saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 29, 2013 18:41:58 GMT -5
Why didn't I hear these complaints when the 'old guys' were Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair at WM? Or HBK and Taker?
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 18:44:29 GMT -5
That's the point, though. Just because Goldberg was popular 14-15 years ago doesn't mean that he should be handed everything on a silver platter in 2013. Same goes for any big name star - past success and relevance doesn't mean they're more important than modern day superstars - but that's how Vince seems to look at it. Vince is only going to look at what makes him money. If Goldberg can make money at the biggest, most expensive shows of the year, then he's going to be pushed. It's insanity for him not to be. It's not about what he (or anyone else) did in the past, it's about the money they can make in the present. If that means capitalizing off nostalgia, then so be it. Yeah, and my point is that those fans - as well as the mainstream audience - are more important in WWE's eyes, because the current fans who always spend money on the product, always seem to be around. WWE can only make more money by going to those other fans, not the ones already here. Rock, Brock, and Goldberg are on a different level altogether than JBL and Steiner. They're huge stars and on a level that few people in any generation ever get to. Why would you not want to use them. WWE is always in the business of making more money. |
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Jan 29, 2013 18:46:09 GMT -5
*clears throat* Screw You. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Jan 29, 2013 18:47:29 GMT -5
Why didn't I hear these complaints when the 'old guys' were Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair at WM? Or HBK and Taker? It's not about "old" guys, it's about old guys who don't work close to a full schedule. Shawn and Flair both worked full schedules back then. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 18:48:33 GMT -5
I would agree with your point if all of those guys were presented to be on the same level as Rock or Brock, but they aren't. They are all presented as threats until Rock or Brock comes back and then they get nothing. It would be different if Rock/Brock were coming back and using their star power to put over someone else. Look at what Bret Hart did for Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13. That kind of stuff doesn't happen these days because the returning attraction never really puts anyone over. So let me get this straight: you know you have Rock and Brock coming back for several pay-per-views. You want to use them to their full potential. And you're going to accomplish that by jobbing them out to guys nowhere on their level? That's not a great idea, unless they happened to be leaving. Someone paying money to see Rock and Brock isn't going to want to see them lose. And since they're the audience you're catering to, they're the ones you want to please. It's not like Chris Jericho, who isn't a big enough deal to be used that way but is credible enough to put over younger guys. Wins over Rock and Brock should be rare, and mean something. They should win most of their matches, or at least be heavily protected in defeat, because you want the audience they attract to come back when they do. |
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Jan 29, 2013 18:50:24 GMT -5
Why didn't I hear these complaints when the 'old guys' were Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair at WM? Or HBK and Taker? I remember plenty of people complaining that "the rub" of retiring Flair should be going to a star of the future like Mr. Kennedy instead of HBK. I don't recall who the young workrate darling of the time was who should've gotten to challenge the streak instead of Michaels, but I certainly remember complaining around here before 'Mania 26 as well. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 18:53:36 GMT -5
And I'm sure none of them will have anything to do with them bulls***ting their roster for the sole fact that they had no reason to invest in them, take risks with them, or put any effort into them whatsoever so long as as they could fall back on Rock and Lesnar. Regardless of the new rules of reading off scripts and having a handicapped in-ring style, it'll always be retroactively that they "just couldn't hack it" and they just weren't on the level of the Attitude Era guys. Since we currently have guys in WWE who are over in spite of that, if that's what it's going to take to derail somebody, then yeah... that probably is the reason. Someone on here (and I can't remember who) once said that the great ones will find a way to make it work. I agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 18:54:08 GMT -5
