Skip to main content

Brock = No Buys?

From the new WON:

"Extreme Rules this year was listed by WWE as doing 131,000 domestic buys and 104,000 overseas buys, for 235,000 total. The domestic number is down 17.6% and the overseas number is down 7.1% from last year's 159,000 and 112,000 numbers, totaling 271,000.  [...]  As far as profit margin goes, a Lesnar show needs to do about 70,000 added buys to where the profit would be the same. So this was down from last year, but last year was a Lesnar show. The 2011 Extreme Rules show did 216,000 total buys and 108,000 domestic. So, more than any show to date, Lesnar didn't increase business anywhere close to enough to justify the expense."

The golden goose appears to be running out of eggs, but really they've made him into just another guy so it's hard to be too surprised about that.  Having him headline a B show, in a match that no one wanted to see, was also a huge mistake.  

Comments

  1. Wasn't Cena vs Ryback advertised as the main event? Or am I Benoit-sane?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean that losing totally diminished his character's allure and overall drawing power? Stunning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Viking Space Lord Brock Lesnar has no use for maths.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the mind of Vince McMahon:

    Someone not named Brock Lesnar will be blamed for this!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Except for the one that says how big a pile of money he's getting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They haven't used Brock as the special attraction he is, other than the Cena match (in which they jobbed him). No one wanted Lesnar-Hunter, so we got it three times. They haven't used him to make new stars or deliver any marquee matches that might generate short term interest

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pretty simple ... Cena vs Lesnar in Lesnars return match was a big draw. Tough to follow up on buyrate wise especially for a B show.

    ReplyDelete
  8. People will pay to see Brock. They will not pay to see Triple H face Brock (again)

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's not hard - if it's a match involving steel steps, you know Brock is jobbing. It's like how a slingshot in the corner would always beat Mr. Perfect.


    It's not surprising, though - as ATL said, no one wants to see him vs. HHH, and no one can remember him winning since his match with Cena. He doesn't appear that often to change the dynamic, and he doesn't have a recent-enough body of work to be considered a killer. And he doesn't seem to care either way (not getting on him for that - bully for him letting people beat him while he laughs to the bank).


    Shoot, how many people expect him to job to Punk at Summerslam?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyone who thought Brock was going to be a draw was fooling themselves.

    Brock was a UFC draw because wrestling fans wanted to see him, in addition to UFC fans being extra angry a "wrassler" was invading. He is not a wrestling draw because UFC fans don't give a shit about wrestling and weren't following him to buy WWE PPVs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That would make it even worse, because then you're paying a guy a huge chunk of money to appear on a show where he's not even the advertised main event.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cena vs. Brock drew big money. Brock vs. HHH drew not that much money. HHH can't draw in 2013. Brock can't draw when he's been beaten in 50% of his matches. The way they would've made the most money out of Lesnar is having him destroy everyone and win the WWE title. Lesnar can then defend the title once a month on PPV. They could build a new star by having them dethrone Lesnar. Someone like Bryan, hell even Miz. Just having Cena and HHH feud with him when they are already stars does nothing to help the future of this business.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brock is a draw because he brings wrestling fans back.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. HHH/Brock 1 did a pretty great buyrate.


    2. Can't put the title on a guy that works 3 times a year.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why not? They put it on The Rock, didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sure they can. It worked for Hogan back in the day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And how well did that work out? He was barely on Raw during the WM buildup.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hogan worked more than 3 times a year.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ah, you're right.


    It was more like 5 or 6 times.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm pretty sure he worked more than 5 or 6 house shows.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nothing like HHH's ego driving down business.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Lesnar has like 15 dates on his contract. Instead of dumb appearances where all he does is stand there of F-5 someone, have him wrestle. Heyman can do the build ups for the PPV like he did for Punk at Payback.


    I was never in favor of Rock getting the belt by the way. Rock is a piece of **** in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hogan worked 15 matches in 1997.

    ReplyDelete
  24. But he was on Nitro every week.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So you're in favor putting the title on Hogan in '97 when he worked only barely once a month, but not in favor of Lesnar because he worked once every couple months but was on TV a bunch of times?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maybe CM Punk draws a little better then Vince thinks...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Each character is different. In Brock's case, having him job at WrestleMania, when combined with his job to Cena, and having HHH "knock him out" severely damaged his image. A crazy dominant heel coming in and destroying the company's top stars is interesting and unique. A former star coming back and trading wins with another semi-retired guy isn't unique or interesting. Plus I legit don't think people care about HHH as a babyface.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If Brock was on Raw every week cutting promos and building heat, then yes. Working is more than just wrestling a match.

