and present them as important then you at least have credible quasi main eventers who could be the opposition to your main star or even, as in CM Punk or Daniel Bryan's case, high enough that they're the number two guy who can have a Mania main event and be able to sell it.

Thinking you have to have nothing but mega star caliber talents is never going to be realistic. There has to be a pecking order in place where you have talent who's good enough to main event and have fans believe in it even if everyone knows Cena is still the man.

[#1-norm-fan]

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

Jesus Christ, between the inability to grasp that there's a huge middle ground between headlining and jobbing in dark matches and the "But losing to Cena isn't a bad thing" argument...

You either have the comprehension of a 3 year old or you're blatantly ignoring things so you can argue shit no one else is saying in order to feel right about something. Which is it?

[#1-norm-fan]

<font color=goldenrod>Oh shit, CyNick just talked down about Fandango to #1-wwf-fan. I think the seeds might be planted for our matchup for Real TPWW Fights #2.</font>

Oh, I assumed that part of what he said was actually genuine.

[#1-norm-fan]

This is basically the point we're at now...

CyNick: "Seth Rollins losing to John Cena isn't a bad thing."

"No one said it was."

CyNick: "LOL explain to me how losing to the face of the company is a bad thing."

[#1-norm-fan]

"Damien Sandow was over and has tons of charisma and should be featured somewhere in the show."

"Do you REALLY think he can headline!? Come on!"

"..."

[Vastardikai]

I'd also argue that CyNick missed the main point of the Taker-Foley feud:

It more or less reinvigorated 'Taker's career. There was like a 7 year stretch where Taker was facing large men who were the drizzling shits in the ring, and couldn't draw shit. Mankind was the feud he needed. Beyond just the matches, Mankind was a compelling foil for the Dead Man. A man who can't be hurt is hard to build sympathy for. You need something different, a guy with no regard for his own wellbeing. It didn't hurt that he could work.

Taker-Foley makes more sense if you look at the before and the aftermath: Before, Taker was a midcard special attraction. After, Taker was a main eventer. Foley debuted and became the special attraction.

[The CyNick]

I'd also argue that CyNick missed the main point of the Taker-Foley feud:

It more or less reinvigorated 'Taker's career. There was like a 7 year stretch where Taker was facing large men who were the drizzling shits in the ring, and couldn't draw shit. Mankind was the feud he needed. Beyond just the matches, Mankind was a compelling foil for the Dead Man. A man who can't be hurt is hard to build sympathy for. You need something different, a guy with no regard for his own wellbeing. It didn't hurt that he could work.

Taker-Foley makes more sense if you look at the before and the aftermath: Before, Taker was a midcard special attraction. After, Taker was a main eventer. Foley debuted and became the special attraction.

I never said Taker-Foley was bad

What I said was it was similar to a lot of the feuds with Cena, where Cena will put a guy over in the first big match, but then eventually edge out the series. The difference is things move faster today than they did in 1996, so feuds last 3-4 months instead of 6-8.

But in my opinion some people are remembering Taker putting over Foley, and pretending like he came in, Taker put him over, and he stayed in the main event from then on. The REALITY of the program was Taker lost initially at KOTR, and then the bogus finish at Summerslam. But from then on and for a good 6 months, it was nothing but Taker beating Foley left and right. And after that, Foley went way down the card in random programs.

Its pretty much the same thing that happened with guys like Rusev and Owens, who got a nice rub from working with Cena, and even beating him, but ultimately lost the feud and moved down the card.

[#1-norm-fan]

Rryback is the IC champ...

Don't worry. I've often forgotten who holds the titles in this clusterfuck booking era as well.

[The CyNick]

I don't know why everyone has to be headliner material to be taken seriously or given meaningful investment. It doesn't have to be this black and white, headliner or bust mentality. That's why they're in the current predicament they're in with no credible main eventers except Cena and Lesnar.

In all reality, you're only really going to have one headline, face of the company attraction. It was Hogan, or Austin, and now Cena. Those three are clearly not interchangeable. However, if you book the next level of talent to be of significance and present them as important then you at least have credible quasi main eventers who could be the opposition to your main star or even, as in CM Punk or Daniel Bryan's case, high enough that they're the number two guy who can have a Mania main event and be able to sell it.

Thinking you have to have nothing but mega star caliber talents is never going to be realistic. There has to be a pecking order in place where you have talent who's good enough to main event and have fans believe in it even if everyone knows Cena is still the man.

True. But they have that.

Cena is still the top guy.

Then you got guys like Taker, Brock , and Rollins just below that.

Then you have the glut of guys like Reigns, Ambrose, Wyatt, Owens, Orton, Sheamus, New Day, Ryback and Ziggler. Any of those guys could move into main event programs and have secondary titles to fight for.

And then another tier of guys who get steady TV time but don't seem to have traction like Rusev, Cesaro, Big Show, Miz, Neville, Barrett, etc

[The CyNick]

Don't worry. I've often forgotten who holds the titles in this clusterfuck booking era as well.

Was instead of is

So you're not happy with Owens as IC champ? Should it have gone to Fandango?

[#1-norm-fan]

This is basically the point we're at now...

CyNick: "Seth Rollins losing to John Cena isn't a bad thing."

