Originally Posted by ron the dial (Post 4702614)

Eva Marie is not attractive to me AT ALL. She is worthless imo

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4702363)

The WWE have achieved it just fine with the main roster and NXT.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4703079)

SD would never be booked like NXT is.

Once you're talking about a main brand, the existing writers and producers will want to get involved. Pretty soon it will look no different than Raw.

It's an odd time to suggest brand split when the main event talent pool is so thin

Originally Posted by Wishbone (Post 4703198)

Except that the talent pool isn't thin. There are literally dozens of extremely talented wrestlers on the roster that aren't even getting to be on tv despite the fact that they have over 5 hours of tv a week. A proper brand split where SD wasn't just the RAW recap show would allow those guys some time to actually do something instead of just filling seats on the bench backstage.

And if you mean that there isn't enough "big" stars in WWE that's been the case for over a decade, and has nothing to do with lack of talent. WWE doesn't have any big stars outside Cena because they're inept at booking, period. There are plenty of guys that could be major players if WWE hadn't shit the bed every time they tried to push someone.

Originally Posted by Guru Dave (Post 4704290)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PFAltzxNd6o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Originally Posted by loopydate (Post 4704275)

Except the last time they split the brands, having two "diluted" rosters allowed guys like John Cena to prove themselves as headliners to begin with. If he was on the same show as Triple H when he came up in 2002-03, Cena would never have had the same opportunity.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4704271)

You're way off base about Cena. Those kind of comments show a lack of understanding of the business. WWE wishes they had 3 more John Cenas lined up to take his spot. Its in their best interest to create one and let him run with the ball. The problem is nobody on the roster is close to Cena's level. I know thats unpopular with the IWC and places like this, but its true. He hustles more than anyone else on the roster, he's loyal to WWE almost to a fault, and he respects the business. You never hear "oh John refused to put over X". If anything he's similar to The Rock in that he probably does too many jobs for the latest flavour of the month.

The issue with the brand split is just math. If you split the brands, you have half the talent on each side. I think its BS to think there are a boat load of guys who could be headliners (who draw) but cant because their stuck in some bottleneck. The only guy who could lead his own tour was Daniel Bryan, but he's on the shelf. The next closest are probably Reigns and Orton, and neither of those guys will light the world on fire. I just dont see the benefit of splitting talent to create some fake form of competition.

At the height of WWE their was no such thing as a brand extension, and plenty of dudes got over big time.

Originally Posted by Forbes

Monday Night Raw and Thursday Night SmackDown are supposed to be the cornerstones of WWE programming, but things aren’t exactly going as planned. Despite having one of its most talented rosters ever, one that features everyone from former independent wrestling studs to household names like John Cena, the WWE simply isn’t attracting the amount of viewers that it once did. In fact, ratings for both Raw and SmackDown are in a downward spiral and have been for so long that anyone in WWE who isn’t concerned must be kidding themselves ...

Even those at the USA Network, the home for Raw from 1993-2000 and 2005-present, are realizing that pro wrestling’s popularity isn’t what it used to be, thanks to the nearly unwatchable reboot of Tough Enough from earlier this year. According to The Wrestling Observer, sources at the USA Network indicate that officials there believe pro wrestling’s popularity is cycling downward, which is indicated by the decline in ratings. Wrestling tends to be a cyclical business, going round and round from lows to highs, but the disturbing plunge in ratings of the WWE’s two biggest shows highlights just how much the average fan’s interest in pro wrestling—and specifically, the WWE—has waned in recent years.

Perhaps more importantly, though, it puts even more pressure on the WWE Network. Now, the Network has to succeed. Absolutely has to. That’s because Raw and SmackDown don’t have the stable futures that WWE wants them to have. Anyone who follows all of the major pro wrestling companies has seen that pro wrestling as a whole is struggling to keep pace with other forms of sports and entertainment, as indicated by the failures of TNA. TNA Wrestling, the closest thing to “competition” that WWE has had since WCW, has had a disastrous stretch over the last couple of years. After losing its spot on Spike TV, TNA moved to Destination America earlier this year, and there are already all sorts of indications that Destination America will drop TNA soon, too. Could the WWE suffer a similar fate? If officials at the USA Network truly believe that pro wrestling’s popularity is “cycling downward,” then the answer is a resounding “yes" ...

