Smackdown Rating

[Guest Anglesault]

I do think that AS's anti-Brock bias is making him give Brock less credit than he deserves, though

Brock was absolutely awful at that point. (In fact, he had just had a strong contender for most boring free TV match of the year) He's come a long way since then. But back then he didn't approach "good"

[Guest Midnight Express83]

I will agree, Brock didn't seem good until his match with Rocky. Where I guess he sucked all of rocky's wrestling talents out of him because Rock hasn't had a good match since his return, sans Austin.

[Guest Anglesault]

I will agree, Brock didn't seem good until his match with Rocky. Where I guess he sucked all of rocky's wrestling talents out of him because Rock hasn't had a good match since his return, sans Austin.

And then not another good one until (Unless you want to count HiaC) Angle. Crap. But that really is due to opponent quality a lot of the time.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Brock is talented but his problem is all the major stars right now are Hoss-crap-tastic.

[Guest Sakura]

I will never like Brock or take him seriously. It's his face. It's such a babyface. Ruins his credibility. His dance sucks too.

[Guest Cover of Darkness]

I will never like Brock or take him seriously. It's his face. It's such a babyface. Ruins his credibility. His dance sucks too.

Well, that's really mature.

 

 

"I don't like him! His face is WEIRD!"

 

 

Well, I think Brock as proven himself a talented star who is willing to go out and sell for a lesser guy. (Unlike the rest of the upper card.) I fully expect him to make a star out of Cena Sunday.

[Guest Anglesault]

I will never like Brock or take him seriously. It's his face. It's such a babyface. Ruins his credibility. His dance sucks too.

Well, that's really mature.

 

 

"I don't like him! His face is WEIRD!"

 

No, it has something to do with that not being the face of a badass.

[Guest Sakura]

Brock's gimmick is a badass monster hoss. He looks like a mutated Crash Holly. I cannot take a dancing roided up Crash as an unstoppable monster. If that's not mature enough for you then whatever.

[Agent_Bond34 0]

what if Smackdown was on a channel that never got pre empted for real sports how high would the ratings be?

Good question.

 

That is something that I personally would like to know myself.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

In some markets it get the shaft due to Baseball and Hockey, is that real enough for you?

[Guest THE MIGHTY THOR]

I was shocked at how bad Taker v. Austin was- They've worked so many times that I thought they could put together a good match. I even enjoyed the match they had in October 2001.

 

The 2/3 falls match is sad to watch. Fall 1 is pretty good but goes on for way too long. Fall 2 is when they lose it. There's a part where HHH and HBK just sit there on top of the cage doing nothing. They had to send Ric Flair out there to save it- that's pretty sad. Fall 3 was about 2 seconds long and saw HBK fuck up his splash and take a bump that everyone called in Fall 2.

 

I'm saying that-

Taker v. Austin, HHH v. HHH, HBK v. HHH Part II, HHH v. Taker and Kane v. HHH were much worse then the Brock v. Taker series.

 

Taker v. Brock 1 had a lot of extracurriculars to keep my interest and I gave it like **1/4-**1/2. Taker v. Brock II was what a Hell in a Cell match should be. I liked it a lot and it made Brock look like a major player.

Either way Taker versus Brock HITC was nothing more of an overrated crapfest of a match,and the excuse that it's too early to say if Brock is not a drawing champ, well the vanilla gorilla had a title reign b4 and it didn't put asses into seats, so Bob stop trying too hard to suck Brocky's balls by defending him because it's not working.

[Guest bob_barron]

I'm referring to giving Brock a run as the #1 face which is something that is way too early to measure. In his first reign he had one feud with Undertaker and then got the belt taken off of him. That's not really long enough to see if he is a draw or not

 

I enjoyed Taker v. Brock- it was what a HIAC match should be.

 

.

Edited April 28, 2003 by bob_barron

[Guest Goodear]

The problem with Brock's reign is going to be he doesn't have any really good believable challengers right now and won't really have any until Angle gets back from injury. No one is going to think that John Cena, Chris Benoit, Big Show or Rhyno have a shot in hell of unseating him so you end up in this holding pattern. This isn't RAW where like 6 people could "believably" be given wins over Triple H.

[Guest bob_barron]

I think if they build up the guys for more then a month then they can stand a chance.

 

The problem with Cena is that it seems like they woke up and said: Hey- let's have him face Brock in a few weeks.

 

In order for someone to be credible against Lesnar they need to start building them up NOW for a title reign in the future

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I was shocked at how bad Taker v. Austin was- They've worked so many times that I thought they could put together a good match. I even enjoyed the match they had in October 2001.

 

The 2/3 falls match is sad to watch. Fall 1 is pretty good but goes on for way too long. Fall 2 is when they lose it. There's a part where HHH and HBK just sit there on top of the cage doing nothing. They had to send Ric Flair out there to save it- that's pretty sad. Fall 3 was about 2 seconds long and saw HBK fuck up his splash and take a bump that everyone called in Fall 2.

 

I'm saying that-

Taker v. Austin, HHH v. HHH, HBK v. HHH Part II, HHH v. Taker and Kane v. HHH were much worse then the Brock v. Taker series.

 

Taker v. Brock 1 had a lot of extracurriculars to keep my interest and I gave it like **1/4-**1/2. Taker v. Brock II was what a Hell in a Cell match should be. I liked it a lot and it made Brock look like a major player.

Either way Taker versus Brock HITC was nothing more of an overrated crapfest of a match,and the excuse that it's too early to say if Brock is not a drawing champ, well the vanilla gorilla had a title reign b4 and it didn't put asses into seats, so Bob stop trying too hard to suck Brocky's balls by defending him because it's not working.

Brock's first reign drew relatively well. Certainly moreso than the other reigns around that time (even Angle's).

[Guest bob_barron]

well the vanilla gorilla had a title reign b4 and it didn't put asses into seats, so Bob stop trying too hard to suck Brocky's balls by defending him because it's not working.

 

Maybe you need to stop being a biased moron and look at the facts- Brock actually did do relatively well. Considering his one and only high profile feud was against a man with a history of not drawing- that's quite impressive eh?

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Here is the problem with priasing or blaming Brock Lesnar as Champion.

 

1: Every other month, the other world title is the more important match. This has been done many times and makes both titles look weak.

 

2: The world title is split. So again, makes belts look weak.

 

3: Even with a good world title angle, crappy angles that insult the crowd are on the show and that turns away fans.

 

4: Pedro Murlas syndrome: Good champ with no real contenders. So they are looked to be weak, even though the champion is in a deserving spot.

 

5: No long reigns so ratings patterns are hard to tell.

 

6: Wrestling gobally is in in a downward sprial. So not alot of new fans are coming into the sport.

 

7: Too many bait and swtiches that are turning away fans.

 

8: Too many angles that are turning away fans. Hogan/Vince/Piper.

 

9: NOBODY anywhere on both shows are drawing, so can't blame anyone for that.

 

finally 10: The only main eventer to put him over was Rocky.(Angle doesn't count because he is never fully booked as a main eventer). So they make him look like a weak champion losing to weaker people, which makes the belt weak. Which doesn't make anyone draw.

[Guest THE MIGHTY THOR]

well the vanilla gorilla had a title reign b4 and it didn't put asses into seats, so Bob stop trying too hard to suck Brocky's balls by defending him because it's not working.

 

Maybe you need to stop being a biased moron and look at the facts- Brock actually did do relatively well. Considering his one and only high profile feud was against a man with a history of not drawing- that's quite impressive eh?

Hey jackass where's your proof that he drew well??As always you are talking out of your dumb ass, he drew so well that the WWE powers that be had Brock drop his title to the Big Show so they could teach him a lesson, if Vince wanted to he would've kept him as a champ even with broken ribs and all.Another thing i want to take off my chest is that i've read somewhere that it's too soon to judge Brock and his babyface championship reign but i also think its too soon to be praising the vanilla hoss especially after he had a crappy match with Cena in the ppv main event, it was so bad that the crowd started chanting for Cena, even though it was Cena's hometown it still made Brock look like a chump instead of a champ.

Edited April 29, 2003 by THE MIGHTY THOR