Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
I don't really blame Bret or HBK. The roster at the time was mostly awful and the gimmicks were at an all-time low. Straight garbage. WWF after the steroid trial was terrible.
Thisnjs aboht wwe champions not being draws right...who dress less then 750 million dollars fkr the companyBryan had a grand total of one month on TV as the WWE champion, and he didn't even appear on Raw for half of that. Get the fukk outta here with your third grade troll logic. WWE lost money because they gassed up stockholders and overestimated how many casual fans would be interested in the Network.
I'll always feel like the think that happened with Punk was post Pipe Bomb, he really was "The One To Watch" in WWE.
Folks deny it, but there's been no bigger draw since Austin than the story of "The Regular Slobby Looking/Acting/Talking Dude vs The Corporate Machine Or Whatever Represents It"
WWE misses this point by always having the Corporation pick on these pretty boy square jawed babyfaces, but I digress...
Anyway, I saw it as Punk leveraging that fame in his contract renegotiations and one of the stipulations was that he was champ for a determined length of time.
Vince or whoever, being tired of his shyt, gave him the belt..... but booked Cena as champ.
The list is bullshyt.. Greenfield, headwriter on Smackdown in 2004-2006, said Eddie was mainly responsible for Smackdown's successful ratings during that time.
Kliq takin L's up in here
The mid -90s sucked in general though.
Benoit, for all the technical skill he had, had the charisma of a cardboard box, and that's a bit of an insult to the box.
Can't tolerate that Eddie slander.....
Punk was neutered.
Miz is spot on. I almost forget he had a Wrestlemania main event and I watched that shyt live.
Kliq ru(i)ns the business
Lol at Punk being on the list. WWE moved to three hours mid-way through his reign and the WWE's roster was depleted compared to what it is now. Rollins/Brock last month did worse in terms of TV ratings than Punk/Del Rio.