Paid Members garynysmon Posted November 2, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) I don't really believe the ratings or PPVs would have been much different if Bryan was replaced with Kofi or Kane. Â In many ways, the WWE would be quite happy with that though. Somehow, they've managed to project the WWE as the star attraction, with the actual wrestlers on the show being a side to it. Look at the adverts during RAW etc for the UK Tours. It's all 'WWE Live' where you can see such stars as..... Back in the day the house shows were being sold on the headliners of the day being advertised months before the match would eventually appear on PPV (if at all). Â The show is too polished for my liking these days. My favourite year to this day is 1997, it was the polar opposite of now really. Edited November 2, 2013 by garynysmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakashi Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I don't really believe the ratings or PPVs would have been much different if Bryan was replaced with Kofi or Kane. Â In many ways, the WWE would be quite happy with that though. Somehow, they've managed to project the WWE as the star attraction, with the actual wrestlers on the show being a side to it. Look at the adverts during RAW etc for the UK Tours. It's all 'WWE Live' where you can see such stars as..... Back in the day the house shows were being sold on the headliners of the day being advertised months before the match would eventually appear on PPV (if at all). Â The show is too polished for my liking these days. My favourite year to this day is 1997, it was the polar opposite of now really. Â Yep you're totally right. I'd say Cena is the only regular that can and does make a difference. It's definitely WWE now and not hogan, Austin etc. Â And 97 is maybe my favourite too. Bret hart is my favourite wrestler ever and he was amazing in 97. If only they'd look at the Bret/Austin feud. That's an amazing example of how to have an old star make a new star and both come out better than when it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 2, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) You could also argue that had it not been for that 97-2000 period where both companies blew through every storyline and created a boom period which had a few million fans jump on board the fad that was WCW and WWF, then the business would still be able to create moments like the Bret and Austin stuff or the nWo storyline. The boom period came out with one company standing tall and a load of long term fans leaving and never coming back. Sort of like what happened in the mid 80s. When a boom period comes, a lot of the previous loyal fans end up leaving and when the boom ends the business suffers for it. Its never going to go back to how it was because the period that is was made sure of it. The boom period was built on a heel owner vs WWF champion angle, a bloke who dives off high places and a renegade group. All three are looked at as clich Edited November 2, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Punk and Bryan have never translated to money but then again WWE has never pushed either guy to the top and protected and presented them like top guys. Â True. It's not like one of them had the longest reign with the WWE Championship of the last 15 or so years and is in the top 10 list of longest reigning champions of all time in WWE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakashi Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) I think he was more saying that even though Punk was champion, he still played second fiddle to Cena who often headlined PPVs and had the main bulk of TV storylines. Punk,although long term champ, was still never the guy. Â Oh and Ian I do think they can still do it. They did it with Trips and Big Dave in 2005. Granted that was a long time ago but it was still many years after the attitude era and it worked fabulously. Â I think they just get cold feet when something doesn't work instantly. I truly hate Fin Martin but he's dead on with his start stop booking rants he always goes on. Edited November 2, 2013 by Yakashi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Punk and Bryan have never translated to money but then again WWE has never pushed either guy to the top and protected and presented them like top guys. Â True. It's not like one of them had the longest reign with the WWE Championship of the last 15 or so years and is in the top 10 list of longest reigning champions of all time in WWE. Â What difference does that make? The title's just a prop. Cena's the only full time 'top guy'. Put it this way, did you ever believe that Punk had a chance of pinning the Rock or the Undertaker this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 2, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) What difference does that make? The title's just a prop. Cena's the only full time 'top guy'. Put it this way, did you ever believe that Punk had a chance of pinning the Rock or the Undertaker this year? I wouldn't have believed Cena would have had a chance against Undertaker either. I totally believed Punk had a chance against the Rock, though. I thought the 400-odd day title streak vs the WrestleMania streak was something worthy of changing plans for. I thought Punk should have beat Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam as well. I was pretty stunned he didn't. Â Punk is well established as a top guy. He has been for a good year now. He's not my personal taste, but he's been booked 50 times better than Randy Orton was in 2004 or in the last year. People forget how rotten Randy Orton was booked. He got his legs chopped off in 2004 at his height. Yet he made it as a draw. Some people are never going to be the top name. If you're on twitter slagging off religion or slagging off fans at ringside, you aren't likely to be pushed as hard as a bigger, better looking bloke who is quite charismatic in real life like Orton. Edited November 2, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Punk and Bryan have never translated to money but then again WWE has never pushed either guy to the top and protected and presented them like top guys. Â True. It's not like one of them had the longest reign with the WWE Championship of the last 15 or so years and is in the top 10 list of longest reigning champions of all time in WWE. Â What difference does that make? The title's just a prop. Cena's the only full time 'top guy'. Put it this way, did you ever believe that Punk had a chance of pinning the Rock or the Undertaker this year? Â They presented CM Punk as THE top guy for about a year. They even had him as the guy Cena couldn't beat for a while. I wouldn't have believed anyone had a chance of pinning The Undertaker at WrestleMania, and never will again. The Rock vs John Cena rematch was planned for a year as well and yet at one point I did still believe they'd have CM Punk beat The Rock, yes. Edited November 2, 2013 by FUM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 They presented CM Punk as THE top guy for about a year. Â The guy who had to rely on others to bail him out of getting his arse handed to him? The year where Cena topped most PPV's he was healthy for? Â Punk has more credibility now than he did before no doubt but he's more of a Jericho than 'top guy' in my eyes. I'll change my mind when he tops a Mania card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Punk is well established as a top guy. He has been for a good year now. He's not my personal taste, but he's been booked 50 times better than Randy Orton was in 2004 or in the last year. People forget how rotten Randy Orton was booked. He got his legs chopped off in 2004 at his height. Yet he made it as a draw. Some people are never going to be the top name. If you're on twitter slagging off religion or slagging off fans at ringside, you aren't likely to be pushed as hard as a bigger, better looking bloke who is quite charismatic in real life like Orton. Â I agree on Orton and you could argue that they chopped his arms off too in 09, but he's never been a draw has he? At least that's what I've heard Meltz say in the past. Maybe not as a face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 2, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) What is your criteria for drawing, though? Orton's a worldwide name, who carried Smackdowns house show business and it took them 3 years to turn him heel because he was to valuable on the blue side. Kids loved him as a face. And it showed when Christian got more cheers than him, when Orton turned super aggressive, he can get a bunch of smart arses back on side. He is a great performer to a lot of different fans. He is someone who walks into radio studios to promote PPVs and people look at him as if he's a huge star. He's got a natural charisma about him. He's everything you want in a wrestler. He's a good looking bloke, who has a streak of arrogance mixed with a sense of humour, who fans believe can win a fight. And women dont find him to bad either. What makes a star is all about upside. He's got more upside than almost everyone in wrestling. He may be very boring at times, but he's a star. With the tools he had, he was always going to overcome bad booking. That is when you know someone is a star. When they overcome horrible booking and fans look past your limitations. Batista was similar in a way. Batista had some stinkers, both in the ring and on the mic. But people liked him. Â Punk, I'd say if he came across as more likable and took far better care of his appearance and didn't do stupid shit like go on twitter and bash religion (which is pretty big among the average yank, especially the wrestling audience) I think he'd have came out of his push much better. Even if you are playing second fiddle, you would think if he was over to a significant level people would have been screaming for him to be above Cena. But he wasn't. I think he found his level. And he's done tremendously with it. The things someone like Cena is on top to do just wouldnt suit Punk. America wants a strong jawed, jacked up Superman. They dont want the Human Torch or Man Bat. Â Bryan on the other hand has been taken apart after getting over, so they didnt even give him a chance. Nobody could have survived they way the took his character apart. I personally dont think he'd have got anywhere near Cenas level. Or Ortons for that matter. But he never even got a chance. If I was Bryan I'd have cut one of my balls off to get the push Punk got. He got taken apart since July. Shame. I keep hearing "he'll get his heat back, he'll get back on track", but I just look at a dead character. Who the fuck would believe in him now? They wouldn't even reinvest in big jacked up Ryback. Bryan has no chance. Edited November 2, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 My criteria for a draw is somebody who can consistently make a difference to PPV or house show numbers. Orton has never moved the needle as far as I'm aware. In fact he was doing shitty numbers as smackdown world champ and it took the Henry push to make a turnaround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 2, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Who was Henry feuding with when those numbers went up? I takes two to draw, whoever you are. Its why Steve Austin never wanted to work with Jeff Jarrett. Its why Hulk Hogan didn't want to work with Rick Rude. If you build a heel and have him go against a face the people believe in, then the program benefits from it. Henry was a excellent heel, but if it was Christian or Alberto Del Rio he crushed and then subsequently feuded with, then nobody was taking him half as serious as an attraction. Henry raised television ratings during his feud with Orton, but he wasn't the one posted all over the Smackdown house shows. Â From 2009-2013, he was WWE's second biggest draw, if you take into account everything from PPV and house shows. I think mookieghana drew up a graph which showed Orton in the highly effective draw bracket over the last half decade. Edited November 2, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cutting Edge Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Cody Rhodes has had 5 tag partners 4 of which were champions, pretty crazy when you think he's not really a tag wrestler  Hardcore Holly © Ted Dibiase © Drew McIntyre © Damian Sandow Goldust © Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) They presented CM Punk as THE top guy for about a year. Â The guy who had to rely on others to bail him out of getting his arse handed to him? The year where Cena topped most PPV's he was healthy for? Â Punk has more credibility now than he did before no doubt but he's more of a Jericho than 'top guy' in my eyes. I'll change my mind when he tops a Mania card. Â No-one has said he is the top guy but to say he wasn't presented as one is just plain nonsense. He continually beat the biggest superstar in the business and was presented as the guy the biggest superstar couldn't beat. Edited November 2, 2013 by FUM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts