|
Post by J12 on Jun 20, 2016 12:56:43 GMT -5
Regardless of where things go from here, it is blatantly obvious that Vince is finally having second thoughts about Roman.
There is absolutely no way that this was in the cards when Roman won the title from Triple H at Wrestlemania. And it wasn't like they did this switch to get the belt onto a heel for Roman to go on the chase again. They had a heel beat Roman cleanly, and then transferred the title to a babyface who is as cold as he's ever been as a character (but still not colder than Roman Reigns.) That's a huge deal.
I have little doubt that last night was, in part, a hotshot desperation move, but, in the past, we've seen that hotshots don't typically revolve around shuffling the deck on plans for Roman Reigns. This is a dramatic shift, and I sincerely hope they're prepared to go all the way with it. Roman Reigns has been a total failure. I realize he has die hard fans here, and a lot of trolls that simply like to be contrarian in favor of him, but he is not a top star as he exists currently. With that being said, I'm still of the belief that WWE can make a lot of money with Roman Reigns as a monster heel.
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Jun 20, 2016 13:02:45 GMT -5
What's that? Ambrose is drawing? Its obvious. He is so popular.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jun 20, 2016 13:05:34 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Jun 20, 2016 13:14:33 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. You must've missed the part that said Ambrose is drawing the same numbers as Roman is, yet Roman gets the bigger arenas that they're supposed to draw their best numbers at. So, yeah...Ambrose is drawing better than Roman.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Jun 20, 2016 13:17:14 GMT -5
Regardless of where things go from here, it is blatantly obvious that Vince is finally having second thoughts about Roman. There is absolutely no way that this was in the cards when Roman won the title from Triple H at Wrestlemania. And it wasn't like they did this switch to get the belt onto a heel for Roman to go on the chase again. They had a heel beat Roman cleanly, and then transferred the title to a babyface who is as cold as he's ever been as a character (but still not colder than Roman Reigns.) That's a huge deal. I have little doubt that last night was, in part, a hotshot desperation move, but, in the past, we've seen that hotshots don't typically revolve around shuffling the deck on plans for Roman Reigns. This is a dramatic shift, and I sincerely hope they're prepared to go all the way with it. Roman Reigns has been a total failure. I realize he has die hard fans here, and a lot of trolls that simply like to be contrarian in favor of him, but he is not a top star as he exists currently. With that being said, I'm still of the belief that WWE can make a lot of money with Roman Reigns as a monster heel. I'm still taking a stance of "I'll believe it when I see it." I fully expect Roman to remain in the main event scene as a face and get the title back again, possibly at SummerSlam, until Vince proves otherwise. I just can't believe somebody as stubborn as Vince finally came to his senses.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jun 20, 2016 13:23:18 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. You must've missed the part that said Ambrose is drawing the same numbers as Roman is, yet Roman gets the bigger arenas that they're supposed to draw their best numbers at. So, yeah...Ambrose is drawing better than Roman. Ambrose "drawing better than Roman" is not impressive when Roman is "drawing really bad" in a time when WWE is seeing a 30% decline in live event attendance. You must have missed that part which is what I am talking about. Everyone is going to focus on Dean "drawing better than Roman" and ignoring that 30% decline in live event attendance. Live Event business is down 30% but you are free to celebrate Dean being king of "Business is Down" mountain.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Jun 20, 2016 13:24:52 GMT -5
Or..just or.. they're kids of the crowd of people who tell their kids to boo Reigns, much like the one guy who admitted that on this forum. Right right, 90% of the crowd tells their kids to boo Roman in every city WWE goes to every day. Makes sense
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 14:57:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 13:35:11 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. You must've missed the part that said Ambrose is drawing the same numbers as Roman is, yet Roman gets the bigger arenas that they're supposed to draw their best numbers at. So, yeah...Ambrose is drawing better than Roman. It's not really that much of a surprise. Ambrose was white hot when the shield split. It's clear as day they should have went with him and Rollins instead of reigns and Rollins. Maybe the industry wouldn't be on a downfall had they went with guys like Bryan, and Ambrose when the crowd wanted them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jun 20, 2016 13:38:17 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. It's not impressive. It's just indicative that 1. Roman Reigns is a failure, and 2. WWE is horrible at creating stars. Dean Ambrose may very well be a failure too (personally, I think he's great, but I don't see him as a top babyface draw), but until he's positioned on equal footing with Roman, with the same amount of exposure and the same merchandise power, etc., it's not really a fair comparison. All we know is that, positioned as 3-4 down from the top, he's more effective than Roman Reigns.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Jun 20, 2016 13:38:38 GMT -5
You must've missed the part that said Ambrose is drawing the same numbers as Roman is, yet Roman gets the bigger arenas that they're supposed to draw their best numbers at. So, yeah...Ambrose is drawing better than Roman. Ambrose "drawing better than Roman" is not impressive when Roman is "drawing really bad" in a time when WWE is seeing a 30% decline in live event attendance. You must have missed that part which is what I am talking about. Everyone is going to focus on Dean "drawing better than Roman" and ignoring that 30% decline in live event attendance. Live Event business is down 30% but you are free to celebrate Dean being king of "Business is Down" mountain. Ratings and live attendance have been in a steady decline for years. We know this already. Wrestling's not as popular as it once was, and it'll likely never reach that height again. So with that being said, I'd rather go with the guy who's generating the same numbers at the B live events - which are supposed to draw less than the A crew.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Jun 20, 2016 13:45:00 GMT -5
You must've missed the part that said Ambrose is drawing the same numbers as Roman is, yet Roman gets the bigger arenas that they're supposed to draw their best numbers at. So, yeah...Ambrose is drawing better than Roman. It's not really that much of a surprise. Ambrose was white hot when the shield split. It's clear as day they should have went with him and Rollins instead of reigns and Rollins. Maybe the industry wouldn't be on a downfall had they went with guys like Bryan, and Ambrose when the crowd wanted them in the first place. This is what should've happened all along. But Ambrose took a backseat because of Vince's obsession to get Roman over by any means necessary, and Bryan took a backseat because of Hunter's obsession to have Orton vs. Batista by any means necessary. And it's still terrifying to think that would've main evented Mania had Punk not quit.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jun 20, 2016 13:52:08 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. It's not impressive. It's just indicative that 1. Roman Reigns is a failure, and 2. WWE is horrible at creating stars.Dean Ambrose may very well be a failure too (personally, I think he's great, but I don't see him as a top babyface draw), but until he's positioned on equal footing with Roman, with the same amount of exposure and the same merchandise power, etc., it's not really a fair comparison. All we know is that, positioned as 3-4 down from the top, he's more effective than Roman Reigns. This is basically what I am saying. Dean and Roman are both drawing numbers that are down from last year. How are are going to call these guys "draws" or "stars" when business keeps dropping? It's not about trying to s*** on Dean as champion or him being pushed as a main event guy. It's that some people don't seem to understand that there is a difference between being a "draw" and being a main event talent. Dave made note of John Cena being out of action in that piece. Why? Because people pay to see John Cena. This makes him a "draw" in pro-wrestling. Dean/Roman/Seth? They are just main event guys. Dean and Roman are drawing less than what business was doing last year. Nobody can convince me those guys are draws when business is down. It's not their fault. It's WWE's fault for not creating new stars and draws. I'm just tired of this naive notion that (x) guy is a "star" or a "draw" simply because he's in the main event when there are numbers that say they're not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 14:57:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 13:58:16 GMT -5
Or..just or.. they're kids of the crowd of people who tell their kids to boo Reigns, much like the one guy who admitted that on this forum. Right right, 90% of the crowd tells their kids to boo Roman in every city WWE goes to every day. Makes sense I highly doubt 90% of the crowd is booing Reigns. And I'm pretty certain 90% of kids don't boo him. I get it, though. You hate him and think he's the worst thing ever.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jun 20, 2016 14:00:17 GMT -5
It's not impressive. It's just indicative that 1. Roman Reigns is a failure, and 2. WWE is horrible at creating stars.Dean Ambrose may very well be a failure too (personally, I think he's great, but I don't see him as a top babyface draw), but until he's positioned on equal footing with Roman, with the same amount of exposure and the same merchandise power, etc., it's not really a fair comparison. All we know is that, positioned as 3-4 down from the top, he's more effective than Roman Reigns. This is basically what I am saying. Dean and Roman are both drawing numbers that are down from last year. How are are going to call these guys "draws" or "stars" when business keeps dropping? It's not about trying to s*** on Dean as champion or him being pushed as a main event guy. It's that some people don't seem to understand that there is a difference between being a "draw" and being a main event talent. Dave made note of John Cena being out of action in that piece. Why? Because people pay to see John Cena. This makes him a "draw" in pro-wrestling. Dean/Roman/Seth? They are just main event guys. Dean and Roman are drawing less than what business was doing last year. Nobody can convince me those guys are draws when business is down. It's not their fault. It's WWE's fault for not creating new stars and