(BP) Posted July 12, 2014 Author Report Posted July 12, 2014 If Lashley is put on top, it might've worked out as long as he's on Raw and kept away from Hayes.
Fantastic Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 Hmm, Bobby Lashley had absolutely nothing the way of personality during his WWE run. I'm not sure if anything has changed now as I rarely watch TNA, but the guy was essentially Batista without charisma (hey! That rhymes). No, they needed somebody with a big personality, a "larger than life" presence as Vince is fond of saying.
Steenalized Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 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.
Matt D Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 Too bad Ron H20 Waterman was a year or two off of this. Cliff Compton?
goc Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 I'm not sure Vince ever even noticed Cliff Compton worked for him.
Bierschwale Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 If we're thinking about guys who could have been "the Batista" while the actual Batista was closer to Cena than in real life, how about the future Muhammed Hassan in Mark Magnus? He was about the same size as Cena, and we really can't say how good he might have been with that absolute trainwreck gimmick, and he was only 23 when he debuted (meaning that he was OVW Champ at 21), and 24 when he retired, so who knows how he would have progressed as a worker? Was he placed under that gimmick because it was thought that he could somehow make it work, or just because they (meaning VINCE, VINCE, VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON) really wanted that character on TV and needed a warm body?
Loss Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 How do Bobby Lashley and Batista get repackaged in a way where they can sell massive amounts of merchandise to children? I don't think it's impossible, I'm just curious everyone's thoughts on that. This is why I think Rey is the best bet, as he was also a significant draw in terms of bringing in an entire new demographic that basically stopped watching when he stopped getting pushed as a top guy.
Al Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 How do Bobby Lashley and Batista get repackaged in a way where they can sell massive amounts of merchandise to children? I don't think it's impossible, I'm just curious everyone's thoughts on that. This is why I think Rey is the best bet, as he was also a significant draw in terms of bringing in an entire new demographic that basically stopped watching when he stopped getting pushed as a top guy. Were they marketing to children for Cena's entire run or did that direction only start after the Benoit incident? Honest question.
Fantastic Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 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. That's also where they went wrong. Trying to fill the Brock gap with Lashley was terrible on WWE's part, namely because Lashley as you say, was incapable of bringing Brock's characteristics to the table. Lesnar is an anomaly in so many ways. He's a once-in-a-lifetime athlete, with the credentials to back it up (Lashley's pre and post WWE accomplishments pale in comparison to Brock's) who can put on magnificent matches, move like a guy half his size, sell with the best of them, work with virtually anybody from Big Show to Zach Gowen, and still cut a good promo. He set the bar so high that nobody could really fill his shoes upon his departure from WWE.
Loss Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 How do Bobby Lashley and Batista get repackaged in a way where they can sell massive amounts of merchandise to children? I don't think it's impossible, I'm just curious everyone's thoughts on that. This is why I think Rey is the best bet, as he was also a significant draw in terms of bringing in an entire new demographic that basically stopped watching when he stopped getting pushed as a top guy. Were they marketing to children for Cena's entire run or did that direction only start after the Benoit incident? Honest question. It was before that for sure. It was part of the reason for the initial backlash, which started in 2005.
Eduardo Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 How good of a draw was Lesnar really in 2002-2004?
(BP) Posted July 12, 2014 Author Report Posted July 12, 2014 I don't know about PPV or house show figures, but Lesnar kept up Smackdowns ratings while Raw's nosedived with HHH on top.
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I don't know about PPV or house show figures, but Lesnar kept up Smackdowns ratings while Raw's nosedived with HHH on top.I'd credit the team not one guy. Who watches a wrestling show based solely on who's on top? It's a TV show, the supporting cast and quality of the entire show are just as important, if not more important ,as who the top guy is
KrisZ Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Muhammad Hassan is a guy that never gets talked about but could've been a major star if he had stayed around.
Matt D Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I don't know about PPV or house show figures, but Lesnar kept up Smackdowns ratings while Raw's nosedived with HHH on top.I'd credit the team not one guy. Who watches a wrestling show based solely on who's on top? It's a TV show, the supporting cast and quality of the entire show are just as important, if not more important ,as who the top guy is Johnny Sorrow seyz: There are no draws. Now tackle "Workrate dogmatism." I can't get that to sink in yet.
(BP) Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Posted July 13, 2014 You're right Johnny, there's more to the ratings than whoever's on top, but wouldn't that apply to attendance and ppv figures too? Is merchandise the only way to really measure someone's individual contribution? RE: Hassan I don't see him sticking around even if he didn't get canned over the terrorist angle. I think he always planned on getting into acting. That gimmick could have worked if done in a thoughtful, socially conscious way, but it's WWE so nah.
Eduardo Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Re: TV draws. There was a period on Smackdown where a huge amount of viewers would tune in just to see Eddy Guerrero, and immediately tune out after his segments were done. Sometimes, people just care about one guy.
goc Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Weren't there a lot of house show reports of large numbers of people leaving after the Rey/Eddie matches at the point where their feud was essentially a telenovela on Smackdown?
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I don't know about PPV or house show figures, but Lesnar kept up Smackdowns ratings while Raw's nosedived with HHH on top.I'd credit the team not one guy. Who watches a wrestling show based solely on who's on top? It's a TV show, the supporting cast and quality of the entire show are just as important, if not more important ,as who the top guy is Johnny Sorrow seyz: There are no draws. Now tackle "Workrate dogmatism." I can't get that to sink in yet. edit: Never mind, it was true,, but mean. Answer the question. Has there ever been a wrestling show you watched or didn't watch based only on who he top guy was?
Matt D Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I will graciously not see whatever you edited out because I was asleep during that period. Anyway, we don't count. It's the casuals. But yeah, I made sure to watch the SD after Eddy won the belt when I hadn't been able to see it for a while, because I wanted to see what kind of celebration he had.
Steenalized Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I don't know about PPV or house show figures, but Lesnar kept up Smackdowns ratings while Raw's nosedived with HHH on top.I'd credit the team not one guy. Who watches a wrestling show based solely on who's on top? It's a TV show, the supporting cast and quality of the entire show are just as important, if not more important ,as who the top guy is Johnny Sorrow seyz: There are no draws. Now tackle "Workrate dogmatism." I can't get that to sink in yet. edit: Never mind, it was true,, but mean. Answer the question. Has there ever been a wrestling show you watched or didn't watch based only on who he top guy was? Summerslam 2004 when I knew Orton was going over Benoit. My Orton hate started early
BigBadMick Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 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. That's also where they went wrong. Trying to fill the Brock gap with Lashley was terrible on WWE's part, namely because Lashley as you say, was incapable of bringing Brock's characteristics to the table. Lesnar is an anomaly in so many ways. He's a once-in-a-lifetime athlete, with the credentials to back it up (Lashley's pre and post WWE accomplishments pale in comparison to Brock's) who can put on magnificent matches, move like a guy half his size, sell with the best of them, work with virtually anybody from Big Show to Zach Gowen, and still cut a good promo. He set the bar so high that nobody could really fill his shoes upon his departure from WWE. This point always confused me.... I agree that Lesnar was a fine promo, especially in the Guerrero build up. How did he become so terrible in 2012 and DESPERATELY need Heyman?
(BP) Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Posted July 13, 2014 He did get punched in the head a lot between runs.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now