The WWE Network announced that it had more than 1.1 million subscribers (averaging more than 1.2 million) at its second quarter earnings report earlier this year, an impressive number that is higher than its Tough Enough viewership and likely would be even higher if multiple Network users didn’t share one account like many are (probably) doing. As the WWE Network continues to deliver more entertaining original programming—like The Stone Cold Podcast, the NXT specials and pay-per-views— as well as historical footage, the viewers will continue to tune in and give the WWE a fallback option in the event that Raw and/or SmackDown gets the ax if and when the USA Network has had enough. However unlikely that may be, though, the pressure is mounting on the WWE to build up the WWE Network at a time when its flagship shows are falling down.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4704271)

You're way off base about Cena. Those kind of comments show a lack of understanding of the business. WWE wishes they had 3 more John Cenas lined up to take his spot. Its in their best interest to create one and let him run with the ball. The problem is nobody on the roster is close to Cena's level. I know thats unpopular with the IWC and places like this, but its true. He hustles more than anyone else on the roster, he's loyal to WWE almost to a fault, and he respects the business. You never hear "oh John refused to put over X". If anything he's similar to The Rock in that he probably does too many jobs for the latest flavour of the month.

The issue with the brand split is just math. If you split the brands, you have half the talent on each side. I think its BS to think there are a boat load of guys who could be headliners (who draw) but cant because their stuck in some bottleneck. The only guy who could lead his own tour was Daniel Bryan, but he's on the shelf. The next closest are probably Reigns and Orton, and neither of those guys will light the world on fire. I just dont see the benefit of splitting talent to create some fake form of competition.

At the height of WWE their was no such thing as a brand extension, and plenty of dudes got over big time.

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan (Post 4704400)

Literally my only problem with the brand split was 2 world titles. It does water down the "moment" of winning the title when instead of it signifying you're THE guy, it just signifies you're "one of the guys". There should always be one top champion. You can raise the IC and US titles to signify dominance on a specific brand and then let the World Champion go back and forth defending it between brands. Having a "WWE" and a "World" championship was always just silly.

Originally Posted by Tammy (Post 4704644)

My mom named me after Tammy Sytch

Originally Posted by loopydate (Post 4704275)

Except the last time they split the brands, having two "diluted" rosters allowed guys like John Cena to prove themselves as headliners to begin with. If he was on the same show as Triple H when he came up in 2002-03, Cena would never have had the same opportunity.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704319)

Don't let CyNick see this. He has more of an understanding about the business than The Undertaker, after all.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704323)

The benefits have already been summed up by The Undertaker, but you do make a good point about John Cena being someone special. That being said, you cannot deny that the booking for some guys has done its absolute best to fuck up the momentum of a lot of guys, possibly so they don't get too hot because the WWE wants everyone to be luke-warm so no one has the confidence to do a Bobby Lashley or whatever.

The WWE actually does have a lot of guys who could potentially serve as hooks and get people more invested in the product. Dean Ambrose was getting really hot last year, and was almost as equally important to the show as John Cena was. Then they had Ambrose lose any sense of direction and start losing on basically every PPV until Extreme Rules. Bray Wyatt could have been a new era's top heel, but instead he's spent the last two WrestleMania events losing, proving that he's all talk. Cesaro was presented as a world-beater at WrestleMania XXX, then had the world beat him.

Not one of those guys is John Cena, but not one of those guys needs to be -- after all, they still have John Cena. There's no reason you cannot present them in a way that allows fans who like them to feel that their emotional investment is going to lead to memories being made -- memories that invariably fuel their fandom of the product.

Earlier this year -- despite me thinking it was possibly the stupidest direction to take a once great personality -- Damien Sandow got really fucking over building up tension between himself and The Miz. Where is Sandow now? He's nowhere. Don't tell me that guy wouldn't benefit by being on a different show right now.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4704808)

Actually Cena is a great example of why the brand extension was a joke and a failure. Once it was clear he was getting really popular, he was moved over to RAW (the A brand), and they moved Batista over to SD (the B brand). Cena then worked with Triple H and went over.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a nice little story.

Originally Posted by The CyNick

What territory did Undertaker book?

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon (Post 4704820)

Why is all of the brand split talk happening? Was there a report it was coming back? I liked the original idea of it. They were supposed to make the secondary titles more important but soon after Bischoff came in and took the IC championship away.

WWE Champion should be both-brands. It should be be the same way again but with two secondary titles.

Originally Posted by The CyNick

The issue I think people have with the booking is there is a segment of the audience that wants to see the next guy breakthrough, and they want it to happen NOW. The problem is if you look at history, even the all time greats took YEARS to get established. The Rock is probably the greatest pure talent in the history of the game, but it took him 2 years of middling programs before they put the big belt on them, and probably another 4 months before he was booked as a strong main eventer and not a chicken shit heel. Same with HHH, actually longer with him, and Austin as well. You cant push Cesaro, Owens, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, and Ryback as main eventers all at the same time. There's not enough main event spots for that. Its Rollins time, its Reigns' time. In time, some of these other guys will get a shot.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4704808)

Actually Cena is a great example of why the brand extension was a joke and a failure. Once it was clear he was getting really popular, he was moved over to RAW (the A brand), and they moved Batista over to SD (the B brand). Cena then worked with Triple H and went over.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a nice little story.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704913)

Wishbone basically did all the schooling that needs to be done here. I can't believe you label people are parroting dirt sheet writers and then don't listen to the guys that actually have experience in the business.

Just to correct you though, Wishbone -- a few people did see money in The Rock when they first saw him. Jim Cornette definitely did, and I believe Jim Ross did too. Cornette, in particular, told Vince McMahon to present The Rock well, because he'll be your World Champion in five years. Then The Rock did it in like two. He actually had a very meteoric rise where he was presented well, so I don't know what CyNick is saying about this journeyman story for him, not that this was anyone's point to retort in the first place.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704924)

I can intellectually appreciate the desire to have one World Champion. I really can. Emotionally, I just don't feel it working though. It's the same reason a Cruiserweight Title is actually a bad idea. You'll either end up with cruiserweights that are too good for the Cruiserweight Title, rendering it meaningless; or a bunch of guys fighting for the "little man's" championship and never getting out.

I don't think you can call for the creative teams to be autonomous AND have some sort of shared stake to the championship. Maybe in a perfect world, but I just can't see the collaboration needed to put together what would essentially be joint PPVs happening with one World Championship. That's just my feeling on the matter -- I'd eat my words if they pulled it off.

Originally Posted by Observer

The big news of the day is Dixie Carter telling Sports Illustrated that TNA is, as of right now, done with Destination America after the end of the year. The article actually has another passage that says they're done as of February, and we're waiting to hear back as to what it's actually supposed to say. Regardless, it looks like Destination America is doing exactly what Spike did last year, which is give TNA some extra time to find a new network.

Originally Posted by Observer

WWE officials have reportedly reached out to all talents, including those no longer wrestling but still affiliated with the company, and told them not to have any contact with Hulk Hogan due to the racist comments scandal. This comes after Hogan recently went on a media tour in hope of getting back with the company. Hogan has an upcoming one-night appearance in the UK with former WWE talents Lanny Poffo, Jimmy Hart, Outback Jack, Bushwacker Luke and Fred Ottman (Tugboat)

Originally Posted by Observer

There is said to be serious talk within WWE of ending the current storyline with Rusev, Summer Rae, Dolph Ziggler and Lana with Lana being put back with Rusev. The feeling is that both the Rusev and Lana characters ended up weaker when they were apart. It may be a while before the decision is made as Lana can't return to action for four months.

