Wrestling Forum banner

Why does Brock get no blame for wwe's decline?

3K views 33 replies 28 participants last post by  NapperX 
#1 · (Edited)
People talk about Cena killing the WWE ratings as they were from Austin to rock to him. But in fact they went with lesnar with a monster push first (biggest push ever imo). And that really did kill the ratings, wanting to put him clean over stone cold on raw seems ridiculous.

Having said all this, I think Brock is really good. But isn't it the case that Brock's charisma levels are NOWHERE near rock or austin. Same for Cena obviously. Nowhere near rock or stone cold. And yet Vince went with them in a massive way.

There is also the problem that the top guys in the company in terms of kayfabe are brock, cena and taker. All of which are at least 13 year veterens.

I personally went off wrestling when WWE started pushing Brock, Cena and Orton. That group I didn't care for at all when I had seen stone cold and the rock.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Had nothing to do with Lesnar besides he was just in the WWE for 2 years thats why if he was shoved down our throats for 10 years straight refusing to turn heel playing the same corny, goofy, fake irritating, ass kissing and pandering character no matter how much he gets booed then I would agree with you.

They had lots of star power back then but people still left after The Rock and Stone Cold retired I dont know why but people hated The Ruthless Aggression era.
 
#5 ·
I hated that era. Hardly watched any of it. It was terrible imo, possibly even worse than now. The matches were very poor too imo. I only watch the shows quickly now. I think WWE is capable of getting back viewers again, they just need someone huge like stone cold or the rock again. That will up tick business.

But you are right. Brock wasnt around for that long.
 
#8 ·
Cause he might kick our ass if he blame him
 
#13 ·
Dude, you're right. I have come to this conclusion as well. For every Raw that Lesnar doesn't appear on he is the elephant in the room. Lesnar is the ultimate badass so that means that when he is around AND when he isn't around, no one else is going to get a monster push or get a chance to stand out and look like a bad ass superstar. It's a major problem for WWE and Raw.
 
#15 ·
Brock a 13 year veteran... seems like a massive twisting of the truth. Signed with OVW in 2001, was full time 2002-2004. Had a handful of matches in Japan before becoming a UFC fighter, then returning to WWE in 2012 for about 4 matches a year. Considering his sporadic schedule and his long sabbatical to do MMA, I'd have trouble crediting him with a 4 year pro wrestling career in total.

Brock did an amazing job in that first run for how green he was. Probably the reason no one slates him for a rating decline is that he wasn't really THE guy for a sustained period. I'd say the top star between 2002-2004 was Triple H, given how hard he was pushed on Raw above everyone else. Smackdown was more of an ensemble cast with Lesnar, Angle, Taker, Show, Eddie, Benoit, Rey and Cena.
 
#16 ·
Looking at the OP's red rep, I probably shouldn't even bother replying, but Brock Lesnar is literally the reason WWE hasn't gone out of business these last few years (or maybe since middle of 2014).

If it wasn't for Lesnar, nobody would watch shit, and they know it.
 
#19 · (Edited)
but Brock Lesnar is literally the reason WWE hasn't gone out of business these last few years (or maybe since middle of 2014).

If it wasn't for Lesnar, nobody would watch shit, and they know it.
come on what...

people will watch wwe with or without lesnar. wwe tv deal isn't dependant on brock lesnar, neither is their live event business, their licencing business, their merch business

take the period april 1st until june 30th this year where lesnar didn't appear one second on wwe tv. wwe network averaged 1.22 million paid subs over that period generating approx $40 million (about the same as the period april 1st to june 30th 2012 when they put on mania 28, extreme rules with lesnars return etc)

payback in baltimore sold out, extreme rules in chicago sold out, chamber in corpus christi sold out, mitb in columbus sold out

by august 31st this year wwe had put on 219 live shows...lesnar had wrestled on just 5 of those at that point
 
#17 ·
It is my view that WWE is too far into whatever it is into [I mean it's not even PG anymore - you can't suspend reality with professional wrestling anymore, it's too pre-conceived and contrived, Vince obviously has lost his passion for the business and now just panders to the share price] to ever go back to the "glory days". And I don't care what anyone says - the "smarks" are as much to blame for professional wrestling's decline as Vince McMahon.

