Thread: Brock Lesnar and RAW appearances
View Single Post
Old 08-01-2014, 12:05 AM   #25
Tom Guycott
Wrestling Marks Rejoice!
 
Tom Guycott's Avatar
 
Posts: 10,166
Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyMess View Post
Brock's appearances have been like a throwback to the 80's and early 90's when Hulk Hogan was the man, but you'd only see him a few times a year so it was a big deal when he showed up.

I'm fine with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan View Post
No. Being on "every Raw the 5-6 weeks leading up to Summer Slam" is. There's no point. The match was sold as soon as it was announced. All that would serve to do is start to water him down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg View Post
It almost begs the question, why does ANYONE need to be on Raw every single week? Che whole idea of not saturating Lesnar seems to be working in his favor. How many less people would hate Cena if he was on every other week instead of every week, etc

Late night phone posting probably terrible thoughts
Not just less people hating Cena, but less people getting injured AND more people getting some kind of build with all that spare TV time. I am also a fan of how Lesnar's deal is structured, and as with RVD and Jericho, I wish MORE guys had that kind of freedom. It's better for everyone, really.

Like right now, The Usos are a pretty hot team (in terms of how WWE treats its tag scene, anyhow) and they get "rewarded" with more TV time... but is it truly neccessary to have them on RAW and Smackdown week after week? It's like WWE is afraid that once someone gets over, fans will forget who they are if they're off TV at any point, then they overexpose them. Well, that and the logic of seeming to want to give the fans "what they want". They seem to believe that if they keep anyone with merch off TV for a week the kids will stop buying their shit and the adults will ask for refunds.

I made an argument before about how CM Punk was booked weak while he was "the longest reigning champ of the modern era" because he was the damn WWE Champion and jobbing damn near every week. If his exact situation would have been 20-30 years ago, he wouldn't even be on TV outside of a canned promo or a squash match of a main event. Him not doing anything would have made him look like a better champ than constantly counting lights. In that same timeframe, Lesnar had... what, 3 actual matches? Who looked like a bigger threat (and I don't mean physically, so can the "vanilla midged" nonsense)? Who had mystique? Who looked like a bigger deal? It wasn't the guy who was supposed to be carrying the company, and say what you will, it wasn't really his fault.

Hell, if CM Punk came back to the next RAW for just one day, I would argue iit would be a bigger deal than the entirety of his title reign. The place would go apeshit not only because "absense makes the heart grow fonder" fodder, but because just seeing him would be a big deal. You see him twice a week? Bravo Foxtrot Delta. You see him twice a year? WHOA, SHIT JUST GOT REAL SON!

And this is how Brock is being presented. He's not around all the time, but people know who he is, and when he shows, then you apply Jim Ross' mantra of business and how it is going to pick up.
Tom Guycott is offline   Reply With Quote