lazorbeak

Update 1/18/15: I put up a new update of my data, complete with images! Here's the picture file: http://www.mediafire.com/download/ch3ca8rurzzwlhc/M1975.zip And the current data file: http://www.mediafire.com/download/f8mcegfey5h2d0e/cbh.mdb This is based on Marvel's universe circa 1975, which is very close to the world depicted in the MU cinematic universe and shows like Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

My only "problem" is that after I say something is off-topic and should be dropped, you were more concerned that someone "dissagreed" with what you said (which is why this is an issue that doesn't belong in a WWE discussion thread) instead of letting it go and having the self-awareness to realize that "yeah, maybe a thread about Raw results isn't the place to talk at length about what drugs I personally find harmful." It's a discussion that inevitably leads to pointless arguing, which I have been trying to avoid. And still am. Seriously. Let's. Move. On.

Last post wherin I talk about why off-topic stuff is, in fact, off-topic. It's off-topic because it's three paragraphs about personal opinions on a divisive issue. It'd be like mentioning Kane appearing on Fox News and then going into three paragraphs of personal opinions about my own politics. It's the kind of post that starts arguments and offers almost nothing new in terms of insight. If he had just said "well it's the law," and left out all the other stuff, he would've basically said the same thing and not looked like he wanted to go on a soapbox about some drugs vs. other drugs. I <3 the "we don't care" line from someone who introduces the post explaining their dislike of "talking down." I hope you appreciate the irony of standing up for someone whose rebuttal is "obviously you didn't read what I said." Because obviously a person couldn't possibly have misunderstood something that wasn't clear or hold a contrary opinion. Meanwhile I'm the bad guy because I said I thought a post was off-topic and didn't belong in a particular thread. But by all means, take a post not directed at you as an opportunity to tell people that you don't care what others think. And I already explained two specific issues where it wasn't correct, but my point was that it was off-topic. I never called it a rant, and I did contradict specific things you said. I don't know if there's just a clarity issue here or what. And once again, my point was that it was off-topic, so I'm not particularly interested in getting sucked into a drugs debate. But again, all of this is off-topic, so let's move on.

Since you were off-topic and rambling, all I can say is... good. Even if that means you feel the need to say something nonsensical like "it's obvious" I didn't read your post. Maybe your post didn't communicate what you thought it did?

dj, the short version is what you're saying doesn't belong in the WWE discussion thread. The longer version is: don't go on a big rant about drugs (or anything, really), unless you have an extremely firm grasp of what you're talking about. A lot of the things you said are either totally incorrect, halfway correct, or not particularly relevant. For one thing, addiction is about brain chemistry. What you're talking about is far less addictive then alcohol or cigarettes. Also you might as well call those "gateway" drugs, too. But again, this conversation doesn't belong here. On topic, Bourne continues to shoot himself in the foot every time he starts to get on a roll; first with injuries, now this.

