WWE could have had a boom period in 2005 - Page 5 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

 25Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #41 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 03:43 PM
Making James Ellsworth GET MY BAGS
 
MinistryDeadman95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,998
Points: 2,290
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

They could've always had one. They can have one now.....but the company managers suck.

Vince is too old to lead one in this day. He doesn't know what the fans want.

I mean, this is a guy who in 2007 said that Daniel Bryan is too small to be a big star, then 7 years later, when Bryan is about done for, rushes and puts all his chips on him cuz the fans forced him to. Ask yourself OP, how can this man possibly lead another golden period? This is his mindset. He can't do it anymore.

OP let's just hope he passes the company down soon. Trips and Steph can give us another golden period. I know they can. They're smart, young (business wise), know what the fans want.

MinistryDeadman95 Presents WWE 2013: Blowing Up!

https://www.wrestlingforum.com/booker...l#post24406729

Shit is already starting to blow up in my BtB. Check out my latest episode!!!


Smackdown 06/28 Posted!!!!
MinistryDeadman95 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 03:53 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,673
Points: 2,985
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv95 View Post
Still maintain 2005 was the last good year for the product. So much going on with each brand, the return of ECW for one night, and of course Raw vs SD. Then Eddie passed away and they still haven't fully recovered.

But you couldn't have both Cena and Batista on the same show, otherwise who would be the top face of the other? Cena being exposed in the ring and losing his edge was the problem.
You'd have Batista as the top face since he was bigger than Cena until 2007 anyway, and it took a lot of effort on WWE's part to make Cena the bigger star, while they let Batista coast without any notable feud for an entire year until the Taker feud. It was only because of that Cena managed to catch up in the first place. Batista had mid-carders like Finlay, King Booker, and Kennedy after being injured for 6 months. In the meantime, Cena had feuded with HHH, main evented WM22, and then carried on with Edge, RVD/ECW, some cheap celebrity, and then HBK.

You keep them both in Raw and do the natural thing. Book Batista as the top face, and transition to Cena by the time WM23 occurs. You could do Batista/Cena 1 at WM22, and Batista/Cena 2 at WM23. It would've also stopped the backlash because the Raw crowd wouldn't have rejected Cena if their homegrown star was still number one. Raw fans were happy with Cena when he first arrived. It was only after Batista left, and it became apparent that he was going to be the top star that they started to reject him because they thought he wasn't worthy.

It's kind of like Bryan and Reigns now. WWE should have ran with Bryan naturally in 2014 rather than causing a backlash, then they could've gave him another moment this year, and you'd be ready to naturally transition to Reigns in 2016.

They're always rushing the top chosen ones and end up neglecting the guys who became huge accidentally (Batista when Cena got his first push, and Bryan when Reigns got his).
Rusty Shackleford likes this.

Last edited by The Caped Crusader; 11-26-2015 at 03:54 PM.
The Caped Crusader is offline  
post #43 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 03:57 PM
 
Mifune Jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,991
Points: 6,811
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

WWE was definitely making progress in 2005, and it was the first time things started looking positive after HHH's Reign of Terror and the ascendance of Cena and Batista.

I don't think they really made any mistakes this year. Cena to Raw was a smart move. Batista to SmackDown was... a lateral move. I don't think it effected too much and having those two on top was the first time the Brand Split actually felt like it was kind of working to establish two superstars to represent each brand.

ECW coming back and guys like Edge finally finding their footing was also another positive. Cena and Batista had strong supporting characters, like Rey Mysterio, also on the show to build off of.

I guess, at worst, the Cena/Bischoff feud felt like a bit of a rehash and it was WWE's inability to get away from the same dynamic without really creating new stories, but they technically weren't doing anything "wrong" at this point.

Mifune Jackson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #44 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 04:25 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,176
Points: 28,050
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Caped Crusader View Post
That's just make-believe from smarks.

Punk's 2011 run was a failure right after Summerslam. There was some buzz on the internet but it didn't actually translate into anything notable. A good example of internet noise which wasn't reflected in the product in any viable metric. That whole angle for them one month of decent buys at MITB, and that was it.

People like to use the excuse that Punk wasn't pushed to the moon, but then why was it that we saw a reflection with Batista's rise on Raw almost immediately even though he was a mid-carder? In 2005, viewership increased, live attendance increased, WM21 became the biggest WM of all time, and Batista headlined some huge PPVs. If you had social media back in 2005, it'd have seemed like a much bigger deal than 2011 with Punk. Not just because of Batista, but because the product itself was going through a change. You had the rise of Cena too, along with other stars like Edge, Rey, Orton being pushed.

Punk was never going anywhere. It's just that internet noise is a lot different now. Perception isn't reality, and he's a perfect example of it.
Reality is that ratings were a lot better when Punk was still there, and champion. THAT is reality.
Fuck off, talent is only as good as its creative team. Blaming the talent, especially someone white hot like Punk, is disgusting.

Punk and Bryan should have been the modern Shawn vs Bret. But no, Punk and Bryan have/had to work the Rybacks and Kanes of the company. Bloody idiots.
Raw-Is-Botchamania is offline  
post #45 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 04:30 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,673
Points: 2,985
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raw-Is-Botchamania View Post
Reality is that ratings were a lot better when Punk was still there, and champion. THAT is reality.
Fuck off, talent is only as good as its creative team. Blaming the talent, especially someone white hot like Punk, is disgusting.