draws. I'm just tired of this naive notion that (x) guy is a "star" or a "draw" simply because he's in the main event when there are numbers that say they're not. I agree. I just think it's important to consider that, given the way WWE's business model operates, they really only position one guy at a time to be the "draw", and, up until now (and perhaps still, but things are a little up in the air) that's been Roman Reigns, and he's failed in that role. I don't think Dean Ambrose can single-handedly turn business around, but if he was positioned as the Roman Reigns of the company, I think the jury is still out on whether or not he could make some type of improvement on business. That's all I'm getting at. We just don't know. The same goes for Seth Rollins. Hell, the same goes for Roman Reigns as a heel. A great heel can be the focal point of your show and elevate the babyfaces around him, and I genuinely think Roman has the potential to be that good in that role. In any case, only positives can come out of shifting Roman out of his current position (babyface champion), providing they hold steady with that angle. I just can't think of any time in recent memory where it's been so undeniably clear that something isn't working. Even if shifting to Ambrose provides absolutely no spark in interest, as long as it doesn't amount to net negatives, it's markedly better than what they've been doing.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jun 20, 2016 14:08:04 GMT -5
This is basically what I am saying. Dean and Roman are both drawing numbers that are down from last year. How are are going to call these guys "draws" or "stars" when business keeps dropping? It's not about trying to s*** on Dean as champion or him being pushed as a main event guy. It's that some people don't seem to understand that there is a difference between being a "draw" and being a main event talent. Dave made note of John Cena being out of action in that piece. Why? Because people pay to see John Cena. This makes him a "draw" in pro-wrestling. Dean/Roman/Seth? They are just main event guys. Dean and Roman are drawing less than what business was doing last year. Nobody can convince me those guys are draws when business is down. It's not their fault. It's WWE's fault for not creating new stars and draws. I'm just tired of this naive notion that (x) guy is a "star" or a "draw" simply because he's in the main event when there are numbers that say they're not. I agree. I just think it's important to consider that, given the way WWE's business model operates, they really only position one guy at a time to be the "draw", and, up until now (and perhaps still, but things are a little up in the air) that's been Roman Reigns, and he's failed in that role. I don't think Dean Ambrose can single-handedly turn business around, but if he was positioned as the Roman Reigns of the company, I think the jury is still out on whether or not he could make some type of improvement on business. That's all I'm getting at. We just don't know. The same goes for Seth Rollins. Hell, the same goes for Roman Reigns as a heel. A great heel can be the focal point of your show and elevate the babyfaces around him, and I genuinely think Roman has the potential to be that good in that role. In any case, only positives can come out of shifting Roman out of his current position (babyface champion), providing they hold steady with that angle. I just can't think of any time in recent memory where it's been so undeniably clear that something isn't working. Even if shifting to Ambrose provides absolutely no spark in interest, as long as it doesn't amount to net negatives, it's markedly better than what they've been doing. We are basically on the same page here. The three of them could be "draws" and start doing good business. It's just not happening right now. It's just a matter of waiting to see what happens. Maybe in the next six months they will start creeping back up with better ratings/attendance numbers on a consistent basis and we'll have this discussion again. It's just too soon to start calling Dean a "draw" while business is still down. That's all I'm really saying.
|
|
|
Post by #DI-WHY? on Jun 20, 2016 14:25:40 GMT -5
Apparently Kalisto was supposed to be the 7th man.
That sucks that he wasn't, the ladder match COULDVE used some more high flying spots.
|
|
|
Post by #DI-WHY? on Jun 20, 2016 14:27:16 GMT -5
Also, for anyone that wants a cool fact,
Last night was the FIRST TIME EVER that Reigns was pinned clean.
He was only pinned 7 times prior, all not clean pins.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jun 20, 2016 14:32:11 GMT -5
Is this supposed to be impressive? They're both drawing like s***. There is a 30% decline in live event attendance but everyone will ignore this because it's easier to focus on "Dean draws the same as Roman!" than understand that they both draw like s***. Where did I say anything about it being impressive? I just posted an article. But let's see if I can break it down for you anyhow... If Roman (group A) is in a building that holds 5000 people in it, and only 2500 show up. That doesn't look good for Roman. If Dean (group B) is in a building that holds 2500 people and 2500 people show up, that's pretty good for Dean. Numbers are the same, but Dean (group B) was in a smaller market. Thus the numbers are more impressive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 14:57:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 14:47:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 14:57:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 14:58:31 GMT -5
|
|