<p>I think three seasons of elite production is a little early to call someone a hall of famer. He's also been clutch in the past, leading San Diego to comeback victories repeatedly in the season where they went 4-8 and still made the playoffs, and helped them come back in the 4th quarter against the Colts in the post-season.</p><p> </p><p> That said, the Chargers aren't that great because the team's not that great. Rivers is struggling, but who are his receivers? I mean there's Antonio Gates, and then there's, uh... Vince Jackson? Their defense also lost some key guys like Antonio Cromartie, and Norv Torner is a better coordinator than he is a head coach. That said, people still pick the Chargers to win the division every year because up until this year, virtually every other team in the division was abysmal.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rone Rivendale" data-cite="Rone Rivendale" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think you severely underestimate both TNA and AJ Styles. <p> </p><p> TNA isn't some small company that doesn't draw. Its the 2nd biggest wrestling company in America. It's the only company outside of the WWE that can afford to take on prolonged tours outside of the US.</p><p> </p><p> And AJ Styles I would argue IS TNA. If I was told to tell you the 1st person that came to mind when I heard the name TNA, Styles would be it. And I would also argue that he is the 1 guy that they need more than anyone else. He has been the top guy in the early days. He has been the workhorse of the X Division when it was JUST as popular as the World Title picture. Then he went to the forefront of the main event again, even going as far as being #1 in the PWI 500 in 2010. At this moment, he isn't in the Title picture. But this isn't anything bad on his side. They are giving some new faces some main event time. People like Storm and Roode who DESERVE it. People who have come up in the company just like Styles from the ground up. People who earned their spot and shouldn't be tossed aside like you would have them be.</p><p> </p><p> I won't change your mind, but now at least you know I am serious about this.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's like you are halfway understanding my point- I agree Storm and Roode deserve a shot. That's why I'm saying what's best for everyone would be to let the guy move on without moving down the card- he's not a big enough deal to be an attraction in of himself, and to be just "one of the guys" after being the face of the promotion hurts his long-term value. But demoting Styles or putting him in re-run feuds doesn't increase business, isn't doing anything new creatively, and takes up a spot that could go to somebody else who, in your words, DESERVEs it. </p><p> </p><p> What I'm saying that you're not getting is that there is a creative shelf-life to a guy like AJ Styles, and TNA has basically run the well dry. I think that's true of a lot of TNA's roster, too. Matt Morgan was challenging Kurt Angle in what, 2009, and still hasn't ever won the belt? Either give him the ball or replace him with another big monster guy.</p><p> </p><p> The point is, change is what's good for the business, and TNA lets itself get creatively stagnant by keeping these guys floating around the roster after they've run out of stories for them. I mean AJ had worked his way up the card, had won every title, and main evented with Kurt Angle two years ago on the biggest show TNA puts on. Now he's engaged in a repeat of a feud with Christopher Daniels. My point is it's better to just move on then to move backwards. Maybe he WAS TNA, but clearly he isn't right now.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Wrestling Century" data-cite="Wrestling Century" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So lazorbeak, you would rather have TNA keep the old WWE rejects and let go of their homegrown talent? Because I would personally rather have it the other way around.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Where did I say anything approaching this? I said they need to let go of stale talent. That includes WWE rejects that don't draw and have been doing nothing new creatively. Look at Austin Aries- he's a TNA alum, but he's doing something fresh and the crowd is behind him, he hasn't worked with everyone on the roster, and he's doing work that has people interested. There's plenty of talented guys out there who aren't just a nostalgia act that TNA would have more spots for if they didn't devote so much television time to guys that haven't changed what they do at all since 2005 or earlier. And WWE being a 2, formerly 3-branded behemoth is going to run through a lot of guys that never scratch their potential, or that could've done far more. I mean some guy that worked on Smackdown or ECW 3-4 years ago may have plenty of creative stuff left in the tank. So the term "WWE rejects" is not really fair- some of TNA's biggest names worked in WWE at some point.</p>

I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke post, but I'll bite. Yes, when a guy has done everything in your territory to the point where he can't do anything else, he should move on. Particularly when the "stars" that TNA builds for at the PPVs tend to be guys like Sting, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, and Hulk Hogan. What is the benefit for AJ Styles as a performer to be wrestling Chris Daniels for the umpteenth time? On TNA's side, what new stories can you tell with guys that are doing rehashes of their own work from 5-8 years ago? At a certain point they are taking up a spot without adding anything new creatively, and on the personal side they are treading water because no matter what, AJ Styles can't get bigger than a Jeff Hardy in terms of exposure as long as he's in a tiny pond. So it's damaging to both the performer and their creativity and the company they're in, who get diminishing returns from a completely known quantity. It's why, back when there was a territory system, guys would cycle in and out of them, not just stay in the same place for 8 years- even in WWF, it's the incredibly rare performer that sticks around for 8 years, and they have a global presence and the ability to make stars. Jeff Hardy is actually a great example of how this can still work. When he left WWE the first time they clearly didn't know what to do with a guy that couldn't talk, wasn't big, and had been doing the same character for four years, and he stopped being motivated. He goes around ROH and TNA, where he's not immediately hailed as a "top guy" because he was never seen as one in WWE, then goes back after a few years and becomes a far bigger star. Heck, even his initial heel turn in TNA was an interesting new direction that kept him as a property relatively fresh- if not for his drug issues, it would've totally made sense to give him the belt. But it's better for the company's exposure in every way to let a guy like AJ go someplace else. I mean not only are you not paying them and freeing a spot in your roster, you're getting free publicity from them appearing elsewhere, plus you own all the work they did in your company. Because they're not 'stars' in terms of drawing power based entirely on the fact that they've only appeared on a company that doesn't draw.