"No one said it was."

CyNick: "LOL explain to me how losing to the face of the company is a bad thing."

"Damien Sandow was over and has tons of charisma and should be featured somewhere in the show."

"Do you REALLY think he can headline!? Come on!"

"..."

[Mr. Nerfect]

The WWE have succeeded in making me stop caring about Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, Dean Ambrose, Paige and Becky Lynch. They've achieved something with that.

[Simple Fan]

The WWE have succeeded in making me stop caring about Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, Dean Ambrose, Paige and Becky Lynch. They've achieved something with that.

I could add Jack Swagger, Neville, Curtis Axle, Team BAD, and a few others to that list.


Its like if your not the WWE champion or John Cena your not shit. Hell, even the WWE champion cant be booked to look stronger than Cena. If Roman is guy they want to be the next top guy, I think WWE will be in trouble. No one is going to get behind Roman as the top face like they do Cena. I personally believe Roman will be his best as a heel. He tries to do Cena jokes and make people laugh, its just not him. I really think the talent today is better than the late 90s and and early 2000s. I feel the only problem with todays talent is that they depend to much on the WWE. I feel like the rosters of old were more independent and less reliant on the WWE, but also didnt have as many resourses as todays talent do.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Reigns has had no real journey. Thinking about it, if they REALLY wanted Reigns to challenge Lesnar for the WWE Title at WrestleMania this year, I think he should have won the Money in the Bank match for the title. He could have kept the title at Battleground, so he didn't look like a fluke champion, then be destroyed at SummerSlam by Lesnar. That way his win in the Royal Rumble and his challenge to Lesnar would have marked some sort of improvement.

[#1-norm-fan]

Just realizing that CyNick's inability to understand that there's a huge world to take advantage of between "nothing" and "main event" is the same problem WWE seems to have. Things are making sense.

I can actually see some writer pitching an idea for Damien Sandow for a good, entertaining mid to upper-midcard story for Sandow that is showcased somewhere in the middle of Raw every week and Vince responding with "Fuck that, he's not a main eventer!"

[Mr. Nerfect]

The WWE doesn't set anyone up in the mid-card to have any sort of traction where they can step up. A guy is either a main eventer or they're nothing. Then when they've got no main eventers left, they try to pretend one of the nothing guys can suddenly do it and wonder why it doesn't get over.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Sandow was so simple to book coming out of WrestleMania. He wants to fight Miz, but Miz is a chickenshit heel. Maybe Miz ducks out of their first scheduled match at Extreme Rules, because he's got "set commitments" and names Big Show as a replacement. This is stemming from Show winning the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal against Sandow. You have Show toss around Sandow, but have Sandow show enough fight that people get behind him and think he *might* have a chance. Show wins the match after Miz sticks his neck in, and people now REALLY want to see Sandow get his hands on Miz.

Payback comes around and you have conflict established between two former Money in the Bank Winners who have tag history and personal issues. Miz acts like this thing is in the bag, but everyone is clamoring for Sandow to take it. The match sees Sandow get a large measure of personal retribution when he catches Miz in a full nelson, but instead of dropping him into the Skull-Crushing Finale, he brings back You're Welcome and gets the pin. He does a cartwheel after the match and everybody marks out.

You can then maybe have both guys in Money in the Bank and have them cancel each other out. Battleground could see one more match between the two where Sandow busts out a Figure Four and makes Miz tap out to "his own" hold.

You've now taken Sandow through to July, building up the fans' faith in him, his moveset and hopefully getting him more and more over. He might be selling a few t-shirts at this point. It is around here you can consider putting a mid-card championship on the guy. Maybe he holds that for a few weeks until The Miz costs him the title and they head towards a big blow-off in some sort of gimmick match down the stretch, which Sandow again wins, because he's the guy you're really trying to help get a footing.

[The CyNick]

The WWE have succeeded in making me stop caring about Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, Dean Ambrose, Paige and Becky Lynch. They've achieved something with that.

You're absolutely hilarious.

Daniel Bryan was the man after 30. He got injured. Somehow that's WWE's fault? And i get called a troll? Jokes!!!!!!!!!

[The CyNick]

I could add Jack Swagger, Neville, Curtis Axle, Team BAD, and a few others to that.

Aside from Sasha who will be a star in time, all of those guys had lower mid card ceilings.

You really think Curtis Axel is a star waiting to happen? He's lucky to have a job.

You guys really need to appreciate the difference between a money player and a comedy act.

[Innovator]

You're absolutely hilarious.

Daniel Bryan was the man after 30. He got injured. Somehow that's WWE's fault? And i get called a troll? Jokes!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, before he got hurt he got stuck with the big red albatross

[The CyNick]

Just realizing that CyNick's inability to understand that there's a huge world to take advantage of between "nothing" and "main event" is the same problem WWE seems to have. Things are making sense.

I can actually see some writer pitching an idea for Damien Sandow for a good, entertaining mid to upper-midcard story for Sandow that is showcased somewhere in the middle of Raw every week and Vince responding with "Fuck that, he's not a main eventer!"

Were you watching when Sandow was featured week in and week out? He did exactly what you wanted. He had a nice little program based on comedy. It ran is course!

He's not talented enough to transition to a serious program where he can move up the card. The only thing he can do is comedy. That's cool, that means you are barely hanging on to a TV spot.

Let me guess, that Mega Powers parody angle should have taken those guys through Mania where they could explode?

[Shisen Kopf]

WWE needs to put out serious business rasslin with 30 minute matches and lots of technical rasslin moves and rest holds. That's what people want.

[The CyNick]

To be fair, before he got hurt he got stuck with the big red albatross

What's the problem with that? Kane is a vet who can help establish Bryan as a credible champion. Who should he have programed with and would that have prevented him from going down?

[The CyNick]

Sandow was so simple to book coming out of WrestleMania. He wants to fight Miz, but Miz is a chickenshit heel. Maybe Miz ducks out of their first scheduled match at Extreme Rules, because he's got "set commitments" and names Big Show as a replacement. This is stemming from Show winning the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal against Sandow. You have Show toss around Sandow, but have Sandow show enough fight that people get behind him and think he *might* have a chance. Show wins the match after Miz sticks his neck in, and people now REALLY want to see Sandow get his hands on Miz.

Payback comes around and you have conflict established between two former Money in the Bank Winners who have tag history and personal issues. Miz acts like this thing is in the bag, but everyone is clamoring for Sandow to take it. The match sees Sandow get a large measure of personal retribution when he catches Miz in a full nelson, but instead of dropping him into the Skull-Crushing Finale, he brings back You're Welcome and gets the pin. He does a cartwheel after the match and everybody marks out.

You can then maybe have both guys in Money in the Bank and have them cancel each other out. Battleground could see one more match between the two where Sandow busts out a Figure Four and makes Miz tap out to "his own" hold.

You've now taken Sandow through to July, building up the fans' faith in him, his moveset and hopefully getting him more and more over. He might be selling a few t-shirts at this point. It is around here you can consider putting a mid-card championship on the guy. Maybe he holds that for a few weeks until The Miz costs him the title and they head towards a big blow-off in some sort of gimmick match down the stretch, which Sandow again wins, because he's the guy you're really trying to help get a footing.

You're booking is extremely unrealistic.

You just booked an program with opening card guys for like 4 months. But you failed to mention what they will do on all the TVs in between. They would have to fight about 20 times to keep that going. Maybe a best of 21 series??

[The CyNick]

The WWE doesn't set anyone up in the mid-card to have any sort of traction where they can step up. A guy is either a main eventer or they're nothing. Then when they've got no main eventers left, they try to pretend one of the nothing guys can suddenly do it and wonder why it doesn't get over.

Wyatts vs Reigns was a long term program

Bellas vs Paige seemed to last a long time

Cena vs Owens was over several months

[Innovator]

That program was atrocious. Bryan had to be scared of a guy he was hugging less than a year before who rarely won, and Brie suddenly was hanging off of Bryan on TV playing the damsel in distress. Brie's acting = not good.

Let us see. Orton could've had a rematch, Batista could have had a shot, Wyatt could have stepped up after beating Bryan at the Rumble, HHH could've wanted a shot to redeem his Mania loss, even Cesaro (who just aligned with the guy who masterminded the ending of the Streak and was at his hottest) could've stepped up for a month.

[The CyNick]

I think there's a disconnect of what the mid card is

A standard WWE PPV looks like this:
1. World Title Match
2. Womens match
3. Tag match
4-8. Random matches (including IC and US titles)

If Cena isn't in the world title picture, you know he has a spot.

That leaves 3-4 matches for the rest of the guys. To me just being featured on a PPV means a lot. The 2nd match in could involve a guy like Randy Orton. Is he considered opening card? He could also easily be headlining against a guy like Rollins.

I understand the desire to see a real ladder system, but then what do you do when you reach the top but don't win the belt? You end up being like Orton or Sheamus or even Cena right now. You're somewhere in the middle of the card moving from program to program. So a ladder system doesn't always work.

[The CyNick]

That program was atrocious. Bryan had to be scared of a guy he was hugging less than a year before who rarely won, and Brie suddenly was hanging off of Bryan on TV playing the damsel in distress. Brie's acting = not good.

Let us see. Orton could've had a rematch, Batista could have had a shot, Wyatt could have stepped up after beating Bryan at the Rumble, HHH could've wanted a shot to redeem his Mania loss, even Cesaro (who just aligned with the guy who masterminded the ending of the Streak and was at his hottest) could've stepped up for a month.

HHH, Orton and Batista were busy trying to elevate The Shield.

Cesaro would have been a cold contender. Wouldn't have helped anything.

Bryan was crazy over at that point, he was fine with Kane. As for Brie, I'm sure he was pro giving his gf more TV time. It's not WWEs fault she's a terrible actress.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>The CyNick loves Double Double E</font>

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>The CyNick loves Double Double E</font>

So does everyone here.

[#1-norm-fan]

Were you watching when Sandow was featured week in and week out? He did exactly what you wanted. He had a nice little program based on comedy. It ran is course!

He's not talented enough to transition to a serious program where he can move up the card. The only thing he can do is comedy. That's cool, that means you are barely hanging on to a TV spot.

Let me guess, that Mega Powers parody angle should have taken those guys through Mania where they could explode?