    ReplyDelete
  29. He doesn't draw as a face -- never has, never will.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lesnar can't cut promos. That's what Heyman is for. Would you be in favor of Lesnar as champion but only wrestling once a month and Heyman being his mouthpiece each week?

    ReplyDelete
  31. You mean treating Brock like everyone else results in people not caring for him? Color me SHOCKED!

    ReplyDelete
  32. If Lesnar was out there and causing shit to move shit forward, of course. But he has to be there every week.

    ReplyDelete
  33. He (potentially) WAS a draw. Then whoever's bright idea it was to put him against HHH THREE FUCKING TIMES is the one to blame for killing that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. All this talk about Brock's win percentage affecting butyrate makes me wonder if Punk (newly face) needs the Summerslam win more or if Lesnar does.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sorry, but Lesnar's pretty much a lost cause at this point. At least as far as "dream match/HUGE buyrate" potential goes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think it could've worked with him explicitly telling the audience that they don't deserve him for free so he'll only show up on PPV. Meanwhile Heyman does the heavy lifting promo-wise. Maybe give Heyman a couple of henchmen to do beatdowns and such. But you couldn't have Brock just not show up without a reason week after week.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No one wanted to see him wrestle huntor. Hhh is by far the worst draw out of any "main event" guy since 1990. Also they killed lesnars heat by jobbing him out. Is he back to job to cena and hhh or is he back to sell tickets? I could care less about seeing punk go over lesnar but hopefully it will be a good match. He and hhh went 0/3

    ReplyDelete
  38. Maybe. But has Punk got to a point where a loss doesn't hurt him anyways?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Crowd would've shit all over it pretty quickly. That might work for one PPV buildup.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lesnsr was brought back to be a jtts not a draw

    ReplyDelete
  41. I thought that originally, but his series with Cactus Jack, Iron Man and Backlash with the Rock, Batisita, Cena, all did big business I think, so give the devil is due..

    ReplyDelete
  42. I wanted to see HHH/Lesnar at SummerSlam.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This should all be part of "The People's History of HHH". C'mon Scott, let's do it!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Again, factually and drastically incorrect. This is smark wishful thinking at its finest. HHH is the biggest heel draw in WWF/E history.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well good to know someone did. For me, if a match is gonna get 25 minutes I'd prefer it to be good

    ReplyDelete
  46. So did I. After we saw how much their styles didn't mesh, I'd seen enough.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jobbing him to Cena in the first match instead of running the "Rocky" program leading to Summerslam or Survivor Series was downright negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Without question, and beyond the typical "smarks freak out way too much about who wins and loses" level of it not mattering. He's bulletproof.

    ReplyDelete
  49. HHH is a bigger draw than pretty much anyone not named Hogan, Stone Cold, The Rock, Cena and Batista. He's certainly a bigger draw than guys like Shawn, Bret, Edge, Orton and (outside of the last few WrestleManias) the Undertaker.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Maybe, maybe not. There's only so much you can do with a guy who has only 15 or whatever appearances all year. And if the goal is to make that money back plus some, you can't waste too many appearances on free TV.

    ReplyDelete
  51. He was gonna be a huge draw but hhh took care of that.

    ReplyDelete
  52. They haven't done that. They've treated him- regardless of if he wins or loses- like a killer and a big deal every time he's come out of hiding. His feuds/matches have been/will be with the top three stars in the company (insert deserved joke about how HHH shouldn't be or isn't a "top three star" but this is about perception and how Brock has been handled). He gets to come and go as he pleases and is immediately reinserted into the main event.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Can't agree on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If he was such a draw he would have main evented more than wm16 during the attitude era

    ReplyDelete
  55. Facts don't require agreement. Opinions do. This is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  56. And you didn't know the match would suck. No one did. The only frame of reference we had for either Brock or Hunter, both long removed from their days as regular performers, was their most recent matches. Both of their most recent matches (HHH/Taker in the cell, Brock/Cena at Extreme Rules) were match of the year contenders. The storyline made sense and was compelling to me and I thought the match would be good. It wasn't. Sometimes that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Which is why you shouldn't put the title on him or build the promotion around him.