I think Lesnar stabilises the ratings but he certainly hasn't enhanced the product overall. Personalities like Daniel Bryan and CM Punk did more for WWE than Lesnar ever has, and they cashed half of his pay check.
 
#18 ·
because they don't use this guy for ratings. they use him for PPV Buys, Live Attendance, and Network Subscriptions.

Sure Vince thinks he a ratings grabber but really WWE can't draw ratings worth a damn anymore even if they used Dwayne unless its Jan - April or Summer Time (sometimes).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthbetold
#20 · (Edited)
You appear to be confused. The ratings tanked in 2001, during the Invasion angle, and have never recovered since. Their 2002 was poor, however, Lesnar didn't rise until the middle of the year, and he spent the second half of the year (and subsequent years) on Smackdown, not RAW (where HHH was the top guy). Lesnar was gone by early 2004, and their business has continuously declined in the 11 years since, where their revenue has shifted to corporate deals, inflation and TV rights rather than top ratings and ticket sales outside of WM.

The point is, the ratings were declining pre-Lesnar, and they declined post-Lesnar. He didn't cause either. I don't know why you're mentioning his KOTR match planned with Stone Cold, that happened in what, May, April? Lesnar was only on the rise then, he didn't get crowned a top guy until August at Summerslam. Trying to blame him for ratings falling when he was not the top guy around the time Stone Cold walked out is absurd (HHH, Hogan, Undertaker were the most prominent guys at that time).

Speaking of which, you ought to be blaming Hogan for the business declining around that time, given his Hulk Still Rules run was a bust (after his huge WM X8 reaction tricked Vince into thinking it would be a success).

Lastly it's pretty god damn petty to dislike someone for not being as charismatic as Austin or Rock, two of the most charismatic wrestlers in history. That's a very short list, with only the likes of Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Billy Graham, etc. You don't have to be in the top five of all time to be great, and Lesnar is immensely charismatic in his own right.
 
#21 ·
Brocks a huge draw. Like who doesn't want to watch Brock Lesnar just come out and destroy people. He is probably the most legitimately tough guy they have ever had. They just can't keep him fresh because of them restricting him to squash matches and suplexes against old has beens like Big Show.
 
#22 ·
Can't believe someone actually needs this explained to them, but here we go:

1. You said "I personally went off wrestling when WWE pushed Brock, Cena, Orton. I didn't care for it at all when I had seen Rock and Stone Cold." Dude, really? You think it's fair to compare every other top star to Rock and AUSTIN? Rock and Austin are the two biggest stars in wrestling history, EVERYONE FALLS SHORT OF THEM. THATS WHY THEY ARE THE MOST POPULAR WRESTLERS OF ALL TIME.

2. When Brock got his first monster push, he was on Smackdown. Smackdown was regularly beating Raw in the ratings back then, and Brock was working his fucking ass off. Brock got the monster push but I don't think there was 1 single person who, after watching Brock and Taker wrestle that HiaC match at No Mercy 2002, thinking Brock didn't deserve it. He was ready, he had the best manager in the biz at the time representing him, and he was putting on classic matches every time out, and along with Taker and Angle plus the Smackdown 6 was responsible for Smackdown beating Raw in the ratings and also giving us the best sustained stretch of television in WWE a history (Smackdown from 2002-2003).

3. Brock didn't get pushed at the same time as Cena and Orton and Batista. Brock had left the company by the time those guys got their push. When Brock was in the company, Rock and Austin were still there. So your argument is invalid.

