WHO GIVES A CRAP IF NO ONE WATCHES?!?!?!Originally Posted by ANT
What do you not get about that? They have to try something new because what they have is obviously not working.
Fan reactions are an excellent indicator as to who to push. Which is why they should depush Cena.
The belt means shit if you use it as gaudy product placement...
Again, bullshit.
The last two weeks RAW ratings plummeted, and Cena wasn't near the title those two shows. He's not in a title match at HIAC either, and I don't forsee a good buyrate there either.
By your logic, Orton should be sent to the undercard immediately. Don't give me that everyone is tired of one person bullshit. Ratings drop for many reasons and they've been dropping for a while, there is absolutely no suggestions in this thread would change that. Especially not taking possibly your top or second guy and throwing him in the undercard.
Yeah, they should just push R-Truth. THATS WHY NOBODYS WATCHING!
The fact that everyone in WWE has held one of their multiple world titles and they have a bunch of guys pushing 10 reigns killed the things.
I know. WWE went for short, shock titles reigns because everyone shitted on their long title reigns they made for Batista, Cena, HHH, and JBL.
That and that stupid briefcase.
So if this isn't working, and doing something else makes it work even less, what's the sense in that exactly?
WCW died because it was the same shit over and over and interest plummeted. We have been getting the Cena/HHH/Orton/Edge deal for 3 times as long as WCW took to burn people out on their company. What does that tell you?
The best thing that ever happen to the WWF was when everyone took off for WCW or went home and in 1996 all they had was Shawn and Taker forcing them to push anyone new. The best thing that could happen to WWE now is for Cena, Orton, Edge, HHH, and Undertaker to fuck off and never be seen again.
Please explain to me how "the ratings have been going down for a while" is an argument against fans being tired of WWE pushing the same guys at the top for years.
Fans will eventually get tired of the same faces at the top. That's just a fact. WWE have not provided new faces at the top. Yes they have in the past couple of months pushed some new heels. But fans, for the most part, do not pay for heels.
Stop twisting my words like pushing some midcard faces will solve all of WWE's problems. Like I said before, it will just be a way to freshen up stale programming, and it will help one of WWE's main problems. Who knows if one of the midcard guys they have is the next mega face if they don't actually try and push them like one?
Do you honestly think "OH WELL CENA WAS AWAY FOR TWO WEEKS AND LOOK THE RATINGS STILL WENT DOWN" is an argument? Does that sound logical to you?
What's this something else they have tried that makes it work even less?So if this isn't working, and doing something else makes it work even less, what's the sense in that exactly?
You said Cena should be depushed to the undercard and you already said R-Truth or Christian should be pushed to the main event.
There's no twisting there. You said both. I say thats unbelievably stupid, and WWE has absolutely no reason to consider such actions. "Its Fresh" doesn't cut it, not for something that drastic.
You don't just push guys and get rid of your over ones because they 'might could possibly be' the next mega face. Thats not how it works.
They get over, THEN you put them in the main event. Once R-Truth or Christian or Evan Bourne start outpopping Cena and Orton, then go right ahead and pull the trigger. Thats how it worked before they thought giving the title to everyone would work.
Austin was ridiculous over before long before the HBK match. Cena and Batista were outpopping everyone on their brands before their Royal Rumble finish. Edge was getting the best heat on the roster after hooking up with Lita.
Its overness, then main event, then title. Not the other way around.
You can't keep doing what is not drawing based on crowd pops. Your company will go out of business doing that.
You also can't take your most popular guys who you already know can handle the main event and are still pretty young and say "Fuck them" because maybe, possibly, in some fantasy some of the other guys might could really be big even though they're not.
They aren't popular. That's the point.
They are the most popular guys on the roster.
They should push them to main event. I didn't say tommorow. I don't see how its stupid to push some of your most popular wrestlers to main event. What exactly do you suggest WWE do?
Because they refuse to push anyone else. That's like saying WCW was right to have Hacksaw Duggan squash Steve Austin because he got a pop. Everyone knew Austin had immense talent back then.
The fact is WWE ratings are below the USA average. WWE ads don't bring in the same ad revenue of shows with the same ratings. USA was the only network to show interest in RAW when the Spike contract came up. If WWE ever loses TV they are done. The company is finished just like WCW was when it lost TV. Do I need to draw you a map?
