Did anyone else find themselves agreeing with HHH on Monday?

[Coco]

Girls, girls, girls! :-o

 

[shattered dreams]

I start reading your responses, and I'm dumbfounded that any one person can literally think what you're saying actually makes sense. I was even tempted just to pull out the few bits that do make sense, but I got tired of looking for them. It's like you take legitimate arguments I make, and come up with the stupidest responses possible for them. Like your retort about my mentioning Mysterio as someone who has drawn without consistently being in the main-event.

So you found one example of something that isn't even directly comparable for a host of reasons and that means you are a genius and I am an idiot.

Debates like this are what cause people to call you an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot, I think you get so far into a debate you become borderline delusional in your pursuit to win, to the extreme of missing the point. The good thing is you can always step back from a debate and look at it clearly, if you wish. An idiot will always be an idiot.

You are the only one obsessed with winning. I am not the delusional one because I will admit when I was wrong about something or the other person has an existing point. You just claim falsely to always be not wrong and then use an argument that is solid but unrelated repetitively to attempt to win. It impresses a lot of people when you do it but not me. In this case you have failed at almost every shortcoming you accuse me of as well. You just believe yourself to be justified in doing so by this almighty rightness you have up your sleeve. I already showed you directly contradicted yourself in how you were describing Punk yet you want to say I am the one too caught up in this.

I am fine with getting back on track but it is a two way street here and you know it.

The long-term IWC train of thinking is that the WWE only pushes bodybuilders. You adapted that to say the WWE is much more likely to push bodybuilder types, and you also said you don't believe Triple H's explanation that the WWE doesn't push bodybuilders, they push guys who make money. You also disagreed with Triple H's assertion that CM Punk has been given a multitude of chances over the years, correct? Have I gotten your position right?

CM Punk did get a fair amount of opportunities

Seeing as how this was clearly written in my first post in this thread (and repeated since) I have no idea why you keep suggesting I said differently. If you want to throw out accusations about reading ability make sure you hold on to a few for yourself.

But when you look at the long history of wrestling, up to and including present day, the bigger guys are much more likely to be embraced by fans than the smaller guys.

Is this really true? My main point revolves around there being an overemphasis on look over personality/character. WWE seems to think they can get anyone over and they probably have a decent reason to think so. So why do they predominantly go for one type? Why does size matter so much now? Besides Cena and Batista where has size really succeeded lately when building new characters?

This is not favoritism, and this is not an insult to the technique of any smaller guy. This is merely noting the preference of wrestling fans. Even today, the two biggest draws in pro wrestling are Cena and Orton. Pro wrestling fans want guys who look like real-life superheroes, it's something which has been stated by just about every successful wrestler ever. Are there times when "regular" people succeed? Of course. But more often than not, the Hulk Hogans and the Rocks are going to have a better chance of drawing fans than the Mick Foley's and the Rey Mysterios.

I don't really have a problem with the total package guys but what about the host of attempts to push guys without size that do not have the charisma etc. to back it up? When you look at the success of Jeff Hardy, Edge and Kurt Angle why does the guy have to be a bodybuilder to succeed in modern times? Orton doesn't really look like a superhero at all to me. If HHH is right about the fans being all that matters why isn't Rey more consistently in a position that matches his drawing ability?

Again, this is not a reflection of technique, but rather noting fan preference. This is not a chicken or the egg argument, because the "smaller" looking guys have been given many chances with world titles. But never once, in modern wrestling, have any of them reached the elite levels of drawing that guys like Hogan, Andre, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc. have reached. And you can disagree if you wish, but John Cena is an elite draw. Is he Hogan/Rock/Austin caliber? No, but is still elite. If Hogan/Austin/Rock are Jordan/Chamberlain/Bird then John Cena is Tim Duncan.

The bottom line is that by using the traditional methods the WWE made one Tim Duncan in 10 years along with a Dennis Rodman and a Ray Allen. That isn't especially impressive to me. I'm merely speculating that they might still be looking for that all downs elite RB even though the game has evolved past there being as much benefit of doing so.

You can spin his career path whichever way really. You say he was a golden child, others say he got very little, all I am saying is that I think the truth is in between. Him being held back here and there for being disliked by various major league veterans is fairly well documented. Even in WWECW, which I merely want to count more like a midcard title than a world title (which makes the "accomplishment" surrounding it much less meaningful especially considering how they use the titles in Punk's era), the WWE pushed a no personality big body in Lashley over Punk. Lashley didn't have it or the love for the business and it flamed out. How many times does WWE have to make that mistake before they try something else?

