>The boo bird posse section of the internet can't wait to
>complain in the moment as things are happening and, of course,
>'the future of everything related to that wrestler is doomed'
>if any random segment on a weekly show isn't exactly on-point
>vs some expectation.

i dont need any of that. they should just be winning matches. universal truth since the beginning of fake fighting is that winning makes you successful, losing makes you a loser. getting beat to death on TV has never made anyone more popular. ever.

>In reality, this 2-day Mania went well by most reasonable
>accounts and barometers. The complaining all the way up to it
>that most of us were a part of ended up not really mattering
>because the show was fun to watch and mostly delivered on what
>WWE tries hardest to do: spectacles and moments.

i agree. ive said as much in this post how much I enjoyed major swaths of the weekend.

>Current example: Wardlow is doomed as he keeps inching closer
>to getting his hands on MJF or someone in MJF's remaining
>crew. He made Spears lose a match. So he's getting there. But
>oops, he's not getting there quickly enough and/or it doesn't
>look the same as Brock looks when he interacts with security
>or whatever, so it apparently sucks horribly and is burying
>him per the Cornette type of rasslin media.

it did make him look like kind of a goof tho, and you can see that last night they went completely the opposite direction of that. so on some level even THEY knew it wasnt a great look. that or they figured it out during the company listening party when the Experience came out.

but youre building a bit of a strawman here, especially because Wardlow broke thru by following the universal truth i mentioned above. he has charisma and he won a bunch of matches, so now hes getting over for real

>With some of these 2022 'if its not what I think it should be
>RIGHT NOW, its sucks and I don't know how it can be fixed
>without time travel' barometers, let's see...

youre assigning me a role based on a very lazy generalization. its inconsistent television that sucks sometimes. making that statement should not be controversial in any way.

>Stunning Steve Austin is always hurt and could never get over
>enough in WCW. He never moved the needle even though he was a
>decent worker. Midcarder for life. And he was getting carried
>by Pillman and Steamboat anyway.

this does not seem to be a parallel to what we are talking about in any way lol.

>Steve Austin was a sellout for leaving ECW. They gave him a
>gig when nobody wanted him.



>The Ringmaster is a stupid gimmick and Austin is doomed. MDM
>isn't big enough at this point to give anyone a rub anyway.

all that was true right up until they threw it in the trash and turned the whole thing upside down. its disingenuous to frame it this way considering the radical nature of the fix.

>Everyone involved in that Pillman/Austin angle is doomed
>forever.

no one ever said that

>Steve Austin losing to Bret at Mania 13 'buried him' cuz Bret
>basically kicked his ass.

no one said that, and the reason no one said that is because it was good. when the show is good no one thinks about stuff like that

>Austin isn't a true babyface so the
>crowd isn't going to buy him in that role if WWF is dumb
>enough to try to have him there. Hogan was so much more over
>and sold more merch than Austin has so far. 3:16 was cool but
>that was a while ago.

again...it was good so no one said that. you cant pretend there is any parallel to 1997 because the quality levels are just too disparate.

>Having Mike Tyson involved in Mania 14 took the focus off of
>Stone Cold's win. Boo celebrities. And the Mania 14 match
>wasn't good enough to cement that Austin was the man anyway.
>*some other match* was way better. And HBK's title run didn't
>draw enough for him to be a big enough deal to give anyone a
>rub anyway. AND he's hurt!? This is all terrible.

again, youre comparing things that were good to things that were terrible and pretending that people thought the good things were terrible at the time.

>The Rock is cool I guess but he's not a big enough star to
>give Austin a rub at Mania 15.
>Rock/Austin? Again for Mania 17? They just wrestled at Mania
>15. WWF has no new ideas ever!

what is going on here? lol

we've gone about 25 miles past the point of reasonable comparison.

>Also, Austin isn't as physically impressive as Hogan and he
>didn't immediately draw as much so he sucks and WWE is
>incapable of making any new staaaaa.....

how is this in any way pertinent to me saying the acclaimed need to win matches?

everyone you mentioned was winning matches on television, even when the gimmicks were stuck in the sand. none of them got over losing on TV once or twice a week for months at a time.