FlexAmerican Dynamite
WZCW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION
Oh we will,but I'll save that for another thread.
You should have more faith in us man.
WWE RAW LD 2/4/2012 - Hate; To Rise Above, or to Embrace?
- Thread starter FunKay the Inevitable
- Start date
You should have more faith in us man.
JJYanks121
The Mouth of the South Shore
You'd know plenty about trying to make relevant points and failing.
However, your expertise on the subject didn't help. Let me try again. The year is 1999 and the WWE is devoid of major stars. They had some up and comers though. Would it have helped if former champs like Kevin Nash, Ultimate Warrior, and Sid Vicious came in and beat Steve Austin and the Rock? Would those guys winning have gotten Austin and Rock more over and more popular?
Awesome_Miz
Proud LSN mentee
I do but I've started to come a custom to my user name.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
They never will.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
It is 2012 and the WWE has a major star.
What happened in that Austin-Hart match again? I also don't see how Austin isn't a major star in 1999. Comparing Sid Vicious then to the Rock now? Really?
JJYanks121
The Mouth of the South Shore
If I'm not mistaken, Sid got some big pops in the 90s. He was a much bigger star than Rock in 1997. Two years later if he came back (as in around Rock's first title reign), he would have been an over star. Fans would have cheered him. If he beats Rock there, it's probably not good for Rock. What made that generation work was that the guys who became huge (Rock, Austin, HHH, Angle to some extent, Jericho) were portrayed as important and the top guys. If you keep bringing back old guys and telling the fans that they are more important than your current roster, why should anyone take anybody on the current roster seriously?
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
This really doesn't make much sense. Wins and losses are far less important that you would like us to believe. It's pro wrestling, it's scripted, 99% of the crowd (kids included) understand this.
As for bringing in former stars - calm down, seriously. If the guys of this generation were drawing the way Vince wants them to, he wouldn't need the part-time guys. They're not. Outside of Cena, Orton and Punk, none of them are draws (not including HHH and Undertaker). None of them are considered mega stars, because they're just not that good (Miz, Dolph, Del Rio, Sheamus, the list goes on and on).
Vince and company are looking to make big money, and not many guys on the current roster offer that. I doubt they saw that changing. They know a hell of a lot more than we do, and if they feel this is the best way to make a lot of money, and we get huge stars in return, fuck it. I'm not going to complain about that.
I couldn't possibly care less about who deserves this, or who deserves that. Draw, and you'll be on top. If not, expect someone who can draw to take your spot.
JJYanks121
The Mouth of the South Shore
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how can you know if someone draws until you give them a chance to draw? It's easy to say "so and so doesn't draw" when they're an upper midcarder and you have no tangible proof. It's also easy to say a former superstar draws better because they've been given that opportunity when a newer guy may not have.
You're not wrong in that this will make the company money.......short term. I'm sure Rocky made them a ton of money and now Brock will do the same. Once they're gone though, then what? All I'm saying is that you have to find guys that will be draws. At some point, you just won't have these short term fixes anymore and you'll be left with what's left. In 1998 you had that and the young guys were given a chance and a few became stars. In 2005, same thing. This is a time where it'll need to happen at some point otherwise you are in a lot of trouble.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Why are you bringing them back in the first place if that is your goal and these guys aren't more important than your current roster?
Here is what you are not understanding if you want to look at this from a business perspective. The Rock brought back some of the audience WWE had lost and maybe some new viewers as well. No one is going to stop watching because Cena loses. However, if Rock loses, most of this new audience is lost. Wrestlers don't get over by wins or losses. They get over by the process that leads to that result. If you want to try and interest additional people in the next generation then you have to get them to watch first and foremost. A mortal John Cena appeals to a broader audience than Super Cena.
Personal anecdote: the Rock got me interested in paying some attention going into Wrestlemania. If Cena beat him I probably would have sworn off WWE for at least a year and considered never watching a Cena match again. Instead I watched Wrestlemania and that renewed my interest in Taker and his streak. I tuned in to Raw just to see the fallout of Cena-Rock. The Rock's opening promo showed me the awesome crowd which basically got DBD over with me. I watched most of the show including the awesome conclusion which made me interested in possibly watching some the next week until I saw the three stooges are guest hosting. Cena hasn't been this interesting to me in years. I don't think I am the only person that experienced something like this.
Well, what about those that do like Cena? As far as I can tell Cena supporters are all over his jock more than ever and even many fence riders actually feel sorry for him. Why throw away all these positives just to give a guy a win he doesn't even need?