Rock has returned (Video)

[Montague]

I liked when Cena made a suprise return at the Royal Rumble in NYC and the place went crazy and then all the smarks were like, "oh shit, we weren't supposed to cheer for him."

Was it a sustained reaction, or the typcial entrance/theme pop?

[mass 04]

That pretty much puts to rest the claims that only the "Attitude" era guys like Rock and Austin can generate such responses.

Plus, you remember that Brock Lesnar got more of a pop than the Rock did at SummerSlam 2002, when he beat Rock for the undisputed title.

I mean people are saying that he got the biggest reaction of the pg era or whatever you want to call it. Well, no kidding he is one of the top 5 biggest stars ever and was off tv for 7 years, of course people are going to go nuts. He's going to get a louder reaction than Cena or Miz or whoever, people that are on tv every week.

[MCWAY]

Was it a sustained reaction, or the typcial entrance/theme pop?

See for yourself

[Montague]

I mean people are saying that he got the biggest reaction of the pg era or whatever you want to call it. Well, no kidding he is one of the top 5 biggest stars ever and was off tv for 7 years, of course people are going to go nuts. He's going to get a louder reaction than Cena or Miz or whoever, people that are on tv every week.

Yeah, but all things equal, I don't see any of the top guys of today coming back after a 7-yr. hiatus and eliciting the reaction Rock did.
And, that's because Rock reached a level none of today's guys ever have.
Maybe they will, but they haven't yet.

At the moment, being the top dog of WWE is analogous to being the valedictorian of summer school.

[mass 04]

Yeah, but all things equal, I don't see any of the top guys of today coming back after a 7-yr. hiatus and eliciting the reaction Rock did.
And, that's because Rock reached a level none of today's guys ever have.
Maybe they will, but they haven't yet.

At the moment, being the top dog of WWE is analogous to being the valedictorian of summer school.

oh i agree. The Rock is a one in a million. Business was so hot in the late 90's early 2000's that it will be near impossible for anyone from this era to get a reaction like that. The only scenario I can think of is most of the Cena fans are kids, if most of them keep watching they will be adults in 10 years if Cena did a hypothetical return. To them right now this era will be the best, much like the kids in the 80's growing up with Hogan, Flair, and Warrior and kids in the 90's with Austin and Rock remember their childhood.

[Montague]

oh i agree. The Rock is a one in a million. Business was so hot in the late 90's early 2000's that it will be near impossible for anyone from this era to get a reaction like that. The only scenario I can think of is most of the Cena fans are kids, if most of them keep watching they will be adults in 10 years if Cena did a hypothetical return. To them right now this era will be the best, much like the kids in the 80's growing up with Hogan, Flair, and Warrior and kids in the 90's with Austin and Rock remember their childhood.

True.
Every generation thought that they had the best era.

That goes for the wrestlers, too.
But the truth is, in Bruno's day, they would have KILLED for the worst numbers of today's product.
I guess, then, the "best" is how you remember it.

[Playboy]

True.
Every generation thought that they had the best era.

That goes for the wrestlers, too.
But the truth is, in Bruno's day, they would have KILLED for the worst numbers of today's product.
I guess, then, the "best" is how you remember it.

The WWE reached its biggest profit and highest television & PPV ratings in 1999-2000 and that was a time when NO JOHN CENA was around. Fact.

[MCWAY]

The WWE reached its biggest profit and highest television & PPV ratings in 1999-2000 and that was a time when NO JOHN CENA was around. Fact.

Look at the WrestleMania venues. In the post-"Attitude" era, WrestleMania has been held in a football/baseball stadium 5 years in a row (counting this year's event).

In the "Attitude" era, you have just one (WrestleMania 17).

[The Showstoppa]

Look at the WrestleMania venues. In the post-"Attitude" era, WrestleMania has been held in a football/baseball stadium 5 years in a row (counting this year's event).

In the "Attitude" era, you have just one (WrestleMania 17).

they are also taping Smackdown in 4600 seat venues.  I really hope you don't think that somehow the WWE is "bigger" now than during the Attitude era.....

[Playboy]

Look at the WrestleMania venues. In the post-"Attitude" era, WrestleMania has been held in a football/baseball stadium 5 years in a row (counting this year's event).

In the "Attitude" era, you have just one (WrestleMania 17).

Only because everyone wanted to see Vince get his head shaved by Donald with Austin as a ref / enforcer. Other WM's to follow had other specialty "lets attract fans" like people wanting to see The Big Show take on Floyd Mayweather, etc. Not to see Cena. Last two years it was all about HBK & Undertaker. Not Cena, that's for sure. 

[MCWAY]

they are also taping Smackdown in 4600 seat venues.  I really hope you don't think that somehow the WWE is "bigger" now than during the Attitude era.....

They taped Raw in similar venues back in the late 90s.

As I said, 5 straight WrestleManias in 70,000+ seat stadiums, one of which I got to attend and had a blast (WrestleMania 24).

I think they should have more outdoor WrestleManias, but you have to factor in the weather. It was raining early at the Citrus Bowl.

[MCWAY]

Only because everyone wanted to see Vince get his head shaved by Donald with Austin as a ref / enforcer. Other WM's to follow had other specialty "lets attract fans" like people wanting to see The Big Show take on Floyd Mayweather, etc. Not to see Cena. Last two years it was all about HBK & Undertaker. Not Cena, that's for sure. 

What is your obession about Cena? I never claimed that the post-Attitude era was all about him. That's part of the problem with some critics here.

With that said, even though 'Taker won the Royal Rumble that year, WrestleMania 23's last match (the "Raw main event"; Batista-'Taker was billed the "Smackdown main event") was Cena vs. Michaels.

[The Showstoppa]

They taped Raw in similar venues back in the late 90s.

As I said, 5 straight WrestleManias in 70,000+ seat stadiums, one of which I got to attend and had a blast (WrestleMania 24).

I think they should have more outdoor WrestleManias, but you have to factor in the weather. It was raining early at the Citrus Bowl.

So you do think the WWE is bigger right now than it was in the late 90's?

[Playboy]

What is your obession about Cena? I never claimed that the post-Attitude era was all about him. That's part of the problem with some critics here.

With that said, even though 'Taker won the Royal Rumble that year, WrestleMania 23's last match (the "Raw main event"; Batista-'Taker was billed the "Smackdown main event") was Cena vs. Michaels.

i'm not obsessed with Cena. You keep bringing him up saying that he's bigger than the Rock and Austin which is silly because he is not. He's popular and does numerous charity work but he is no Rock or Austin in terms of in ring work and crowd reaction. 

[MCWAY]

So you do think the WWE is bigger right now than it was in the late 90's?

I'd say they're about even. Both have had their highs and lows. Remember that, in the late 90s, WWE came within a heartbeat of going out of business.

[Playboy]

I'd say they're about even. Both have had their highs and lows. Remember that, in the late 90s, WWE came within a heartbeat of going out of business.

Correction....mid ninties. 1995-1997 to be exact. This was the time when they were wrestling in small 3,000 - 6,000 capacity crowd facilities and using big hockey arenas for PPV's.

[MCWAY]

i'm not obsessed with Cena. You keep bringing him up saying that he's bigger than the Rock and Austin which is silly because he is not. He's popular and does numerous charity work but he is no Rock or Austin in terms of in ring work and crowd reaction. 

When did you ever hear me say that Cena is bigger than Austin or Rock? You're the one complaining as if WWE just can't exist without those two guys.

My point was and is, there was life after Hogan and Warrior, after Shawn and Bret, and YES after Austin and Rock.

But, if you compare Cena and Rock, look at their resumes. Cena has been World champion more times than Rock and LONGER than Rock. And, he's main-evented as many WrestleManias as Rock has, but in larger crowds.

As for working the crowd, Cena does quite well at that, in his own right. Again, people either love him or loathe him. At WrestleMania 25, for example, he wins the World title, then stands right next to a guy with a "Cena Sucks" T-Shirt (that same guy was in the front row with his buddies with similar shirts at WrestleMania 24), and just poses for a picture with the belt and smiles.

[MCWAY]

Correction....mid ninties. 1995-1997 to be exact. This was the time when they were wrestling in small 3,000 - 6,000 capacity crowd facilities and using big hockey arenas for PPV's.

Late 90's: 1996-1998, prior to Austin becoming champion. I consider mid-90s to be 1993-1995.

The tail end of the "New Generation" and the beginning of the "Attitude" era, they were wrestling in similar-sized venues, particularly at those "In Your House" PPVs. For example, In Your House: Beware of Dog 2 was a turning point in Austin's career, as that's where he lost that second Carribean Strap Match (with the stipulation that Ted DiBiase, would leave the WWF, if Austin got beat).

And those Thursday Raw tapings (when USA had those dumb dog shows on Monday nights) were a bit small, not to mention "Shotgun Saturday Night".

[Playboy]

Late 90's: 1996-1998, prior to Austin becoming champion. I consider mid-90s to be 1993-1995.

The tail end of the "New Generation" and the beginning of the "Attitude" era, they were wrestling in similar-sized venues, particularly at those "In Your House" PPVs. For example, In Your House: Beware of Dog 2 was a turning point in Austin's career, as that's where he lost that second Carribean Strap Match (with the stipulation that Ted DiBiase, would leave the WWF, if Austin got beat).

And those Thursday Raw tapings (when USA had those dumb dog shows on Monday nights) were a bit small, not to mention "Shotgun Saturday Night".

That's early ninties 

No need to spar with people. Its a friendly board.

[Playboy]

When did you ever hear me say that Cena is bigger than Austin or Rock? You're the one complaining as if WWE just can't exist without those two guys.

My point was and is, there was life after Hogan and Warrior, after Shawn and Bret, and YES after Austin and Rock.

But, if you compare Cena and Rock, look at their resumes. Cena has been World champion more times than Rock and LONGER than Rock. And, he's main-evented as many WrestleManias as Rock has, but in larger crowds.

As for working the crowd, Cena does quite well at that, in his own right. Again, people either love him or loathe him. At WrestleMania 25, for example, he wins the World title, then stands right next to a guy with a "Cena Sucks" T-Shirt (that same guy was in the front row with his buddies with similar shirts at WrestleMania 24), and just poses for a picture with the belt and smiles.

David Arquette held the World title too. Titles mean absolutely nothing.

[MCWAY]

David Arquette held the World title too. Titles mean absolutely nothing.

Then why is Austin's win over Michaels at WrestleMania 14 considered a top-10 all-time WrestleMania match?

On paper, it's hardly a memorable bout, except for its obvious ending.

One, Michaels barely made it to WM14 because of his back.

Two, who in their right mind thought that Michaels was going to retain the title?

Three, that match had the tried-and-true formula for a title change: Heel champion vs. face challenger.

In WCW, titles may not have meant that much, except for Goldberg's reign. But in WWE, that strap means everything (hence, all the drama with the "Survivor Series Screwjob" with Bret Hart).

That's how Austin, Rock, Helmsley, Cena, Orton, Undertaker, Michaels, et. al. came to prominence.

[Montague]

David Arquette held the World title too. Titles mean absolutely nothing.

Not anymore.
Not like they did.

Then why is Austin's win over Michaels at WrestleMania 14 considered a top-10 all-time WrestleMania match?

Because of WHO was in the match.

Wrestlers give the titles meaning & importance.
Judy Bagwell & David Arquette do not.

[MCWAY]

Not anymore.
Not like they did.


Because of WHO was in the match.

Wrestlers give the titles meaning & importance.
Judy Bagwell & David Arquette do not.

The match itself was mediocre at best. The ranking is because it was Austin's first World title, not because the match was awesome itself.

Again, there was little drama (except for whether Michaels would make it there in one piece). Everybody and their mama knew Austin would win. That was just a formality.

And, we're talking about the WWF/WWE championship, not the WCW title which was rendered almost meaningless (except for Goldberg's tenure).

[Playboy]

The match itself was mediocre at best. The ranking is because it was Austin's first World title, not because the match was awesome itself.

Again, there was little drama (except for whether Michaels would make it there in one piece). Everybody and their mama knew Austin would win. That was just a formality.

And, we're talking about the WWF/WWE championship, not the WCW title which was rendered almost meaningless (except for Goldberg's tenure).

This is just your opinion. Not fact Remember that before you start sparring with everyone on here and doing 37 hours of extensive research and video bullshit. 

[MCWAY]

This is just your opinion. Not fact Remember that before you start sparring with everyone on here and doing 37 hours of extensive research and video bullshit. 

I don't need that much time to do research  .

Michaels-Austin was as predictable as a Monday is long. Heel champion vs. face challenger at WrestleMania, a no-brainer (especially with Austin's growing popularity). And the match was hardly a barn-burner.