Next number 1 babyface

[Mr. Seven]

Davey Richards is the worst fucking thing ever.

[Daaaaaad!]

I disagree. I think the worst fucking thing ever is adding shit all to a thread except a wasteful negative post that is worth nothing.

 

Davey Richards is quite crap, mind. He seems to try and compensate for his lack of character by kicking a lot of people and shouting. He's not fantastic as a heel, but as a face he's just Godawful.

[Loki]

Davey Richards is the worst fucking thing ever.

 

That's all I need to hear, Sev.

 

Based on nothing at all really but a nostalgia for Ahmed Johnson's lost potential in the 90s, I'd like to see Ezekiel Jackson get a monster face push. So there it is.

[Mr. Seven]

I'm really not feeling Zeke's slow, body-slam heavy offence. I just want Skip Sheffield and his mad eyes to come back and just lariat the fuck out of everyone.

[PepperPlunge]

Yeah, Zeke is surely capable of much more than just body slams?

 

I'm willing to concede defeat that Batista was the bigger star but if we're talking who would be the bigger star if they were both big at the same time, maybe it would have been Lesnar. Saying that though, by nature of the massive push he got in a short space of time, he may not have had the longevity that Batista did. I think it helped that Lesnar had gone so they had space for another big bastard to headline. No knocks on the story that built him though. On the Mania buy rates, I think there's a lot of factors like the build to most of the matches compared to 21 and that McMahon/Hogan took precedence on build. Booker and Triple H was a rubbish build as was Brock/Angle. Was the Eric Angle swap angle before Mania or after? If I remember, they over exposed the two together in match scenarios.

 

I don't think Batista would have drawn as much as Lesnar had he gone to UFC but then again Lesnar was an amateur wrestler and younger at the time whereas Batista fancied giving it a go.

 

The bottom line is Batista was a bigger star in the WWE though.

[PepperPlunge]

Actually, we've compared one event. Has Batista headlined a Summerslam? Cena vs. Batista wasn't headline was it? I was going to say how about comparing Summerslam 02's buy rate to the one with Cena vs. Batista?

 

WWE was in dark times after Lesnar left, especially on SmackDown!

[jimufctna24]

Actually, we've compared one event. Has Batista headlined a Summerslam? Cena vs. Batista wasn't headline was it? I was going to say how about comparing Summerslam 02's buy rate to the one with Cena vs. Batista?

 

WWE was in dark times after Lesnar left, especially on SmackDown!

There is a chance Summerslam 2002 outdrew all Summerslam's with Batista on it. However Brock didnt draw that of his own back,The Rock who he was facing after a tremendous build was the main draw. Also the return of HBK came into play to a lesser extent.

 

The point is more that Brock didnt draw of his own back on events like Vengeance 2003 and No Mercy 2003 where he was the featured and estiblished attraction. If WWE had gotten Lennox Lewis or Tyson to have a shoot bout with Brock like they wanted, that crossover would have made him a much bigger star than he was, no doubt but as that didnt happen from a drawing standpoint in WWE Brock was an underacheiver in some ways.

 

I can imingine there is not much between the events Batista headlined like No Mercy 2005 and the ones Brock did but as Batista did it much longer and headlined a bigger Wrestlemania, the nod has to be given to Batista like you have admitted.

[PepperPlunge]

Yeah, that's true.

[the_mole]

I don't think it out drew the one with Hogan Vs HBK on it anyway but maybe the rest.

[King Pitcos]

WWE was in dark times after Lesnar left, especially on SmackDown!

And while he was there.

[jimufctna24]

WWE was in dark times after Lesnar left, especially on SmackDown!

And while he was there.

To be fair the ratings didnt plummet with Brock on top in 2003 as much as some believe, it was generally in the 3.5-3.8 IIRC it did go down a tiny bit when he left with Eddie Gurrero and JBL on top.

 

Unless you are talking about how much you enjoyed the product, I though Smackdown was a good show in 2003.

[Carbomb]

From my perspective, it's pretty simple: Batista was a bigger star than Lesnar - he had more time to develop and build a connection with the fans.

 

If Lesnar had stuck around instead of leaving after a couple of years, it's obvious he would've been the bigger star. Possibly (though this is definitely debatable) more so than Cena.

 

I'm not getting the slagging off that Lesnar's getting for his ability, though - Lesnar was fucking good. If you like Goldberg or Kevin Nash for the reasons most commonly stated, then there's no reason you can deny this - the guy had the biggest monster aura since Goldberg or even Kane on his debut, routinely came out and destroyed people impressively, and, unlike Goldberg, was consummate in the ring, had good matches whether they were squashes or competitive, and could even sell against guys who were a threat to him. He's one of the few people in WWE history who looked plausible enough to end Taker's streak.

[Loki]

Absolutely. I fucking loved Lesnar, and he was given the mother and father of all pushes, but he never got to the point of drawing mega-numbers as later headliners like Cena and Batista have done. He left our great sport too early to be remembered as much more than an extraordinary flash in the pan. In retrospect he could have done 2 or 3 more years and STILL got into UFC at about the same time he did.

[PepperPlunge]

From my perspective, it's pretty simple: Batista was a bigger star than Lesnar - he had more time to develop and build a connection with the fans.

 

If Lesnar had stuck around instead of leaving after a couple of years, it's obvious he would've been the bigger star. Possibly (though this is definitely debatable) more so than Cena.

 

I'm not getting the slagging off that Lesnar's getting for his ability, though - Lesnar was fucking good. If you like Goldberg or Kevin Nash for the reasons most commonly stated, then there's no reason you can deny this - the guy had the biggest monster aura since Goldberg or even Kane on his debut, routinely came out and destroyed people impressively, and, unlike Goldberg, was consummate in the ring, had good matches whether they were squashes or competitive, and could even sell against guys who were a threat to him. He's one of the few people in WWE history who looked plausible enough to end Taker's streak.

 

I suppose that's it. It's me being defensive over people playing down Brock. I don't really pay attention to buy rates much but comparing the two Wrestlemanias, Batista was the bigger star and more people will remember Batista. Had he stayed on, Brock would probably have been the bigger star. It's a moot point though.

[PowerButchi]

I don't think Brock would have been the bigger star in WWE if he stayed on to be honest. I don't think he was ever able to cut a promo, or connect with the fans like Batista did. I don't think many at all have connected like Batista over the past decade. It's rare you see a shitload of the crowd crying because someone's vacating the title.