Originally Posted by PWI

The 9/15 episode of WWE Total Divas garnered 804,000 viewers for the episode built around Paige's engagement and Daniel Bryan's health, down from the previous week's 1,143,0000 viewers.

Originally Posted by Observer

The positives WWE has right now is that they are really the only game in town to all but a tiny percentage of a wrestling fan base. But in being the only game in town, the popularity of pro wrestling is declining, even as some media sources in recent weeks have made the laughable statements that it is the most popular of any period in history, being manipulated by irrelevant numbers ...

However, the show can change its predictable pattern. The opening interview segment to set up the show inherently isn’t bad, but it would be better most weeks with half the time. The interviews, with the exception of the elite few, need an overhaul. For one, the verbiage feels overly scripted and when it does, whatever goal or message is lost ...

What’s weird is, and there are always exceptions, but as a general rule, the promos, both believability and effectiveness, of wrestlers in the non-scripted generation blow the current generation out of the water. Having seen this generation’s guys outside the scripted environment, while not all are great, almost all are better unscripted.

There are also issues of context. Throwing out matches, even with big names and being of good quality, with no importance, has its limitations. My turn, your turn booking has created the generation of midcarders. Sting, a midcarder with some natural charisma, became an overnight superstar because he went to a 45 minute draw with Ric Flair on television. But the key was the follow-up. Had Flair then beaten Sting once each of the next two months on television, with a submission in the third match, Sting would have never been the enduring star he was. Similarly, if Undertaker, or Ultimate Warrior lost half the time on television in their first year, they’d have never gotten out of the blocks. Yet, even with Kevin Owens, a guy they were trying to make fast and the most promising talker in developmental, they gave him the big win first, and figured since they gave him that win, they could beat him constantly. So instead of being a top tier superstar, he joins the fun sea of very talented mid-carders, guys that fans know, think of as stars, have good matches, but their ability to move the needle is minimized.

Even though it didn’t work, the creation of records like with Nikki Bella’s streak, put more emphasis on the Divas title than any time in recent memory. The Twin Magic screwjob finish which is fine in certain situations, but somewhat out of context given the type of emphasis on the match, did make sense to build the rematch on the PPV. But the follow-up has to be strong ... If things are presented as if they don’t matter, in almost every case, they won’t. If they don’t matter to the participant, it’s hard for them to matter to the fan. One of the reasons real sports work is the ramifications, the exhilaration of the win, the disappointment of the loss, and even more, the follow-up. The loser creates a story as to either the mistakes he’s made, what he’s learned and how he’ll change things, or, if it is legitimate based on what happens, blames an outside party for derailing his upward mobility. When upward mobility doesn’t exist, and the context of wins and losses don’t matter, you lose a key interest element.

But you also need variety in a three-hour show. That is, very different personas, which WWE somewhat has, and a wide variety of styles, which WWE has less of than many other wrestling companies with far less resources. But all of those are minor points.

The key is making larger-than-life superstars. Whether it’s Bruno Sammartino and Superstar Graham, or Dusty Rhodes, or Hulk Hogan, or Steve Austin and The Rock, or Randy Savage, Ric Flair, Antonio Inoki, Perro Aguayo, Konnan, Mistico, or Ali, Mayweather, Leonard, or today’s Rousey and McGregor, the boom periods are either created by technological changes or larger-than-life superstars. More then boxing or MMA, pro wrestling has more ability to create them, since they can fully script their storylines and control all their outcomes to maximum benefit. But they haven’t, and for whatever reason, have dropped the ball frequently when the seeds of momentum are there because of having pigeon-holed themselves into a mentality that while certain guys are fine on the show, only a certain type can be that larger than life star ...

Yet, ironically, staring them in the face is a 5-foot-9 skinny Irishman and a woman who they are desperate to copy, yet the people in charge have absolutely no idea how she got there. And they don’t allow people to be themselves and tell their real stories enough to take advantage of what they are to have them connect at the same level ...

