What was the point in HHH capturing the title?

[Icame4Hookers]

The title now won't be defended until Wrestlemania.

So having fastlane is pointless......

[drave]

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

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

[Shisen Kopf]

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

[Big Vic]

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

[Stickman]

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

[Icame4Hookers]

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

[road doggy dogg]

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

[Blue Demon]

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

[The CyNick]

HHH as champ is what's best for business.

[Icame4Hookers]

HHH as champ is what's best for business.

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

[Mr. JL]

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

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

Turn Ziggler

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

[Big Vic]

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

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

Turn Ziggler

Put the belt on Bray Wyatt, Del Rio, AJ Styles
Yeah, pretty stupid.

[NormanSmiley]

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

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

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

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

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

[drave]

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

[Stickman]

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

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

Turn Ziggler

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

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

[Theo Dious]

The title now won't be defended until Wrestlemania.

So having fastlane is pointless......


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

[Anybody Thrilla]

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

[Emperor Smeat]

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

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

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

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

[The CyNick]

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

You stay classy buddy

[The CyNick]

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

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

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

[Big Vic]

Cat-woman beat bane in the end.

[drave]

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


HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD ON!!!!!!

You cannot liken someone like Bane to fucking HHH.

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


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

HIGH FIVES TURN INTO HIGH FISTS!!!


WE'RE OUTTA TIIIIIIIIIIME! :wave:

[drave]

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

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

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

[DAMN iNATOR]

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

[The CyNick]

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD ON!!!!!!

You cannot liken someone like Bane to fucking HHH.

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


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

HIGH FIVES TURN INTO HIGH FISTS!!!


WE'RE OUTTA TIIIIIIIIIIME! :wave:

Was in reference to Dale saying he had Mania figured out. My point is the babyface generally overcomes the odds in the end. It's the story you tell to get there that matters. In this case given that key injuries screwed up original plans, they have done a great job telling the Reigns v Authority storyline.

[The CyNick]

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

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

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

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

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

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

[The CyNick]

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

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

[Simple Fan]

Tina Fey=Roman Reigns

[Icame4Hookers]

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

[Simple Fan]

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

[Mr. JL]

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

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

[Mr. JL]

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

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

[The MAC]

HHH as champion :

1. ego stroke
2. lack of creativity

Roman Reigns :

1. no personality
2. pushed down our throats the same way Cena


Nothing they do will make me care about their match at mania

[Icame4Hookers]

The same shit happened when Evolution was around the title stayed within that stable, then handed to HHH.... it's a fucking repeat.

[NormanSmiley]

HHH as champion :

1. ego stroke
2. lack of creativity

Roman Reigns :

1. no personality
2. pushed down our throats the same way Cena


Nothing they do will make me care about their match at mania

Amen to this. Wwe blew so many opportunities with hhh winning the rumble

[Big Vic]

....I will enjoy my Donald Trump campaign speeches in peace.
hmm so Cynick is a racist.

[Stickman]

HHH as champion :

1. ego stroke
2. lack of creativity

Roman Reigns :

1. no personality
2. pushed down our throats the same way Cena


Nothing they do will make me care about their match at mania

I'm not a big Cena fan but he's a thousand times better than Roman. Cena has always had charisma and personality even when he was shoved down our throats. Roman is so fucking generic I don't understand why he is the chosen one.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[The MAC]

The problem is not roman reigns. Its WWE.

Gone are the days when a talent had to get over. Now they are cast as the over guy, and its not organic. As a result people shit over it.

Take the Rock, when he was pushed like Roman Reigns, fans chanted "Die Rocky Die", he then start to show more of his personality and it felt right - not cast, not scripted...organic.

Yes ,I am aware its a TV show, times have moved on...blah blah but WWE will never catch lightning in a bottle ever again because they have insulated themselves from anything "non-scripted".

Why not experiment ? Scared to do it on RAW? fine, do it on Smackdown - let a few segments slip in with bullet points - let a few guys loose.

HHH doesn't realise that people actually dislike him as a human being...not as a character. His heel character losing to a luke warm face such as Roman does nothing for either of them except giving us another HHH match where he can dress up as the terminator again.

[Sepholio]

I'm not a big Cena fan but he's a thousand times better than Roman. Cena has always had charisma and personality even when he was shoved down our throats. Roman is so fucking generic I don't understand why he is the chosen one.

[Big Vic]

Imagine the crowd if at Mania its Ambrose vs HHH instead of Reigns vs HHH.