Cena doesn't actually need to be involved in ten ppv main events a year in order to remind us that he's the most over guy on the roster. That's lazy booking, which is a huge part of their problem at the moment.
No one else can get really over as a face, but how much of that is because of the "Cena must main event everything" mentality? Orton became a top face almost by accident.
With the way the WWE books things, the Miz is more likely to become the next big face than any of the actual faces on the roster.
And it will remain that way until WWE gets behind some new faces. You think Cena and Batista got to the top without the help of good booking?
They don't refuse to push anyone else. They did try to push other people. RVD was a druggy. Jeff Hardy was a druggy. Lashley got injured. Kennedy kept getting injured. Sheamus is actually sticking around. Its not their fault Cena, Orton, Edge, and Batista were the guys who didn't fuck up their pushes.
4 guys in 5 years? That disproves his point?
And by the way, by all accounts Lashley left because he couldn't stand Hayes. With good reason too. And he also said when he came back from injury WWE told him they didn't have anything for him.
I thought he left because his fiance got herself fired.
Thats 4 guys in 5 years that failed. You're not counting the 4 I mentioned that didn't, plus Sheamus this year and maybe Barrett. There's only so many guys that get that real main event push per year. Most of the time its 1 or 2 people a year.
Apparently because she didn't want to participate in a controversial angle and wanted to go to Raw with Lashley.I thought he left because his fiance got herself fired.
When I said 4 guys, I meant 4 faces. And I was talking about the "failed" pushes.
And other than Kennedy, none of those pushes failed. They all got over to main event level. Backstage it didn't work out, but thats a different story. Fans dont cheer guys based on what they do backstage.
And again, other than Kennedy, all of them left WWE on their own terms. WWE would have resigned both RVD and Jeff but they didn't want to.
That doesn't change my point.
Its not that they didn't let anyone get over Cena/HHH/Orton. Its that the guys they tried to do that with didn't work out for whatever reasons.
HHH tried his damnedest to get Hardy over as a main eventer. I think he almost a year doing that on RAW and Smackdown.
They fed Cena, their 'top guy', to the wolves at an ECW show to give RVD a huge win so he could carry his own freaking brand.
They let Lashley dominate and he got injured in the middle of his Cena feud. And Kennedy just couldn't get it together whenever they tried.
They had Kofi go after Orton, and for various reasons, that didn't work out. They teased Ted turning on Orton, and the crowd instead wanted Orton the beat the hell out of his lackeys.
That's fine. Those are all good examples of good booking. But my point is that it's not enough. They've had years and that's the best they can do? If the guys they did it with didn't work out, you go to other guys. The pushes obviously worked and the guys obviously got over.
It's not like anyone not named HHH, Cena, or Batista can't get over as a face. Even when they had main event faces like Rey Mysterio and Kane on Raw they did nothing with them.
And Kofi didn't work out because of their own booking.
People like Defrost and myself shouldn't say that the WWE refuses to get behind any face that's not already a top guy because some people tend to take that literally. We should say WWE almost never pushes any new faces solidly to the top.
The problem is they just seem scared to try something new.
I like Sheamus, and am glad he's solidifying himself as a main eventer, but I don't like the path they took to get him there. Unlike Lashley, Kofi, Jeff Hardy and other guys they pushed or tried to push, Sheamus was forced on you. There was no legitimate reason for him to be in or stay in the main event scene. It's good that people are warming to him, including myself, but I stopped buying PPV's for 9 months because of it.
Meanwhile, they have Cena who is a face, has been a face for 6 years, and there are countless things they can do to create totally new scenarios by having him turn heel. They won't do it. What could they lose? The ratings are already nearing as dangerously low as they could or should go.
Okay Vince McMahon.Originally posted by Cewsh
Incredibly. Because fans don't know what they want.
It works both ways. The audience needs to be exposed to what WWE has on offer, and fans will react accordingly. If something gets over, then they do know what they want, and it is evidenced by drawing additional fans to the audience, and building and building until it finally wears thin. Stone Cold Steve Austin is a perfect example of this.
The problem with WWE is that the entire format of their presentation has worn thin, beaten like a dead horse, and no longer displays the undying frills of sex and violence to distract from that. It doesn't come down to a matter of who will save WWE from mediocrity, it comes down to them re-inventing the wheel, and the UFC beat them to it. They should be going back to the drawing board, but they're so self-absorbed that they're in a constant state of denial.
