Would Batista still be booed if he had been a surprise?

[Tom Guycott]

Seems more like a reaction to the "Part-timer Syndrome" than him actually winning.

For example, you have guys down the card who are there year round and spinning their wheels, then you get guys like Batista and Lesnar (or like with The Rock before) coming back to INSTANTLY be a big deal in the title scene. It's one thing to come back and be a feature attraction in and of themselves, like Undertaker... but to have someone almost literally walk in off the street and be in a positon to be "the man" again?

You can argue all you want about Bats having star power and such shit, but the point I'm trying to make is that it seems they'd rather bring back someone who has been GONE FOR 4 YEARS (as they're so quick to point out) to put asses in seats instead of making someone new to give a shit about. And I don't mean in a quick, instant impact way that rarely works, but with slow build and instilled familiarity.

He comes back after a long absence, gets a title shot that literally could have been given to one of 29 other people, and then after 'Mania, he'll dissappear.

To answer your question, they likely would have popped huge with him being a surprise, but then, to actually win it... might have still gotten him boo'd. For this very same reason.

[Shadrick]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott Seems more like a reaction to the "Part-timer Syndrome" than him actually winning. For example, you have guys down the card who are there year round and spinning their wheels, then you get guys like Batista and Lesnar (or like with The Rock before) coming back to INSTANTLY be a big deal in the title scene. It's one thing to come back and be a feature attraction in and of themselves, like Undertaker... but to have someone almost literally walk in off the street and be in a positon to be "the man" again? You can argue all you want about Bats having star power and such shit, but the point I'm trying to make is that it seems they'd rather bring back someone who has been GONE FOR 4 YEARS (as they're so quick to point out) to put asses in seats instead of making someone new to give a shit about. And I don't mean in a quick, instant impact way that rarely works, but with slow build and instilled familiarity. He comes back after a long absence, gets a title shot that literally could have been given to one of 29 other people, and then after 'Mania, he'll dissappear. To answer your question, they likely would have popped huge with him being a surprise, but then, to actually win it... might have still gotten him boo'd. For this very same reason.

Bats signed a two year deal.

[BigCrippyZ]

Excluding Hogan because of his age and abilities at this point, if your name is not Austin or Rock, you should never just be able to come in and headline WM, get a World title shot or win the Rumble to headline WM.

There is even an exception to this rule and/or this is even more true when you have a phenomenon like Daniel Bryan who is as over as he is and getting the reactions he has been getting.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Shadrick Bats signed a two year deal.

A) not exactly common knowledge. Unless you're IWC and care enough to read up.

B) more importantly, that doesn't matter. Lesnar isn't exactly per-appearance, but has the whole "limited dates per year".

Let's look at this "by experience" as a semi-casual fan collective. The Rock came back. Twice. RVD came back. Lesnar came back. They all went and fucked off in a couple months of said "returns" for whatever the reason. Why should it be believed this is any different? (Again, 'Taker is an exception to this. Age and health has caught up to the man, he can do what he goddamn pleases. By all rights, he earned the right to sit at home, ride bikes, and poke Michelle McCool on a regular basis, and he still does his annual return thing. Respect that shit.

And I didn't want to play the "Daniel Bryan" card, but it is pretty obvious. He's there all the time and #overasfuck (insert the Twitter mock-up here), but thathas been a long running no brainer WWE collectively ignores. It's like what would have happened if Vince had ignored how "Austin 3:16" caught on and spread, and instead decided to ban the signs and not sell shirts because he's supposed to be a heel... and fuck a push.

However, they literally could have had anyone go over, as I pointed out before, and they chose a guy who, one month ago, wasn't anywhere NEAR collective thoughts. And even with his two year deal, who's to say he isn't going to be picky about the exposure during that time? You really think WWE has *plans* for him beyond a short-term feud with ADR and a 'Mania build/appearance?

Might be proven wrong, but the pattern has already been established to the collective: "He'll go fuck off after WrestleMania like everyone else, (insert name here) should have won the Rumble! Fuck that guy!!!"