Vince is only going to look at what makes him money. If Goldberg can make money at the biggest, most expensive shows of the year, then he's going to be pushed. It's insanity for him not to be. It's not about what he (or anyone else) did in the past, it's about the money they can make in the present. If that means capitalizing off nostalgia, then so be it. And that's fine, but it doesn't mean people have to like it, either. Your earlier posts seem to insinuate that people have to like it because it doesn't take away from anything. *Edit* That's actually not fair of me to say of your posts. But there isn't a reason why everybody has to enjoy seeing the roster get treated like crap when the special attractions are around.* Yeah, and my point is that those fans - as well as the mainstream audience - are more important in WWE's eyes, because the current fans who always spend money on the product, always seem to be around. WWE can only make more money by going to those other fans, not the ones already here. Alright, my bad. I misunderstood what you were saying. That's on me. Rock, Brock, and Goldberg are on a different level altogether than JBL and Steiner. They're huge stars and on a level that few people in any generation ever get to. Why would you not want to use them. WWE is always in the business of making more money. Again, I do understand that they were huge stars, I just don't necessarily think that, because they were relevant in the past everybody has to take a backseat. There's no reason why the WWE can't have The Rock and Lesnar around while making everybody else at least seem as important, but they don't. I've no problem with special attractions and their presence, I just hate how everybody else has to take a backseat when it's time for the special attraction to shine. Like I said earlier, it's the B group of the roster and the A group of, right now, literally two people. There shouldn't be a reason why they can't prop those guys up and not inadvertently bury their entire roster at the same time. Say you have a casual fan tuning in to a show that has 5 separate promos for The Rock, including constant reminders that he's going to be on. Now, during that same show, the casual fan isn't going to see the modern day superstars as being as important because the WWE has all but told them that they don't matter worth a s*** when compared to yesteryear's big stars. Nobody's going to give a Sheamus or a Ryback the time of day when they make The Rock and Brock Lesnar seem like they're the reason for wrestling's existence. It's not the fault of the wrestlers, it's the way that the rest of the roster is presented when compared to yesterday's big names. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 19:07:35 GMT -5
The whole point is that they're screwing themselves long term for popping a buyrate right now. I'm saying the guys you say are really getting pushed aren't going to get where they could without getting treated like the biggest stars when it really matters. Ryback is the prime example. He got over huge, and got a string of title matches which he had to lose in screwy fashion over and over, because The Rock was coming in for his big title match at the Rumble. His push was directly affected by Rock's presence. Now, he still gets his reaction (it's not as strong as it was), and he might get to win the second tier fake world title as a consolation prize, and/or be in the 5th most important match on the card at Mania. If you don't see how this is a bad thing, you're blinded by your fandom for the stars that are taking those spots. Ryback is an awful example. First, he only got the push he did because Cena went down and he was over, not because of Rock's title match. Second, if a guy can't sustain his momentum after taking some very protected losses against the top heel of the company, then he wasn't worth investing a lot into in the first place. Third, if his reactions have gone down, it could very well be because of a multitude of reasons, one of them being that he's no longer in a main event angle anymore. Nothing that happened to Ryback automatically links up to The Rock, especially when if WWE were that concerned about him, they could have protected him by not putting him there. Fourth, he's still over and a featured part of the product. His depush has more to do with the fact that Cena/Rock/Brock are more important to the product than he is at the moment, but WWE is still putting him out there. This idea that you need to main event to be important is laughable. If I actually saw hard proof that WWE's using Rock and Brock hurt them in any significant way, then I'd see how they'd be a problem. But neither you nor anyone else have supplied any of that. The best you've been able to come up with is a shaky example in Ryback that could be explained several different ways. As for your last sentence (  ), I do enjoy seeing Rock in big spots at WrestleMania. He's the reason I'll be ordering the pay-per-view. But my stance here has more to do with the fact that you've not been able to prove in any significant way that he's (or 'Taker, Brock, etc.) have been hurting the product at all, than any actual blindness. And instead of presenting that, all you've done is worry about stuff that may or may not happen in the future. I get what your point is, but I'm not seeing anything to actually back it up. It's a prediction. Of course I can't prove a prediction to be true. I'm giving you my reasons for predicting it. We're both predicting the future here, as you're saying it's not going to cause any problems. You haven't proven anything either. We have different perceptions of what's happening, and how it will impact the future. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 19:07:43 GMT -5
