|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Jul 27, 2016 19:30:29 GMT -5
I don't agree that WWE "needs" Brock. RAW this week was great and last I checked Brock was not on. IMO Brock showing up four times a year doesn't really add anything to the show. Especially if all he is going to do is suplex someone around, F5, and win easily. If he was having competitive matches and building up stars like Roman, Bray, or Ambrose, then it would be different. IMO let him eat an RKO, Dirty Deeds, Pop Up Power-bomb, and maybe a Coup De Gra and let him go back to UFC. That's how I feel. Brock in 2012 was cool because he was back as the huge UFC monster who people payed to see. But that was 4 years ago and it's just boring now. Everything about Brock now is repetitive. Every match consists of German suplexes and then a finishing F5 and then he leaves for a few months. When I watch Summerslam it will not be to see Lesnar. Finn Balor VS Rollins and Dean Ambrose VS Ziggler are much more exciting matches.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Jul 28, 2016 2:46:45 GMT -5
He tested positive for an anti-estrogen that pairs with a steroid cycle and its 100% worth suspending your biggest star. You don't take clomid with a steroid cycle. Know what you're talking about before spewing regurgitated information. Calm down kiddo I never said you take it WITH steroids I said its a paired cycle. You take your ass juice and then when you're done taking that you start taking your booby reducer.
|
|
savage
Main Eventer
Joined on: Dec 6, 2011 11:10:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,299
|
Post by savage on Jul 28, 2016 6:23:17 GMT -5
You don't take clomid with a steroid cycle. Know what you're talking about before spewing regurgitated information. Calm down kiddo I never said you take it WITH steroids I said its a paired cycle. You take your ass juice and then when you're done taking that you start taking your booby reducer. Wrong again.
|
|
hbkowns
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 15, 2011 23:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,253
|
Post by hbkowns on Jul 28, 2016 8:58:31 GMT -5
I think whether you're part time or full time you need to be clean and abide by company rules.
Other guys are traveling the world almost 24/7 on the rigorous grind of a wwe schedule, all while abiding by the wellness policy and not tempted to use any kind of drugs. Then you gotta guy like Brock getting popped for this substance and not get in trouble, all while making millions and millions of dollars more than most of the boys.
It's just a typical case of wwe protecting what they think is their top asset.
Off the topic, I don't think Brock is worth near the amount they're paying him. For the amount of money they're paying him, the amount he shows up, and his actual work rate in the ring, it's just not worth it. Sure he's a big star and brings a following with him but I don't think he brings anything to offer or to help with the main talent. He goes over everybody and it's quite annoying. It's painfully obvious that Brock's heart is set on fighting so just give him what he wants.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Jul 28, 2016 9:17:55 GMT -5
Calm down kiddo I never said you take it WITH steroids I said its a paired cycle. You take your ass juice and then when you're done taking that you start taking your booby reducer. Wrong again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 15:10:57 GMT -5
Good news for WWE all round. Why bother calling for Brock to be suspended? He's one of the biggest box office draws left in the industry. Suspending him now would just cost us a SummerSlam main event, and for what? So Brock is gone for a month? He's gone every month! Don't make the assumption that a world renowned star like Brock Lesnar is on an even keel with anyone in WWEs locker room. Or Billy Gunn. As long as he brings main stream attention to WWE, he can do what he likes. I'd be willing to bet that with all of this drug storm going on right now, next week's RAWs ratings will make for pleasant reading for WWE. As will the Summerslam buy rates, and that's all you need to know about Brock Lesnar and why he's exempt from WWEs limp "wellness policy." would you rather have Brock Vs Orton getting all the attention by media or Finn v Seth or even Ziggler v Ambrose. I'd rather WWE be the company who is good and gives to charity and not about the company who has guys wrestling that failed drug tests with no suspension. Of course I'd absolutely LOVE for the media to get more excited about Seth vs Finn than Brock Vs Orton.. but they aren't interested in Seth or Finn, mainstream media is currently interested in Brock Lesnar. Because hes a celebrity. And where Brock goes, so does the mainstream media. SummerSlam