Wrestling at its best should be something you look forward to every week and when it’s over, can’t wait to see what happens next. It should not be something where you feel like you deserve a medal just for being able to sit through it and maintain interest in the third hour.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4704828)

See again, and I hate harping on this, but you sound like you are parroting the dirt sheet writers. Like as though the WWE decision makers have some fascination with pissing money away. The sports entertainment business is very subjective. There is no metric like their time in a 40 yard dash to tell you "yes, this guy will get over". But why would WWE prevent someone who could be a Steve Austin or a John Cena from reaching those heights? Its in their best interest to have that happen. The problem is fans and critics get too wrapped up in a few talents, and it clouds their judgment.

I remember when I made my highly anticipated return here, and read a post about how great Ryback was. I was shocked. I couldnt believe ANYONE saw Ryback as a potential headliner. But someone did. To me, he's just another guy, he's no better or worse than The Miz or a Dolph Ziggler. Nice hands, but they'll never take you to the promise land. Now, are they caught up in some glass ceiling BS or do they just lack all the tools you need to be elite in this game? In my view, I can see the massive holes in the respective games. But other people will say "oh Triple H this or Stephanie that or Vince is old, blah blah blah". I guess its open to interpretation.

The issue I think people have with the booking is there is a segment of the audience that wants to see the next guy breakthrough, and they want it to happen NOW. The problem is if you look at history, even the all time greats took YEARS to get established. The Rock is probably the greatest pure talent in the history of the game, but it took him 2 years of middling programs before they put the big belt on them, and probably another 4 months before he was booked as a strong main eventer and not a chicken shit heel. Same with HHH, actually longer with him, and Austin as well. You cant push Cesaro, Owens, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, and Ryback as main eventers all at the same time. There's not enough main event spots for that. Its Rollins time, its Reigns' time. In time, some of these other guys will get a shot.

Sandow is just a comedy act. Its like saying why didnt Paul Heyman take it to the next level with the Blue Meanie. He's just a joke guy. Thats all he will ever be. Have you ever seen him work an actual match? He cant hold the crowd for more than 2 minutes. You want him headlining PPVs?

Originally Posted by Innovator (Post 4705326)

<IFRAME height=315 src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B6-75y0JyTM" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

That time the Women's Title changed hands because HBK said so

Originally Posted by Seph (Post 4705121)

Wrestlers should get like 4 months off a year, other than maybe an occasional appearance in a non-match role. Good for the wrestlers obviously, but also gives time to other talent to shine a little bit more. Plus rotating people in and out would make seeing the same people every week a little less ho-hum.

Originally Posted by Smelly Meatball (Post 4705343)

Originally Posted by Wishbone (Post 4704829)

No, all that proves is that WWE was stupid back then as it is now. They moved him because to THEM RAW was the "A" show and Smackdown the "B" show. And because they presented it that way the fans began to believe it too. The brand split failed because WWE failed to actually commit to it.



What Territory did YOU book? At least he has actual experience in the business instead of just being some armchair booker like yourself who thinks he knows more about the wrestling business just because he's watched it from the outside.

Originally Posted by Wishbone (Post 4704839)

That's EXACTLY what we're all saying! It takes time, effort, good stories, etc to build a superstar. They're not just magically there. No one, not you, not me, not Vince McMahon saw Dwayne Johnson as being the "next big thing" when he premiered. To everyone he was thought of just the way you described Ryback, Ziggler, etc. He was just another guy. It took time and effort put into him to build him into "The Rock". No one is saying that Cesaro, Owens, or even Reigns should be pushed to the moon right this second. What we're saying is that they should be given the chance to actually develop the way the Rock did. Actually put them in matches and feuds that matter and let them actually build steam. Don't put them in shit feuds and stories only to get buried over and over again until they're doing love triangle stories that belong on Jerry Springer.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704913)

Wishbone basically did all the schooling that needs to be done here. I can't believe you label people are parroting dirt sheet writers and then don't listen to the guys that actually have experience in the business.

