Topic: Wrestling?

...are you going to trust what VINCE of all people says?

I thought it was a pretty darn good Wrestlemania. Except for a very few things, lately, WWE has done a pretty good job with how they have been handling things. The product has been really good. Even when it SEEMS bad, it usually ends up in the right place eventually.

So, if they really did lose money on WM, then the lowest common denominator part of the audience likes all the things the IWC doesn't or the kinks are still being worked out concerning the Network, which, I can understand.

But, at this point in time, I really don't think that the network is anything but a success, even if it might not be financially, YET. Or, maybe ever (which I sincerely doubt). WWE has always been pretty innovative and I think that nonwrestling entities are even starting to follow that business model. (to some extent)

I mean, the writing is on the wall that a la carte service is the new reality of entertainment. It already is to some degree and until things get streamlined, there's going to be growing pains. There always is.

Excellent points.

It's only been a year after all.

Tatyina wrote:I thought it was a pretty darn good Wrestlemania. Except for a very few things, lately, WWE has done a pretty good job with how they have been handling things. The product has been really good. Even when it SEEMS bad, it usually ends up in the right place eventually.

So, if they really did lose money on WM, then the lowest common denominator part of the audience likes all the things the IWC doesn't or the kinks are still being worked out concerning the Network, which, I can understand.

Do you not remember just how god-awful the build to mania was? The fact that it turned out okay on the day was one thing, but how everything worked out isn't what's going to cause it to make/lose money. Either the IWC did have an effect or the casual fan was thinking along the same lines, which has been happening a whole lot more recently.

I don't believe that Wrestlemania was just a happy accident. The happy accident would have been Reigns being over. I'll just repost what I wrote in another thread.

I think the booking has been more or less fine as well. I am starting to believe that the Roman Reigns push was more like a masterfully played gambit than a series of mistakes that needed to be corrected. Roman got to learn what it was like to be a heel without ever actually BEING a heel. He got to be put in big matches and receive accolades without ever actually having to win anything of consequence (i.e. a title) He even got to put in a pretty decent showing against Lesnar without having to actually BEAT him, which would have been quite awkward.

Nor did Lesnar need to be pinned to lose his title. Lesnar loses no credibility with the fans, has even more babyface heat (despite not being one) and gets to stomp on the guy everyone hates. Then he gets to do it all over again after this Undertaker match 9if he wants to). Meanwhile, Roman Reigns has learned from his experience and has actually built some legitimate face heat from a crowd that hated him with the stuff he's been doing with Bray Wyatt. WWE actually LAMPSHADED smarking and turned it around on the crowd so that they are cheering for the guy they booed even though the heel he is fighting is telling them the same thing they were telling WWE.

I think that's pretty creative booking.

Sorry Tatyina, but I think that is rather unlikely.

As far as I can tell, Roman Reigns is a good looking man with a physique that is suited for wrestling, not too bulky but still big enough to be an imposing figure, and has a likeable impression for children. The move set massively reflects this with the loaded fist, the superman punch, the spear to cross over to football, all this reeks of a children hero wrestling arsenal. If history teaches anything, WWE always wanted a single central figure in their program, as nonsensical and backfiring that can appear in the light of guys like Lex Luger, Diesel and even Brock Lesnar. The attitude era was as always the anomaly in this with Rock and Austin as equals and a bunch of supporting guys that would have been able to carry WWE in weak times like Jericho or Kurt Angle all by themselves.

I think we have a Lex Luger Situation with Roman Reigns. Luger started as a rather convincing heel to test the waters, and he kind of delivered what he promised with Sensational Sherrie at his side. When he turned face, Vince did everything to keep him on track with the Lex Express and the bodyslam against Yokozuna, but it was to no avail. So he was finally dragged kicking and screaming to a point where he had to accept Bret Hart as his Nr. 1 man, and he even then did anything to screw Hart out of the glory with the return of Hogan and finally the Montreal Screw job.
Reigns started out as a heel with the shield and was carried by Ambrose and Rollins when they debuted, but came around to be more accepted. WWE tried to establish him as the Nr. 1 man after he turned face with the big finale against Lesnar, but fans wanted Daniel Bryan, not Roman Reigns.
I think the similarity is pretty clear here. The interesting question is that Luger faded into obscurity after Vince lost hope in him, will he attempt to try again with Reigns?

Fans in 1993 fucking LOVED Lex Luger. They went NUTS for the guy, especially at Summer Slam 1993.

He then went to WCW and was always upper mid card/lower main eventer status his entire run there. with multiple US and Tag Team title reigns and World Title Shots.

So "obscurity" isn't fully accurate.

Also, Rock and Austin being equals in the attitude era isn't fully accurate. Rock was a main eventer in late 98-early-mid 99, then spent the rest of 99 as a midcarder or teaming with Foley. When The Rock finally got a REAL chance as the main star of the company, it was in 2000...the same year Austin spent the majority of sitting at home recovering from neck surgery. Before then, Rock was always second fiddle to Austin, not his equal.

The time of them being equals was late 2000-2002, only about 6 months of which was actually still in the attitude era, and honestly, The Rock was probably the bigger star of the two in 2002, given Austins lack of serious push, as well as his leaving and eventual retirement soon after.


I still think the Ruthless Aggression era was the best time for watching. Like the Attitude Era, everybody had a storyline and a place on the card, but unlike the Attitude Era, in this time period almost EVERYBODY on the card was a good-great worker, and you consistently got some of the best damn matches you'll ever see on TV and PPV almost every single week over that 4 year period. Hell, it was the era where old ass Hulk Hogan was involved in the absolute best matches of his entire career.


Basically the 80's had the best supporting staff/heels in WWE history for main champ Hulk Hogan to work with, the Attitude Era had the best main event roster, (even if most of the mid and lower card was shit) and the Ruthless Aggression Era (which, in my view, that great era ended when ECW came back and Kurt Angle left) had the best total roster and best matches of any WWE period. Modern Era has had....um....the most tweets of any era. And New Generation had.....the most 90s influence?

There's really no past historical precedent for Reigns, not at the main event level. Luger may have failed at being the second coming of Hogan, but he was never booed to the extend Reigns was on his ascent to main event babyface.

The only real comparison that could possibly be made would be pre-nWo WCW Hogan, and even that was more of a star losing his shine rather than a failure to launch in the face of a hostile crowd. 

Or that of John Cena, where he was cheered for a while when he wasn't the focus of the show but the moment he became the guy at the expense of wrestlers like Christian and Jericho, that pretty much got him boos that have lasted for ten years.

The Lex Express and the bodyslam on the carrier itself were absolutely good ideas, but still he did not get the gold. His popularity run was indeed in 1993, but he stayed in WWF until 1995, more than enough time to at least give him a chance with the belt. Luger also had the advantage of being an accomplished wrestler who already knew how to work a crowd. And he was a bodybuilder, another major advantage in the eyes of Vince. Even biases about bodybuilders aside, he would have been a good choice for the champion in this time.

So from that perspective, I am not sure if Reigns has more on his side than Luger had.

And speaking of the Cena thing, Cornette is probably spot on here. But the lifeboat Cena probably can´t carry all of the passengers of WWE for much longer after his last hurrah with the big belt. The man is 38 years old, both Edge and Christian had to retire around that age already and most guys around the age of 42-43 give up for good or work part time like Goldust or Jericho. Or even worse, in the afternoon he gets attacked by a pitbull on the street and has to walk on a crutch or nearly chockes on a vitamin drink and gets a brain damage, ending his career in the ring for good. I know as good as everybody else that Cena will not give up(sigh) until he is forcefully dragged out of the ring and thrown out of the building, but can WWE really put a man who is in his mid fourties or even fifties out there, selling shrill T-Shirts and bandanas with a balding head and a wrinkled face? Ok, they already did that with Hogan, but Hogan was one of a kind and came back from a long break.

Cornette didn't actually say it, just when I was typing it I kept reading it in his voice. Go ahead, try it. Totally fits