may not struggle for buy rates in comparison to other wrestling PPVs, but that's easy to say and ignore how they've used Brock at every SummerSlam since his return in 2012. Before Brock they'd draft in Hogan (vs Orton, HBK).. before that it was The Rock (vs Booker T, Brock).. last year we had Brock Vs Undertaker, and they still drafted in Steve Emell for added media attention!.. Also it's worth remembering, it took place in LA for a long time, where they could guarantee A-list celebrities line the front row, to bring even more media attention to the event.... to assume SummerSlam 'sells itself' in the same way as Royal Rumble and WrestleMania is straight deluded. ..If anything, SummerSlam is the event that panders and relies to TMZ and Mainstream Media the most! So what do they do to maximise this interest? Keep Brock on the show, which keeps mainstream media attention and hope the talent do enough to catch their eye and ride the publicity wave as much as WWE are doing as a whole. It's selective opinion. Any fan of WWE should be coming out to defend their wellness policy. Instead everyone is bandwagoning against it.. even though Brock didn't fail it! Notice that WWE haven't been under any scrutiny from the USDA... What's hard to understand? Brock hasn't worked for WWE since WrestleMania, and that's when he was last tested. He passed. He then dropped 65lbs in less than 3 months, and fails a USDA drug test. You don't need to be a chemist or a doctor, JUST LOOK at Brock at UFC200 compared to the flabby blob who fought Ambrose at WrestleMania... you can quite literally SEE the exact effect of the drug, and it's painfully obvious as to the exact time frame in which he was taking the drug. As of right now, Brock STILL hasn't worked for WWE. Therefore, until he actively performs in a ring with another employee, it isnt required... So explain to me, how exactly is the WWE Wellness Policy a joke in relation to Brock Lesnar taking a performance enhancer in UFC?? Nobody was calling it a 'joke' when it forced WWE to pull the plug on Roman Reigns push... But the part timer failed a test unassociated with WWE, and that apparently reflects poorly on WWES drug test? Wrestling fans are moral parking wardens when it suits them. Brock is the biggest star in Wrestling and he won't be punished for something he did outside of WWE. The only firm that looks stupid amongst all of this is UFC, for throwing all that money at Brock to save their show, and he's dragged them through the mud at a time where they're already under enough scrutiny for drug bans and failure to accurately test fighters. So Brock wrestles at Summerslam. Everyone's a winner. Apart from the usual butthurt regular fans, but they're never happy anyway so WWE don't care about your opinion on Brock as much as they cared about your opinion of Roman Reigns and John Cena. It falls on deaf ears, and you'll all buy and watch the show anyway. And if Finn comes out of Summerslam as the next big star of WWE, you can all thank Brock Lesnar. Just like we all had to thank Mike Tyson at WM14, when the media attention he brought to the show helped make Stone Cold a world renowned superstar overnight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 15:13:15 GMT -5
Good news for WWE all round. Why bother calling for Brock to be suspended? He's one of the biggest box office draws left in the industry. Suspending him now would just cost us a SummerSlam main event, and for what? So Brock is gone for a month? He's gone every month! Don't make the assumption that a world renowned star like Brock Lesnar is on an even keel with anyone in WWEs locker room. Or Billy Gunn. As long as he brings main stream attention to WWE, he can do what he likes. I'd be willing to bet that with all of this drug storm going on right now, next week's RAWs ratings will make for pleasant reading for WWE. As will the Summerslam buy rates, and that's all you need to know about Brock Lesnar and why he's exempt from WWEs limp "wellness policy." Lesnar doesn't pop ratings anymore and Summerslam historically sells itself, especially in the Network era where there are no buyrates, just churn rates. They might enjoy a slight uptick next week as you suggested because of the controversy, but it'll probably be negligible. By and large, the people that watch Raw weekly are the people that watch Raw weekly and they're not going anywhere, and very few other people are coming in. UFC fans now have more reason than ever to hate Brock, and WWE fans are seeing that the company's wellness policy is a selective joke. It's not a good look for anybody. That brilliant bit about Summerslam "selling itself".. Yeah, see my other reply ^^ Arrow vs Stardust. /topic
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 15:14:05 GMT -5
|
|
K.O.S.S.
Mid-Carder
99%? I am the 99%
Joined on: Apr 10, 2016 14:17:54 GMT -5
Posts: 264
|
Post by K.O.S.S. on Jul 28, 2016 15:28:18 GMT -5
Who gives a crap, enhancers or not Brock is a beast and a legend.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Jul 28, 2016 15:46:16 GMT -5
But I'm not? You take clomiphene after you're finished taking your steroid cycle. Read anything ever written about it.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jul 28, 2016 16:24:24 GMT -5
Lesnar doesn't pop ratings anymore and Summerslam historically sells itself, especially in the Network era where there are no buyrates, just churn rates. They might enjoy a slight uptick next week as you suggested because of the controversy, but it'll probably be negligible. By and large, the people that watch Raw weekly are the people that watch Raw weekly and they're not going anywhere, and very few other people are coming in. UFC fans now have more reason than ever to hate Brock, and WWE fans are seeing that the company's wellness policy is a selective joke. It's not a good look for anybody. That brilliant bit about Summerslam "selling itself".. Yeah, see my other reply ^^ Arrow vs Stardust. /topic You're misunderstanding my point. Your entire argument is predicated on mainstream media attention. I'm not arguing anything to that effect. Of course Brock Lesnar, especially in his current predicament, is drawing mainstream media attention. Who is debating that? The question here is whether or not that turns into television ratings and Network subscriptions. I don't see that it will, because the last year has taught us that it hasn't, and now there's negative publicity surrounding Brock. You keep bringing up buyrates as though that's still a relevant marker of drawing power, but the number of people order on Pay-Per-View is so negligible that WWE doesn't even report it in their quarterly earnings anymore. The discussion was not about whether or not Brock brings mainstream media attention. He does. The same way Amell and Stardust did. It's a matter of whether or not that attention turns into any quantifiable revenue in the form of ticket sales and Network subs. WWE turned Summerslam into a destination event second only to Wrestlemania in the pro wrestling world. It's a guaranteed sell out before tickets hit the market, no matter who is advertised. That is why I stated that it sells itself. The name sells, the same way Wrestlemania does. That's the way it works now, because WWE has conditioned its fans to believe no star is bigger than the brand. You can argue that Brock is the exception to that rule, and to some extent, he is, but you can't deny the steady decline in interest for his appearances over the past year.
|
|
|
Post by attitudesback on Jul 28, 2016 16:33:32 GMT -5
Brock brings eyes to the product. Whether marks like him or not. It's a ing shame he popped, but it is what it is. I'm a fan of his WWE persona.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 28, 2016 16:38:33 GMT -5
Brock brings eyes to the product. Whether marks like him or not. It's a ing shame he popped, but it is what it is. I'm a fan of his WWE persona. This is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by attitudesback on Jul 29, 2016 4:24:02 GMT -5
Brock brings eyes to the product. Whether marks like him or not. It's a ing shame he popped, but it is what it is. I'm a fan of his WWE persona. This is stupid. It's true. Marks on the Internet complain about Suplex City, where as the media and casuals are more inclined to watch and take note when the attraction that he is shows up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 4:49:17 GMT -5
That brilliant bit about Summerslam "selling itself".. Yeah, see my other reply ^^ Arrow vs Stardust. /topic You're misunderstanding my point. Your entire argument is predicated on mainstream media attention. I'm not arguing anything to that effect. Of course Brock Lesnar, especially in his current predicament, is drawing mainstream media attention. Who is debating that? The question here is whether or not that turns into television ratings and Network subscriptions. I don't see that it will, because the last year has taught us that it hasn't, and now there's negative publicity surrounding Brock. You keep bringing up buyrates as though that's still a relevant marker of drawing power, but the number of people order on Pay-Per-View is so negligible that WWE doesn't even report it in their quarterly earnings anymore. The discussion was not about whether or not Brock brings mainstream media attention. He does. The same way Amell and Stardust did. It's a matter of whether or not that attention turns into any quantifiable revenue in the form of ticket sales and Network subs. WWE turned Summerslam into a destination event second only to Wrestlemania in the pro wrestling world. It's a guaranteed sell out before tickets hit the market, no matter who is advertised. That is why I stated that it sells itself. The name sells, the same way Wrestlemania does. That's the way it works now, because WWE has conditioned its fans to believe no star is bigger than the brand. You can argue that Brock is the exception to that rule, and to some extent, he is, but you can't deny the steady decline in interest for his appearances over the past year. Selling out the building is pretty much a formality for most major PPVs. SummerSlam sells out in advance simply because of the star power they draft onto the card, for 5 years that's been Brock Lesnar. That and its a traditional long running show that hardcore fans prioritise. Buyrates, subscriptions, it's literally the same thing. It isn't brought into the quarterly reviews these days because it's not any sort of reflection of WWEs general success, nor does it reflect profit margins in the way merch and television deals do. You could say WWE have 'conditioned it's fans' to believe the Brand is bigger than the stars, but the rest of the world don't see it that way. It sure as hell doesnt help when WWEs own fans complain about how poor the product is and needlessly slate their wellness policy of course. WWE cannot 'condition' the world into believing they matter more than Brock Lesnar in the same way they can't make the world more interested in WWE than PokemonGo. The world sports media care about Brock Lesnar because he's current, not WWE SummerSlam as a 'long standing self sufficient PPV Event'. No amount of conditioning will make people think WWE are more relevant than Lesnar, until Brock is long retired. Their regularly conditioned fans can call for Lesnar to be suspended because they've been conditioned to ignore the bigger picture. The bigger picture being: the market is competitive and interest in wrestling has never been any lower, so they need all the help they can get. And if that means ignoring their own principles when it relates to employees breaching regulations outside of their own company, so be it. Has interest in Brock declined since his initial comeback? Absolutely. But then it went and peaked again when he failed a drug test last month. Now media interest in Brock performing under WWEs umberella has arguably never been any higher, Brock remains on the Summerslam card for the sake of common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 4:56:10 GMT -5
Brock brings eyes to the product. Whether marks like him or not. It's a ing shame he popped, but it is what it is. I'm a fan of his WWE persona. This is stupid. How? He isn't liked by the marks because he's part time, his matches are one sided and repetitive, he buries insignificant unmatched opponents, and he walks straight into the main event as the main attraction whenever WWE please. ...that's pretty much the exact reason why most casuals tune in to see Lesnar. WWE realise that and that's why they bring in Brock so often to try to appeal to casuals. Even if it does upset the marks, the marks are never happy anyway, and they gobble up whatever is fed to them regardless of how much they hate it. So why not just prioritise the casuals, because that's what's gunna fluctuate your viewing figures... Not the marks who are gunna tune in anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:42:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 4:58:01 GMT -5
But I'm not? You take clomiphene after you're finished taking your steroid cycle. Read anything ever written about it. I just did. And you're still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 29, 2016 5:36:54 GMT -5
Anyone who cares (arguably obsesses) over wrestling to this degree IS a mark. Let's stop using that as a derogatory term roughly translating to "stupid casual wrestling fans that don't share my perfect opinion".
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jul 29, 2016 9:33:10 GMT -5
You're misunderstanding my point. Your entire argument is predicated on mainstream media attention. I'm not arguing anything to that effect. Of course Brock Lesnar, especially in his current predicament, is drawing mainstream media attention. Who is debating that? The question here is whether or not that turns into television ratings and Network subscriptions. I don't see that it will, because the last year has taught us that it hasn't, and now there's negative publicity surrounding Brock. You keep bringing up buyrates as though that's still a relevant marker of drawing power, but the number of people order on Pay-Per-View is so negligible that WWE doesn't even report it in their quarterly earnings anymore. The discussion was not about whether or not Brock brings mainstream media attention. He does. The same way Amell and Stardust did. It's a matter of whether or not that attention turns into any quantifiable revenue in the form of ticket sales and Network subs. WWE turned Summerslam into a destination event second only to Wrestlemania in the pro wrestling world. It's a guaranteed sell out before tickets hit the market, no matter who is advertised. That is why I stated that it sells itself. The name sells, the same way Wrestlemania does. That's the way it works now, because WWE has conditioned its fans to believe no star is bigger than the brand. You can argue that Brock is the exception to that rule, and to some extent, he is, but you can't deny the steady decline in interest for his appearances over the past year. Selling out the building is pretty much a formality for most major PPVs. SummerSlam sells out in advance simply because of the star power they draft onto the card, for 5 years that's been Brock Lesnar. That and its a traditional long running show that hardcore fans prioritise. Buyrates, subscriptions, it's literally the same thing. It isn't brought into the quarterly reviews these days because it's not any sort of reflection of WWEs general success, nor does it reflect profit margins in the way merch and television deals do. You could say WWE have 'conditioned it's fans' to believe the Brand is bigger than the stars, but the rest of the world don't see it that way. It sure as hell doesnt help when WWEs own fans complain about how poor the product is and needlessly slate their wellness policy of course. WWE cannot 'condition' the world into believing they matter more than Brock Lesnar in the same way they can't make the world more interested in WWE than PokemonGo. The world sports media care about Brock Lesnar because he's current, not WWE SummerSlam as a 'long standing self sufficient PPV Event'. No amount of conditioning will make people think WWE are more relevant than Lesnar, until Brock is long retired. Their regularly conditioned fans can call for Lesnar to be suspended because they've been conditioned to ignore the bigger picture. The bigger picture being: the market is competitive and interest in wrestling has never been any lower, so they need all the help they can get. And if that means ignoring their own principles when it relates to employees breaching regulations outside of their own company, so be it. Has interest in Brock declined since his initial comeback? Absolutely. But then it went and peaked again when he failed a drug test last month. Now media interest in Brock performing under WWEs umberella has arguably never been any higher, Brock remains on the Summerslam card for the sake of common sense. They do report subscriptions. The Network numbers are the second most important earnings marker for their business right now, behind their TV Rights deal. It's just buyrates that they don't report. Live Events come in at third, and merchandise in at fifth, behind licensing fees. But anyway, we're not really all that far apart here. I've never argued that suspending Brock was the right way to go. He's a star who brings mainstream media attention to a show that wouldn't otherwise have it. The only point I was illustrating is that Summerslam sells itself because WWE has built it into a destination event, and based on recent history, it's unlikely that Brock Lesnar will contribute to the show being a more successful event in terms of tangible revenue generation. The mainstream exposure might get a couple of people to say, "huh, I'll sign up this month", but those people are going to get a free month and then who knows if they ever become a paying customer. You could argue the mainstream exposure could bring about new sponsorships, but, again, Lesnar's attention is mostly negative right now, and companies are certainly going to be hesitant to jump on board with anyone in the middle of a doping scandal. As a general rule of thumb, I disagree with WWE not testing Lesnar (or anyone else for that matter) just because he's a part-timer. I don't disagree, however, with their decision not to suspend him in this particular instance. If he straight up popped for steroids, then I'd probably feel a little bit differently. The problem here is that we know so little about WWE's testing procedures that we have no idea what they do and don't consider banned substances. Do they test for steroids but not their masking agents or substances that aid in cycling? Are they only concerned specifically with substances that create long-term health problems if the individual becomes dependent? We have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jul 29, 2016 10:03:51 GMT -5
But I'm not? You take clomiphene after you're finished taking your steroid cycle. Read anything ever written about it. I just did. And you're still wrong. actually, you're wrong. from steroids.com itself: i also know several steroid users personally who have used and do use clomid...so what are you talking about saying he's wrong?
|
|