Recommended Posts

 

WWE World Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar is no longer being advertised for next week?s Slammy Awards edition of WWE RAW from Greenville, South Carolina.

 
Lesnar had been advertised for the Slammy RAW for several months, but has been pulled from ads on the WWE website and the Bon Secours Wellness Arena site.

http://www.sescoops.com/brock-lesnar-no-longer-advertised-raw-next-week-bischoff-prichard-debate/

Wow just wow.. No faith in your own superstars. Vince is so full of BS. How can he say the WWE title is basically worthless and that Brock is was the right man to defeat the Undertaker at WM. Why in the hell would you want another part timer to defeat Taker.. ugh

That's not what I understood, and I don't know why you people jump so fast to bash this guy without thinking first.

You said "why in the hell would you want another part timer to defeat Taker". Well, what was Taker then, if not a part timer? He is absolutely right in thinking that if people would see Taker on a weekly basis on TV, his character would be worthless. And this goes for many superstars, like Sting for example, or The Rock, etc. So he thought he would give this win to another guy that gets massive reactions when he rarely shows up. If a regular superstar would have won that match, it would have been a waste, because the guy has to be believable in the crowd's eyes. Would you belive that Cena could end the streak? Or Ryback, or anyone else? To me, Lesnar was the perfect choice at the time.

 

About no having faith in the superstars, and the Cesaro thing, again, he is right. People are very moody, their options change a lot, so he needs guys that can connect to them at all levels, not only in-ring performance. Cesaro lacks mic skills, that's obvious, and even if he does well in the ring, that's not enough. Vince didn't bash any of his guys, he just said they need further improvement.

 

Now, I'm not saying that whatever he does is good, or every choice he makes is good, no way. But I DO understand what he said in this podcast.

 

P.S. So damn happy that Randy Savage will be in HOF, I thought I would never see the day. I'm curious about who will induct him, maybe his brother? Or, the best choice IMO, DDP?

it would have been great there at the end when they shook hands if austin gave him the stunner.

I disagree... It wasn't kayfabe, it was a proper interview. Austin giving him a Stunner and Vince trying to sell it would have just made the whole thing look like a work and look stupid.

  • Like 2

That's not what I understood, and I don't know why you people jump so fast to bash this guy without thinking first.

You said "why in the hell would you want another part timer to defeat Taker". Well, what was Taker then, if not a part timer? He is absolutely right in thinking that if people would see Taker on a weekly basis on TV, his character would be worthless. And this goes for many superstars, like Sting for example, or The Rock, etc. So he thought he would give this win to another guy that gets massive reactions when he rarely shows up. If a regular superstar would have won that match, it would have been a waste, because the guy has to be believable in the crowd's eyes. Would you belive that Cena could end the streak? Or Ryback, or anyone else? To me, Lesnar was the perfect choice at the time.

 

About no having faith in the superstars, and the Cesaro thing, again, he is right. People are very moody, their options change a lot, so he needs guys that can connect to them at all levels, not only in-ring performance. Cesaro lacks mic skills, that's obvious, and even if he does well in the ring, that's not enough. Vince didn't bash any of his guys, he just said they need further improvement.

 

Now, I'm not saying that whatever he does is good, or every choice he makes is good, no way. But I DO understand what he said in this podcast.

 

P.S. So damn happy that Randy Savage will be in HOF, I thought I would never see the day. I'm curious about who will induct him, maybe his brother? Or, the best choice IMO, DDP?

The part where you say it's right for a part timer to defeat Taker is where I think most people will disagree. The issue is not with Taker being a part timer, it's with the streak. Taker has an amazing history with WWE and the streak is something that might never come round again. Getting a full time rising star like Roman Reigns, Ambrose, Rollins or even CM Punk (when he fought Taker) could have sent them to a whole new level with 100s of potential story lines. What does it do for Lesnar? He's already a star. He doesn't need the WWE, they only want him for the additional draw. It's common knowledge that what they need to focus on is pushing the new talent and creating that future. Likewise, what use was it with Batista winning the Royal Rumble? That really went to plan didn't it?! Even Batista got fed up of the crowd chants and did he stick around long?

 

Vince said there was no one he could really see who would reach out for the brass ring. Well, of course not. Not if you're gonna constantly give the big pushes to people like Lesnar who don't need them. Look at Daniel Bryan, the crowd reactions say it all. The most amazing crowd reaction I have seen in the post Attitude Era of WWE was when Bryan double crossed Bray Wyatt in the Steel Cage match on RAW. Giving the audience the feel good factor of their favourite guy winning at WrestleMania is "good for business". Why wouldn't it be? He said that the audience is the feedback voice. Well, they've been screaming for a Cena heel turn for years and years! And you won't give it to them because you think it'll hurt merchandise sales? It's not the kids buying the shirts, it's the adults. Most of the crowd are adults. You give them what you want and it'll open up channels to new forms of revenue.

 

It's a shame that there is a real lack of a proper competition, because it really has taken WWE's eye of the ball. The competition is what gave the WWE some it's best years and now that they don't have it, they are too scared to mess with the current formula, then take the same risks that brought them the success we see today.

  • Like 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • earlcaulley
  • Posts

    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
    • Another devilish issue surrounding these certificates is what can happen with old, unsuspecting PCs that nevertheless have Secure Boot enabled. In my case, it was a Dell with a 3rd-gen Core chip (so about 13 years old). As of the last few weeks, it was suddenly BSOD'g within about 5 minutes of booting. Turns out it was because of MS's "Secure-Boot-Update" scheduled task, which is scheduled to run 5 minutes after login. It's explained in gory detail here (this is not my post, but it was where I found the answer), but the short version is that this legacy system would need fairly elaborate, manual certificate intervention since MS's automatic cert update method cannot work. How to do that is linked late in the thread. https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...od-caused-by-scheduled-task Secure Boot wasn't at all important for this particular PC, so I disabled it to be done with the problem.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      95
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!