Of course he's "not talented enough". Because that would mean you'd have to admit that WWE is just inept and suffers from ADD too much to keep a talented guy in an entertaining role on television. And we can't have that now, can we? So we'll just blame Damien Sandow for not being talented enough and we can stay in our "WWE WRITERS #1" bubble.

[#1-norm-fan]

SHEEEEEEEEEP

[Damian Rey]

I remember Hunter stating in a interview that Sandow was indeed talented, but needed something to click. Then the change from Idol Stevens to the Intellectual Savior of the Masses was born, and Hunter mentioned how it was something they could run with that Sandow was clearly good with. He got heat, he got over, and he was good enough to be elevated. Instead, they killed the MITB push, jobbed him out, and only when they squandered any heat he had left did they put him in a comedy role.

Feel like CyNick purposely glosses over periods of time where there was legit opportunity for WWE and co to make a valuable upper mid card talent that was squashed for no reason whatsoever.

[Damian Rey]

And not everyone gets loves WWE. Quite a number of us watch or keep eyes on the product via habit, as its been a staple in our lives since we were children. I openly complain about the product and I far from love it. I more or less tolerate it, but even the I find myself tuning out of the hulu episodes they edit because even at half the length, the show is not interesting enough to hold my attention.

[#1-norm-fan]

I remember immediately after Sandow won MITB, he went on some ridiculous losing streak. He even lost to R-Truth a couple weeks after winning it on Superstars I think. lol

Seriously would love to hear the thought process behind giving a guy a major title/accomplishment to build off of and then immediately going out of your way to job them out left and right.

[Damian Rey]

Wasn't that a running gag for a while? MITB winners suddenly going on losing steaks?

[#1-norm-fan]

It's a running gag for most champions over recent years. It just so happens the MITB case doesn't get defended so there's no title matches that they need to have them win here and there just to keep it on them. They could just job them out endlessly.

[The CyNick]

I remember Hunter stating in a interview that Sandow was indeed talented, but needed something to click. Then the change from Idol Stevens to the Intellectual Savior of the Masses was born, and Hunter mentioned how it was something they could run with that Sandow was clearly good with. He got heat, he got over, and he was good enough to be elevated. Instead, they killed the MITB push, jobbed him out, and only when they squandered any heat he had left did they put him in a comedy role.

Feel like CyNick purposely glosses over periods of time where there was legit opportunity for WWE and co to make a valuable upper mid card talent that was squashed for no reason whatsoever.

I liked Sandows promos when he was doing the Intellectual thing, but in the ring I thought he was the shits. His body is soft, which shows a lack of commitment to his craft, and he never learned how to keep a crowd in a match.

The comedy thing where he was doing the stunt guy gimmick kept him on TV, but you can only go so far with him. I remember watching his matches closely after he turned on Miz, and he still had the same issues in the ring. He couldnt put it all together.

I think some people on here look at a guy who does one thing well (either something in the ring, or a catchphrase that gets over, etc) and they assume they can put everything together to move up the card. Some guys just cant do it. Sandow is one of those guys.

Whereas a guy like say Kevin Owens seems to have all the tools. His issue is he thinks he can eat cheesburgers all day every day and be positioned as a main eventer. He would be better off showing commitment in all aspects of the business.

[The CyNick]

And not everyone gets loves WWE. Quite a number of us watch or keep eyes on the product via habit, as its been a staple in our lives since we were children. I openly complain about the product and I far from love it. I more or less tolerate it, but even the I find myself tuning out of the hulu episodes they edit because even at half the length, the show is not interesting enough to hold my attention.

Polkadot Door was a staple of my life. I gave it up when it stopped appealing to me. I liked House of Cards, then it got shit. Im not planning to match next season.

Some of you guys are either masochists, self loathing sports entertainment fans, or complainers for the sake of complaining.

[The CyNick]

I remember immediately after Sandow won MITB, he went on some ridiculous losing streak. He even lost to R-Truth a couple weeks after winning it on Superstars I think. lol

Seriously would love to hear the thought process behind giving a guy a major title/accomplishment to build off of and then immediately going out of your way to job them out left and right.

Simple.

MITB is generally won by heels. Its the ultimate chicken shit way to win the title. For most guys who win the briefcase, they are going to eventually win the title. By having guys beat them, it creates future challengers down the line.

[Simple Fan]

Whereas a guy like say Kevin Owens seems to have all the tools. His issue is he thinks he can eat cheesburgers all day every day and be positioned as a main eventer. He would be better off showing commitment in all aspects of the business.

Have you seen him eating cheeseburgers all day or are you just basing that on his weight? The dudes in shape, he shows that in the ring. Some guys are just built different and won't have a ripped body but it doesn't mean he eats cheese burgers all day.

[Damian Rey]

Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic

[thekrow]

Think about it from the side of the promoter!


In the wrestling industry its impossible to make everyone happy.


If you keep only making a few certain guys credible, people on forums and on facebook will constantly say how "Youre not fair to not push this guy" and they will do this for any and every guy. So company's fall into the trap of trying to make everyone look credible and then no one looks credible.
In CHW at least...you got people who you know are there to job...like Robb Banks...CHW also gets a lot of, "Why don't you push guys Z or Y" but CHW knows that pushing everyone will mean NO ONE gets pushed and leads to a worst product!