 

[Slyfox696]

Seeing as how this was clearly written in my first post in this thread (and repeated since) I have no idea why you keep suggesting I said differently. If you want to throw out accusations about reading ability make sure you hold on to a few for yourself.

My apologies. I suppose my attributing this position to you came from your following words:

Punk didn't get that solid sustained push likely because of his attitude. There is nothing actually wrong with that IMO since WWE is a business etc. However, if that is the case don't bullshit me and say the reason for him not getting certain opportunities is entirely based on the audience reaction because it is quite clear that is hardly the only thing matters.

I guess when I read about things Punk didn't get, including "certain opportunities", I just interpret that to mean you believe Punk didn't get certain opportunities. Perhaps you meant no means yes?

Anyways, as you can now see where I would assume that was your position, and now you're saying it wasn't, there's no real need to continue that discussion, correct?

Is this really true?

Yes, it is. By the same token, I could question whether gravity really exists, but no matter how we question it, our questions aren't going to change the facts.

So why do they predominantly go for one type? Why does size matter so much now?

They don't care. They put guys fans will care about. It's fans that care, not the WWE. And when I say fans that care, I mean fans that lay down their money to watch a show, not fans who cheer at the show.

Why does size matter so much now? Besides Cena and Batista where has size really succeeded lately when building new characters?

Well, I guess we need to first establish general guidelines on what we consider "size".

Are we talking about tall? Weight? Body type? We both agree Cena and Batista are the traditional WWE look, but what about Edge? I wouldn't really say he's the picture of the steroid induced bodybuilder IWC fans typically attribute to the WWE. He was pretty successful and the WWE gave him great pushes. Or how about Jericho and HBK, are you going to tell me the WWE didn't put them in the spotlight? Would you say the Miz is your typical WWE bodybuilder style wrestler, the same guy who main-evented at Wrestlemania and held the WWE title for months beforehand?

The WWE doesn't care what you look like, they care about how much money you make. And the fact is guys that look like Cena, Batista and Orton historically (and currently) make more.

I don't really have a problem with the total package guys but what about the host of attempts to push guys without size that do not have the charisma etc. to back it up?

You mean like the pushes Evan Bourne, Sin Cara, Kofi Kingston, John Morrison, etc. have had?

All guys without size and definitely lacking charisma, all guys who have, at one point, been featured strongly on the show, or in the case of Bourne, allowed to do moves which have been banned for years by other wrestlers.

When you look at the success of Jeff Hardy, Edge and Kurt Angle why does the guy have to be a bodybuilder to succeed in modern times?

They don't, but considering the WWE had all of those guys main-eventing when they were with the company, doesn't that kind of defeat your point?

The bottom line is that by using the traditional methods the WWE made one Tim Duncan in 10 years along with a Dennis Rodman and a Ray Allen. That isn't especially impressive to me. I'm merely speculating that they might still be looking for that all downs elite RB even though the game has evolved past there being as much benefit of doing so.

Well...throughout their history, how many Tim Duncans have they made? Take out Hogan, Austin and Rock, because they are clearly on a different level, and let's take out Andre, simply because you're getting back into a different era of promoting, and how many times has ANY wrestling company created a Jordan and a Bird at the same time?

The real bottom line is that by using the methods the WWE have used, they have a healthy and profitable business that has continued to grow despite the fact the economy they are in has continued to decline. Since 2001, poverty and unemployment have done nothing but rise, and yet so have the WWE's profits. Can you really say the WWE has done poorly, especially considering the near crippling effect Benoit had on the business back in 2007?

How many times does WWE have to make that mistake before they try something else?

Until Punk and other "average looking guys" show they can draw as well as John Cena and Triple H, and until the WWE sees a decline in their business, I'm not really sure you can call it a mistake.

 

[shattered dreams]

Glad we cured up some of the misconceptions. Not sure what is so confusing about CM Punk getting some opportunities and not others but whatever.

Yes, it is. By the same token, I could question whether gravity really exists, but no matter how we question it, our questions aren't going to change the facts.

Historically you are right and I haven't disagreed with that. Presently I am not convinced either of us have enough information to prove our point.

They don't care. They put guys fans will care about. It's fans that care, not the WWE. And when I say fans that care, I mean fans that lay down their money to watch a show, not fans who cheer at the show.

WWE is letting people in for free now? They put guys they think they can get the fans to care about while keeping business steady. Perfectly acceptable way to go about it, just don't pretend the will of the people is stronger than it really is in such a scenario. Important yes but hardly the be all end all. I look at the will of the people as a trump card. If you can really get it you can force the companies hand somewhat. But doing so without the aid of booking is much more rare than some people try and claim. You can deserve an opportunity to succeed without size or already have the people fanatical for you.

Well, I guess we need to first establish general guidelines on what we consider "size".

Are we talking about tall? Weight? Body type? We both agree Cena and Batista are the traditional WWE look, but what about Edge? I wouldn't really say he's the picture of the steroid induced bodybuilder IWC fans typically attribute to the WWE. He was pretty successful and the WWE gave him great pushes. Or how about Jericho and HBK, are you going to tell me the WWE didn't put them in the spotlight? Would you say the Miz is your typical WWE bodybuilder style wrestler, the same guy who main-evented at Wrestlemania and held the WWE title for months beforehand?

I do not really look at Edge as a "size" guy. I think WWE is pretty clearly somewhat transitioning towards including guys with less size, which is one reason why I am not sure why Punk's size is a legit argument against him. I think WWE probably missed the boat on how they used certain smaller talents during the transition between the steroid era and the entertainment era. Is Punk the prime example of that? Probably not, but he is someone you could bring up in the discussion.

They don't, but considering the WWE had all of those guys main-eventing when they were with the company, doesn't that kind of defeat your point?

Not really when my point is basically that it is possible to be a big money star when you are not large. Why do they seem to always keep these guys at least a step away from that top spot once they get there? Why do they not give other potentially similar talents a chance to start working towards a higher spot at a younger age? It certainly has improved some but it was still a large problem until recently that I am not convinced is fully gone.

Well...throughout their history, how many Tim Duncans have they made? Take out Hogan, Austin and Rock, because they are clearly on a different level, and let's take out Andre, simply because you're getting back into a different era of promoting, and how many times has ANY wrestling company created a Jordan and a Bird at the same time?

The sample size is a little troublesome since the eras have a lot of differences that have to be acknowledged on this issue. They are an entertainment company now and it is hard to ride one guy in a similar role for a long time on tv nowadays.

The real bottom line is that by using the methods the WWE have used, they have a healthy and profitable business that has continued to grow despite the fact the economy they are in has continued to decline. Since 2001, poverty and unemployment have done nothing but rise, and yet so have the WWE's profits. Can you really say the WWE has done poorly, especially considering the near crippling effect Benoit had on the business back in 2007?

While that sounds good in theory it glosses over what they could potentially do. Are they performing up to their potential? Not sure but that isn't a question with an easy answer. WWE is a good business but that doesn't mean everything they do is infallible.

Until Punk and other "average looking guys" show they can draw as well as John Cena and Triple H, and until the WWE sees a decline in their business, I'm not really sure you can call it a mistake.

They seem to be feeling the effects of diminished star power in the ratings etc. Stuff like this would seem to be a part of that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Historically you are right and I haven't disagreed with that. Presently I am not convinced either of us have enough information to prove our point.

The fact John Cena is the biggest draw since Austin and Rock left convinces me.

WWE is letting people in for free now?

Been doing it for years for military.

But if you sell out a 100 seat arena and I sell out a 1000 seat arena, does it really matter who gets louder cheers?

Perfectly acceptable way to go about it, just don't pretend the will of the people is stronger than it really is in such a scenario.

Not sure how you can say this, while simultaneously saying the top draws are the top draws. You're telling me John Cena is the top draw, but not necessarily because the fans choose him to be?

Not really when my point is basically that it is possible to be a big money star when you are not large. Why do they seem to always keep these guys at least a step away from that top spot once they get there?

Because they aren't as successful there. Do you think the WWE is so incompetent they INTENTIONALLY push down the card guys who draw big, just because they are smaller in body size?

Is it possible for someone to be a big money star? Sure, size has nothing to do with it. However, it doesn't change the fact those guys simply aren't as well received by fans as the guys like Hogan, Rock and Cena have been.

The sample size is a little troublesome since the eras have a lot of differences that have to be acknowledged on this issue. They are an entertainment company now and it is hard to ride one guy in a similar role for a long time on tv nowadays.

Agreed, there are a lot of differences. But humor me. How many times have you had a Jordan and a Bird at the same time?

The WWE has their Tim Duncan, and traditionally, most wrestling companies have not had a Kobe Bryant to go with their Tim Duncan. So it seems a little unfair to me to criticize the WWE for it.

While that sounds good in theory it glosses over what they could potentially do. Are they performing up to their potential? Not sure but that isn't a question with an easy answer. WWE is a good business but that doesn't mean everything they do is infallible.

Is it as good as they can do? Probably not. Could they do much worse? Absolutely.

If you were the WWE, and you were the undisputed king of pro wrestling in the United States, and maybe the world, would you change an undeniably successful formula, just to dispel a mistaken myth about guys who don't hit the gym as hard?

They seem to be feeling the effects of diminished star power in the ratings etc. Stuff like this would seem to be a part of that.

Ratings are only part of what the company is concerned about, and is probably on the lower end, as long as their TV contract is safe. Is the WWE SATISFIED with the ratings? Probably not. But are they more concerned with other aspects of the business, such as PPV revenue, company profit, live event attendance, etc.? Most likely so.

There's a reason ratings are barely mentioned in their quarterly and annual reports to stockholders.

 

[Miko]

To be fair, nobody ever accused the WWE of trying too hard to get Chris Jericho over.

Well no but. . . . fine

 

[Coco]

Brief response here.

 

[shattered dreams]

Brief response here.

How dare you try and make a point with less than 20 quotes in it.

 

[ChickenWaffles]

The idea that they'd purposely lose out on money because of a prejudice against smaller wrestlers is stupid.

 

[The Champ]

I love the basketball comparison Sly just used. You want to know why Cena is at the top again and consistently stays there? Because he's the best. Why would you put someone else into the top spot if he's not the best? What team bumps their best player to make room for some guy on the bench? That doesn't make any sense. Cena is WWE Champion because Cena is the all around most valuable superstar in the WWE. Period. Stop whining about it all the time.

 

[shattered dreams]

The fact John Cena is the biggest draw since Austin and Rock left convinces me.

Convinces you of what? You place a ton of stock in these self-fulfilling prophecies. How does the existence of John Cena, a guy established 4+ years ago I might add, remotely prove that non-bodybuilders can't draw as much?

Been doing it for years for military.

But if you sell out a 100 seat arena and I sell out a 1000 seat arena, does it really matter who gets louder cheers?

It's like you take legitimate arguments I make, and come up with the stupidest responses possible for them.

Not sure how you can say this, while simultaneously saying the top draws are the top draws. You're telling me John Cena is the top draw, but not necessarily because the fans choose him to be?

Change choose to chose and then maybe we are getting somewhere. Also, if you read the explanation of a sentence after it, instead of just quoting one that suits your purposes and moving on, you would see that I am only dismissing the fans effect in the sense that it is the only thing that dictates a push.

Because they aren't as successful there. Do you think the WWE is so incompetent they INTENTIONALLY push down the card guys who draw big, just because they are smaller in body size?

Yes. They are big on image and I do think this is something that they mistakenly did or at the very least it can be easily shown that smaller guys are less likely to have spots representative of the amount of money they bring to the company.

Is it possible for someone to be a big money star? Sure, size has nothing to do with it. However, it doesn't change the fact those guys simply aren't as well received by fans as the guys like Hogan, Rock and Cena have been.

And none of those guys were ever as hot as Austin was. A fairly normal looking guy when it came down to it. Hogan made more money, sure, but that was also a long time ago. To an extent the spot draws, especially over time. Less opportunity makes all your historical comparisons not especially meaningful IMO.

Agreed, there are a lot of differences. But humor me. How many times have you had a Jordan and a Bird at the same time?

The WWE has their Tim Duncan, and traditionally, most wrestling companies have not had a Kobe Bryant to go with their Tim Duncan. So it seems a little unfair to me to criticize the WWE for it.

I used to believe in this argument but I think it actually is dated. The industry was hot when they had more stars, then they lost them without replenishing the supply and it went into decline. Sure the 80s worked and before that etc. but that doesn't mean it should excuse the present. The amount of material is larger than ever, it seems obvious to me that the more stuff you are trying to sell people on the less the systems of the past are applicable. The attitude era wasn't this anomaly. If apple quit evolving after the ipod would that be a positive?

Is it as good as they can do? Probably not. Could they do much worse? Absolutely.

If you were the WWE, and you were the undisputed king of pro wrestling in the United States, and maybe the world, would you change an undeniably successful formula, just to dispel a mistaken myth about guys who don't hit the gym as hard?

What does any of this have to do with will of the people? Which is kind of my point to begin with. It sounds like you are saying this produces a stable historically successful business model. I am also not sold on how successful it has been recently or the myth that smaller guys can't make big money. All I am really saying is that there isn't any need in present times to hold a guy back just because his look isn't bodybuilder.

Ratings are only part of what the company is concerned about, and is probably on the lower end, as long as their TV contract is safe. Is the WWE SATISFIED with the ratings? Probably not. But are they more concerned with other aspects of the business, such as PPV revenue, company profit, live event attendance, etc.? Most likely so.

There's a reason ratings are barely mentioned in their quarterly and annual reports to stockholders.

Short-term this is true but longer-term these ratings absolutely effect those contracts and directly effect stuff like PPV sales, merch sales etc. WWE has lost two different tv contracts over the last few years. Not especially meaningful shows but probably not something that helps profit. This kind of ties back in with my point about not having enough guys to maintain interest in the amount of material they produce. This isn't a one man job anymore.

 

[justinsayne]

I love the basketball comparison Sly just used. You want to know why Cena is at the top again and consistently stays there? Because he's the best. Why would you put someone else into the top spot if he's not the best?

So that when Cena leaves/retires sometime down the road... or *gasp* gets hurt & is out for awhile, you'll have other superstars ready to step up & fill his spot. The Indianapolis Colts are a perfect example of this, they built their team around one of the best in the game in Peyton Manning, Manning is out for at least half a season, and now the entire franchise is going to suffer because the Colts never thought about grooming someone to fill that spot in case anything should ever happen to Manning & he can't play. WWE can't afford to have this happen, they need to groom talent to be ready for that spot should the day ever come... again.

What team bumps their best player to make room for some guy on the bench?

Just cause he's not champ doesn't mean he's not on the fucking show, there are plenty of other feuds out there for him, plenty of guys right n the verge that he could help get over just by working a program with them. Cena is the biggest thing going in wrestling right now, he doesn't need the WWE title to draw, he just needs to be on the show. Besides now is a pretty down time for wrestling with MLB playoffs about to start and MNF underway, now is the time to give the ball to those guys you're grooming for the future & see what they can do with it. Cena has a huge match that WWE is banking alot of money on at WM, you'd think they'd want to give the guy a little time off, just to recover from some lingering injuries so they don't become something far worse which could lead to him being sidelined for WM (& costing WWE a shit load of cash).

That doesn't make any sense. Cena is WWE Champion because Cena is the all around most valuable superstar in the WWE. Period. Stop whining about it all the time.

I have no problem with Cena as champ, in fact I'd rather he be champ than ADR, since ADR proved to be the single most bland champion I have ever seen. I just don't think Cena needs the WWE title again, Cena at this point is actually bigger than the WWE title. Personally I hope he drops it to Punk at HIAC.

 

[The Champ]

So if Cena gets injured they can't put the title back on Punk or Miz or Del Rio or anyone really and still have it be believable?

Your argument doesn't make sense. You're saying they should put the title on someone else so that they'll have someone else they can put the title on when Cena gets injured. What?

It's not like they don't have any other main event level talent hanging around.

 

[ChickenWaffles]

I don't like Cena but some of this is ridiculous. Why do you guys even care if CM Punk is champion? So when you're watching him you'll get to see him carry a pretty belt to the ring?

 

[Coco]

I love both Cena and Punk. Now everybody shut up.

 

[Slyfox696]

Convinces you of what? You place a ton of stock in these self-fulfilling prophecies. How does the existence of John Cena, a guy established 4+ years ago I might add, remotely prove that non-bodybuilders can't draw as much?

It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cena was drawing before he ever stepped foot in the main-event. In 2004, he brought in over $12 in merchandise sales alone. Business has done very well since he went to the head of the company.

And what proof are you looking for? Do you have ANY proof anybody draws the way Cena does? No, so why do you keep bringing up the possibility of it, when facts don't agree?

It's like you take legitimate arguments I make, and come up with the stupidest responses possible for them.

"WWE is letting people in for free now?" is a legitimate argument? You're nuts. Pretty funny how you just choose to avoid MY legitimate argument. If you draw 100 people to the show, and I draw 1000 people, does it matter who gets more cheers? At the end of the day, the WWE cares about who is drawing, which is the REAL indicator of whether or not fans care.

THAT is a legitimate argument. Making a snarky comment, ironically enough one which makes you look silly, is not a legitimate argument.

Change choose to chose and then maybe we are getting somewhere.

As long as the general point is the same, it doesn't matter what tense you want to put it in, it's still completely wrong.

Guys draw money because the fans want to pay to see him. The WWE pushes guys who make money. If you're not going to make money, you don't get pushed. Why are you struggling with such simple concepts?

Yes. They are big on image and I do think this is something that they mistakenly did or at the very least it can be easily shown that smaller guys are less likely to have spots representative of the amount of money they bring to the company.

I'm not reading another one of your stupid comments. The fact you think the WWE INTENTIONALLY chooses to make their product lose money, just so they can push guys with a certain look up the card and ones without it down says all that needs to be said about how incredibly stupid your position is. Go argue with one of the other mindless idiots on the forum who might actually think you make sense.

Good fucking God, this statement might have been the stupidest I have ever seen from a regular on these forum. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[The Bearded One]

I love both Cena and Punk. Now everybody shut up.

Wait, we can like both? I missed that memo.

 

[shattered dreams]

It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cena was drawing before he ever stepped foot in the main-event. In 2004, he brought in over $12 in merchandise sales alone. Business has done very well since he went to the head of the company.

12 whole dollars!!!!

And what proof are you looking for? Do you have ANY proof anybody draws the way Cena does? No, so why do you keep bringing up the possibility of it, when facts don't agree?

When have I ever said Cena isn't the top draw? All I have said is that no smaller guy has been given near the amount of putting over that Cena got so it isn't a fair comparison. Quite simple and rather obvious. Not sure why you are having so much trouble with it.

"WWE is letting people in for free now?" is a legitimate argument? You're nuts. Pretty funny how you just choose to avoid MY legitimate argument. If you draw 100 people to the show, and I draw 1000 people, does it matter who gets more cheers? At the end of the day, the WWE cares about who is drawing, which is the REAL indicator of whether or not fans care.

It is an extremely legitimate opening sentence when responding to the silly implication that fans that are at a show aren't putting down money to watch a show. If you have so much trouble with snarky comments why did you respond with one. Oh wait it isn't snarky when Sly does it. Double standard much?

How often does someone that draws 10 times more people to a show get less reaction than another? It certainly will not happen regularly. Not sure why you keep trying to say my point is entirely predicted on crowd reaction? It isn't and never has been.

As long as the general point is the same, it doesn't matter what tense you want to put it in, it's still completely wrong.

Hey look he said it again. It must be true.

Guys draw money because the fans want to pay to see him. The WWE pushes guys who make money. If you're not going to make money, you don't get pushed. Why are you struggling with such simple concepts?

The bold part seems to leave quite a bit open to the opinion of those in charge which is where I start asking my questions.

Why is there so much talk about backstage politics throughout the history of wrestling if it is all as simple as you state?

I'm not reading another one of your stupid comments. The fact you think the WWE INTENTIONALLY chooses to make their product lose money, just so they can push guys with a certain look up the card and ones without it down says all that needs to be said about how incredibly stupid your position is. Go argue with one of the other mindless idiots on the forum who might actually think you make sense.

ZOMG CAPS. Seriously this is that crap you always oddly claim I do. Take a point that isn't there that is dumb and emphasize it. I thought that was so ghastly beneath you but I see you have become desperate. I never said this. What I did say is that they have a predilection towards the size guys that I believe has led to decision making that cost them potentially making more. No matter how much you want to argue it is cause-effect, it isn't. What someone makes with a push is a guesstimation at best. They do not intentionally make less because you can't really know your mistake in advance. I am basically likening WWE to US car companies when they got caught with a huge supply of SUVs when they should have been investing in gas efficient cars. They seem content to let the smaller guys sell their merch and rotate in and out of the title scene while the hulks stay there no matter what. Why? Because that's the way it has always been or so it goes and you seem to buy into that. Such arguments usually are not up to my standards. If you care to meet my standards at some point I'd be interested in what you have to say. Note: vague unsubstantiated comments about the American populace won't meet them either.