Steenalized

I won't deny there are probably lots of fans who followed that path. It's unique in its form, but I'm not sure it's entirely different than a similar journey fans have been on for decades. When you go back and read the newspaper reports and the occasional expose of wrestling, back to the turn of the 20th century, you'll see there's always been "insiders." Fans got smart quickly and, with money on the line with side bets and the like, figuring out the politics and the booking was paramount. As long as wrestlers have had things to hide, there have been fans trying to pry the truth loose. Bear in mind that the World Series itself was rigged in 1918. Boxing and wrestling have long histories of being rigged and clearly gambling could sway the finals of a team sport at the time. "Insiders" and big money rigging certain matches, even every match, doesn't mean fans watching Londos had much in common with wrestling fans of today, fandom aside.

He was also like Brock without the menace and a lot less capable of putting on good matches. They pushed him hard though, if he stuck around I imagine that they would keep hammering that peg in.

I don't imagine they'd want Stroud's incessant bleating. Shoemaker gives off more of a "hey look, I'm a wrestling writer and I'm cool" vibe.

Their MO seems to be that unless you're a big/muscular guy, they want you to prove you're something special on the indies. That can take a good long while.

Regarding the Cena push before WM XX, I do distinctly remember that Cena was on the posters and the box art for the Royal Rumble that year. Not HBK/HHH who had the other main event, or Benoit who won it, or even Brock who was crushing Bob Holly. Of course, they still put R-Truth on those prominently today, so it's not exactly foolproof.

Poor Parv and DiBiase, they took a beating in this one.

Batista if he sticks around is the obvious answer. Orton too, even if he doesn't shape up personality-wise the WWE has shown that they're pretty damn willing to forgive him and try to make it work. Rey could get a bigger push because of the merchandise potential, but wasn't it always Vince who was uninterested in pushing him? I can't imagine him wanting to elevate Rey more than he ever did. Hardy's a good bet but his behavior is even worse than Orton. If he sticks around I think he goes up top. I'd put Kennedy up there, the WWE seemed high on him (until two guys they preferred more stepped on that), and he was getting over big.

"MouseRat presents Jake and Dave Crist, the Irish Airborne, Ohio is for Killers" only adds two words, so any time now I hope.

I could see him getting more, given the way Dave constantly refers to him as a great worker and a star.

They still get billed as Irish Airborne at AAW shows, though they also mention Oi4K so it's one big mouthful.

Sheamus' forearms spot annoys the hell out of me, though he admittedly has gotten pretty good at not setting it up the same way every time. The one that drives me insane is Orton's draping DDT spot that he works into every match, sometimes more than once.

Actually be born in Samoa.

Vince must love his facial aesthetics. I do think Reigns carries himself like a star (but so does Ryback, so that doesn't mean a ton). he's good looking (although I've heard more comments about Ambrose from my mom, girlfriend, and sister), and he's big (though less so than Cena and the usual WWE stereotype). Plus he's Samoan, which Vince does love for whatever reason. I don't think Reigns is an A+ in any of those categories but he has the right combination. It still seems odd to peg him so early on as the future ace of the company and to start building around that for the better part of a year already.

Much, much bigger pops when he comes out.

Most of the women

I'm going to do the same thing and start in 1979 (one episode in 78, I guess) thanks to this thread. Five matches in 48 minutes on the first ep seems like such a paradigm shift after watching Raw moments before.

Dave did the same thing with Punk, talked about how much he wasn't drawing, but would then talk about how shows drew disappointing numbers without him and that sort of thing. I never understood it. Dave's really bad about comparing the top guy of the secondary tour to the top guy of the primary tour. It's not exactly a ceteris paribus comparison between Cena and Bryan/Punk when one guy gets to main event a house show in say, Toronto, and the other gets Buffalo or Erie. He declared Bryan a poor draw before he ever had a chance, though his recent comments go back on that.

So Bryan is a draw, but not a good one, but still better than anyone not named John Cena?