A lot of fan's don't realize what its like behind the scenes of the wrestle industry.

[Damian Rey]

Shut the fuck up. Pretending you're a wrestler in your mom's backyard is not equivalent to being in the wresting industry. Go dive off a cliff.

[#1-norm-fan]

Simple.

MITB is generally won by heels. Its the ultimate chicken shit way to win the title. For most guys who win the briefcase, they are going to eventually win the title. By having guys beat them, it creates future challengers down the line.

Yeah, Santino and R-Truth beat Damien Sandow so that it could lead to a world title match months later. Makes sense.

[Damian Rey]

Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

[The CyNick]

Have you seen him eating cheeseburgers all day or are you just basing that on his weight? The dudes in shape, he shows that in the ring. Some guys are just built different and won't have a ripped body but it doesn't mean he eats cheese burgers all day.

I was just using that as a clever comment. No offense meant to Owens

I agree not everyone needs to be chiseled, but there are limits to being the chubby guy who can work.

[The CyNick]

Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic

If Kevin Owens can prove he can draw like Dusty did, he can eat whatever he wants.

[The CyNick]

Yeah, Santino and R-Truth beat Damien Sandow so that it could lead to a world title match months later. Makes sense.

I honestly don't remember the entire timeline. You casual watchers of the product seem to have a better handle on the order of events.

I just know I never thought Sandow was anything more than a funny guy. I never saw him have a great match.

[The CyNick]

Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

[DAMN iNATOR]

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

No, but they SHOULD win singles matches more than barely over 70% of the time.

[Mr. Nerfect]

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.

and

B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January.

What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue.

This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows.

Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort.

This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

[Damian Rey]

There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?

[The CyNick]

A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.

and

B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January.

What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue.

This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows.

Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort.

This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head.

People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray.

NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of.

I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

[The CyNick]

There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?

Its all about progression.

Rollins weasels his way to the MITB and then the WWE title. At the beginning he lost non title matches, but still hung on to the title. In recent months his character has evolved. In storyline is because HHH tested him, and with each passing test he got stronger. Yeah he survived against Brock, but he didn't beat him. Yeah he beat Cena, but he had help. Then the worm starts to turn. He beat Sting clean, he beat Kane clean. He's won several matches in TV lately all clean. It's all part of a progression in his character. I think it will continue with Reigns and possibly turn the page on a new chapter on the growth of his character.

Through the rest of 2015 and into 2016 he will likely become a more dominant player and the fans will take the journey with him and start to get behind him. If he had been dummying the roster since 2014 as a heel there would be no journey to speak of.

You guys gotta remember, the Seth Rollins book needs to have many chapters. Ideally its a story that's told over the next 15 years not 15 months. Just remember the word progression.

[Simple Fan]

Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.

[BigCrippyZ]

WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about.

No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you also have those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

[The CyNick]

Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.

Diffrrent strokes

[The CyNick]

Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above.



No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you have also those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

They haven't created new stars since 05? Lol

Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be.

[BigCrippyZ]

Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be.

Again, you're making assumptions, I didn't say anything about squash matches. I simply said have different matches outside of basically the same matches every week. Sure, some weeks they might be squashes, some weeks they might be a more competitive match with someone else at or a little above or below the talent's level on the card, and some weeks they'll have a match involving who they're feuding with. The point isn't to have all squash matches, the point is to quit having the same repetitive matches every week that result in me no longer watching and not building anyone.

[The CyNick]

Again, you're making assumptions, I didn't say anything about squash matches. I simply said have different matches outside of basically the same matches every week. Sure, some weeks they might be squashes, some weeks they might be a more competitive match with someone else at or a little above or below the talent's level on the card, and some weeks they'll have a match involving who they're feuding with. The point isn't to have all squash matches, the point is to quit having the same repetitive matches every week that result in me no longer watching and not building anyone.

New guys get built every year. Do you think The Shield got over by mistake? Ambrose loses matches, he's still over. Bray loses TONS of matches, he's over. New Day are more established in the last 3 months than their entire careers combined. Kevin Owens is moving up the card.

You're looking at things from the perspective of the 1% of the WWE Universe. I don't believe the average fan sits there and goes "Ryback has only won 75% off his matches, he should be winning 93.5% in order for me to care about him". They just look at his character, his promos, his look, his skills, and determine if he's worth caring about.

I agree that in long term programs the matches can get repititive, but it's a tough balancing act. If you wait till just before a PPV to announce matches, people chirp about on the fly booking and no long term planning. When they have long drawn out feuds where guys are battling week after week people say "we've seen these guys fight too many times". Like a lot of things with the IWC you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kicker is the IWC represents such a small fraction of the audience, and are the most loyal, that you waste time appealing to their whims.

When you need to build 7-8 programs every month, it's tough to ensure everyone in those matches are on winning streaks and not fighting one another. Look at tag teams. How many teams can you have at one time? 5 or 6? If New Day is fighting The Dudleys how do you get 8 TV shots without a lot of either singles matches or 6-8 man tags to keep the program going? Do you job every other team to those two teams fighting for the championships? If you do that, who is left to contend next month?