I'm pretty honored to be compared the the most successful individual in the history of professional wrestling.
When its a negative quality of his that they are comparing you to, you shouldnt be. You are pretty quick to point out that Bischoff made a ton of money. You're right. Bischoff coukd be considered the second most successful wrestling promoter in US history. He's also number 1 on the list of biggest failures.
I meant to ask you, what do you mean that fans don't know what they want? I want to understand where you are coming from.
Last edited by xpacnumber1fan; October 2nd, 2010 at 11:46 AM.
I don't think it is the stars at all who have failed it is the storylines and booking that has been by far the most badly managed this year specifically to set people up for some great feuds and get their level raised up a notch.
Drew McIntyre is an example of this - he is clearly a talented wrestler but has hardly had any memorable matches at all and is now being paired with Cody Rhodes, yet he's the chosen one, so why haven't they executed on that?
Kofi Kingston is a great high flyer, I guess he appeals to the younger crowd but they put him up against Orton as a face going up against Orton as a heel when Orton is clearly more popular and liked than Kofi, so that's like feeding him to the sharks.
I agree with this to some level, a lot has changed - so many of the top stars are now gone that include HHH, Batista, Shawn Michaels, so to find out who will take their place they have to test the waters and try new things. 2010 should have been the grounds to do this because they needed to develop probably 2 or 3 top stars in Shawn Michaels place since there is likely not going to be someone to take his place in terms of popularity, peformance and sending the fans home happy after a pay per view.It works both ways. The audience needs to be exposed to what WWE has on offer, and fans will react accordingly. If something gets over, then they do know what they want, and it is evidenced by drawing additional fans to the audience, and building and building until it finally wears thin. Stone Cold Steve Austin is a perfect example of this.
John Morrison was compared to HBK - he is horrible on the mic, he should have a manager or someone just take the lead and set him up for one liners before he tries to go off on the mic. He is gradually developing his character into something else but it seems to be taking too long. They tried to portray his training regime as who he is but that failed to get him going and a lot of that has to do with his weird entrance and lack of charisma.
The Miz who at one point was on a roll winning the US Title and at Wrestlemania the Money in the Bank ladder match, might still be on the right path but it certainly hasn't helped him to start feuding with Daniel Bryan who is a rookie in WWE's world but is already stepping right over him...why?
Michael Cole is part of that - the guy has become too overbearing as a heel commentator by constantly burying certain wrestlers and yeah a lot of times that would happen a while back but there isn't anyone to counter his comments on Raw since Jerry Lawler is making attempts but seems to be holding back on defending the credentials of certain wrestlers. At least on NXT, you have Josh Matthews to counter what Cole has to say but that also has to be done on Raw so that the show can become more enjoyable again.
Overall, the biggest weaknesses of WWE are their commentary on Raw, the weakness of the storylines and booking of matches, and the focus on some major new stars where they get a solid 2-3 months at least to go from midcarder to legitimate top star by main eventing at an upcoming pay per view.
One last thing I forgot to mention is how the nexus storyline has had so many holes in it and was so boring when it could have been 10 x better and more successful might finally be going somewhere by having Cena actually join the group or have it disbanded. Other than Wade Barrett who deserves at this point his spot moving forward, the other guys have looked weak and do not take any chances for themselves to shine.
Kaval is someone who I think is on a very good path and if given the chance to put on amazing feuds can get there fast!
In what way, precisely, is Bischoff a failure?
And I explained about the fans already. They get caught up in the moment and think in the short term, almost by definition. A mob of people doesn't look a year ahead. Wrestling bookers need to.
In his 25 years in the business there are only like 3 that could be called successful.
He was responsible for the downward spiral that caused a business that made as much money as WCW to shut down?
In that sense, yeah. In terms of storylines fans are always going to want the face to win, and obviously that isn't wise to do.And I explained about the fans already. They get caught up in the moment and think in the short term, almost by definition. A mob of people doesn't look a year ahead. Wrestling bookers need to.
But the fans know what they want and you can't force feed them crap thinking that you know better. The fans are ultimately the ones whose vote matters since they are the ones taking out their wallets.
Eric was great, but he ran a company that he himself had built up pretty well into the ground. They built up stars like Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Booker T, Chris Jericho and Goldberg, but because they absolutely handed out money and power like water to established WWF guys, those guys they pushed never really got into the spotlight like they should have, and there were even top-notch talent like Sting, Savage, Flair and others who were misused in the process.
You could probably call Bischoff a successful failure, or a failed success. It's a damn shame because he really do a lot to put WCW on the map, the problem is they went from southern company to major national brand to a dying and dead company int he span of about 5 or 6 years. It's crazy.
In Bisch's defense, he did get fired while WCW was still salvageable, maybe, but the downfall started probably even before the success started.
Last edited by TapOut; October 2nd, 2010 at 7:25 PM.
I'm not saying WCW didn't decline after awhile. But he was not the man running it when it well and truly FAILED. If Vince was considered a failure for every down period in WWE then that wouldn't be fair, so why is this? Nash, Russo, and finally Johnny Ace drove it into the ground and killed it.
The only person who has ever beaten, or even competed, with Vince McMahon since Hulkamania hit, is Eric Bischoff.
Because the guaranteed contracts and most of the money spent were Bischoff's doing. Other than Russo in 2000, Bischoff in 1999 lost more money than any other wrestling promotion in pretty much history.
^Exactly. The seeds for WCW's demise were planted even before it became successful. WCW only made money what, 2 or 3 years? If that? I think they made a couple hundred million one year and the very next year lost the same amount, or more? What a quick downfall. This was while WCW was still on Eric's watch.
I don't think they should have fired him... there's a remote possibility that things could have turned around, but that's just a fantasy. We'll never know, but I also think Nash was a big reason for the downfall as well (maybe more than Hogan) and his power came from Eric.
Eric Bischoff is known for his creative ideas - and that includes nWo, having Nitro go live on Mondays against raw among other things. What came afterward was not relevant because had it not been for the merger, wCw would have kept on going.
If he was a failure, he would not be in TNA today, he would not have been hired by Vince to be the GM of raw and he would not have the friends that he has today in the business.
People blame Russo, Nash and Hogan a lot more for the demise of wCw than Bischoff and rightfully so, they built their success around taking down Vince and when they did that, whatever came after didn't matter because they achieved their goal.
Bischoff was an asshole and he made a lot of bad decisions along the way but he is by no stretch of the imagination a failure.
Worth noting is that the last anyone checked, he directly stole both of those ideas from other sources.
nz19 is on my side of the argument.
Therefore I accept that I am wrong.
For you baseball & sports fans, there's 1 thing I always respected about George Steinbrenner. When it comes to winning, there was no limit to his checkbook. There have been years when the Yankees have won & the team is in the black. I think of WCW as a cheap imitation of that, with Bischoff the GM and Ted Turner as Steinbrenner. Turner was willing to just give money away cause for some reason he trusted Bischoff after a certain point. And we know the stories of the ridiculous contracts. Jericho basically earned big money on a gamble on his end. Now, picture the Yankees winning that 96 series (coincidentally, that's when the nWo came out). Steinbrenner knew money was gonna come in even more but he started spending to make sure the team was the best. Now picture Steinbrenner selling the team or being replaced with some frugal bastard (I'm not calling Brad Siegel this but using for convo's sake) and that money getting re-allocated to everything not on the field baseball related. That is a big contributor in the beginning of the demise of WCW. Yes, there's a multitude of things that wen't wrong, but that's 1 thing to truly consider.
1.7 rating for Smackdown. LOLWWE.
Not surprising for a first week move. Doesn't that usually happen when the shows switch stations?
Thats actually higher than I thought it was going to be. I figured it was going to be like a 1.3/1.4 rating.
You waste your time paying attention to something that you hate. LOLDEFROST.
By the way, Raw still gets a better rating than a lot of cable TV shows.
Once the Linda for Senate stuff is over, they'll probably stretch the TV-PG rating as far as they can.
I think the shows have been quite strong lately. Fuck the Nielsen ratings. They are bull-shit. http://io9.com/5636210/how-the-niels...yline=true&s=i
Just so that you don't continue linking to that article, most of the key points in it are either extremely dated or have been debunked altogether. It seems that the author was pissed off about a favorite show of his being canceled and, understandably, decided to try and out the entire Nielsen system. Unfortunately, he countered some of his strongest points with quotes from yesteryear, stats that haven't been true in several decades, and pictures of equipment that hasn't been used anywhere in years.
Not that it's not still a flawed system, but Nielsen ratings are far more effective of a measure of overall viewing now than they were just 10 years ago.
That's what she said.
...
God damnit.
Still, I think some of the points are valid. Why do only certain households get Nielsen jibbery-joobs? There's got to be a better way.
See, that's one of the key parts that's dated/debunked. As it stands right now, all digital receivers are capable of, and by most accounts actually are, storing the data of what you're watching, and returning to sender for overall compilation. This is why we have overnight ratings now, whereas 10 years ago, that was a total impossibility.
Shit.
Still, Raw doesn't do to poorly against other cable shows.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46849
No, no it really doesn't, especially when you consider just how many original cable programs there'd have to be.
Doesn't make it the "longest running weekly episodic program in television history" or whatever, though. Speaking of, have I just missed it, or have they finally stopped trying with that line after so many media outlets debunked it after 312 proclamations on the 900th episode?
I'm just saying that Raw isn't in dire straits. For a niche program, it's doing well.
Cole used the line again either this week or last. Can't remember because Raw's just blend into one another these days.
I had expected SmackDown to do a 2.0 which, when comparing MyNetwork (broadcast) and SyFy (cable) numbers, would be around or slightly above what the show has been doing for the last few months.
So Raw apparently did a 3.3 (4.8 million viewers).
Guess they're still plummeting into obscurity, eh?
Kinda sad that 3.3 would be seen as a major victory to be honest.
It's not a major victory. The rating was down for 2 weeks at the beginning of the football season and now it's back to normal.
I'm gonna make the educated guess that the rating was helped hugely by the second hour, which benefited directly from the football game becoming uncompetitive quickly. Had it remained a one possession game, I'm assuming we'd still be looking at the lower numbers.
Entirely possible.
I'm incredibly thankful for the ratings going up, really. First time they've done anything remotely interesting/risky with Cena in years and there is a positive change. Woo.
Which hopefully means they'll milk it a bit instead of rushing towards a conclusion.
Totally. I was a bit terrified that the rating would drop just a touch, and WWE would flip out and have Cena break free from the Nexus and win the title at Bragging Rights, and never take another chance with him again.
Basically the next 2-3 PPVs should end with kids crying.
October 5, 2010.
The day ANT and I agreed on something.
There's a first and last time for everything.
They are going to kill Randy Orton's face run after the almighty Cena's storyline brought the ratings back up. Fuck this noise.
I don't see that rationale one bit.
Who knows. Defrost makes unfounded claims all the time. I want in.
His claims are rarely unfounded. Just unpleasant.
No, his claims are often unfounded speculative horse shit.
If that's how you want to feel about him then go ahead. I take his word over yours.
I dunno, man, I'd have to think that the ratings spike could ultimately prove beneficial to Orton. He'll drop the strap to Barrett at Bragging Rights (which I assume was happening anyway) but little rallies fans behind a megaface more than chasing a title against "impossible odds", and Orton will slot right into that role nicely.
Well, that's nice. Defrost doesn't know jack shit about WWE's brand of absurdity or what it takes to sell it to the fans. He thinks every major star should fuck off, so I am inclined to believe that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about.
I can't speak for him, but I don't believe he ever has said any of that.
I've compared WWE's current situation to WCW of 1998 when the burnout of the same guys all the time began.
Then I pointed out that all the guys were bought from the WWF which left WWF with only Shawn and Undertaker in 1996 after Bret went home. So since everyone was gone the WWF had no choice but to push people.
Right now WWE is still stuck on the same guys totally petrified to have anyone beat them or push anyone new. So I said they'd be better off if those guys had somewhere else they could go so WWE could rebuild much like they did the year before the Attitude Era started.
He did say that these guys should fuck off.
Cena is putting over Barrett.
Orton has a popular anti-hero character that the crowd loves.
Edge is in a similar position.
HHH got murdered by Sheamus and will likely be "out" for a bit.
The Undertaker is the one person that you can shit on for not losing to new guys.
Cena made Wade and Barrett look like goofs for months until losing a match with a ton of interference. To compare it to WCW again it reminds me of Jericho beating Scott Hall and Rey Misterio Jr beating Kevin Nash. Those were booked not to matter and Hall and Nash in promos made sure to let the audience know it didn't matter.
You are much higher on Randy Orton than I am
Edge beat up a computer and a guy in an eagle costume. Not sure how that qualifies as an anti hero.
HHH got hurt himself making a movie. That's why he hasn't come back to beat Sheamus yet. And think about Sheamus, he's great but they haven't had him beat anyone either. And he was smart enough to get in tight to HHH.
The Undertaker only bothers me for being too broken down physically to be doing this anymore. He needs to retire because his body can't deal with this shit anymore.
Sorry, do you have any references for any of what you are saying?
As far as I know Nielson still uses select viewers for their ratings purpose. This is from their website:
http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nie...v_ratings.htmlTV Ratings are captured, stored in house metering systems and retrieved from approximately 25,000 metered households daily.
Also, I remember you from the Hell in a Cell thread. Let's take a look:
Originally Posted by airborne
Well at the least they've helped out the Raw ratings for tomorrow
How so? They're at lame duck status in two of the top 10 TV markets in the country tomorrow night, and it's safe to assume that this PPV itself had a piss-poor buyrate.
Viewership in Raw jumped almost one million viewers.
It's great that you post here a lot and all that but are you simply wrong all the time or what?
Cena is the BIG good guy. I know you hate every facet of him, but I think he makes for a great do-gooder face. The heel group took him down by being nefarious heels.
I like Randy Orton quite a bit. I love the way moves around the ring and I think this incarnation of his character is fucking great.
Edge hating on juvenile bull-shit just makes him relatable. He's definitely not a typical babyface.
I'm not a HHH fan. In fact, I think he's boring as shit.
I love Taker. I have a soft spot for him, but I can't imagine he'll around for much longer.
Last edited by Beer-Belly; October 7th, 2010 at 5:53 AM.
Holy shit, the gauntlet has been motherfucking THROWN MOTHERFUCKERS.
I have known one Nielsen family in my entire life. They were a 70 year old couple that watched nothing but Hee Haw re-runs. I don't put a lot of stock in the Nielsen ratings.
Remember when he proclaimed that nexus losing at summerslam doomed the group and cost them all their heat?
Yeah, how 'bout that?
I will give him props for saying that Taker needs to fuck off, though. I just can not care abut a broken down old man. It's sad to watch, but because of his legacy many don't want to admit that.
Nexus has 2 big moments that will go down in history as of now.
One is their debut, which was freaking awesome, and the other is the death of Superman at HIAC for crowd reaction alone. That damn Husky Harris.
Those will get replayed in 'best of' moments down the line.
It did cost them their heat, and their momentum was vastly lessened up until Sunday.
No it wasn't - if that was the case they would have been depushed ages ago. Each time they came out, they'd get booed like mad so not sure what show you were watching
Ratings and house show attendance cratered.
How 'bout that?
And now the ratings are back up thanks to that very group that lost all it's heat, right?
Just because they fixed it doesn't mean they didn't lose their heat.
Amazing how after they were finally allowed to look good after months of Cena making them look like shit that happened.
He's made them look like gold 90% of the time. The Summerslam match was probably his only real victory. That and beating Darren Young's ass.
Do you guys remember that time when Orton beat the man we shall not speak of for the title, was promptly booted from Evolution, immediately went from one of the most over promising rising stars to someone that nobody gave even a quarter of a shit about, looked like crap for months while being completely rammed down our throats, and it all ended up with Batista becoming a giant star and basically eclipsing Orton in every single imaginable way?
I don't, because Orton is pretty damn over and has been a top name for quite some time and where's Batista these days??
It was a pretty stupid way to do a face turn.
"Hey guys, remember this asshole and his group of bullies? Well, they finally kicked him out of their bully group and kicked his ass. You can cheer him now"
HHH didn't really help either.
Fucking hot bitches or Melina?
To be fair, Batista was over, and a top name, when he decided to hang them up. It's not like he was released do to lack of being used. The guy retired during a program with Cena for the biggest title on the brand.
His "I quit" speech while in a wheelchair is such an epic way for a heel to go out.
Fixed.
I really don't think he cared. He didn't plan on coming back.
Batista's last heel run was awesome. His promos were fantastic. "WHERE'S MY SPOTLIGHT!?!?!?"
I don't think I ever liked Batista more than I did during his final heel run. And I generally strongly disliked him, just to be clear, but man, I LOVED him during that time, he was just tremendous in the role.
He was what I like to call, A Magnificent Bastard
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
