So the guy who complains about RAW every week but continues watching tells me to stop reading his columns if I don't like them. I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
I swear, you write the same column every week. Things were better during the Attitude Era, WWE should go back and watch old tapes to see what works... ok, we get it. Why do you feel the need to make the same exact tired points in every column?
WWE's audience is pretty divided about Cena - women and children love him while a significant portion of the older male demographic is tired of him. Cena sells a ton of merchandise and the buyers are mostly kids (or parents who buy for their kids). The IWC, who've been clamoring for Cena to turn heel since the day he first won the belt at Wrestlemania 21, buys very little merchandise (I'm referring to T-shirts, hats, wrist bands, posters, school supplies, etc). If Cena turned heel, the IWC would start liking him and the kids would hate him for turning his back on them. Meaning the audience would still be divided, the only difference is that the portion of the audience who actually bought his merchandise wouldn't be buying it anymore. And it's not like the IWC is suddenly going to run out and start buying Cena shirts and posters if he turned heel. The bottom line is that a Cena heel turn makes little financial sense.
"By the time he signed with WCW and feuded with Ric Flair, Hulkamania was running on fumes. The same old, tired act was no longer viable and it began hurting not just the creative product, but the financial bottom line"
Really? Because Bash at the Beach 94 (Hogan's first PPV) drew the highest buyrate of any WCW PPV up till that point and WCW became profitable for the first time in its existence within a year after Hogan's arrival.
"For the most part, John Cena has dominated the WWE scene since Wrestlemania 21 during 2005. What has happened to the business since? DECLINE." - Mr. Tito
WWE's net revenue in 2005 - $366.4 million
WWE's net revenue in 2012 - $484.0 million
Where exactly is this decline Tito?
"Sorry, but I have no interest in buying ANY Pay Per View headlined by John Cena vs. Ryback when it's well know that Ryback has NO CHANCE IN HELL of winning, like many other John Cena Pay View matches... Give us John Cena vs. CM Punk, we'll buy the Pay Per View. Go see the Money in the Bank 2011 numbers. Hell yeah, we'll buy that!"
Money in the Bank 2011 (John Cena vs. CM Punk) - 195,000 buys
Extreme Rules 2013 (John Cena vs. Ryback) - 225,000 buys
"Copeland dropped the gold 21 days later and spent the remainder of his career serving as a transitional titleholder."
Don't think I've ever heard of an 11-time transitional World Champion before. Also don't think I've ever heard of an 11-time World Champion being cursed. It seemed like you came up with this so-called MITB Curse theory and then awkwardly tried to apply it to every MITB winner even though it actually only applies for maybe 3 of them.
The first TLC match from Summerslam 2000 and HBK's comeback match after a 4+ years of retirement at Summerslam 2002 are more important than at least half of the matches on this list
"My point about TNA Wrestling is that if it was soooooo great, why hasn't it overtaken the WWE by now? If it was such a great promotion, it would have closed that 3 million viewership gap by now."
Just wondering - why do you need ratings to tell you whether a show is great or not? Do you not have the ability to think for yourself?
I did read the column. You said you were taking a break from RAW because it's not as entertaining as it once was and that's perfectly understandable. But throughout this 'break' you're still following everything that happens and writing in depth columns about it. So the show isn't entertaining enough to watch but it's entertaining enough to read and write about regularly? That's the part that doesn't make sense.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig