"With Roman Reigns cleanly pinning Daniel Bryan in what was a hell of a main event on Fast Lane, its very clear that Vince McMahon is still planning on the scenario hes probably had for probably one year, with Reigns beating Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania.
Fan reaction at the Royal Rumble, and since the Royal Rumble, largely indicated that scenario was backfiring. Forgetting about Bryan, and forgetting about skill level or being ready or even talking ability, Reigns is nowhere near as over and doesnt feel like he has anywhere near the momentum of the babyface who is going to chase and win the title on the biggest show of the year.
Whats notable is that 21 years ago, a younger Vince McMahon was in the same position, choosing between his own hand-picked next star of the company, tall bodybuilder Lex Luger, or one of the best in-ring performers of that time, Bret Hart. Historically, Luger was far closer to what McMahon liked his champions to look like. But Hart was more popular among the fans. Faced with the crowd reaction in the laboratory setting of a big show, the fans liked Hart more than Luger when they squared off. The WrestleMania original plan, Luger beating Yokozuna to win the title, was changed to Hart. Lugers momentum was lost, and a little over two years later, working as part of a mid-card tag team he walked out on the company. Hart became the companys biggest star, before he was gone more than three years later.
This time, McMahon went with the original plan. It was acknowledged that Reigns wasnt over like he should have been. So they went to work. They brought in his cousin, Dwayne Johnson, to make his Royal Rumble win even bigger. But the miscalculation of putting Bryan in the Rumble made the whole scenario backfire, and even the endorsement of Johnson didnt matter.
The next idea was to change the original plan for Fast Lane and put Reigns vs. Bryan. There were a lot of ways to go, but the key is that theyd probably have a great match. In the final scripting, it was Reigns winning clean, and Bryan, the next day, out there with the idea hes the representative of his fan base, telling them to cheer Reigns onto victory because he was the better man and we were all wrong and he deserves our respect. Not only that, they were put together in a tag team the next day and Reigns ever so graciously allowed Bryan to get the win, even though he did the work to set up the pin.
After the Rumble, there was a vocal protest. Did it mean anything business-wise? Well, WWE did change some plans, but in the end went right back to the original one. If a lot of people would have canceled the WWE Network, there would have been no choice but to react. Instead, far more people signed up in the two days after the show than canceled. It was a lot of noise and little action.
At Fast Lane, they were doing the same thing, just more directly. They actually put the two of them head-to-head, and the company clearly picked its favorite above the crowd favorite. This time, there was nowhere near the same reaction. People yelling about canceling and not doing so wasnt going to work. And it was over. The audience couldnt control the direction.
Really, Id rather somebody wrote a book from start-to-finish rather than readers who have no real understanding of book writing trying to force changes so the little sidekick who is supposed to be a bit player gets the girl and not the handsome lead who the whole book was built around.
I learned long ago that a good promoter listens to the fans, and a great promoter completely manipulates the fans. But the idea is that both make the fans want not what they tell the promoter they want, but what the promoter wants in the first place, because he has a better grasp than they do about business.
This goes back to Paul Boesch in the 1980s. Boesch every week had his lab experiment, for most of his promoting career, 52 weeks, every Friday, he would have a show at the Sam Houston Coliseum. It takes a lot of ideas and creativity to run 52 times a year in the same building. Youre going to have some hits and some misses, and the idea is to either fool yourself with excuses on the misses, or learn from them. He told me that in the end, all the excuses are just that. If a show doesnt draw, its his fault, for presenting a main event that fans didnt want to buy tickets to see. Vince McMahon would tell the same stories, except he would use Bobo Brazil, as his conduit, with the story of the bad house, and the wrestlers, and promoters would talk about the weather or the economy or whatever competition was in town, and Bobo would calmly say that the problem is that not enough people wanted to see the main event.
Wrestling is a totally different business today. Vince McMahon still tells the Bobo Brazil story. And he doesnt buy fake excuses. When a show does bad, that means the creative missed. He doesnt want to hear about county fairs, movie opens, welfare checks and the day of the month, warm weather or cold weather. History has shown that NFL football, NBA playoffs and maybe the World Series or a hot Yankees-Red Sox game can hurt ratings.
But one of Boeschs stories was about listening to the fans. In those days, a large percentage of the audience that attended the show, would buy the souvenir program. So in the 1960s, what better way is there to do direct marketing to your customer base but to put in the program a question, asking fans what match do you want to see. His job was selling tickets to those same customers. Instead of guessing what they want, just ask them directly. So he did it, and booked the match.
He never told me the names, but did say the fans wanted a match between the two most popular wrestlers in Texas at the time. It was a match theyd never see because the promoters always did babyface vs. heel. So maybe they were wrong. He booked the match. The gate sucked. And the lesson was learned. If you deliver exactly what the fans ask for, you probably wont do very well. Its better to create a scenario, and convince them to buy what you think most of them will pay to see.
Over the years, Vince McMahon has handpicked a number of champions with the idea theyd be the face of the company. Hulk Hogan was a big success. Ultimate Warrior seemed like he had all the momentum in the world, but as soon as he got the title, it didnt work. With hindsight we can point to the excuses, Hogans manipulation after the match, no viable contenders set up, or simply bad timing with the idea that any face who followed Hogan would probably fail by comparison. He went back to Hogan, although it was clear McMahon had already made the choice that with Hogan approaching 40, he had to make a new Hogan.
I dont think McMahon at that point saw Bret Hart as more than a bridge, a temporary thing until the next big thing came along. The next pick was Lex Luger. That was blown based on timing. They creating a scenario where he had to win at a certain time, they waited too long, and the momentum was lost. And given his history elsewhere, he probably wouldnt have been a success if they pulled the trigger at the right time. He was too much like Hogan, and Hogan was still in peoples minds.
The next pick was Kevin Nash. He was the biggest of all, talked well and was good looking. But business was terrible during that period and Nash was clearly not the answer as the focal point. Nash wasnt at the level of Hart or Shawn Michaels, the other two top stars, inside the ring. That was a clear factor at the time, even though there were plenty of people better than most of McMahons other champions when they held the title. Warrior was outright terrible unless he had a great heel to carry him. Hogan had a patterned relatively short match that worked, more because Hogan had incredible charisma, which Nash didnt have even though he was bigger than Hogan and had better hair.
Then Shawn Michaels, also not a success. Then Bret Hart, but McMahon got buyers remorse on his contract. Then came Steve Austin, who carried the company during its most successful period in history. Dwayne Johnson came up during the Austin era and carried things when Austin was injured. The Golden Period ended due to two factors. They made the huge mistake of turning Austin heel, and Johnson showed so much charisma in wrestling that Hollywood called, and he had far more acting range than Hogan and he was wrestling less-and-less.
That led to the modern era. The company fell greatly with HHH as its top star, but he became a family member. But the company remained profitable because this was the first period in history when they were truly the monopoly promotion. The first hand-picked successor was to be Brock Lesnar. Lesnar was the best athlete and toughest guy ever put into that position. But he wasnt strong on promos. He was put together with Paul Heyman in a pairing that worked, but the two were broken up and Lesnar was turned face far too early, then turned back. The company also suffered from Johnson appearing less and less frequently and Austin retiring. Eventually the decision was made that Lesnar wasnt the guy, and he quit the promotion shortly thereafter. Randy Orton came next. He had a long string as a main eventer, a very good wrestler with the right look. Orton had a five year run where he statistically did well above usual business when he was on top, but he did not have the charisma to be a real mover as the top guy. He still was always kept strong because he had the right look and skill set. Actually Dave Bautista surpassed Orton in the fans eyes, and as a business mover. Bautista was a huge success with his face turn in 2005. He was a big guy with a great physique and good look, and reasonably good in the ring, far from the best, but certainly when in with the best could be in a quality main event. While his feud with HHH was probably the most successful of the current era, he was quickly surpassed in popularity and momentum by John Cena.
Heres the thing. In every single case, even with Luger and Nash, they had momentum and the fan base treated them like they were a major star on the rise before the big moment came, or in the case with Luger, never came. There was never the totally lukewarm reaction to a full-year title build that lost momentum months before. Many failed when put in the spotlight, but none came in with no momentum.
In almost every case historically, even the most stubborn promoter in this scenario would chalk it up to not always being right.
Why is this different? One year ago, McMahon made a move that nobody expected. He had Lesnar beat The Undertaker. Nothing in the company, not the title, somebodys trademark hair or someones position had the value of the decades long streak. It was the institution. It would lead to the most shocking moment in modern wrestling history and it could only be done once. There may never be another moment at that level.
The idea from the start was that moment would be used to create the new top star of the company. Lesnar would beat Undertaker, demolish Bryan, and be the unstoppable heel force, and Reigns would succeed where even Cena couldnt. It made all the sense in the world a year ago. Reigns was young, looked great, and The Shield were the hottest new act in years. Reigns had been presented as the killer and the tough one in the group. The idea was to use The Shield to get him over, and it worked better than expected. He was an instant headliner being put out on his own. But whether it was timing, the injury, Bryan, or people wanting more substance from the top guy, it didnt work.
Why McMahon was so married to the idea may have been that by beating Undertaker, and having a guy who brought the fan base into a different dimension of stronger reality like Lesnar, it created a unique time to make the new face, figuring it was time make Cena the babyface legend and not the guy in the championship picture, essentially what Bruno was to Bob Backlund and what he wanted Hogan to be to Warrior and later Bret Hart but it never worked out.
Abandoning Reigns would have historically made the Undertaker loss almost for naught and there was no way to recreate that storyline. Even though Bryan was the hottest act at the time, at no point did he ever consider Bryan as the guy. He was too physically small and not good looking enough. And that was the problem. He got hung up on the factors and not the end result.
Even though Bryans chant made it appear he was more over than he was, and he wasnt a business mover on the level of Cena, he was significantly ahead of Reigns with far less help in presentation. But even with that, the argument is Reigns was younger, and with his look, had more long-term potential. Based on traditional qualities, he did. But the appreciation of wrestling ability as a quality may be higher than ever now, and perhaps the most important modern qualities are wrestling, talking and connecting, and Bryan was far superior in all of them.
What could have been different? Well never know. He was the guy picked by the fans, but the company never saw it. Everyone knows the debate to death."