And that's fine, but it doesn't mean people have to like it, either. Your earlier posts seem to insinuate that people have to like it because it doesn't take away from anything. I've said the exact opposite, actually: I get that guys like Rock aren't everyone's cup of tea, and they don't like having him there at the expense of their favorites. That's one thing. What I don't like is people saying "special attractions are hurting WWE long-term". There's no actual proof of that. Personally, I don't like Brock Lesnar and I don't look forward to anything he does. But I'm not going to say it's a bad thing he's here, because there's nothing to support that. As someone who, just two years ago, hadn't seen watched anything WWE related for three years and was sucked back in because Rock returned, I don't think this is right. Obviously current guys don't get the promotion that Rock/Brock do, because (as I explained earlier) you want to keep the casuals' attention throughout the show by giving them reminders of the reason they even tuned in, but WWE still puts their guys (Team Hell No, Sheamus, Orton, Ryback, Shield) in important angles and their matches get time and attention put on them. I'm not sure what else WWE is supposed to do. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 19:14:04 GMT -5
It's a prediction. Of course I can't prove a prediction to be true. I'm giving you my reasons for predicting it. We're both predicting the future here, as you're saying it's not going to cause any problems. You haven't proven anything either. We have different perceptions of what's happening, and how it will impact the future. WWE has been pushing guys like Ryback, Sheamus, Bryan, and Del Rio (this year alone) in high-profile spots and they've all gotten over as a result. In addition, they still have John Cena, CM Punk, and Randy Orton. None of these people may be the draws that Rock and Brock are (and very few people ever are), but they've done a fine enough job holding things down on their own. To add to this, 'Monday Night Raw' is consistently one of the highest-rated programs on Monday nights (even during that period where they were seeing ratings in the 2's), and pay-per-view buys have been significantly up in 2012. WWE isn't at suffering as much as you'd like to believe, and this was pointed out out as early as the first page. And besides, WWE has used special attractions to help business in the past and new stars were able to be made regardless. "Hard proof" were the wrong words to use, I'll admit that. But actual evidence that Rock/Brock are hurting the product would be nice, otherwise it's just baseless speculation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 19:41:30 GMT -5
It's a prediction. Of course I can't prove a prediction to be true. I'm giving you my reasons for predicting it. We're both predicting the future here, as you're saying it's not going to cause any problems. You haven't proven anything either. We have different perceptions of what's happening, and how it will impact the future. WWE has been pushing guys like Ryback, Sheamus, Bryan, and Del Rio (this year alone) in high-profile spots and they've all gotten over as a result. In addition, they still have John Cena, CM Punk, and Randy Orton. None of these people may be the draws that Rock and Brock are (and very few people ever are), but they've done a fine enough job holding things down on their own. To add to this, 'Monday Night Raw' is consistently one of the highest-rated programs on Monday nights (even during that period where they were seeing ratings in the 2's), and pay-per-view buys have been significantly up in 2012. WWE isn't at suffering as much as you'd like to believe, and this was pointed out out as early as the first page. And besides, WWE has used special attractions to help business in the past and new stars were able to be made regardless. "Hard proof" were the wrong words to use, I'll admit that. But actual evidence that Rock/Brock are hurting the product would be nice, otherwise it's just baseless speculation. From my viewpoint, not building the top 3 matches of WrestleMania around guys on the current roster does hurt the product. Rumble to Mania is like the WWE's playoffs. In other sports (yes I know but work with me), teams fight all year and the best 8 or so get to the playoffs, and it all culminates in the championship series/game. In WWE, 4 of the spots are already taken up by people from the past. That's half the opportunities to do something big when the lights are on brightest. To me that fundamentally hurts the product. It really hurts the upper midcard, who are allegedly primed to be the next main eventers, ready to take that next step. And they might, in that window from May to October before people start getting into Mania season. But once it gets that time of year, those guys don't mean squat anymore. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 20:13:05 GMT -5
From my viewpoint, not building the top 3 matches of WrestleMania around guys on the current roster does hurt the product. Rumble to Mania is like the WWE's playoffs. In other sports (yes I know but work with me), teams fight all year and the best 8 or so get to the playoffs, and it all culminates in the championship series/game. In WWE, 4 of the spots are already taken up by people from the past. That's half the opportunities to do something big when the lights are on brightest. To me that fundamentally hurts the product. It really hurts the upper midcard, who are allegedly primed to be the next main eventers, ready to take that next step. And they might, in that window from May to October before people start getting into Mania season. But once it gets that time of year, those guys don't mean squat anymore. If we're going to make a comparison to sports, then I'll just point this out: in professional sports, the best teams make it to the playoffs. Since wrestling is pre-determined, the "best" wrestlers are the most profitable. The most profitable are the ones who get the best spots at WrestleMania, so that show - the culmination of everything WWE has worked for in the past year, and a $55-$65 show - can sell as much as possible. Not selling your shows properly will do real damage to your product. WM is not the place to showcase new guys. It's the place for your best people. You have the rest of the year for the younger generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 29, 2013 20:21:33 GMT -5
And I'm sure none of them will have anything to do with them bulls***ting their roster for the sole fact that they had no reason to invest in them, take risks with them, or put any effort into them whatsoever so long as as they could fall back on Rock and Lesnar. Regardless of the new rules of reading off scripts and having a handicapped in-ring style, it'll always be retroactively that they "just couldn't hack it" and they just weren't on the level of the Attitude Era guys. Since we currently have guys in WWE who are over in spite of that, if that's what it's going to take to derail somebody, then yeah... that probably is the reason. Someone on here (and I can't remember who) once said that the great ones will find a way to make it work. I agree with that. With all due respect, that's a crock of crap. Even for our "savior," the Rock, if he had to make Rocky Maivia work, he wouldn't be one of our great ones. If the Attitude Era all stars were not just handicapped in what they could say, but were outright told what to say, they wouldn't be all stars, now would they? Even Austin himself acknowledged this - he would not have gotten anywhere near where he did in the WWE if he meandered in the midcard as the Ringmaster; yet we're supposed to expect the WWE roster today to break through when - on the rare occasion they're allowed to talk - they're given scripts. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 20:50:11 GMT -5
With all due respect, that's a crock of crap. Even for our "savior," the Rock, if he had to make Rocky Maivia work, he wouldn't be one of our great ones. It really isn't. Plenty of people get dumb stuff to work with and do it. For example, when you get right down it, Kane's gimmick is incredibly stupid and he's had horrible storylines. And yet he's made it all work. That's no excuse. So what about the guys who have gotten over using scripts? I assume that guys like Sheamus, Orton, ADR, Kane, Bryan, Ryback are all cutting promos using the scripts that the same writers give everyone else and they've done rather well for themselves. Having license to say whatever you wanted wasn't a guaranteed way to get someone over back in the Attitude Era, and having a script isn't going to cripple your ability to do well either. |
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jan 29, 2013 20:53:58 GMT -5
IMO, there can never be too much nostalgia. Hell, I wish retro RAW's and possibly even a "Nitro" night on Raw were bi-annual events.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Jan 29, 2013 20:57:49 GMT -5
If all the old stars from the "New Generation" kept re-appearing there would have been no "Attitude Era".
Flair and HBK worked to get others over. The Rock is not doing that at all.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 21:01:52 GMT -5
If all the old stars from the "New Generation" kept re-appearing there would have been no "Attitude Era". Flair and HBK worked to get others over. The Rock is not doing that at all. And as it turned out, wins over Flair (and HBK, really) ended up meaning nothing because he lost so much. When you're paying Rock as much as you are, that's not what you want out of him. |
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 21:03:39 GMT -5
If all the old stars from the "New Generation" kept re-appearing there would have been no "Attitude Era". Flair and HBK worked to get others over. The Rock is not doing that at all. Exactly. Could you imagine if at the height of his popularity, Stone Cold lost the WWF Championship to a returning Hulk Hogan (I'm bending history here and assuming he never went to WCW, bare with me). The biggest name from that previous era, and you bring him back just 'cause and totally ruin the Attitude Era. Or, if at the height of his popularity, The Rock enters to and ultimately loses in a feud against The Ultimate Warrior or Randy Savage. I understand that you have to warp history there, but I'm going by the biggest stars of the 80's, so that's why I used those guys as examples. The main point is, if you keep trotting out yesterday's biggest names and put them over the current talent, it doesn't help your new guys one bit. An Attitude Era Stone Cold losing to Hulk Hogan does nothing for Stone Cold, it only helps that casual fan so they can go "Hulk Hogan? I remember that guy!", and then all of a sudden Stone Cold isn't a big name anymore because he looked inferior to yesterday's big star. It's stupid and I wish they'd quit it, especially when it comes to CM Punk. CM Punk is this generation's biggest star, and he loses his belt to The Rock in 2013. Lame. |
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 29, 2013 21:31:50 GMT -5
If all the old stars from the "New Generation" kept re-appearing there would have been no "Attitude Era". Flair and HBK worked to get others over. The Rock is not doing that at all. Exactly. Could you imagine if at the height of his popularity, Stone Cold lost the WWF Championship to a returning Hulk Hogan (I'm bending history here and assuming he never went to WCW, bare with me). The biggest name from that previous era, and you bring him back just 'cause and totally ruin the Attitude Era. Or, if at the height of his popularity, The Rock enters to and ultimately loses in a feud against The Ultimate Warrior or Randy Savage. I understand that you have to warp history there, but I'm going by the biggest stars of the 80's, so that's why I used those guys as examples. The main point is, if you keep trotting out yesterday's biggest names and put them over the current talent, it doesn't help your new guys one bit. An Attitude Era Stone Cold losing to Hulk Hogan does nothing for Stone Cold, it only helps that casual fan so they can go "Hulk Hogan? I remember that guy!", and then all of a sudden Stone Cold isn't a big name anymore because he looked inferior to yesterday's big star. It's stupid and I wish they'd quit it, especially when it comes to CM Punk. CM Punk is this generation's biggest star, and he loses his belt to The Rock in 2013. Lame. Punk is nowhere near the level of popularity that SCSA was at his height, so I don't think it's a valid analogy. Punk's reaction has turned his loss to Rock into gold -- for the first time, it seemed to me, he was getting REAL heat on Raw instead of grabbing for cheap heat because he wasn't getting any reaction. So that's a good thing -- him winning wouldn't have aided him getting over more as a heel the way losing (and his paranoid reaction) has so far. To me, the ratings Monday night and the buy rates on the PPVs with Rock and Brock say it all. People are tuning in and shelling out, which is the point. I had a longtime friend at work who told me Monday that he was going to be watching Raw for the first time in years to see the aftermath of Rock winning the title. He's a wrestling fan, or was, but hasn't watched the product for ages and now he's interested. If it draws more eyes to the product, some of those eyes may like what they see. And if they do, they'll probably watch again -- which means all those active, full-schedule, current-roster guys get seen too. To those who will inevitably post that the current product is horrible (yet you still seem to be following it) and that's what those 'new eyes' are going to see and that they'll be turned off, I ask you: what's the alternative? Should WWE try to do things to discourage viewers from watching so they won't get exposed to that product that you think is so horrible? So far it hasn't worked for TNA. |
|
), I do enjoy seeing Rock in big spots at WrestleMania. He's the reason I'll be ordering the pay-per-view. But my stance here has more to do with the fact that you've not been able to prove in any significant way that he's (or 'Taker, Brock, etc.) have been hurting the product at all, than any actual blindness. And instead of presenting that, all you've done is worry about stuff that may or may not happen in the future. I get what your point is, but I'm not seeing anything to actually back it up.
