RAW Superthread

Lord TSC wrote: »

So here's the problem; if Reigns was bad for business, there won't be statistical facts proving that because it's all hypothetical; it's a discussion of potental based on what could be rather than what is.

The main arguement against Reigns and, more specifically, WWEs booking of him is that many believe the product would be a lot better if they put someone else into the Reigns spot, or stopped trying to shove that particular morseal down people's throats. And I think you know this, but when you are talking about how something could potentially be a lot better, there isn't exact figures to back it up.

The arguement isn't "they should push Rollins because he sells more shirts" or "they should push Finn because the ratings pop when they do", it's that we don't get the chance to find out how others would do in that sort of position they put Reigns in. Your stats show that's a Reigns, the guy they push as their top baby face on their top show, does more tshirt sales than the people they push less. To be blunt. . . . D'uh. The arguement is that if WWE took that rocket and put it onto others, spent time actually trying to push others like they push Reigns, then you'd be able to generate the figures you want, but they don't, so we can't give you what you want.

In fact the list of criteria you list (merchant sales, house show reactions and ticket sales, etc). . . Physically you can't measure the impact of those who aren't showing up. Your argument, the logic in it, is so flawed. If "da sharks" aren't buying the WWE merch, then of course Reigns looks like a ****ing champ. It's a discussion of the missed potential that is on the table though. My own personal opinion, and I hold this over from the days of Cenas Reigns of terror too, is that if you put Ellsworth into the top spot and had WWE strap a rocket to him, then his sales would be the top ones. The "marks", to continue the terms used, will ultimately cheer who they are told. This doesn't make Reigns special; it makes him the current chosen one.

There's nothing hypothetical at all here. If Reigns was bad for business then that can be measured just like the Jinder Mahal experiement could be measured and was shown to be more detrimental than positive.

If you are going to claim that others would do better in the spot than Reigns then produce Google Trend figures, merch figures, anything that suggests someone that can rival him. When people wanted Jeff or Punk to be in the top spot over Cena they could at least point to figures. Where are yours? Answer: they don't exist because there isn't anybody. You say:

"Your stats show that's a Reigns, the guy they push as their top baby face on their top show, does more tshirt sales than the people they push less. To be blunt. . . . D'uh.

This is nonsense. Being pushed doesn't equate to strong merch sales for instance. "Mommy please buy that t-shirt for me, not because I like the guy but because he's pushed strong." And the fact you think Ellsworth could be pushed as the top guy...twaddle.

SlickRic wrote:

As Lord TSC says, we don't know how good he is compared to anyone else in that position, because he's the one in that position, and is continuing to be battered into that position year after year.

Who is to say Rollins wouldn't do better with the same push?
Or Cesaro?
Or Joe?
Or Nakamura?
Or someone else?

He's in the position because he is delivering. And he's only on one show of a brand split. You can't provide ANY comparable challenger to him? What does that tell you? There's nothing stopping you right now going on to Google Trends and typing in those names to see how well they are doing. If they aren't in his league - and they aren't - why do you want to see the company commit economic foolishness by putting aside someone currently doing well, to be replaced by those people you mention who are older and who have a much poorer look than he has? Makes absolutely zero sense.

There is no slam dunk alternative to be pushed right now. WWE have therefore decided to get behind the young guy with a striking look, who's a good worker, and who ladies love and who kids think is cool. There is nothing illogical in any of that.

You don't have to like that and I can see why many don't, but you're acting as if there aren't compelling reasons for the company to choose to get behind him over others. And there are.

attacking the hired goons

face of the wwe

Brocks here

I think this reigns vs Brock thing will all end with Brock handing the title to reigns and shaking hands to end Brocks career with wwe

Like mickie is nearly 40 and looks just as good as the girls 10 years younger than her

Very good start to raw so far

Good Raw this. Going to have to call it a night now, though I am very curious as to how they’ll do Ultimate Deletion. Straight copy of the TNA match by the looks of it.

Bayley is the worst promo in WWE.

She's a contender for worst ever too. Just dreadful.

ohh Christ Kane

Just planting seeds to taker accepted which i really think is american badass taker

The mower of lawns and Senor Benjamin under the boat were sort of funny but that was mostly shîte, as expected.

Horrendous stuff, i taught Blandy burning Brays house down was bad but this was up another level to that, the whole segment should have been deleted before going on air.

Kane v Cena next week, hmmm

ERG89 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/WrestlingSheet/status/975970030977302528?s=19

Who thought having her suplex Dana Brooke would look good.

Thought it looked good. Flung her across the ring.

J. Marston wrote: »

Thought it looked good. Flung her across the ring.

Looked excellent yeah. Hopefully her in ring style is a suplex machine type thing. It'll be months before she gets to Flair, Asuka etc but seeing improvements already.

PTH2009 wrote: »

dont knw what the hell ive watched but hopefully its the end of Bray Wyatt and its a while before we see him again

Phineas Godwinn was a better character and had more credibility.