<p>Finally got around to watching BFG. Honestly as bad as the finish was, the whole show wasn't great. Kendrick is a heat vacuum, nobody in Philly cared about Crimson so of course he goes over, RVD and Lynn was an entertaining re-run. Styles and Daniels had a strong finish but the opening was pretty slow. Knockouts match was a mess- Karen needs to learn that you need to maintain the illusion of counting and then stop the count if you want the fans to stay involved. Ironically Roode/Angle is probably the match I was most interested in, just because I haven't already seen it on "best of" dvds. And didn't TNA used to have an amazing tag division? We didn't even see the champions. In the pro column, Bully Ray actually is doing something outside of a nostalgia act, and managed to generate heat as a heel, something pretty much every other heel struggled with; and he's even an ECW guy! Sting vs. Hogan was abysmal, and watching Sting throw himself all over the ring to try to hide Hogan's inability to bend his knees was sad. Hard to believe how relevant Hogan was 14 years ago.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Honestly TNA needs to realize that a character only has a limited shelf-life. Guys like AJ, Joe, Abyss, etc., have done everything they're gonna do in this company. They've won every title, feuded with everyone, and as-is, they're not big enough "names" to work a reduced schedule or be an attraction match on their own. Maybe they go to Japan or WWE and struggle- worst case, they come back to TNA and they're in exactly the same position they're in now, but hopefully have a few new faces to work with.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The only thing that sucks about the Cardinals winning is now Selig is going to use this as proof that Baseball needs more Wild Card teams. Thus diluting the playoffs even more. <p> </p><p> What is the point of the regular season if a team can back into the playoffs and win it just because they happened to peak at the right time. That has always been my problem with the Wild Card.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not sure most people would consider recovering ten games in a month to be "backing in" to the playoffs. Same with the 2005 Astros, 2004 Red Sox, and other teams where "backed in" meant they caught fire at mid-season or later and came into the post-season with momentum. </p><p> </p><p> What's interesting is that 5 wild cards have won the world series and 5 have lost. That's 10 appearances in 15 years. Simple statistics (1 in 4) would cause us to estimate that we should only have 4 (rounding up) wild card series appearances from each conference, and that's before you take into account home field advantage. Factoring that the home team wins more often (conservatively we'll say 52% of the time), and a wild card never has home field getting to the world series, that's two slightly weighted coin-flips: 48/100, and 48/100 again. So even with a low estimate, we're at 23%, and if we said home field advantage was closer to 55% (52% is the regular season standard), then we're down to 20%. That's an estimated 3 World Series appearances per 15 years per conference, which is pretty significantly short of where we are. </p><p> </p><p> Compare that to the NFL, where in 8 years one wild card reached the Super Bowl once (and lost) in the four team set-up. Then they changed the format to 3 rounds, 6 teams, which makes the road even harder: only 9 wild card super bowl appearances in 30 years, meaning NFL wild cards don't even make it half as often as MLB wild cards. This has been the decade of the NFL wild card though, with the Packers, Steelers and Giants all winning within 5 years. </p><p> </p><p> Even though basketball has mandatory 3 rounds and 5 "wild cards" per conference, it's even tougher for non-division winners to make it. The Houston Rockets and New York Knicks are the only two teams ever to make it to the NBA finals after being seeded lower than third. The Knicks were a shortened season, and Rockets missed Hakeem for most of the regular season. </p><p> </p><p> In the mlb, the "getting hot at the right time" theory is more or less a myth: <a href="http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/5/25/2176025/do-hot-teams-perform-better-in-the" rel="external nofollow">http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/5/25/2176025/do-hot-teams-perform-better-in-the</a> The exceptions are the teams that due to chemistry, injuries, trades, or whatever, aren't able to perform up to their ability until the post-season. That said, because even a great team in baseball has a winning percentage of 60%, home field advantage just doesn't count for as much. To compare, a 100 win baseball team would win 50 games in the NBA or 10 in the NFL. Only the Phillies broke 100 wins, while 13 teams in the NFL won that many, and so did 9 in the NBA.</p><p> Basically baseball is such a game of averages that it's nearly impossible to dominate the way you can in other sports, so the wild cards have a much better chance to advance. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="OldStingberg" data-cite="OldStingberg" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I was initially hesitant to the idea of another wild card in each league, but I've been swayed. I like the idea of a play-in game between two wild cards. Not only because it'd add two dramatic playoff-atmosphere games, but also because it'd probably liven up the pennant races. As it is, it's not uncommon for a division leader to go on cruise control for the final month because even if they get overtaken, they're still in position to get the wild card. With a play-in game between two wild cards, though, winning the division would always be important and worth fighting for, because no one would want to play that play-in game and have a 50% chance of elimination.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think that'd be cool: you can't really adopt the 6 team NFL system without seeing even more wild cards get through, as even a third wild card against a division winner would see a fair amount of upsets. This year, that would've meant the Angels vs. Detroit and San Francisco vs. Arizona, neither being a sure thing.</p>

It was pretty amazing how everything came together. What a great series for the Cards. Hopefully Pujols re-signs so they can win another.

People in this thread need to wake up and smell the difference between bandwagon "boo hiss TNA is da worst" and genuine criticisms about poor storytelling. Such a wonder that fans might complain about a babyface not going over after months of build at a big show. Pretty sure you wouldn't need to be a WWF mark to know it would have been ridiculous for JBL to go over John Cena at Wrestlemania or HBK to go over Austin. Spoilers below: Particularly if Austin or Cena's first run had been given to them on a taped TV match where they turned heel, cutting the legs out from yet another new champion in the process. The mind boggles.

Well Palmer played and did in fact remind me of Kerry Collins' week 1 humiliation with the Colts. He may be able to turn it around as the season goes on, but I'm guessing right now the Raiders are starting to get that buyer's remorse. Also it's looking like the Texans will make the playoffs by default; remember when the AFC South had 3 competitive teams every year?

No question but that Palmer is an upgrade over Boller and company, but it's ridiculous that Oakland gave up 1 and potentially 2 first round picks for a 32 year old with injury problems who is, at best, a mid-level starter. The Bengals were 4-12 last season in part thanks to his 20 interceptions and his inability to make plays when the defense was in coverage. Obviously he'll have more help with the offense in Oakland than last year's Cincinatti squad, but I saw first-hand what a QB with an arm can do if he's not prepared when Kerry Collins embarrassed himself against the Texans. They've got the Chiefs and then a bye, but that's still a very short time to do much with the offense, especially for a guy that hasn't even been practicing with a team all year. And it's not like there weren't other options or better deals around. Kyle Orton probably could've been traded for Oakland for a couple of pizzas and a beer. Matt Leinart, Tyler Thigpen, Derek Anderson, even Vince Young have experience as starters and likely wouldn't be asking for as much as the Raiders are giving up for Palmer. Plus, none of them have had career-shortening injuries or are in their 30's.

If you're talking about the Brewers series, it didn't last 7 games, it went 6. Pretty cool that the Cardinals are back in the World Series. I haven't been following them much, but I saw game 7 of the Philly series and it was pretty impressive. But honestly they're going to need more of the offense they showed last night against the Brewers to take on the Rangers, as that team can put up an absurd number of runs. As a transplant to Texas born in St. Louis, I am happy no matter who wins, but I'd still prefer the Cardinals.

It is in fact two time academy award nominee Jeremy Renner playing Hawkeye; not sure what you mean by "shmuck." It looks like more of the "Ultimate" version of the Avengers in general, so they'll most likely keep Hawkeye as a background character who gets a moment of two of doing something amazing, similar to his treatment in Millar's Ultimates.

That's not really proving anything: when he came back, he was still getting somewhat mixed reactions from the casual fans that had seen him as a heel for the past couple years. If a newly turned babyface isn't getting bigger reactions every week, something is going horribly wrong.

