388 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

5 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 0 replies · +1 points

Being poster boy is better than champion.....history has proven this.

5 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 0 replies · +1 points

You can basically trace it to when the Attitude Era guys started going part time as to when the ratings started dropping and never rose back up consistently. Once Cena was the true tip top guy with no AE guys there to help him, ratings never went back up to where they were.

It goes hand in hand: the stars they tried to build up after that didnt succeed......mostly because the company kept overpushing Cena.

5 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 1 reply · +1 points

And this is coming from a guy who was a die hard Cena fan in 2003-2005 until he moved to RAW and got shoved down my throat for 12 years

6 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 0 replies · +2 points

The only thing Cena has going for him is longevity as the top star, which surpasses that of guys like Rock and Austin, and title wins, where he has won the most titles out of anyone in WWE history aside from Flair......but those two facets arent as impressive when you think about it.

The company never bent over backwards more to keep someone on top the way they did with Cena......he didnt stay there because of fan support, he stayed there because Vince wanted him to stay there and everybody else wasnt given the full opportunity to surpass him. Now its the same thing with Roman......this is why the company is losing ratings year after year. It isnt a fan friendly show anymore, its a VINCE friendly show.

Cena had a lot of help maintaining his status.....and during that time frame, the company lost more viewers on his watch than anybody else as a top star. It doesnt matter who the champ is, Cena is the star attraction and the show was centered around him, belt or no belt. Cena was a good draw for his time but he never touched Austin, Hogan or Rock numbers, he was never a beloved icon like Bruno or Andre......he was simply a yes man who got pushed against the fans' wishes and succeeded.

6 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 0 replies · +1 points

They were still drawing high 5s and 6s, with a few 7s thrown in AFTER WM 2000. The ratings didnt drop until they moved to TNN in September when Austin was back but thats because TNN wasnt as big or accessible of a channel as USA. If a ratings plateau means dropping from an overall yearly rating of 5.90 in 1999 to 5.88 in 2000 (again, only because the ratings dropped AFTER they moved to TNN).......that isnt much of a plateau, is it? I dont know where you think that the ratings just sank and died after WM 2000 but just a quick check on Gerweck dispels that and considering the WWF made a shit ton of money in 2000 and was one of their most profitable years gonna have to disagree on that.

22 hours ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT WWE N... · 4 replies · +8 points

"......this show will be forever remembered as the 2nd burial of John Cena. Watch now as many of John Cena's haters will suddenly realize how GREAT they once had it for the past 12 years."

Yea, no one else believes these things. After reading reviews on the show, youre the only one to use "buried" to describe the match whereas everybody else just seems surprised but not angry about it.....more like "whatever" (then again, none of them are Cena fans like you are so....). If anything, it hammers home that the company is ready to go with Reigns.

And as a guy who stopped watching WWE on a regular basis with one of the reasons being because of the continued push of John Cena.....what was so great about these past 12 years? How did Cena revolutionize the business in a way no one else has? What boom period did he single handedly launch as the top guy? And finally, what was Cena's legacy as a top guy? Objectively speaking, i have no answer for any of these questions.

You look at Cena as the 3rd greatest draw in the history of the company (i dont.....Cena never got to Rock's level even on Cena's best day) but there is a flip side to that coin: he is also one of the main reasons as to why nobody watches anymore and why, over the years, older fans from previous generations drifted away from watching the product. If Cena is to be considered this great draw and the top guy of the company for 12 years......he deserves SOME of the blame for where the company is at in 2017.....which, again, is something that should play a part in his legacy with no excuses.

2 weeks ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 0 replies · +4 points

On one hand......signing Brock to an extension is definitely essential since he does boost ratings and his feuds are normally the most interesting. He has a superstar aura around him and he accomplishes so much while saying so little. He is the WWE's lone star....i dont even think Cena is bigger than Brock or even on his level at this point.

On the other hand, he is a short term solution to a long term problem. Brock is a safety blanket that the company cannot keep relying on and if they have Brock there, they need to use him to help put over talent. As for the company.....if they would book everybody else's feuds the same way they book Brock's, there would be more overall interest in the product. He is a crutch. He is a short term crutch......and eventually, if Brock runs through everybody, he wont be special anymore. He is special because the company lets him be special......however, you cant let one guy dwarf or destroy your roster. Im worried about that with him.

Brock is both good and bad for business.....i just hope its all worth it in the end outside of a few weeks of ratings boosts.

2 weeks ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yea ill have to agree with you on the points about Cena. If a guy beats Cena and then nothing gets done with him afterwards, what's the point? I mean, Bryan beat Cena.....but then lost the title and was replaced in the main event picture by Big Show and Cena after his feud with Orton. He wasnt even supposed to be in the main event of WM. Thats the conundrum with Cena: he lets people beat him and gives them a lot of offense......but who was really MADE after beating him? And who truly benefitted from losing to him? Thats the million dollar question: win or lose, Cena always came out of those feuds better than those other guys.

Ive seen enough Cena PPV matches and feuds to know that its formulaic at this point. I sometimes think Cena loses just to show the fans that he doesn't win all the way......Kevin Nash used to do it all the time.

2 weeks ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Spot on!!

2 weeks ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 0 replies · +2 points

YES!! I cant believe that this company is so stupid in not seeing the value that Heyman brings to Brock Lesnar. Where are the great managers at to put these guys over and build them up??