    ReplyDelete
  58. When Stone Cold and The Rock (who were indisputably bigger draws) were around? Nope. Plus he only became a main eventer halfway through the era.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Judging by the buyrate, a lot of other people did too. And as for match quality, all 3 matches have been ok. It's just that Brock/Cena raised expectations WAY too high.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rock, Savage, and Andre say hello.

    ReplyDelete
  61. It wasn't brocks fault those matches werent good

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well I watched hhh have a 2.5 20 minute match with punk. So I didn't expect much

    ReplyDelete
  63. Then please, back up your facts with numbers, or something other than "That's a fact"

    ReplyDelete
  64. The announcers may treat him like a killer but Triple H certainly never did. He was constantly shrugging off Brock as a joke in the two 2013 match builds. The first one was better.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Actually, you may have a point with those guys. But he's certainly the biggest heel draw of recent times. HHH not being a draw is one of the hilariously pervasive fallacies in wrestling fandom. HHH being "the guy who wrestles the guy who draws money" is a Cornettism that's mostly incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Brock's contract really fucks up what you can do with him. You can't just throw him in with Random Midcarder because no one would buy them having a chance against Brock. There's less than a handful of established guys to pair up with him before you're just repeating the same match (*cough*HHH*snort*). He can't be there every week to built to anything so it really limits your options.

    If it were up to me, I'd have him only show up for PPV outside a couple Raw appearances, have him totally destroy every "name" available in consecutive months (Cena twice, followed by Punk and then HHH), then go 1 of 2 ways:

    1) Cena goes the Rocky III route (changes his training, gets re-inspired, blah blah) and finally defeats Brock

    or

    2) Have someone like Daniel Bryan get built up as the next challenger and Bryan ends up slaying the monster in the end. But I'd go 3 matches with it. Have Brock underestimate Bryan and narrowly win the first match, Bryan earns another shot (MitB?) and defeats a focused Brock, and then Bryan defeats him *again* in the rubber match to prove it wasn't a fluke.

    ReplyDelete
  67. While the losses did hurt the 'special' nature of seeing Lesnar, it also didn't help that nothing he did built to anything else. He just kind of shows up, fights, loses, then leaves. Rinse and repeat.



    It makes more sense if he destroys a few guys who need time off, building to a big showdown with someone.



    I have no problem with Cena beating Brock, but it should have been done last, not first.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Uh, Rock is recent.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Since you people love using Meltzer's dirtsheet reports for reference, here's some stuff Meltzer said about HHH's drawing power all the way back in 2004 (while comparing him to Bret as a draw):

    "His big money PPVs that he was on top on (1.0 or better, and that standard is actually unfair to him because the expanding universe has led to a decline in buy rates, and while you can argue that the old buy rates show it was more popular, the same decline is evident in boxing as Tyson-Holyfield buy rates are way lower than Leonard buy rates or early Tyson buy rates, but nobody in boxing will make the argument that anything but Tyson-Holyfield was the PPV peak) would be only behind Rock, Austin, Hogan and Flair. For total PPV money drawn, he'd be well ahead of Flair."

    "When Hart was on top, there was never a period he could draw more than half of what HHH was drawing on his own at his peak, for a regular house show."

    "You can find countless examples of shows without Austin nor Rock that drew great with HHH as the top star."

    "HHH vs. Tajiri in a singles match was a tons bigger event in Japan than Hart vs. Randy Savage's unique dream match in Japan."

    ReplyDelete
  70. Please explain how its fact.

    ReplyDelete
  71. If Brock losing was such a damaging blow to his drawing power, why was he the biggest draw in MMA history with a mediocre career record of 5-4? You know, in a real sport where wins and losses matter? Maybe there's something I don't know about MMA that makes a won-loss record matter less than in a fake sport. I'm not a fan of it, so I don't know.

    What I do know is that Brock was never a proven box-office draw in his previous WWE tenure. And I don't know this for fact, but it always seemed extremely unlikely that he would lure MMA fans to pro wrestling. So the market for Brock was...what, exactly? Lapsed WWE fans who'd taken up UFC fandom since they stopped watching wrestling? That's great, but again: he was never a major draw as a pro wrestler to begin with.