Punk and Bryan should have been the modern Shawn vs Bret. But no, Punk and Bryan have/had to work the Rybacks and Kanes of the company. Bloody idiots.
We're not talking about talent, but drawing ability here. Proof is in the pudding. For all the bullshit internet noise, Summerslam 2011 came back as a dud. Punk's "whitehot" period last about 4 weeks until MITB was over. Punk was also the worst drawing champion since 1997.

Also lol at saying they could be the modern day Shawn/Bret as if that's a good comparison to make. That period was a low point for the WWE.
Rusty Shackleford likes this.
The Caped Crusader is offline  
post #46 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 06:00 PM
Learning to break kayfabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 198
Points: 656
                 
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Wrestling really could use a boom right now. Just that challenging WWE is almost impossible at this rate, WWE has more money,the history, nostalgic (people are hardly going to turn on there childhood company) and stars (if they started to get beat in rantings they would have the Rock and Taker ect come back to boast them back up) the risk is just to high for another company to challenge WWE at the moment sadly.
ewantu2 is offline  
post #47 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 06:07 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,677
Points: 5,980
     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

They did. PPV sales increased in 2005 2006 period.

It was a sort of a mini boom. There will never be a boom again.
TheShieldSuck is offline  
post #48 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 06:15 PM
Trying to Impress Vince McMahon
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,115
Points: 20,104
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Cena should have stayed on smackdown
Batista on raw

They shouldn't have made it so abundantly clear that cena was number one, the fact that Batista taker didn't main event mania the year it was on was an absolute tragedy

This is why I'm an advocate of the brand split, it allowed two stars to be built at the same time instead of one, e.g. Reigns wouldn't get as much flack as he does now if he was on smackdown going after the world heavyweight an not being shown as strongly as he is if the smarks had cesaro gunning for the wwe title on raw
BigDaveBatista is offline  
post #49 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 06:44 PM
Employee Of The Month At Dale's Dead Bug
 
Rusty Shackleford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,733
Points: 1,626
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

I don't think they could've had a boom period in 2005. They definitely could've had a VERY successful period but I don't see them getting 6s and 7s in the ratings. Their ceiling was 5s and they came close to that many times. What fucked up their chance at consistently getting b/t 4.0-5.0 in the ratings was them sticking Batista on Smackdown and starting the Super Cena push only 2 months after they won their titles. Following WM 21 they had EVERYTHING going for them. They finally had two stars in Batista and Cena who could carry the company for the next few years, they had young heels in Edge and Orton, they had veteran star power like Triple H,RVD,Taker, HBK, Jericho, Eddie, Benoit, & Angle. Then they had young guys like Mysterio, Benjamin, Carlito, and Masters who seemingly were all gonna be in the main event by at least 2007. Then they had Hogan back during his resurgence in the mainstream media with his VH1 show. And, that's not including the ECW revival. And, Vince fucked it all up. He was in much better shape in 2005 than he was in 1997 and he somehow managed to fuck it up. First, they move Batista to Smackdown and put Cena on Raw. Back then, Smackdown and Raw were two brands with two different types of fans. They was a portion of the audience that only watched one show and not the other. So, some Raw fans didn't like seeing their guy moved. Nor did they like Cena. Now, instead of the WWE keeping Cena with his rapper gimmick to keep some fans on his side, they decided to slowly strip him of what made him popular and he became and unbeatable force within weeks of getting drafted. He even won handicap matches CLEAN. He never lost and he beat fan favorite heels like Christian, Angle and Jericho. It took 2 months for fans to turn on Cena and Vince only pushed him harder. That's one problem. The second problem was Vince not doing anything of note with Batista on Smackdown. While Cena is feuding with Jericho, Bischoff, and Angle; Batista is feuding with JBL. Batista's only good feud on Smackdown was with Eddie. Then Eddie passes and Batista gets hurt. So,now he's out with a torn back and he's lost a lot of momentum. So, they turn the less popular champion into a superhero and make the most popular champion almost irrelevant if not for his title. That's what mainly cost them a chance at having a boom period in 2006 and 2007. They fucked up both Cena and Batista. Batista lost a lot of momentum between WM 21 and his injury and Cena was not ready to be the number one guy. They should've given Batista a year to be the man on Raw and gave Cena a year to improve as a top face and then made a decision following WM 22.

:ti at people thinking Punk was gonna create a boom period in 2011. He had the internet on fire after that promo and MITB couldn't even get 200k buys despite it being the most interesting WWE storyline in YEARS. The one thing Punk drew well in was merchandise. He could've been a viable number two guy or the top heel but he was not gonna create a boom period.



Aaliyah 1979-2001

Shitting On Your Fave Effortlessly Since 1994
Rusty Shackleford is offline  
post #50 of 50 (permalink) Old 11-26-2015, 07:34 PM
Tag Teaming With James Ellsworth
 
Rasslor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,104
Points: 2,099
                     
Re: WWE could have had a boom period in 2005

Defiantly not a boom. But business was certainly picking back up with Batista as the top guy.
And for people saying a boom would've happened with Punk its possible but a cutting character like Punk's at the time wouldn't have changed shit unless WWE changed their product from the cookie cutter bullshit.

Last edited by Rasslor; 11-26-2015 at 07:36 PM.
Rasslor is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome