Paid Members Green Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 Well allegedly the voting was working perfectly for the Kane/Henry match. I think in the case of Dolph vs Kofi they wanted the Vickie stip to happen, and now have an excuse to use it on PPV at MITB, but the fans wanted to see a good wrestling encounter between them. Something with a less likely case of a bullshit DQ finish. So they chose 2-3 falls and, well, WWE just didn't want to change the bullshit DQ finish they had planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I don't know a great deal about shareholders at all but wouldn't they also have their shareholders to answer to when releasing a press statement like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Green Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 They might have already re-assured them that it's a work. I'm not quite sure how that would work either way mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 I clearly didn't 'continue to ignore' them. Â Â Yes you did. You ignored facts and tried to claim Lesnar was a bigger star because "he had better technique", you then brought up examples of things Lesnar had done in fucking kayfabe as to why he was a bigger star, and then your completely wrong argument went out in a blaze of glory trying to attribute current UFC figures to his WWE popularity in 2003. Â Â Â The fact you're on the other side of the argument in this thread, and telling people to "OPEN YOUR EYES" or "LOOK AT THE TRUTH" is completely laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RepoMan Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I just like that people resort to calling something a 'joke' and name calling like 'freaks' - that hardly gives you a strong argument does it? Â At least I and others are capable of debating and discussing the product without resorting to petty throwing of insults. Â I don't care if people agree with me or not really. Mason Ryan won a public vote and was in a match on Raw because he did so. It happened, and no cover-up by WWE or Meltzer or anyone else can change history. Â The same people would probably be bitching if Ryder had been put in a public vote and didn't win. Well guess what, the 'Internet Crowd' doesn't always represent the majority! So even if people are all over Sin Cara on HERE and other websites, it doesn't mean there's not a huge league of Mason Ryan fans around the world that simply don't like to use the Internet and discuss things with people. They just prefer to sit back and enjoy him fuck people up, and good on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 It happened, and no cover-up by WWE or Meltzer or anyone else can change history. Amazing. It's a fucking conpiracy to keep Mason Ryan down! For the record, I thought his look on gladiators was miles better and I'm happy to see a big monster kill stuff.  To respond to Ian, obviously Meltzer didn't turn round and say OH WELL A HEAD WRITER TOLD ME. But he and Bryan did go into detail about how it got fucked. I'd have to go listen to it again to give you full details though. As for protecting Sin Cara, both he and Bryan talk about how he's been shit since he debuted, because let's face it, he's been pretty indefensible thus far  Edit: I should mention I only posted about Meltzer because I knew it'd wind RepoMan up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I clearly didn't 'continue to ignore' them.   Yes you did. You ignored facts and tried to claim Lesnar was a bigger star because "he had better technique", you then brought up examples of things Lesnar had done in fucking kayfabe as to why he was a bigger star, and then your completely wrong argument went out in a blaze of glory trying to attribute current UFC figures to his WWE popularity in 2003.    The fact you're on the other side of the argument in this thread, and telling people to "OPEN YOUR EYES" or "LOOK AT THE TRUTH" is completely laughable.  Exhibit A:  (Carbomb @ Jun 14 2011, 13:41) 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.  Exhibit B:  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.  I don't understand your kayfabe thing you're on about? Do you mean things like me saying he broke the ring with Big Show? That was one of the many things that helped him get over and that was memorable that I was mentioning. It obviously had a factor as the casual fan isn't going to watch that and think nothing of it.  I really can't be bothered to continue with this one as I thought I'd put it to bed by admitting he was the bigger star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Green Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 Mason Ryan got okie-doked by little Dafydd, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dart Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 So even if people are all over Sin Cara on HERE Â I think on here more people dislike Sin Cara than like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I just like that people resort to calling something a 'joke' and name calling like 'freaks' - that hardly gives you a strong argument does it? At least I and others are capable of debating and discussing the product without resorting to petty throwing of insults.  I don't care if people agree with me or not really. Mason Ryan won a public vote and was in a match on Raw because he did so. It happened, and no cover-up by WWE or Meltzer or anyone else can change history.  The same people would probably be bitching if Ryder had been put in a public vote and didn't win. Well guess what, the 'Internet Crowd' doesn't always represent the majority! So even if people are all over Sin Cara on HERE and other websites, it doesn't mean there's not a huge league of Mason Ryan fans around the world that simply don't like to use the Internet and discuss things with people. They just prefer to sit back and enjoy him fuck people up, and good on them.  Again, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with being a big fan of Sin Cara. I've already said I think he's struggling to adapt and isn't connecting with the crowd at the moment well enough at the moment...but I'm sure there is a 'huge league of Mason Ryan fans around the world'.  Zack Ryder's had 'Ryder' chants at Raw shows. He's had crowd signs too. He's developed his character through his own means. I've a feeling he might be more popular than your Mason Ryan despite his 'huge league of fans around the world'.  Come on, this is one of the guys defending your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 by admitting he was the bigger star. Â Eventually. It took getting repeatedly slapped in the face with facts and figures before you got to that point. Â Â Do you not see the irony?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 Had he stayed on, Brock would probably have been the bigger star. It's a moot point though. He wouldnt have. Read Brock's book for the reason he left. Vince never saw Lesnar as the next big superstar. In 2002 he may have, but in early 2004, Lesnar wasnt as loved as he used to be. He saw him as a Kurt Angle type wrestler, feuding with The Rock one week and Bob Holly the next. As far as WWE was concerned, he'd gone as far as he could. Its one of the reasons why he took a fit and fucked off. Lesnar went as far as he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Had he stayed on, Brock would probably have been the bigger star. It's a moot point though. He wouldnt have. Read Brock's book for the reason he left. Vince never saw Lesnar as the next big superstar. In 2002 he may have, but in early 2004, Lesnar wasnt as loved as he used to be. He saw him as a Kurt Angle type wrestler, feuding with The Rock one week and Bob Holly the next. As far as WWE was concerned, he'd gone as far as he could. Its one of the reasons why he took a fit and fucked off. Lesnar went as far as he could. Â 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. Â You'll have to excuse me for not being able to quote well on here. Â I pondered on the fact of his big push meaning he wouldn't last as long. You've read his book so you're more informed than me. If Vince didn't see him being the bigger star then you're most probably right about Batista being the bigger star if the two would have co-existed in WWE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RepoMan Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Edit: I should mention I only posted about Meltzer because I knew it'd wind RepoMan up. Well that's a little pathetic really. I mean people seem to be getting wound up when I'm discussing Mason, but none of it has been directed at anyone personally to 'wind them up' or anything. I respect Meltzer, but it does annoy me if anyone uses him as gospel, which too many do.  So even if people are all over Sin Cara on HERE  I think on here more people dislike Sin Cara than like him. Yes, very much true, and on many other forums I've read too actually. It goes back to the John Cena treatment though - kids all love him, and I bet their parents were letting them in the WWE chat room to talk about him and whatever. At least the adult population realised posting on forums isn't going to get Mason a push, and made sure he won the vote instead. I admire their efforts.  Zack Ryder's had 'Ryder' chants at Raw shows. He's had crowd signs too. He's developed his character through his own means. I've a feeling he might be more popular than your Mason Ryan despite his 'huge league of fans around the world'. Come on, this is one of the guys defending your point. Does being popular online always translate though? I mean there's a reason ROH is small league in comparison, and why guys like Daniel Bryan aren't getting pushed to the moon like others are. If the Interwebs were in control, Ryder would be WWE Champ and Bryan would be World Heavyweight Champ and the company would die in a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted June 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 24, 2011 Well that's a little pathetic really. You're like the heel Carbomb. It's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.