    Maybe they knew quickly that they'd miscalculated with him, and thus there was no point to having him run roughshod over their top star(s) when a return on their investment was unlikely. And this is assuming the rumors about his huge contract were even true. Do we know for sure he's making a guaranteed $5M per year? It seemed unlikely at the time and given his availability and their usage of him, it still does.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't think the Brock experiment works well without doing that, at least IMO. You end up with what we have had, a much lesser version of the Rock's return. He's just randomly matched up against guys with no reasoning behind it. At least Rock wanted to prove he was the best (and then eventually prove he could be the champion again). There needs to be some type of motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hogan left WWE a wasteland for HBK and Bret. Austin and Rock left a goldmine for HHH.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Putting him that high on the list of money drawers isn't as off-base as pretending he never drew a dime like you're trying to do. You don't have to personally enjoy his work to acknowledge that on balance, he's clearly been a financial success over the duration of his career.

    I've never liked Hogan. Should I come up with some contrived, contrarian argument that he actually wasn't a draw? You seem like you'd be the guy to help with that.

    ReplyDelete
  75. While I'd actually agree with you in terms of Trips being a bigger draw OVERALL than most of the guys you named (except Bret, who was HUGE overseas), it just doesn't hold true the last few years. Since about 2010 or so, Trips just isn't nearly the draw he used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  76. What are you going to do man, it's the only way to get him period. I'm a massive Brock fan, I'm bummed I only get to see once a few months but I'll take what I can get.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Fine. That's all I was looking for other than "FACT".
    And i've never read The Observer, ever.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I was psyched as hell for their first match together. Not so much for their rematches.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Oh, I don't doubt that HHH in 2013 isn't that big of a draw. But in terms of both total money drawn and drawing power in general, he's ahead of Bret, Shawn, Edge, Angle, Orton etc.

    ReplyDelete
  80. He drew in UFC because people wanted to see him lose.

    ReplyDelete
  81. 2004 does not equal 2013. Yes, HHH did draw for a period, specifically 2002-3 I think. It's unfair to say he's a better draw then HBK and Brett since he had all the advantages of being a part of the biggest boom in the history of the business and then rising that guy as "the top guy in the company." Yes he drew for a period but nobody really wants to see him now.

    ReplyDelete
  82. That was definitely part of it but not the only reason. You don't become one of the biggest PPV draws of all time by people just wanting to see you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Again, not doubting that's he not as big of a draw in 2013 as he used to be. With that being said, I don't see any logical way of saying that for the bulk of his main event he wasn't a bigger draw than Shawn and Bret for their respective main event runs.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Without a doubt, and that further informs my point: he was an MMA draw because that sport's fans hate-watched him. He was never a proven wrestling draw. So why did anyone, WWE brass and smarks alike, think he'd be any sort of draw as a pro wrestler in 2012-13? Where was the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  85. If the object is to make a profit off the investment, you either go all-out or you don't do it at all. WWE has gone down the middle, basically half-assing it. And I doubt they'll break even on Brock.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Yea, its a tough argument. Like I said I think he had some advantages but he did draw in his prime and have a good run.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "why was he the biggest draw in MMA history with a mediocre career record of 5-4?"



    Because he up against other big names and plus the WWE background. He may not have been a huge wrestling draw prior to UFC(Putting him exclusively on Smackdown had a lot to do with that) but the WWE brand name was strong and people wanted to see that brand mix it up in the UFC.


    Dana White and Brock did the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  88. That's EXACTLY how he should have been used - state right upfront that Brock can ONLY be seen on PPV, and then, after each PPV, have the announcers rave about what an incredible match it was. In the mean time, have Heyman do most of the TV build via promos.

    See? Hype something up, and then make people pay to see it. Simple.

    (The only exception would be a big, special "Raw", like "Raw 1000" or something. Let Brock beat the crap out of someone on there, just to remind people of what he's capable of. Give the audience a small taste, and let them pay for more.)

    ReplyDelete
  89. Shawn and Bret are questionable, but I don't have any facts to back that up.


    But a bigger draw than The Undertaker? No. No, absolutely not. The Undertaker has been a household name in wrestling pretty much since his debut in 1990.. He has been consistently a draw for close to two decades. He's moved more merchandise than Triple H could ever dream. Has his popularity waned at periods? Absolutely, but even as the Biker-Taker, he was still a huge draw because HE'S THE FRIGGING UNDERTAKER.

    ReplyDelete
  90. It's almost as if feuding with Triple H for a year and leaving for months at a time turned some people off.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Rock seems like a nice enough guy, but, yeah, I was never a huge fan of his. And his "return run" was friggin' awful.

    ReplyDelete
  92. EXACTLY!! If he was champ and said he doesn't fight for free, that would generate him legit heat with the fans. Use Heyman as the mouthpiece and shoot some pre-recorded footage of him in 1 or 2 day sessions and use them on the show. (Brock working out, Brock at WWE HQ, Brock catching someone on the street/backstage and kicking their ass - all pre-taped and set to run each week).


    Not saying that could work for a year, but at least you could get a good 3 months out of it. They could have milked it from Royal Rumble to Wrestlemania if it wasn't for the Cena/Rock matchup.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Fair enough. Heel+ plus sideshow attraction of a wrassler in the holy and sanctified octagon?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Heath Herring was a big name? Maybe in Japan but not in the US. Mir pulled his weight by angering the beast.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Shawn and Bret aren't questionable. I won't dispute that circumstances were more favourable for HHH than they were for Shawn and Bret, but he's still a bigger draw than both.

    'Taker's a big draw, but prior to the past few WrestleManias, he drew less than HHH over the years. Then again, Trips was on RAW (and quite often the world champion or at the very least a contender for the world championship), so that may have had something to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. You simply can't make a direct comparison between these three runs. HHH rode the wave of the Attitude Era, led by Austin, Mr. McMahon, and Rock. I'm not going to say HHH was never a draw or even that he wasn't a great draw, but it's not a very fair comparison. HHH wasn't responsible for the boom and Hart and Michaels weren't responsible for the bust. So to give anyone credit or blame for the overall numbers is disingenuous and incorrect.

    You (not specifically you but you know what I'm saying) should at least measure how shows headlined by HHH/Hart/Michaels compared to those headlined by others during the same period before you're going to make such claims.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Hmm...he wasn't as big of a draw because he ended up on smackdown... I wonder if another wrestler benefited by having hhhim off raw in 2003/2004?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Oh,i'll agree there. Why they brought him in to do anything other than a Cena program,i'll never know. And then resign him? Odd move.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I don't know that they raised expectations as much as at this stage of his career, HHH was just not the guy to mesh with Brock. He has the old-school wrestling mentality to provide the contrast to Brock's violent, MMA/hardcore style, but not the athleticism or stamina to take it on for 25-30 minutes.

    I actually thought the last 10 or so minutes of their WM match was really good, but it meandered before that.

    Then again, maybe you'll prove to be right and Cena/Brock just captured lightning in a bottle.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Really gonna nitpick that one?

    ReplyDelete
  101. It takes two to tango, kiddo. Except in the most extreme examples (see: Smith/Hart at SS92) both guys share the blame or praise.

    ReplyDelete
  102. +wrestling fans+Dana White+Brock Lesnar acting like a crazy homeless homicidal viking.

    ReplyDelete
  103. HHH was obviously the number 2 or number 3 guy (depending on whether or not Austin was present) for most of the second half of the AE, but he drew better as the second or third biggest star than Shawn and Bret did as the top guys. It's like saying that HBK and Bret were the best of a bad bunch, whereas HHH was the second or third best of a great bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I definitely think HHH/Brock was a major styles clash and I think Brock doesn't have the cardio for 20+ matches anymore. Need to keep them 10-15 full on crazy action.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I personally thought that was about a 3.5 star match, and as I recall, so did Scott. Also: who cares? You keep adjusting whatever your point is supposed to be on the fly to fit your all-encompassing negative opinion of HHH.

    ReplyDelete
  106. While Brock wasn't much of a draw during his first run in WWE, it's not really fair to compare "the old" Brock to "the new" Brock.


    First Run: Around for only two years, not very charismatic, got a MASSIVE push right out of the gate (that, at the time, many fans were not happy about), only started putting on consistently good matches after the first year, relegated to "Smackdown" for most of his run, had a few injuries during a short time.


    Second Run: Former UFC Champion, one of the biggest PPV draws of all time, was legitimately "missed" by fans that wanted to see him feud with top-level opponents.

    I mean, it's almost like saying that "The Ringmaster" to "Stone Cold".

    ReplyDelete
  107. With Heyman selling it? No way. They would have booed, but it would have been the exact right type of heat.


    "My client does not - and will not - wrestle on television. If you want to see him destroy his next opponent, buy the PPV."


    This would have absolutely worked, and it still can. Put the strap on Brock at SummerSlam, have him appear the next night on Raw declaring Heyman would set up any new challengers, and he'll see them the next month on pay per view, and the combination could get ridiculously nuclear heat.

    ReplyDelete
  108. It was the same strategy they used when he won the WWE title and bolted to Smackdown exclusively. Granted, that was handled poorly and was just an excuse to give HHH a world title, but if you book it differently, it works really well. Like all things WWE, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Not as a fighter in any case. He does get some pretty good face pops these days, however.

    ReplyDelete
  110. It'd work for a month tops before fans get sick of it. Brock is the draw, not Heyman. Because people might be willing to suspend their disbelief for that type of angle short term, but they know the real reason he isn't there and they'll eventually revolt.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Yeah I was pumped to see Lesnar/Triple H the first time too. It was the second and third matches that bothered me.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I'm not talking about the terms as far as travel or total dates. Obviously that part was accurate. I'm talking specifically about the guaranteed money.

    ReplyDelete
  113. But in the same way that Bret and Shawn went through a dark period after the first boom, Triple H(though not as severe) was their guy in the inevitable down cycle that follows the boom. Their situations are similar.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Right, except there wasn't any guarantee- or even any logic- to the idea that his MMA drawing power would translate to him as a pro wrestling draw.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Really gonna keep beating that dead horse?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Definitely was. Even before Brock came back, it's a fact that MMA's explosion in popularity was largely due to Brock and wrestling fans. So WWE thought "Hey, let's bring him back and those wrestling fans that went with him too."

    ReplyDelete
  117. No doubt. Wasn't Cena/Brock only like 17 minutes?

    ReplyDelete
  118. I agree with Cult on this one - sure, MMA fans that look down on wrestling wouldn't all of a sudden start liking WWE, but lapsed wrestling fans (people that used to be fans, but grew bored with WWE's increasingly-homogenized product) that "moved on" to UFC/MMA probably gave his return at least a quick look.

    ReplyDelete
  119. If the plan was always for a trilogy of matches with HHH where Brock would go over in the end, they should've just audibled after the disappointing match and lukewarm reaction at SummerSlam. At that time they were still in the same place they eventually ended up: Brock going over. This would've spared us two more tepid matches, and helped Brock retain what luster he still had.

    They could've changed the Wrestlemania card to Brock-Taker, and added Punk to the title match for the triple threat that was starring them in the face. HHH could've even played a part in the streak build, recruiting Undertaker to avenge him against Brock. I'm not saying that card would've topped 1.3 million buys, but I have no doubt it would've drawn better than the one we got, and Brock would be in a better spot now.

    ReplyDelete
  120. What do you do with HHH then? And adding Punk to Rock/Cena would have made that match and build even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  121. can we find a prosecutor to take up this case against Vincent K McMahon?

    ReplyDelete
  122. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJuly 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    Hopefully, people will come out for Punk/Brock, because that IS a match I want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I legitimately can't remember. And I have a pretty good memory. So have to assume it wasn't memorable enough.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Taker is only a draw at Mania. Which is more than HHH, so touché.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I do nothing with HHH. He plays the HBK role in Brock-Taker. Maybe make him special ref.

    And I don't see how adding Punk to anything, much less Rock-Cena would make the build worse. All three guys had established issues with each other. The title didn't add as much as they hoped to Rock-Cena as the conclusion was foregone, and it felt too familiar. Punk could've been the new element the match needed to actually feel fresh.

    I'd have had Punk win the title back from Rock at Elimination Chamber. Rock has his automatic rematch clause, and Cena has his Rumble title shot. Triple threat. They've used far less logical ways to set up a match.

    Cena pins Rock for the title to get his win back. Punk bitches that he was never beaten for the belt, and Cena can't beat him. They have their Raw match at Extreme Rules, where Cena finally gets his big win over Punk to blow off their feud. Then Punk gets his vacation.



    Punk gets a rub from Rock that Cena didn't really need. Punk adds a fresh element to the rematch. Cena still gets his win back from Rock. Rock is used to direct eyes at the product's other 9 months a year, as the focus of the program ends up on their top two full-timers. And Cena gets his big win over Punk in a great match.



    I don't know about you, but I'd say that's a hell of a lot better than what we got. And I'd be willing to bet that it would've made more money too.