4. WWE has booked Brock pretty bad since he came back. His first match back, he loses to Cena. Then he wrestles Triple H 3 straight times even though no one was clamoring for a rematch after the SS 2012 bout, and of course Trips beats Brock at Mania then they book a cage match where Brock has to utilize his superb selling to make Trips look strong in a loss. Then the do the best thing they have done with Brock since his return, which was the Punk feud and match. But then they book him against Big Show at RR just to screw the fans out of the match (why couldn't he have wrestled Bryan there????). Then he beat the Streak which I guess was good but the match sucked and I don't think there are many people who would say that was the right call. Then he squashes Cena at SS 2014 which was fucking awesome. But they screwed it up by having Cena come right back and squash the Wyatts 2 weeks later and then another Cena match at NoC which sucked as well. The RR 2015 triple threat was okay, and the zReigns match was great but the build for both sucked. Then they screw us out of ROLLINS match and put Brock with Taker AGAIN.

Bottom line, Brock should have come into the company hot out of the gates steam rolling Cena, Taker, Orton, and Batista, then use all that heat to make some new stars in Cesaro, Owens, Bryan, Ambrose, Rollins, Reigns, etc. That's smart booking 101. But of course WWE isn't in the business of doing things the smart way.


Last thought: blaming any single wrestler for the decline in ratings is stupid, even if it's Cena. It's on Vince/Creative to execute good angles and write great television, make new stars, all of that. They have failed miserably, and thus the ratings have fallen drastically.
 
#29 ·
When Brock got his first monster push, he was on Smackdown. Smackdown was regularly beating Raw in the ratings back then, and Brock was working his fucking ass off.

Beating Raw was no accomplishment, Both Raw and Smackdown sucked during the Ruthless Aggression era, Smackdown happened to be the lesser of two evils.

Brock got the monster push but I don't think there was 1 single person who, after watching Brock and Taker wrestle that HiaC match at No Mercy 2002, thinking Brock didn't deserve it.
Having a great match doesn't mean you deserve to main event and headline, Brock Lesnar was a vanilla giant, no mic skills and pushed too fast.

He was ready, he had the best manager in the biz at the time representing him, and he was putting on classic matches every time out,
Even with Heyman Brock was still boring. having 5 star matches isn't going to cut it.

and along with Taker and Angle plus the Smackdown 6 was responsible for Smackdown beating Raw in the ratings and also giving us the best sustained stretch of television in WWE a history (Smackdown from 2002-2003).
Actually the best stretch of WWE television is Raw Is War from 1998-2002.

Smackdown! was far superior during the Attitude era from 1999-2002.

Smackdown 1999-2002 > Smackdown 2003-2004

Also not only was Smackdown from 1999-2002 a superior product, it also outdrew 2002-2003 by miles.

Brock Lesnar didn't become entertaining or a draw until MMA.
 
#30 ·
OP, if you're talking about back in the early 2000s, there were so many other things going on, that made the ratings decline, that completely overshadowed the possibilty of Brock contributing to that. He was a part of that time period but so was Kurt Angle. I'm not sure those 2 guys could have done anything more than they did to make it watchable.

If you're talking about now, I remember a ton of "bad ratings" threads popping up around the time of his contract extension. Sure, him not being there hurts the week to week ratings but he's still the guy that people want to see. Even then, I wouldn't blame ONE guy when there's an entire roster there that could be utilized better.
 
#32 ·
Having said all this, I think Brock is really good. But isn't it the case that Brock's charisma levels are NOWHERE near rock or austin. Same for Cena obviously. Nowhere near rock or stone cold. And yet Vince went with them in a massive way.
Somebody needs to learn the definition of charismatic.
 
#34 ·
Brock took away from UFC when he went back to WWE. UFC knew this was a huge loss and that is why they reportedly tried to double what WWE was offering him months ago before his contract expired. When Brock joined UFC it took a lot away from WWE, when he returned to the WWE, he pretty much helped save the company and by doing so put a hole in UFC.

Point is, it's better in the long term for WWE to have had Brock Lesnar rather than lose him to UFC. WWE could not afford to lose Lesnar this time around.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top