Ricky Jackson Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 In a way it's like saying Andre the Giant in the late 70s and early 80s was counterproductive because he only wrestled a few times a year in the WWF and never lost. Having a true special attraction like Lesnar in this day and age is a great thing. And when he is beaten clean by Roman Reigns, which I assume will happen in 2016, it will be important. I really don't see how he's hurting the rest of the roster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Yeah, Brock has always been put in programs that is so separated from the everyday WWE storylines. It would be very difficult for me to blame him for the lack of stars and for the poor booking involved overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 In a way it's like saying Andre the Giant in the late 70s and early 80s was counterproductive because he only wrestled a few times a year in the WWF and never lost. Having a true special attraction like Lesnar in this day and age is a great thing. And when he is beaten clean by Roman Reigns, which I assume will happen in 2016, it will be important. I really don't see how he's hurting the rest of the roster I don't really think he's hurting the roster but on the flip side I don't think he's really a big draw for them. Do people who already watch the show get excited when he shows up on Raw? Yes. But I don't think that's really lead to some big spike in Network subs when there is a Lesnar match or a big increase in ticket sales to go see him live. They added him to to that upcoming house show in LA expecting him to sell a bunch of tickets but it hasn't worked out to the point where I just read this morning they are now offering free food and drink deals for people who buy tickets because ticket sales are so bad. Â But that's besides the point that having him just run through everyone in the Rumble and toss out all 29 of the other dudes WOULD make the rest of the roster look like shit. I don't think that would be very interesting, certainly not as interesting as him coming in at something like 22-23 with a ring full of people for him to contend with. The "Brock enters at #1 and tosses everyone out immediately" scenario would also kind of put a big damper on any surprise entrants they might have because you're not going to get to see them doing anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Pretty sure the clean sweep Rumble win by Brock has zero chance of happening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I think Brock starting the rumble and cutting through maybe half the field would be fun as fuck, and give the rumble a whole different feel. You can tell a couple of different stories within that as well- maybe give a lower card guy a bit of shine before eventually getting tossed, which would make him look good, maybe have New Day or another team try to double or triple team him, have a mini clash of the titans type thing with someone who wouldn't be hurt by coming out on the short end of it (someone like a Titus O'Neill or Luke Harper or Mark Henry). And then finally you get a Rusev type who can come out and go toe to toe with him, and the ring can start to fill up a bit. I think that would get over huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I think they were pretty careful how they managed expectations with Andre relative to Brock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Some ideas sound good on paper until you walk through the whole execution of it. Just how many times is it going to be exciting to see Brock german suplex a scrub, hit an F-5 and throw them over the top rope? When the Rumble is going to be filled with mostly Adam Rose, Fandango, Tyler Breeze, R-Truth, Bo Dallas types it's really going to wear thin very quickly when you realize the Rumble is an hour long match. Â I don't disagree, but as a counterpoint what else are guys like that in the Rumble for other to get beaten and tossed by guys like Brock? I don't think he should throw all 29 others out, but the Diesel/Kane "big guy throws out a bunch of jobbers" spot always seems to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 In a way it's like saying Andre the Giant in the late 70s and early 80s was counterproductive because he only wrestled a few times a year in the WWF and never lost. Having a true special attraction like Lesnar in this day and age is a great thing. And when he is beaten clean by Roman Reigns, which I assume will happen in 2016, it will be important. I really don't see how he's hurting the rest of the roster  I don't even know how you could make that comparison, honestly.  1. It was the 1970s and '80s. Are we really comparing that to current WWE? Come on.  2. Andre was never the World Champion (not counting the DiBiase/evil "twin" ref angle).  3. Andre did not beat Hulk Hogan (again, not counting SNME). Brock, however, did the equivalent by breaking the Streak.  Andre was a special attraction who was used like one. Brock, however, held the WWE World Heavyweight Title hostage for months and has not built a single new star. If and when Roman does beat him, it won't matter and won't mean anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I would like it more if Brock came out at like #26 and there were already like six or seven people in the ring. Then he can throw all of them and the new entrants out. That way you can work a different story the first half of the Rumble too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Â Some ideas sound good on paper until you walk through the whole execution of it. Just how many times is it going to be exciting to see Brock german suplex a scrub, hit an F-5 and throw them over the top rope? When the Rumble is going to be filled with mostly Adam Rose, Fandango, Tyler Breeze, R-Truth, Bo Dallas types it's really going to wear thin very quickly when you realize the Rumble is an hour long match. Â I don't disagree, but as a counterpoint what else are guys like that in the Rumble for other to get beaten and tossed by guys like Brock? I don't think he should throw all 29 others out, but the Diesel/Kane "big guy throws out a bunch of jobbers" spot always seems to work. Â I don't have a problem with a whole bunch of scrubs getting tossed by Lesnar. I just don't think him starting at #1 and doing that would be very interesting or compelling. I said in another post I'd just rather see him come in at 22-23. Then