[Icame4Hookers]

Imagine the crowd if at Mania its Ambrose vs HHH instead of Reigns vs HHH.

It wouldn't happen though, we've got more chances of seeing Kevin Owens headlining this years Wrestlemania than Ambrose.

even though he's not in the main event..

Fastlane is a shit excuse for a PPV... The main event will either end with Roman pinning Ambrose or doing the outlaw rule.. that'd be good.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Even if Ambrose loses, they can make it plenty good if they have him look good and don't make him an afterthought.

[Sepholio]

If they wanted maximum hype coming out of fastlane then they would have Ambrose win it. Have Ambrose vs HHH and Lesnar vs Reigns vs Wyatt. Those would get the most out of the crowd at this point with what they have set up, barring some drastic shift in direction.

I am still holding onto the off chance that Bray gets put into the Fastlane main event somehow. Or hell maybe they give HHH a tune-up match at Fastlane vs Bray because of their interaction during the rumble. Just give him something meaningful, damnit.

[Sepholio]

Come on WWE. At Fastlane, Ambrose is knocked out of the ring, laying somewhere near the announce table. Reigns and Lesnar are brawling in the middle of the ring and Reigns gets the upper hand. Reigns hits a couple superman punches and a spear, the crowd is booing hard. He pins Brock. 1-2-lights go out. When they come back on the referee is gone and The Wyatt family is surrounding the ring, with Bray already in the ring laying on the mat right where the ref was. He smiles and says "Anyone but you Roman." The Wyatts then proceed to beat down Reigns and Lesnar as he gets up. They eventually leave with Roman laying in the ring and they drag Lesnar off with them. Ambrose now slowly gets up and crawls into the ring. He sees Roman lying there and no Lesnar. He gets that shocked look on his face, like he doesn't know what to do, and then suddenly he runs over and pins Roman. Another ref pops out and counts the 3-count. Ambrose wins. Book it.

[Sepholio]

I mean come on, this can be the start of working towards a Shield triple threat for the title at SS. Bray gets a high profile feud with Lesnar. Lets them build Bray, and even Stroman up if they want. You could even have it revealed that the real reason The Wyatts even took Lesnar away during the Fastlane main event was too intentionally force Ambrose and Reigns into an unwinnable situation and cause the rift that ends their friendship. So much they could do with that scenario.

[Jazzy Foot]

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

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

[The CyNick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Mr. Nerfect]

I actually liked that idea for Bray Wyatt vs. Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania. Nice stuff, and something I actually hadn't thought of. The only other option that interests me is something fucking up the main event portion between Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns leading to a Triple Threat against Triple H at WrestleMania for the title. They need someone actually likable in the title picture.

Triple H vs. Roman Reigns could have worked at WrestleMania, but not for the belt. Triple H isn't playing the heel character he arguably should for the feud. The whole context of the story doesn't really make sense. Reigns should have turned heel at Survivor Series and Brock should have won the Rumble.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

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

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

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

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

[Brigstocke]

I like to think that this storyline played out for one reason... The WWE wanted James Steele to orgasm himself inside out.

[The CyNick]

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

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

Yeah but you're just making that "low mid 4" number up. There's no evidence to suggest that is what the WWE optimal point is. As I've been saying here for weeks, you have to look at the competition. Nobody other MNF is doing the kind of viewership numbers that RAW does. So as much as you can say "it should be this or that", at the end of the day being #1 counts for a lot.

I'm personally not waiting for anything with sports entertainment. I like the product as is. Do I love every segment? Nope. But I didnt love a lot of segments back when you felt WWE was at their peak. Especially when I look back. Quite frankly I am borderline embarrassed that I supported the product the way it was. Women were treated like whores, the boys were risking life and limb to one up each other, and the antics on screen were cringe worthy at many points in the run. This was evident by the lack of money WWE was able to generate in TV rights fees even though their ratings were as you mentioned through the roof. At least now I am not ashamed to turn on WWE programming. Dalemay not be enjoying the product - hopefully you are avoiding the show at all costs. But for people like me, I think the product is light years ahead of where it was.

[The CyNick]

I actually liked that idea for Bray Wyatt vs. Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania. Nice stuff, and something I actually hadn't thought of. The only other option that interests me is something fucking up the main event portion between Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns leading to a Triple Threat against Triple H at WrestleMania for the title. They need someone actually likable in the title picture.

Triple H vs. Roman Reigns could have worked at WrestleMania, but not for the belt. Triple H isn't playing the heel character he arguably should for the feud. The whole context of the story doesn't really make sense. Reigns should have turned heel at Survivor Series and Brock should have won the Rumble.

I am skeptical why Ambrose is in the Fastlane main event. I have a feeling were seeing a triple threat or it leads to a heel turn with Ambrose down the line.

[owenbrown]

I like to think that this storyline played out for one reason... The WWE wanted James Steele to orgasm himself inside out.

mission accomplished :shifty:

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Yeah but you're just making that "low mid 4" number up. There's no evidence to suggest that is what the WWE optimal point is. As I've been saying here for weeks, you have to look at the competition. Nobody other MNF is doing the kind of viewership numbers that RAW does. So as much as you can say "it should be this or that", at the end of the day being #1 counts for a lot.

I'm personally not waiting for anything with sports entertainment. I like the product as is. Do I love every segment? Nope. But I didnt love a lot of segments back when you felt WWE was at their peak. Especially when I look back. Quite frankly I am borderline embarrassed that I supported the product the way it was. Women were treated like whores, the boys were risking life and limb to one up each other, and the antics on screen were cringe worthy at many points in the run. This was evident by the lack of money WWE was able to generate in TV rights fees even though their ratings were as you mentioned through the roof. At least now I am not ashamed to turn on WWE programming. Dalemay not be enjoying the product - hopefully you are avoiding the show at all costs. But for people like me, I think the product is light years ahead of where it was.

4.0 is obviously a decent mark to gauge by. It's not rocket science.

But you're just spouting nonsense again so we are done here.

[The CyNick]

4.0 is obviously a decent mark to gauge by. It's not rocket science.

But you're just spouting nonsense again so we are done here.

You are the reason kids get participation medals in schools.

[hb2k]

What I think is really weird about WWE lately is that when you look at how everything has gone down lately, it seems as if, back in October/early November when the bottom fell out and ratings got to their worst point, they said "alright, fuck this, let's make some moves". They done a few out of the box things since - signing AJ and letting him be AJ. Hiring Mauro Ranallo and letting him be awesome. King as a heel. Signing Nakamura and the Bullet Club. Making moves to bring up Samoa Joe after Mania (apparently) when they never planned to before. The womens division went closer to an NXT style build with a week-to-week story and the promo video package like they used down there.

Point being, I'm intrigued by 2016. They may fall on old habits until Mania because they have nothing else due to injury, and given the company direction, this might be the best scenario for Reigns in the short term, moreso than any other hotshot angle.

The downside is, it feels like they need to get Mania out of the way more than anything else, so they can start to do the real work this year.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

You are the reason kids get participation medals in schools.

Man, I participate the best out of anyone. I deserve my medal.

[Corkscrewed]

I actually liked that idea for Bray Wyatt vs. Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania. Nice stuff, and something I actually hadn't thought of. The only other option that interests me is something fucking up the main event portion between Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns leading to a Triple Threat against Triple H at WrestleMania for the title. They need someone actually likable in the title picture.


That's a solid point. It would be interesting if Wyatts ambush Brock at Fastlane, and Roman and Ambrose do something that knocks each other out, but they both end up pinning each other. Triple threat vs HHH at WM, where the ending can be a heel turn for Roman or Ambrose, which ignites that feud.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Anyways... I will humour you (and myself, because I assume those are the only 2 people with any patience for this malarky).

Your arguments are dumb.

Look, I CANNOT and WILL not disagree with your assessment that this is a successful company and their successes should be celebrated.

However, much like the Simpsons or Saturday Night Live, this does not mean they are resting on their laurels and living off a name.

To have the name, and maintain the name is something special, you really need to have the "it" factor just as a brand and company. That's why if I met Vince McMahon I would shake that crazy fucking asshole's hand even though I kind of hate him. He is a badass motherfucker and to ignore that is idiotic (though I feel like I've gone through all of this with you before).

HOWEVER

It's not all about the bottom line.

This is why your arguments are retarded and most of us feel like you're maybe having a laugh at our expense.

When ratings drop, and it's consistent, and then all they do at best is get back to where they were before and just stay in that cycle constantly... it probably does not mean good things when it comes to the quality of what your product is on TV.

And you are right, RAW is at a disadvantage and is unique in that the second it lost all of that momentum it once had where it had Walking Dead Like Numbers it's not like it could go anywhere. It's the fucking wrestling flagship. Most t.v. shows, the cast can go "Okay we can still do okay in the ratings, but the show is going to be no where near as good as it was and we will just never have the traction we once did so let's say goodbye".

So instead the WWE has to rebrand and recreate the product effectively to keep fresh and relevant. It struggled greatly after the Hulkamania era, for a good 5-7 years, then was the Austin/Rock era which was a very successful rebranding. And every since that point, there hasn't been anything that "feels" revolutionary (you can argue with the quality all you want Nicky Boy, but the fact is, the bottom line was so great that Vince McMahon became a legit billionaire in that time and bought fucking WCW he was doing so well). The attitude era had its flaws, but the backbone of it was a fresh faced look at wrestling that was a far cry from the whimper that was the New Generation.

So yeah, WWE is probably not going to drop below 3 all that often, and they'll stay between 2.8-3.8 or whatever and the needle isn't really moving anywhere from there. That means they are not drawing in any new viewers. There is notadvance. There is no gain. It's just been like that for years. It's all status quo. And you know that. That's fine. Totally fine That's what works for Vince, and he can do what he has to do and the bottom line works for him. I get it, if I were Vince and liked things a certain way I would do things how I want, as long as it wasn't hurting my wallet too much.

However, just because we differ on the product does not mean it's hard to see its flaws.

It's bigger than the talent, it's how they are used. John Cena individually is massively successful. He is a phenomenon and I think will do well in movies when he finally makes that move. Cross over appeal, awesome charisma, good athlete, hard worker and all in all a smart guy. Some how, when you wanted this guy to be your flag baring face... yeah he did it and he gritted it out.... but he got booed at least 50% of the time. Yes the fans paid money to see him, and blah blah blah the bottom line, we get it. But, your main goal was to have this guy cheered out of the building, and instead he got trash thrown at him. You can maybe blame 5% of that on Cena for maybe decisions he didn't make with his character, but that just shows a huge flaw in the creative process to me.

You can give me nonsense about how Kids and women like him, and for sure I'm not going to argue that. Of course kids like him, kids like any pile of shit you throw at them. Kids also liked Steve Austin and so did adults. Same with Hulk Hogan. They didn't get booed out of the building during their height. As much as people like to blame fans for hijacking shows, if you give them something to cheer, they will cheer.

And now the same thing is happening with Roman Reigns. The fans are so inconsistent because they just don't know how to book this guy. Look, the kids and the women and the casuals they like the guy well enough, but he has to appeal to ALLLLLLLLL audiences, and those ppv shows with the tougher crowds take skill to win over. Just because he appeals to the kids and the women does not exclude him from being able to appeal to PPV crowds. Your top babyface should not ALWAYS get shit on at your big ppvs. If he was booked right, he wouldn't be booed senseless.

I'm not saying he's not "the guy", because honestly I think he deserves it after some of the shit he's been through. I'm saying, here is another symptom of a MEH product, the live crowd shitting all over what you are doing.

I can guarantee you, if they are able to find and properly develop and book "the guy" that appeals to the masses, the ratings needle goes up drastically, so does merchandise, so do network subscriptions.

Cena wasn't that guy (even though he was the man in his day) and Roman won't be unless he really digs down deep.

Or they can keep rolling in this awkward direction and stay in business and meet their bottom line.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Fastlane is in Ohio. Who do you think they are going to be cheering for?

[drave]

THE MIZ!

[WinterDecay]

The point was to rile up the IWC who the week previous was saying that any thing is better than Roman as champion.
Well, he is someone else as champion and now we see that it is indeed not better.

It goes to show more and more that the WWE hates its core group of fans and does every thing in its power to "fix their ass"

[Big Vic]

Was HHH on raw last night?

[Icame4Hookers]

Triple H is off for almost a year, and suddenly decides he want's to be in the spotlight, WINS the title. and then doesn't defend it until Wrestlemania how low can you get?

[Big Vic]

He should be defending against Ziggler at fastlane IMO.

[Theo Dious]

Was HHH on raw last night?

Yes.

[Simple Fan]

The point was to rile up the IWC who the week previous was saying that any thing is better than Roman as champion.
Well, he is someone else as champion and now we see that it is indeed not better.

It goes to show more and more that the WWE hates its core group of fans and does every thing in its power to "fix their ass"

I think HHH is a better as champion than Roman. Its was predictable but better than anything they have done with Roman in my opinion. Hate that HH made that promo about people showing respect and then making the #1 contender match a triple threat with all people that have no respect for him. Just made zero sense.

[The MAC]

HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH THIS ?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fZvMheDrT1s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>