Love the game, dislike the owners, don't care for Stern's behavior during this round of negotiations. Nobody put a gun to Portland's head and made them sign a 22 year old Darius Miles to a guaranteed 18 million dollar a year contract. OKC, San Antonio, and other small markets have flourished within the current cap structure, while the Lakers and others can bite the bullet and pay the luxury tax to put a bunch of all stars on the court. At the end of the day it comes down to the owners wanting to guarantee profits while not taking any risks, at the expense of deals that they made themselves. As mentioned, we're less than 15 years from the last owner tantrum, which resulted in a bunch of pro-owner decisions that should have made things easier. But when a team like Indiana is paying mid-level money to Jeff Foster, and all-star/#2 scoring option money to TJ Ford and Mike Dunleavy, they have no one to blame but themselves when they can't turn a profit. I mean yeah, ignorant people always bust out the "players make too much!" but very rarely are they ones directly responsible for their paydays. Should Carlos Boozer turn down 6 million a year because he realizes he's not a genuine star the way Rose is? From Rashard Lewis: "When it comes to contracts, the players aren’t sitting there negotiating that contract. I’m sitting at home and my agent calls me, saying, ‘I got a max on the table.’ I’m not going to sit there and say, ‘Naw, that’s too much. Go out there and negotiate $20 or $30 [million] less."

And as we all know, "performer" is a synonym for "monstrous." Nothing is more terrifying than Shawn Michaels circa 1996. I kid though, Henry has been pretty great. As far as Punk goes, it's a slippery slope. If Punk just wins every match, all the time, maybe it raises his profile a little, but he is not so flawless as a performer that fans might not end up resenting him. If he's moving merchandise and getting top spots (which he is), then that's a positive. That said, I do wish he was given the same opportunities to talk that he had a few months ago. He doesn't seem to have that same "this is something special" aura on him any more, which is a shame because he's obviously capable of performing at that level.

Now that we're a couple of weeks into the DC reboot... it's pretty awful. It's not consistent what's a hard reset and what's only slightly changed, the writing has for the most part appeared rushed and mediocre, the art varies pretty wildly the way putting out 52 books naturally tends to. Seriously why is DC so fixated on that number? Why not put out 13 books a month so that it would be somewhat feasible to read all of these things and also maybe you could focus on them being good? I mean I guess this should be what folks like Cappy dreamed of: a bunch of disposable, mediocre comics that are $3 now, but the majority of which will be in a $1 bin in a couple of years. No worries about these comics being "too good."

Really baffled by anyone that couldn't see Hero fitting in with WWE's current direction. I mean I guess he's not 25, but other then that I don't see where he's all that different from what WWE wants out of their workers. He has a far better look and is stronger on the mic than Daniel Bryan, he's gotten himself into great shape without looking like a wellness policy violation, and he can work. I mean I don't think anybody would be too excited about signing 2002 Chris Hero, but 2011 Chris Hero looks like he could realistically main event after a couple years in WWE. I guess he could always be a bust, but his upside is pretty high.

First, you might want to brush up on how long a "decade" is. Second, if you think Edge's career didn't have momentum, you are not understanding what I'm talking about at all. Edge was built as the superstar in waiting throughout E&C's run, culminating in winning King of the Ring and becoming a midcard babyface. Then he teamed with several main eventers including Hulk Hogan and feuded with top level heels like Kurt Angle, then he was injured for a major period of time and changed his style, turned heel, feuded with Matt Hardy in a storyline that saw him become a top heel, then won his first world title in 2006. Throughout the process, his character is moving forward, he's doing stuff he hasn't done fifteen times before, and there's a regular build. He also engaged in several memorable feuds that weren't just "Edge defends title against athletic young guy." Edge's career is one where he was constantly doing new stuff until he was a main eventer. By the time he won the title, he had basically done everything except win a top title. John Morrison is young, but let's compare. Like Edge, he was on a successful heel tag team and won the tag titles a few times. Then he moved to Raw with Melina and won the IC title. So far, so good. Then, as part of a feud with Jeff Hardy, MNM reunites and the tag teams feud, putting on a great multi-team ladder match at Armageddon. But after the Hardyz go over, Melina becomes the focus of the stable, and Mercury is released due to his personal problems. Morrison is sent to ECW after a nonsensical pairing with Kenny Dykstra. He wins the ECW title as he gets plugged into someone else's storyline, but then drops the belt to CM Punk. At this point he and Miz stumble into a tag team and it ends up taking off, launching both men's careers forward, although, in Morrison's case, it's basically getting him back to where he was in 2005, although he does improve his skills from where he was in MNM. The two break up as Miz goes to Raw (where he is put in a short program with Cena, within months: two years later he is beating Cena at Wrestlemania), and Morrison goes to Smackdown to turn face in 2009. At this point he's been on the roster for over 4 years: for reference, after four years in WWE Edge was winning feuds with Kurt Angle as a babyface on Smackdown. But while Morrison isn't far behind that point, he's been stuck at exactly that same point for two years. While Edge was consistently involved in important feuds that saw him advance up the card, Morrison disappears from PPV inexplicably. He's had a couple of feuds that were actual build-ups to his matches, with Sheamus at the end of last year and with R-Truth and the Miz this year, but he seems to periodically take extended breaks from doing anything important. And the problem is, this is symptomatic of a lot of WWE's roster right now. There isn't a sense of character progression or build; Dolph Ziggler 2011 is exactly the same as the Dolph Ziggler that couldn't beat Rey Mysterio two years ago. Jack Swagger jobbing to Cena on Raw in 2011 is exactly the same character and status he was at in 2009 jobbing to John Cena on Raw. I mean before Edge won his first title, he had beaten Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit, Kane, Kurt Angle, and others in pay per view matches in storylines that weren't focused on around "#1 contender wants belt." He had been a gothic babyface, a ****y heel, a "wholesome" babyface, and a completely different type of heel. Compare that to Kofi Kingston who in four years has won 5 midcard titles, and was in one storyline where it looked like his character would evolve and he would move up the card, but was then promptly put into a variation of the same happy-go-lucky babyface persona for another two years. My point was you can't flip a switch, and if you think Edge being champion wasn't built up to, you just weren't paying attention.

One of the big problems with WWE being the only game in town is that so much of their roster is so stale and the audience has seen guys as mid-level for so long that it would be tremendously difficult to suddenly make John Morrison or whoever a main eventer without something drastic like him disappearing for a year. I mean John Cena's rise up the card had a real arc, from being turned babyface by the fans to beating the Big Show at WM XX, to winning the belt for the first time at 21, there was a sense that he was rising up the card and would be a big deal. Obviously you don't need everybody to duplicate that, but the number of guys who win big matches and then tool around doing nothing is too big to list. I mean if you look at WWE's roster in 2008 vs. today the big difference is that the top of the card is gone: Undertaker, Jericho, Batista, Jeff Hardy, and HBK are all gone, but it's pretty tough to see guys that have been jobbing consistently since 2008 as the heir apparent to those belts. I mean Kofi won his first IC title in 2008 over Jericho, and has continued to stay at that exact level for 3 years, without any real character development except now he doesn't have an accent and he briefly feuded with Orton. Dolph Ziggler, Santino, Rhodes & DiBiase, Morrison, Swagger, R-Truth, etc., have all been on the roster such a long time without any real momentum that it's awfully tough to make them main eventers just because the top of the card is gone. Honestly that's why I think Sheamus should be their great white hope for the future (pun intended). He's already been built up as a heel, he's in a great position as a rising babyface, and is incredibly marketable with his Celtic symbolism and distinct look. He did have the rug cut out from him once, but it hasn't happened 3-4 times (yet) and the fans seem to respond to him.

The idea that WWE shouldn't be happy because 10 years ago they were doing 6's is pretty ridiculous. WWE puts up ratings that are consistently among the top rated programs on cable and over and above most of what broadcast networks like NBC and the CW are putting up. Comparing 2000 ratings to 2011, everything looks like a failure. If you moved a mid-level rated show in 2000 like "Titus" to 11 years in the future and it magically kept its ratings, it would be a top show. NCIS and America's Got Talent and the VMAs were the only things to pull 6.0 or better ratings from a couple weeks back. That same week, Raw was the #2 and #3 rated hours on USA.

Isn't Smackdown already an A-/B+ show at best though? It consistently has lower numbers, isn't live, and isn't where WWE puts their top names, but where they put guys they want to build or don't know what to do with. I don't think it's been close to being a "separate but equal" status with Raw since branded PPV's died out. The argument could be made that you could go back to Heyman's Smackdown as the last time Smackdown was treated like a true equal to Raw.