maybe you do a situation where everyone in the ring tries to team up on Brock and he eliminates all the scrubs and you get it down to just 2-3 other people in there with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexstar Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 That's it, in true internet fashion, I'm doubling down on this. I want Brock in first, and at least 10 entrants to refuse to even enter out of fear. And then #30 comes in with a chainsaw but Brock snaps it in half before decapitating him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Â Â In a way it's like saying Andre the Giant in the late 70s and early 80s was counterproductive because he only wrestled a few times a year in the WWF and never lost. Having a true special attraction like Lesnar in this day and age is a great thing. And when he is beaten clean by Roman Reigns, which I assume will happen in 2016, it will be important. I really don't see how he's hurting the rest of the roster I don't even know how you could make that comparison, honestly. Â 1. It was the 1970s and '80s. Are we really comparing that to current WWE? Come on. Â 2. Andre was never the World Champion (not counting the DiBiase/evil "twin" ref angle). Â 3. Andre did not beat Hulk Hogan (again, not counting SNME). Brock, however, did the equivalent by breaking the Streak. Â Andre was a special attraction who was used like one. Brock, however, held the WWE World Heavyweight Title hostage for months and has not built a single new star. If and when Roman does beat him, it won't matter and won't mean anything. Why can't we compare 70s-80s wrestling to today? Whatever, it seems to me that you personally just don't like Lesnar. He held the title hostage? Seriously? Was it really a bad thing that the Champ wasn't wrestling on every Raw and PPV? Why not let someone have an aura for a change. Someone whose appearances are rare and thus important when they do appear, instead of being on TV like everyone else. And why can't we count Andre beating Hogan and being the man to end his 4 year reign? Just because of the twin refs? And if Reigns beating Brock won't mean anything, then why does it matter to you if he hasn't "built a single new star"? If putting over a rising talent doesn't make them a star, then what does Brock have to do to make it happen exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Injuries would have slightly changed things of course, and maybe it wouldn't have been for the best, but I remember the thought at that time was that it wouldn't be the worst idea for Brock to retain and keep only showing up sporadically, since the IC and US titles were on Daniel Bryan and John Cena, who could carry the weekly TV. They could build around those two titles with champions who were more over than usual titleholders and in turn get those championship matches over as main event matches. They'd be in a much better place if in 2015 if they could headline with the IC and US titles. That would have boosted the world title even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Injuries would have slightly changed things of course, and maybe it wouldn't have been for the best, but I remember the thought at that time was that it wouldn't be the worst idea for Brock to retain and keep only showing up sporadically, since the IC and US titles were on Daniel Bryan and John Cena, who could carry the weekly TV. They could build around those two titles with champions who were more over than usual titleholders and in turn get those championship matches over as main event matches. They'd be in a much better place if in 2015 if they could headline with the IC and US titles. That would have boosted the world title even more. The World Title never used to be on TV in the WWF, just the IC and Tag Titles in the 80's. Â Only having title matches on the Network would make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Yeah, growing up in the 80s if you didn't go to house shows you'd almost never see the title defended on TV, and when you did it was a big deal. It really was no different than Brock today. If you just follow on TV, it would be a big deal when he shows up. Â Â I don't get why people seem to have weird hangups about Brock, is it because Vince paid him a lot of money for only a few dates? That's not Brock's fault, hell that's what every pro wrestler should aim for. Is it because he's kind of aloof and doesn't live and breathe wrestling like we expect top guys to do? So what. If he wants to go live in the woods and hunt bears with his bare hands between dates, more power to him. Â Brock has an aura no one on the roster currently has, when his music hits you know shit's about to go down. Would it make people feel better if he worked more dates but still wasn't a week to week guy? He clearly is someone who doesn't need to be on for three hours a week to get the point across, and him coming back as the hired gun of the Authority to get revenge on Roman for beating up Vince and HHH seems like the biggest money program they can do for WM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Since the WWE is all in on a Reigns push I wonder if they would get to the point of having Cena essentially play out the Austin heel turn, citing that he NEEDS the title and seeing how difficult it would be to dethrone Reigns and knowing time is running out on him breaking the record. It could be a very interesting story to tell but it really boils down to whether the WWE is confident in Reigns to support the loss of revenue that a Cena heel turn would create. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I think it may be too soon to pull the trigger on something like that, but could be something to try in 2017 if Reigns continues to build momentum and Cena invests more and more time in movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I think it may be too soon to pull the trigger on something like that, but could be something to try in 2017 if Reigns continues to build momentum and Cena invests more and more time in movies. Yeah its definitely not something for them to do in 2016. I was actually thinking further down the road. There is really no reason to take the belt off Reigns for a good long while. They can build to an eventual Reigns/Cena match in 2017 or 2018 if Reigns is the top dog and Cena becomes more of a part time special attraction. However that might make a heel turn less effective so I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I don't care about the title not being defended on TV. But it wasn't defended on multiple PPVs either! And no one became a star in Brock's absence - which isn't his fault, obviously, so don't think I'm blaming Brock for the shitty booking that took place between his appearances. In the '80s, the champion was on every PPV (I know, I know...less PPVs then) and also on SNME. Why can't we compare 70s-80s wrestling to today? Whatever, it seems to me that you personally just don't like Lesnar. He held the title hostage? Seriously? Was it really a bad thing that the Champ wasn't wrestling on every Raw and PPV? Why not let someone have an aura for a change. Someone whose appearances are rare and thus important when they do appear, instead of being on TV like everyone else. And why can't we count Andre beating Hogan and being the man to end his 4 year reign? Just because of the twin refs? And if Reigns beating Brock won't mean anything, then why does it matter to you if he hasn't "built a single new star"? If putting over a rising talent doesn't make them a star, then what does Brock have to do to make it happen exactly? You can absolutely compare different eras, but in ways that are relevant and make sense. The twin refs angle was awesome, but let's not act like people suddenly thought Andre and DiBiase were on Hogan's level because of it. And neither of them ended up winning the vacant title. You made the comparison between Andre and Brock as special attractions, but Andre "beating" Hogan is hardly on the same level as Brock breaking The Streak, and Andre's "reign" is hardly on the same level as Lesnar's. Reigns beating Brock is too little too late now because Roman was already built and made - in Lesnar's absence. Yeah, the WM match between them was cool and all, but that was more Seth Rollins' coming out party. Even if you can argue that going toe-to-toe with "The Beast" helped Reigns' aura, did it really? The fans still shit on him for months afterward, and it's not as if Reigns beat Lesnar in that match anyway.I want to isolate this statement you made: Â Whatever, it seems to me that you personally just don't like Lesnar. Â Because I disagree with his reign, his breaking of The Streak, and the way he was booked, I "personally" don't like him? Come on, that's absurd. He's not my favorite, I will admit - I think he's incredibly overrated - but that being said, I can also recognize his value as a monster and badass. He does bring something unique to the show. Just didn't like the title being held hostage. If that warrants another dramatic and overly theatrical "Whatever" from you, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Personally I don't have a problem with Brock not defending the belt at a B level event like TLC, to use an example. I think it means more to a title if you're holding out the champion for major opponents and not just a challenger of the month kind of scenario. I also do understand why others feel differently. There has to be a reason for people to watch the shows, and the championship is something that people are invested in. If they can't make compelling programs on their own then they obviously do need the belt to give them a crutch in booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Personally I don't have a problem with Brock not defending the belt at a B level event like TLC, to use an example. I think it means more to a title if you're holding out the champion for major opponents and not just a challenger of the month kind of scenario. I also do understand why others feel differently. There has to be a reason for people to watch the shows, and the championship is something that people are invested in. If they can't make compelling programs on their own then they obviously do need the belt to give them a crutch in booking. Â Agreed. It actually could've been a golden opportunity to really make some other people, and maybe they tried, but it was all mostly shitty and generic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 actually, fun fact: hercules had more PPV paydays than hogan or savage in the 80s. the champion wasn't on *every* PPV back then, and they often didn't defend the title when they were. lots of tag matches on the non-mania shows! Â furthermore, i've said for a while that the MSG house shows of that era should be treated as the equivalent to the modern B-level PPVs, so one could look at those more in-depth if you wanted to take this farther. i remember the one with cyndi lauper originally wasn't supposed to have hogan, but they added him vs. valentine at the last minute when business wasn't looking as good as they'd hoped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 actually, fun fact: hercules had more PPV paydays than hogan or savage in the 80s. the champion wasn't on *every* PPV back then, and they often didn't defend the title when they were. lots of tag matches on the non-mania shows! I went from The Wrestling Classic until No Holds Barred and got these number of shows they had matches on: Â Hogan: 11 Savage: 11 Hercules: 10 Â That is out of 11 ppvs. Hogan and Savage wrestled on every single ppv in the 1980s. Hercules missed on The Wrestling Classic, so that is why he is one down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Â Â actually, fun fact: hercules had more PPV paydays than hogan or savage in the 80s. the champion wasn't on *every* PPV back then, and they often didn't defend the title when they were. lots of tag matches on the non-mania shows! I went from The Wrestling Classic until No Holds Barred and got these number of shows they had matches on: Â Hogan: 11 Savage: 11 Hercules: 10 Â That is out of 11 ppvs. Hogan and Savage wrestled on every single ppv in the 1980s. Hercules missed on The Wrestling Classic, so that is why he is one down. Pretty irrelevant data given the difference in ppv schedules then versus now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 so Vince Russo has been trolling this week going on about Kevin Owen's weight and how he doesn't look like a star, too much "like a "wrassler" etc. It hit me that Bray Wyatt seems to be getting a pass for being overweight from people within the industry but Owens is shamed for it. I guess maybe Bray can hide his size through his character and look better but no one singles him out like they do Owens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.