[Big Vic]

Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

[The CyNick]

Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

Maybe, but people keep watching in droves

[BigCrippyZ]

New guys get built every year. Do you think The Shield got over by mistake? Ambrose loses matches, he's still over. Bray loses TONS of matches, he's over. New Day are more established in the last 3 months than their entire careers combined. Kevin Owens is moving up the card.

You're looking at things from the perspective of the 1% of the WWE Universe. I don't believe the average fan sits there and goes "Ryback has only won 75% off his matches, he should be winning 93.5% in order for me to care about him". They just look at his character, his promos, his look, his skills, and determine if he's worth caring about.

I agree that in long term programs the matches can get repititive, but it's a tough balancing act. If you wait till just before a PPV to announce matches, people chirp about on the fly booking and no long term planning. When they have long drawn out feuds where guys are battling week after week people say "we've seen these guys fight too many times". Like a lot of things with the IWC you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kicker is the IWC represents such a small fraction of the audience, and are the most loyal, that you waste time appealing to their whims.

When you need to build 7-8 programs every month, it's tough to ensure everyone in those matches are on winning streaks and not fighting one another. Look at tag teams. How many teams can you have at one time? 5 or 6? If New Day is fighting The Dudleys how do you get 8 TV shots without a lot of either singles matches or 6-8 man tags to keep the program going? Do you job every other team to those two teams fighting for the championships? If you do that, who is left to contend next month?

I would agree that 99% of people watching aren't counting the wins/losses necessarily but they definitely notice trends and boring repetition.

I also don't think that the IWC is as small a portion of the audience as WWE and folks like yourself would like to admit. I'd be willing to bet that the IWC as a whole (not just indie fanboys or guys who will watch any wrestling, etc.) actually probably makes up about 25% of the WWE audience.

Now, I've gone back and watched a lot of Attitude era RAWs and PPVs on the WWE Network and Youtube, etc. in the last few years. No doubt, some of the writing and booking was shitty and/or REPETITIVE much like today. That being said, there was not nearly the amount of repetition in terms of week to week, month to month, matches/segments that there is today. In addition, the stories were progressing and made more sense (i.e., the stakes were always raised and/or there was a reason for the matches taking place). Back then, they were able to book 7-8 feuds a month without things getting repetitive with even less TV time.

Now maybe that was a result of non-existent long term planning (i.e., chaos) or better long term planning, I don't know. Whatever the case, it resulted in better quality product, even if you take out the sensationalism of the violence/sex content.

If you think that today's guys coming up the ranks like Bray, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, New Day, etc. are any where near as over as guys like Shamrock, Kane, Benoit, Jericho, New Age Outlaws, HHH, Angle, etc. when they were in the same position coming up the ranks, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. I'd argue it shows in the crowd reactions and ratings too.

Yeah, yeah. I know, "But, media's consumed differently now! There's so much competition!" "These guys just aren't as good as those guys were!" I'm even willing to concede that in some cases, some guys today probably aren't as good as their counterparts from back then but that's not enough. It's always some other excuse other than a systemic problem within the company (i.e., writing, over scripting, booking, etc.) even when confronted with resulting evidence like ratings. The problem with your theory is that in comparing ratings averages for the past 9 years, RAW ratings have slowly declined while Monday Night Football ratings have either stayed stable or increased year to year.

I understand that RAW will never beat MNF in the ratings. Still the question must be asked. Why has the interest in Monday Night Football not decreased with all the "new" media competition? Is it because MNF, like many other non-sports (dramas, comedies, etc.) shows, and unlike RAW, those programs present compelling television that isn't repetitive week to week?

[The CyNick]

No way its 25%. If it was there would be 1000 people posting on a place like this. Keep in mind, when I say IWC, In taking about the person who follows all the backstage news and reads dirt sheets.

I'll admit I didn't do the research you apparently did, but I feel like during the Attitude Era, I saw some combination of Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley in matches over a 3 year period. You have to remember that RAW in 1998 was drastically different, and was touching on material that was never done before. The result was strong TV ratings, but significantly hurt the image of the company long term. It's damage they are still to this day trying to reverse, and it's cost them big time revenue. The booking to me was not much different than it is today. I would be curious about how specifically you saw the booking as different. I remember a ton of pointless tag matches with top guys back then. All usually ended with a schmoze and a bunch of Stunners or Austin looking angrily at Vince.

You hit the nail on the head, the difference is the talent. The talent today wants success handed to them. The talent back then fought for what they thought was best. And the person in charge then was the same guy today. Why is it that Steve Austin fought his way out of midcard obscurity but a guy like Cesaro is happy being on TV and posting goofy pics backstage? On top of that, you had a plethora of hall of famers back then, I'm not sure we have that luxury today. It's like a pro sports team, you have some years with amazing talent, other years its mediocre.

You asked about MNF. Great question. Simple answer is WWE programming is more like a TV drama, you can catch up on it at any time. MNF needs to be consumed live. That's why rights fees for sports properties has gone up so much in the last 5 years or so. Live sports are You Tube and DVR proof. RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment. That said, there are not too many weekly storyline driven TV shows that have remained consistently at the top of the charts like WWE has.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head.

People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray.

NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of.

I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

I'm not going to address the whole thing, because most of it is just...yeck, but I will correct you: No, squash matches aren't the only way to do that. John Cena has been very well protected, as has Randy Orton, as has The Undertaker, as is Brock Lesnar now. When Roman Reigns got pinned at Elimination Chamber '14, it was his second ever pinfall loss in WWE. That's 15 months into his WWE stint. Look at what the WWE did with Rusev.

The idea that you have to do squashes to keep guys strong is false. I would do more squashes, don't get me wrong. I think some of the girls could really get something out of it. Bring in Evie to put over the new heel Paige as she builds momentum for Charlotte and the Divas Title. Maybe you've heard of the KISS method? Keep It Simple, Stupid.

You say NXT appeals to a niche audience? I think NXT appeals to a niche of the WWE audience, but I think the WWE appeals to a niche of the television audience. Less people are watching wrestling than almost ever before, and a lot of that might have to do with the things that violate that KISS method, and be results from the Russo-led hot-shotting during the Attitude era, and the soap opera residue that people are now conditioned to and see right through. Why the fuck are there cameras in Triple H and Stephanie's office as they are talking about their evil schemes?

So, yes, NXT appeals to a niche section of the WWE audience -- because it's wrestling, and not so much the circus.

"In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of."

YES! That is why the WWE fucking sucks at the moment -- they're not doing that! Progress! I suppose.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The internet is here to stay, guys. Sorry, but people use it these days. That's why you see tastes a-changing, not only in wrestling, but in a lot of different ways people think and digest media. To think that there could have been a "YES! Movement" behind Paul London in 2004 is absolutely mind-boggling, but things are different now.

This idea that the average wrestling fan doesn't care about the online stuff is a bit silly. Maybe they aren't as heavily invested in the product as hardcore members of the IWC, but that is why you actually need a captivating product to reel them in.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I remember when wrestling used to be a live presentation. People used to go and leave the house and actually watch that shit.

I really want Jim Cornette to sign up to these forums and just eviscerate CyNick.

[#1-norm-fan]

If you're still gonna argue Rollins losing to Cena as if people are arguing that that's the problem, you're making it pretty clear that you're just avoiding the actual argument so that you're not put in a position to defend it.

Losing to the top face in the territory is never a step back.

Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over.

... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline?

Rollins also has a nice list of guys who have beaten him. Does your champion need to look stronger by the day? I ask, because I think champions should look strong from the start.

We've already hashed this out. Rollins shouldn't look too strong from jump otherwise he goes baby too quickly. Notice how his presentation changed from being a chicken to welcoming the next challenger. Likely the start of a babyface turn.

Classic, smart, long term booking.

But go ahead focus on the Viscera/mideon casket match.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/TroubleBruin/1325411597456.jpg

[Mr. Nerfect]

I feel like I'm unwillingly sucking the consciousness of Jim Cornette into this thread, and am going to cause the poor man headaches.

[The CyNick]

I remember when wrestling used to be a live presentation. People used to go and leave the house and actually watch that shit.

I really want Jim Cornette to sign up to these forums and just eviscerate CyNick.

No matter what I said, you would say he "eviscerated" me.

I would out point him though. Guaranteed.

[BigCrippyZ]

No matter what I said, you would say he "eviscerated" me.

I would out point him though. Guaranteed.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

[Blonde Moment]

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum.

Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

[The CyNick]

What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum.

Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

So in your mind they are struggling to make money?

[Ruien]

Just going off the title but I think everyone is credible. That is what is wrong though. There is no one who stands out anymore because everyone is on or very close to the same level as everyone else.

[The CyNick]

Just going off the title but I think everyone is credible. That is what is wrong though. There is no one who stands out anymore because everyone is on or very close to the same level as everyone else.

I think the issue is more that the people who follow dirt sheets like a certain style of product. So when they see a new guy that THEY like, they want to see them pushed to the moon.

When WWE brings in a guy, I think they take guys they see a future in and like to throw them in the deep water to see how good they are and to quickly establish them as someone in the top mix.

But a variety of things can happen, maybe the guy doesnt get over quickly, maybe they are a nightmare backstage, maybe they just run their course and come back to the middle of the pack. This has happened throughout the whole history of WWE, it's not a new thing. But people are acting like it's new.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Not at all the fact that people can tell when they hear a pin drop in the arena and shit not getting over... or they can just tell plain crap t.v. Not that at all.

[#1-norm-fan]

The "certain style of product" argument doesn't hold much weight either. I've spent plenty of time arguing with people about the indy darling type not being the kind of guys you should build a company around if you want to appeal to a more mainstream audience. I know a lot of guys here who prefer more of a "sports entertainment" product that pure "rassln'".

And the one place they can all come together on is "My God, whatever they're trying to produce right now is dog shit." They somehow manage to be so bad at the basics of pushing guys long term, building heat for matches and simply telling coherent stories. that they fail miserably on both sides of the spectrum.

[Simple Fan]

RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment.

Sports entertainment

[Blonde Moment]

So in your mind they are struggling to make money?
How about answering my post?
In any case i believe that although they are making money their booking is probably costing them more money in the long run. With the talent they have and the avenues available to them this company should be making more money than what they are and part of that is how they push their roster.

[Tom Guycott]

Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

I've thought this for awhile now.

Kinda in the "too much of a good thing" school of thought. An hour of WWE a week (pre RAW- All American Wrestling, Superstars of Wrestling), and maybe a half an hour of whatever else you could get a fix of from NWA/WCW or any regional territory with some local weekend TV time. There seemed to be more done with less.

And it is not just reflected by possibly having "too much" TV time (and squandering a lot of it on the same talent all the time), but booking these large, very impersonal venues. A live WWE wrestling event has evolved into a social event instead of a spectacle for fans, if you get what I mean.

It is one of the (myriad of) reasons for the success of NXT- and I don't just mean the tapings, but the live events. And with the possible exception of the Takeover from Barklay's Center (as there were *other things* going on), pretty much the crowds are more on the intimate side. The people who are there want to be there. They want to see the talent and enjoy the show for what it's supposed to be instead of going to simply say they were there. NXT is sort of in the same feel as ECW in the mid 90's, or a WWE house show in the early to mid 80's.

[#1-norm-fan]

They've been able to create a hot atmosphere in large venues in the past though. It just takes good booking over an extended period of time that draws in a vocal crowd who can get lost in the show as opposed to the crowds now who come for wrestling but then realize it was a bad idea when they get there and basically sit on their hands for 3 hours trying not to fall asleep.

[#1-norm-fan]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wOy6b6X9lws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This was 3 years ago. If only they were competent enough to roll with this instead of willingly pissing it away and leaving themselves in the situation they're in now where they're praying Roman Reigns can get to the point one day that they managed to get Ryback to then.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I don't think Roman Reigns is as incompetent as Ryback though. It'll be tough.

[The CyNick]

How about answering my post?
In any case i believe that although they are making money their booking is probably costing them more money in the long run. With the talent they have and the avenues available to them this company should be making more money than what they are and part of that is how they push their roster.

They will likely bring in more money this year than they ever have. In your expert opinion, how much revenue should WWE be making for YOU to consider them successful.

How many consecutive Mania shows should they sell with more than 60k fans? If they sell 100k for Dallas does that tell you the product is hot or cold? They are one of the most popular You Tube channels. Does that mean they are doing well or poorly?

[The CyNick]

They've been able to create a hot atmosphere in large venues in the past though. It just takes good booking over an extended period of time that draws in a vocal crowd who can get lost in the show as opposed to the crowds now who come for wrestling but then realize it was a bad idea when they get there and basically sit on their hands for 3 hours trying not to fall asleep.

When people come back and buy tickets again its usually because they had a good time the previous show.

[The CyNick]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wOy6b6X9lws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This was 3 years ago. If only they were competent enough to roll with this instead of willingly pissing it away and leaving themselves in the situation they're in now where they're praying Roman Reigns can get to the point one day that they managed to get Ryback to then.

You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

[Ruien]

You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

Ryback is anazing. The WWE screwed up so bad with him.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Ryback is anazing. The WWE screwed up so bad with him.

Amazingly bad in the ring.

[#1-norm-fan]

Ryback > Whatever thing it is that DTTS loves

[#1-norm-fan]

You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

I've got a "hard on" for well-booked guys with star quality. I actually like the "Vince type". I think they draw well in wrestling when booked properly, too. Ryback was a prototypical WWE superstar, they pushed him as such... and it actually worked.

If only they didn't derp it away by saying "Holy shit, this guy we made into a monster and put in the main event is getting over with the crowd! Now let's start having him lose and let it culminate with a clean loss at WrestleMania to Mark Henry!" Genius booking.

[Ruien]

Amazingly bad in the ring.

Why is he bad exactly? He keeps me entertained though all of his matches.

[Blonde Moment]

They will likely bring in more money this year than they ever have. In your expert opinion, how much revenue should WWE be making for YOU to consider them successful.

How many consecutive Mania shows should they sell with more than 60k fans? If they sell 100k for Dallas does that tell you the product is hot or cold? They are one of the most popular You Tube channels. Does that mean they are doing well or poorly?

And what happens once the Part timers are too old or too busy to come back?
What happens if Cena injuries catch up to him and he ends up on the shelf?
How are their house shows doing compared to 10 years ago? 15 years ago?

[Damian Rey]

Think there's a difference between making loads of money and having an interesting, well written product. CM Punk's pipe bomb said it best; Vince McMahon is gonna make money in spite of himself. However, just because the company is making money, it doesn't mean it can't get better or be more entertaining to the masses. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Some random points:

* Fastway is a bad-ass.

* I'm not a big Ryback fan. At all. But jobbing him out to Henry was one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever seen in my life.

* There's a difference between revenue and profits.

* A business model goes much deeper than anything CyNick has implied.

* The creative direction of something is, indeed, much different from its commercial success. Criticial success and commercial success are not causally linked.

* I appreciate the WWE's success, which is why I don't expect them to drop Total Divas or RAW's third hour anytime soon.

* lolstockdrops

* You can use cloak and dagger tactics to dress up increases or decreases in many different ways.

* The WWE product still fucking sucks.

* Cesaro is the best.