    ReplyDelete
  126. All that seems like too many cooks in the kitchen plus it robs us of Punk/Taker which I thought was the best match/best build up. And there was no way HHH was staying off that card so you gotta give him a high profile match somewhere.



    I thought 29 should have been Cena/Punk and Brock/Rock. But I have no idea what you do with Taker and HHH. God knows I didn't want to see a third match. I know! How about leaving them off all together and push new people!

    ReplyDelete
  127. Throw HHH in Big Show's spot in the Shield 6-man.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Sorry, meant to reply to Jobber. My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I'm not sure I even agree with that, for the most part. He and Brock wrestled to crickets at Summerslam, Mania and Extreme Rules. The crowd was so silent for Hunter's entrance at ER that it was almost uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I'd like to find out years from now how detailed of a plan they had for Brock from the beginning. Was he always supposed to put Cena over? Was that changed to fuck with him/see how he'd react/maybe even get him to do something to void a contract that they immediately regretted signing? (The fact that they extended him would probably contradict this.) Was he always slated to do the trilogy with HHH? Were there any thoughts on pulling the plug to it and doing something else with him, or dumping him altogether? Are there only a certain number of guys they even trust to have in the ring with him?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Punk/Cena/Rock had come together pretty perfectly, in my view. It was right there. Those three stood alone above everyone else over the previous two years of storylines. They were all intertwined, all having feuded individually against the two others. Cena/Rock was "One in a Lifetime," and Punk's epic title reign ended in somewhat murky fashion. All you needed was a fuck finish to the Punk/Cena match in February and you were there. I'm not a big proponent of triple threats main eventing any show, much less WM, but there are exceptions to every rule.


    If you want to really drive the point of Cena's redemption story home, at the risk of pissing all of the smarks off, do it triangle match, elimination style, and have Cena eliminate both Punk and Rock to conquer both of his biggest antagonists (sorry, Edge) in one night.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Punk
    Mark Henry
    Undertaker
    D-Bry
    Big Show

    Dolph Ziggler
    John Cena


    These wrestlers and these wrestlers ONLY should interact with Brock Lesnar beyond cannon fodder

    ReplyDelete
  133. LOL, refute an argument based entirely on hypothetical, alternative universe situations? You're right, I can't refute that argument. I could also argue that if Jeff Jarrett got Stone Cold's push he'd be ten times as big, and neither you nor anyone else could refute that.

    ReplyDelete
  134. No someone tells triple h to stop trying to ego stroke. Thus he's off the card.

    ReplyDelete
  135. There are no draws anymore. It's all about the wwe brand name.

    ReplyDelete
  136. You think triple h is a bigger "draw" than undertaker? Or edge?

    ReplyDelete
  137. It's been said a hundred times before, and as much as that was MOTY for me, jobbing Lesnar out on his FIRST match with Cena was the instant death knell on any future interest. Once he's been beaten by your perceived top guy, any win over him just seems minor in comparison....any loss just looks worse.

    In my opinion it goes down as one of the most inane booking choices the company has ever had.

    ReplyDelete
  138. He's absolutely a bigger draw than Edge. 'Taker's more debatable since, even though HHH has drawn more money overall in a shorter career, he usually headlined RAW, often as the world champion and almost always in the world title picture.

    ReplyDelete
  139. The time triple h was the main focus of raw 2003 was both bad ratings and bad matches. Is triple h the worst? Of course not he's firmly in the middle of the pack where he belongs. Triple h is good can be great, he just doesnt have it anymore. I'd also put million dollar man ahead of triple h as far as being a heel goes.

    Man I feel old we have triple h apologists now.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Who's talking about talent here? I'm talking about drawing power. And more specifically, I'm comparing HHH's drawing power to that of guys like Bret, Shawn, Angle, 'Taker, Edge, Orton, not guys like The Rock or Stone Cold or Hogan or Cena or Batista.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Especially with the story they tried to ret-con about Cena having the worst 2012 ever.

    ReplyDelete
  142. How about Ryback/Taker and HHH/Henry?

    ReplyDelete
  143. I wouldn't say he was "relegated" to Smackdown. For the early years of the brand extension, Smackdown quite consistently closed each PPV. It wasn't always the "B" brand. Or at least, not quite explicitly so.

    ReplyDelete
  144. There was a draw at Night of Champions, the double pin with Punk and Cena.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment