|
Post by El Cokehead del Knife Fight on Jan 30, 2015 4:07:50 GMT -5
I love how what he thinks the WWE should do is just "let Paul Heyman handle everything"
I mean, that's what I would suggest also but it just says so much that the best option of this working is to let Heyman just handle everything.
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Jan 30, 2015 6:21:37 GMT -5
The Rumble hasn't been a 'anyone can win it' event since Hogan's victory 25 years ago. They pretty much decided then and there that it was going to be an event where main eventers or midcarders they were pushing to the main event would be the annual winners even before the World title shot stipulation came into play.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 30, 2015 6:44:48 GMT -5
I'd love to know the metrics WWE uses to judge when or how they push someone as a big star. Because unlike others I don't think they want to throw money away, and at the same time I don't think that necessarily the majority of fans hate Roman Reigns or think he isn't ready, or maybe if they do, the ones that are monetarily important mean it's still a profitable play to keep those guys in the top spots. After all, Cena has been booed for years and still comfortable sells the most merch more often than not.
I guess what I'm wondering is, there seems to be this accepted thing that has grown that 'WWE doesn't care about the fans' as if not using Bryan or Ziggler as the Rumble winner proves that, and as if the fans that don't think Reigns is ready make up the majority. I'd really like to know if that is true, because I'm not entirely sure that it is. Yes, clearly the fans love Bryan, but maybe the thinking is that they created a big star with him last year, and now want another star in Reigns, rather than repeating the same story again. Maybe they feel that Summerslam 2013 buy-rates are poor, and Mania 30 buyrates were good but having Bryan in the main event wouldn't sustain itself again...whatever it is, I don't know. But the idea that they would have someone that isn't Bryan or Ziggler win the Rumble isn't entirely unreasonable.
And does it mean that they don't listen to the fans because they push Reigns? The landscape has definitely changed in that there are more fans who will vocalise their displeasure because they 'know' someone is being pushed as a star now as opposed to before, but at what point does it mean that the majority of fans don't like it? What is that inflection point where it makes bad monetary sense for them to continue with what they think makes a star? We've seen a lot about how the company doesn't listen to 'the fans', but there are still loads of 'the fans' that do like Roman Reigns. And following the Royal Rumble the company got a boat load of new subscribers despite the event being 'controversial'.
In a business where you need to encourage boos as much as cheers, and in a company where you're catering to a wide cross section of different audiences, I'm not convinced they are 'not listening to the fans' by going with someone like Roman. I'm not saying that they are listening either, but I'd love to know how it is broken down, and why they make the decisions that they do. There's just been a massive growth of 'WWE clearly doesn't do what the fans want' type posts but maybe they still are? They are mass market, and will never expect total acceptance from all portions of their fan base on everything they do.
|
|
Rolent Tex
Grimlock
Posts: 12,851
Member is Online
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Jan 30, 2015 11:08:10 GMT -5
I have zero problem with only a select few guys being favored to win the Rumble. As predictable as it is, I like the Rumble win and resulting Mania main event being a cap on the years biggest storyline. Problem is, they've gotten so far away from that, that it's now getting borderline ridiculous.
I think 2005 was the last year a Rumble winner felt big time for me. Hell, the next year when Mysterio won, it wasn't even the main event! It wasn't even the match before the ME it was midcard filler.
The last two years are even worse because instead of someone feuding with the Authority winning, we get Batista returning to just enter a feud with his former Evolution mate and Roman Reigns returning from injury to take on Lesnar when there were plenty of other guys fighting the Authority while he was gone.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 30, 2015 11:12:15 GMT -5
My merch purchases from WWE in the past year Macho, Hulk, Warrior, Punk, and from his own website Bret Hart. The only one I've done in the past year is Bryan but if you go through my history, my list includes a legend like Mr. Kennedy. Actually dunno where the hell that shirt is, not seen it in years. It's on Destination America where it'll never be seen by human eyes again.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 30, 2015 11:40:34 GMT -5
The Royal Rumble without a Wrestlemania title shot is just a PPV and will lose all relevance and quickly become a midcard battle royal if it loses that. The Rumble will be scrapped and replaced within 5 years if they ever stripped it of the link to Mania because it'd become just another event in the WWE's increasingly homegenised calendar, where nearly every event feels just like Raw.
The problem with the Rumble is not the link to Wrestlemania, the problem is the Highlander attitude of the WWE booking, there can be only one guy being built up at a time. They put all their eggs in one basket after Summerslam so you know who's going to win before the year has even begun because they're only building up one guy in any meaningful way. Everyone else who could win is usually the victim of stop/start booking or worse, actively being depushed to ensure that the way is clear. They've done it so often since the end of the Attitude era that no longer works as effectively as they'd like, the audience no longer stops responding, they get pissed and boo the chosen one, face or heel. If the WWE wants to stop this, let people the crowd like look good on PPV, no making them crrraaaazy guys who don't care about winning, no screaming about them being B+ players or trying to transfer their heat to your chosen one.
|
|
|
Post by Neo: "The One" who CLAPS on Jan 30, 2015 12:26:44 GMT -5
Honestly, I think they should revamp the entire concept of Wrestlemania. If WM is supposed to be WWEs Super Bowl, then shouldn't only the best be showcased on it? They should come up with a kayfabe'd system where people have to earn their way onto the WM card, just as a sports team needs to earn its spot in the finals of its respective league. Have a "WrestleMania Committee" that looks at wrestlers' matches over a certain length of time, tallies wins and losses and quality, that judges which feuds are worthy of being showcased, etc. Make it part of the storyline that just being on the WM card means you get a huge pay day, increased attention, etc.; make being on the card a goal or title in and of itself. Then, you can start making the titles mean a bit more by making the belts "get on WM automatically" tickets. The Rumble winner could get a guaranteed spot, along with their choice of match/stipulation/whatever, so that if a guy in a major feud wins he might choose something like a cage match against his hated rival. Then if somebody a bit more random wins the Rumble, it's not the end of the world, and it could actually make things a bit more unpredictable and interesting. That could actually be pretty cool. Say you have Ziggler and Rollins feuding, you could have the announcers build intrigue by asking, "Will these two get to settle their differences on the biggest stage of them all?"
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,050
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jan 30, 2015 12:35:11 GMT -5
This in and of itself does not need to be a major problem: the Rumble can still be a showcase spot for numerous guys who might never main event, but who nonetheless may have important roles to play on the card. I often call back to the 1991 Rumble, where Rick Martel and Greg Valentine both lasted a very long time (something like 45+ minutes each); neither man was a WWF title contender, and Valentine was basically a jobber to the stars at that point, but it meant that on future episodes of Superstars or Wrestling Challenge, or on their PPV matches, the announcers would mention their great showings at the Rumble that year as a reason to take them seriously. Thing is, you can still do that. Hogan won that Rumble, noone was made a star. Long runs and lots of eliminations can still be made into big deals, they just don't book like that. A few people got 5-6 eliminations this year, so none stand out. Part of what got Reigns his momentum last year was breaking the record for most eliminations. I doubt they'll break the longevity record, but if someone;s in for 45 minutes-and hour, it can still be pushed as impressive. As for the lack of winners, well that's down to WWE themselves not the match. This year, Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler, Daniel Bryan all would have been accepted winners as faces, put that with Reigns, it's 4 people. Sure you could have R-Truth win, but without conesquences, why should people care? Cesaro won a battle royal, but because they didn't have to follow up on anything, it ended up being pointless. Plus if anyone can win, it's less of an achievement. Right now, you win the Rumble, you join an elite group of legends (1 or 2 exceptions), if suddenly anyone wins, it's less prestigious. Or you keep main eventers winning to maintain it's status in which case you're in the same position as now.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 30, 2015 12:40:57 GMT -5
This in and of itself does not need to be a major problem: the Rumble can still be a showcase spot for numerous guys who might never main event, but who nonetheless may have important roles to play on the card. I often call back to the 1991 Rumble, where Rick Martel and Greg Valentine both lasted a very long time (something like 45+ minutes each); neither man was a WWF title contender, and Valentine was basically a jobber to the stars at that point, but it meant that on future episodes of Superstars or Wrestling Challenge, or on their PPV matches, the announcers would mention their great showings at the Rumble that year as a reason to take them seriously. Thing is, you can still do that. Hogan won that Rumble, noone was made a star. Long runs and lots of eliminations can still be made into big deals, they just don't book like that. A few people got 5-6 eliminations this year, so none stand out. Part of what got Reigns his momentum last year was breaking the record for most eliminations. I doubt they'll break the longevity record, but if someone;s in for 45 minutes-and hour, it can still be pushed as impressive. As for the lack of winners, well that's down to WWE themselves not the match. This year, Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler, Daniel Bryan all would have been accepted winners as faces, put that with Reigns, it's 4 people. Sure you could have R-Truth win, but without conesquences, why should people care? Cesaro won a battle royal, but because they didn't have to follow up on anything, it ended up being pointless. Plus if anyone can win, it's less of an achievement. Right now, you win the Rumble, you join an elite group of legends (1 or 2 exceptions), if suddenly anyone wins, it's less prestigious. Or you keep main eventers winning to maintain it's status in which case you're in the same position as now. I've been posting in the thread how they could change it, though; removing the title match stipulation doesn't mean having to remove any and all meaning from the Rumble, the stipulation can simply change. I totally get that the 1988-1991 model won't work anymore: the match itself was a spectacle back then since you never saw that many WWF guys in a ring at once, but after awhile the fans would want some meat to the match, and I'm not against having there be a reward for winning. It's just that their booking in recent years makes the WM title match more of a booking handicap than an aid, in my opinion, so why not freshen it up and open the door to more possibilities?
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,325
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Jan 30, 2015 13:34:40 GMT -5
F*** you, McMahon. I know what I want. This should be quoted for truth forever and ever. If it's any consolation, it's saved in my sig now.
|
|