Joined
·
2,677 Posts
Re: Have ratings and buyrates gone backwards because John Cena has never had an equal
He had equals. Batista and DX were pretty much as big as him between 2005 - 2007. So was Undertaker. Throughout 2007, it was WWE's own fault for booking him to steamroll everyone while not focusing keeping other stars credibility up. Triple H's absence, Batista's lacklustre booking, and Undertaker's injury combined with Cena's 13 month reign is what allowed Cena to cement himself undisputably at the top. Business began to decline then in 2008 in terms of buyrates and attendance. It's continued since then.
But you're missing the bigger picture anyway. Ratings and buyrates were doing perfectly fine between 2005 - 2007. They increased thanks to a new generation of stars combined with veteran talent finally having someone to work with. How long did you see Austin/Rock at the top? You don't go 6 years and keep on increasing. At best, you get a 3/4 year window to perform your best before it's going to die down and you will need to have new stars.
Cena had his chance. That was his best. His peak. For three years, WWE pulled off a variety of big feuds, fresh match-ups and PPV shows. It's got nothing to do with not having an equal. Stop trying to analyse something which isn't there. Cena is only on one show. This is far cry from the Rock/Austin days with one roster. The mistake was WWE not keeping to the cycle process and creating new supporting characters for Cena and Batista by the time 2008 rolled around. Instead, they began to run the same old crap into the ground from then on (focusing on Triple H/Undertaker/Edge/Orton while relegating Cena/Batista into the background respectively).
The only thing they missed out with Cena and Batista was not having them feud by the time 2007 came around.
That's because they wanted to maximise revenue so they put their second biggest star on Smackdown - Batista. If anything, the only thing they could change is bringing Batista back to Raw in 2007 as a World Champion and starting a Cena/Batista feud leading into Wrestlemania 24. Their big mistake with Batista was not recovering his credibility when having him lose at Wrestlemania 23. While Cena continued to steamroll, Batista was drawing with Undertaker then losing to Edge. That's what hurt his credibility and equalness to Cena. It made him drop in fans eyes.
If anything, they should have simply ended the streak at Wrestlemania 23. Turned Batista heel, and ran with a Cena/Batista feud over the next year culminating at Wrestlemania 24. Undertaker could have easily still had huge match-ups without the streak against Edge and Shawn and Cena in the future. The streak was manufactured so much, they ended up screwing themselves over with it.
This era looks so weird simply because of that latter part. They went from focusing on the new stars (Batista/Cena) to the old stars by the time 2008 rolled around (Triple H/Undertaker). It was a silly mistake.
He had equals. Batista and DX were pretty much as big as him between 2005 - 2007. So was Undertaker. Throughout 2007, it was WWE's own fault for booking him to steamroll everyone while not focusing keeping other stars credibility up. Triple H's absence, Batista's lacklustre booking, and Undertaker's injury combined with Cena's 13 month reign is what allowed Cena to cement himself undisputably at the top. Business began to decline then in 2008 in terms of buyrates and attendance. It's continued since then.
But you're missing the bigger picture anyway. Ratings and buyrates were doing perfectly fine between 2005 - 2007. They increased thanks to a new generation of stars combined with veteran talent finally having someone to work with. How long did you see Austin/Rock at the top? You don't go 6 years and keep on increasing. At best, you get a 3/4 year window to perform your best before it's going to die down and you will need to have new stars.
Cena had his chance. That was his best. His peak. For three years, WWE pulled off a variety of big feuds, fresh match-ups and PPV shows. It's got nothing to do with not having an equal. Stop trying to analyse something which isn't there. Cena is only on one show. This is far cry from the Rock/Austin days with one roster. The mistake was WWE not keeping to the cycle process and creating new supporting characters for Cena and Batista by the time 2008 rolled around. Instead, they began to run the same old crap into the ground from then on (focusing on Triple H/Undertaker/Edge/Orton while relegating Cena/Batista into the background respectively).
The only thing they missed out with Cena and Batista was not having them feud by the time 2007 came around.
That's because they wanted to maximise revenue so they put their second biggest star on Smackdown - Batista. If anything, the only thing they could change is bringing Batista back to Raw in 2007 as a World Champion and starting a Cena/Batista feud leading into Wrestlemania 24. Their big mistake with Batista was not recovering his credibility when having him lose at Wrestlemania 23. While Cena continued to steamroll, Batista was drawing with Undertaker then losing to Edge. That's what hurt his credibility and equalness to Cena. It made him drop in fans eyes.
If anything, they should have simply ended the streak at Wrestlemania 23. Turned Batista heel, and ran with a Cena/Batista feud over the next year culminating at Wrestlemania 24. Undertaker could have easily still had huge match-ups without the streak against Edge and Shawn and Cena in the future. The streak was manufactured so much, they ended up screwing themselves over with it.
This era looks so weird simply because of that latter part. They went from focusing on the new stars (Batista/Cena) to the old stars by the time 2008 rolled around (Triple H/Undertaker). It was a silly mistake.