Just to correct you though, Wishbone -- a few people did see money in The Rock when they first saw him. Jim Cornette definitely did, and I believe Jim Ross did too. Cornette, in particular, told Vince McMahon to present The Rock well, because he'll be your World Champion in five years. Then The Rock did it in like two. He actually had a very meteoric rise where he was presented well, so I don't know what CyNick is saying about this journeyman story for him, not that this was anyone's point to retort in the first place.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4704924)

I can intellectually appreciate the desire to have one World Champion. I really can. Emotionally, I just don't feel it working though. It's the same reason a Cruiserweight Title is actually a bad idea. You'll either end up with cruiserweights that are too good for the Cruiserweight Title, rendering it meaningless; or a bunch of guys fighting for the "little man's" championship and never getting out.

I don't think you can call for the creative teams to be autonomous AND have some sort of shared stake to the championship. Maybe in a perfect world, but I just can't see the collaboration needed to put together what would essentially be joint PPVs happening with one World Championship. That's just my feeling on the matter -- I'd eat my words if they pulled it off.

Originally Posted by loopydate (Post 4705000)

I could say the same thing.

Cena only got over because he was given a chance to develop on a show with half a roster. If he had come in as the Prototype and had to compete with Evolution, Steiner, Booker, and the rest of the guys on the Raw roster in addition to the guys he was already up against on SmackDown for air time, he'd have been released within a year.

Originally Posted by Wishbone (Post 4705048)

Ah, thanks for the correction, dude. :y: Still I think it's safe to say that almost no fans thought he'd be a big deal upon his premier, and given said premier I'd say Vince probably didn't think there was much stock in him either at first, which is all the more reason I think brushing off guys like CyNick is just stupid. We really don't know what could be until it's been tried. Although I probably don't need to tell you that.

Originally Posted by XL (Post 4705185)

Just to pick up on that last point: this is the underlying problem with your mentality, and unfortunately it seems to be shared by the guys booking/running WWE; if a guy can't be "The Guy" then he's worthless.

Literally nobody is saying Sandow should be headlining. What they are saying is that Sandow has *some* value that's been wasted. Whether he's headliner material or not there was a period at the start of the year where the crowd were into the guy and WWE pissed it away.

Who's saying that Ziggler/Owens/Rusev/Cesaro can "lead the company to its next book period"? Sure there will be guys that want those individuals to we World Champ by next Monday but for the most part they just want these guys used BETTER.

If Cesaro can't be a 10/10, he might be able to be an &/10 but he's being presented as a 5/10. And they are seemingly reluctant to help him get to 8/10.

For me it'd better to have a bunch of 8/10s and a couple 10/10s (Cena, Lesnar) instead of a whole bunch of 5/10s and your two top guys.

It's great having these tip-top guys but can you hold the attention of your audience for 3 hours based on the 40 mins that they work? The whole show needs to be firing on all cyclinders. Or at least trying.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4705283)

Some guys are overexposed. Sheamus immediately comes to mind. The dude can work, has got an intimidating look and can even talk. I imagine him facing The Rock, doing that pull to the top rope thing he does, coming off with a battering ram and sending The Rock flying across the ring with the ridiculous selling he does and it is marvelous. But he's on TV every week cutting cookie-cutter promos basically playing "grouchy coward who does his moves."

I wonder why they have Seth Rollins do story time in the opening segment and then do a backstage interview later in the show (I've noticed this double-up a lot lately). It is probably to fill time, but I always preferred his backstage segments. I used to think it might have just been the presentation, but Rollins is actually sharper in those interview segments. Could it be because they are less scripted? Here's a guy who used to pluck Jim Cornette for advice. I can't believe he's not thinking of promos for his matches all the time. Occasionally it seems like he gets one in around the times he is rehearsing lines.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4705381)

Three things:

1. I dont claim to know the business better than Vince and co. Thats the gimmick of the dirt sheet writers so they can get rubes to pay $11 a month to hear them bellyache.

2. Everyone saw the potential in DJ. Watch the promos leading up to his debut. The WWE knew what they had. He just debuted with a bad gimmick.

3. Because of the bad gimmick his push was cooled off. He was put in random programs for a while until he finally hit his stride with the heel turn. My point is, just because Rock didnt headline Wrestlemania 13, doesnt mean it prevented him from headlining Wrestlemania after Wrestlemania after that. Similarly a guy like Cesaro or Owens will have the opportunity to get there as well. But will they be like DJ and knock it out of the park or will they fall on their face. Thats up to the talent, there's no hidden agenda against those guys reaching Rocky level success.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4705390)

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Sheamus, but he has to be featured every week because they put the MITB on him. Obviously WWE has some long term plan with him, so gotta let that play out and see where it takes us.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4705409)

1. Yes, you absolutely are. You're just attributing their viewpoints to the "dirt sheets" because it suits you.

2. Yes, they did. Casual fans may not have seen anything special though, since his original babyface appearances were so bad.

3. My point was that The Rock had an incredibly fast rise. He was the youngest WWE Champion up until that point in history. He's not really a great example to use when it comes to guys "struggling" for years. Fuck, use Bradshaw.

Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4705410)

I don't think I agree with this. I mean, I get your point -- building him would seem wise -- but they tend to fuck up Money in the Bank Winners. It might have been cooler to have Sheamus win the briefcase then disappear. Everyone would know he held it, but the next time you see him is when he's cashing in. Maybe it'll get a reaction that way?

Originally Posted by Dark One (Post 4705400)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_P4fKTJtc5g?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cool stuff.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4705388)

But Sandow WAS used to his complete potential. He's a funny guy, who pretty much blows in the ring. So they put him with Miz, got months and months out of a storyline, did the blow off, and then that was it. They even managed to find Sandow yet another comedy angle to work, and it was one of those things that was funny one time, but not something you are going to get long term benefit from.

People dont seem to get that the spots on TV and Network Specials are VERY limited. Just being a steady feature on the Network Specials is a big deal. You have most months 7 matches per show. At least one will be a Divas match, one will likely be a tag. So you're left with about 12-15 spots. So where do you want them to go with guys? Whats wrong with where Cesaro is right now? He just worked with Kevin Owens, who is now in an IC title fight. Who's spot should he have?

The way WWE books right now is you have your top guys (basically Cena and Rollins right now), you have some part timers who come in now and then, but primarily for Mania (Lesnar, Taker, Trips, Rock, Sting, Jericho, etc), and then you have a glut of guys who get monthly programs and are on TV every week (Reigns, Ambrose, Wyatt, Ryback, Cesaro, Owens, Sheamus, Orton, etc). And then you have a few jobberish guys who are just on RAW to get beat up but are known characters.

I just dont get where people think some of these guys should be right this moment, unless you think they should with Rollins and Cena.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4705416)

I mean you could do that, but you going to tell Sheamus he's going to make less money because you want to keep him off TV?

Rollins was the last MITB winner, and he was used pretty effectively.

They had their share of bad MITB winners, but a lot of that was when they had the stupid brand split, and watered everything down. Thankfully nobody in power is suggesting another brand split.

Originally Posted by Damian Rey (Post 4705420)

Except Kevin Owens' debut match saw him cleanly and convincingly defeat the top face in the industry. And therein lies the issues. They give the guy a rub of a lifetime, then bury him in consecutive losses, and now he's going after a different title in an afterthought match.

I don't care ho long Vince has booking. That's not in any logical way a productive approach to trying to create new talent.

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4705415)

I only snipe at people who claim they know how to book better than the guy who turned a carny business into a nearly multi billion dollar empire.

People on here are complaining about guys like Kevin Owens, who have been on TV for 6 months. This would be like complaining that Rock didnt work Mania v Taker and instead was facing The Sultan. Thats my point. Which is a good one if I dont say so myself.

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan (Post 4701361)

Sometimes people are really good at something and then "lose it".

Vince is still a marketing genius and he's good at keeping the hype machine going. But booking-wise... I mean... come on. No one over the age of 10 who hasn't already been drawn in to just love pro wrestling regardless is tuning in for the compelling television that's being written.