|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 11:25:33 GMT -5
The only measure for success in wrestling is how much money you make or draw. It's not like in baseball where you could be playing on a team with no fans, but still hit 50 homes runs. Whether you can do two moves or 2000. It doesn't matter unless someones willing to watch you. That doesn't mean at some point Danielson couldn't be a draw and one day be considered "The best in the world". But at this point he's proven nothing. Thanks for condensing that down for me. I completely and wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
Post by stevierichardsfan on Dec 28, 2008 11:55:25 GMT -5
isnt pwi all kayfabe
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 12:15:52 GMT -5
It used to be, but they've gone to kind of a hybrid dirtsheet/kayfabe model. Its hard to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 28, 2008 12:34:13 GMT -5
I'm not going to call Danielson the "best in the world" with any level of legitimacy. That's nothing more than a title.
But is he a bona fide success in wrestling despite having never worked on live television? Yeah, I'd say so.
Could Vince make him into a star? Sure.
That's basically my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 28, 2008 14:36:19 GMT -5
I'll repeat: making money in wrestling doesn't always have anything whatsoever to do with how good or poor you are during a match.
When Bryan Danielson's character says "Best Wrestler in the World", and when most of his fans chant that at him, they don't mean anything but the idea that he's the best guy from bell-to-bell going. Not that he makes the most money, cuts the best promos, wears the nicest outfits, or looks like a movie star.
People can keep saying "You're not the best unless you draw the most money", but that's not at all what the "Best in the World" chants are remotely about. That's missing the point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 28, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. I've said many times I have little doubt Danielson could get over. I think he could easily get over to the levels of a Kendrick, Bourne, or Mysterio I just don't think he could get over to the levels of Cena or HHH which is where he would need to be to be considered the best. Danielson has turned down WWE, but I don't think WWE has been putting on the full court press to try to get him either. Trust me if WWE wanted him bad enough they'd have him. If WWE felt he truly had the ability to be the "best in the world" he'd be in WWE. See, it's the last part of the argument that loses me. "if they wanted him, they'd have him, but they don't have him, so he can't be the best" is what I see, and I have trouble wrapping my brain around it. I see comments all the time about "oh, this guy only wrestled in front of a few hundred people, that's not a big deal", when, in fact, isn't that how most people who are on top right now started? When Flair was starting in the Carolinas, was he working in front of 20,000? F*** no. The main eventers that were world famous in many regards during the 1950's and 1960's? Nope, they worked smaller crowds than the average RAW. I look at the guys coming off the indy scene this way, they're doing things the way the guys before them always say it should be done, paying dues, traveling from town to town to learn the craft. That, last I checked, is supposed to be positive. It's supposed to be one of those "character building" deals. Yet, I guess times really have changed, since now all it takes is six months in developmental to have a rocket up the ass to the main event. Actually, that's incorrect. Guys back in the 50s, 60s and 70s at times weren't hitting close to 20,000 people, because well, lots of buildings didn't hold close to that much. In Atlanta, the Omni held 16,000 people, and it sold out every week. Not saying everywhere was like that. But, some buildings would hold 4000 to 5000, but they were worked every week. I'm also not saying that every territory was on fire all the time, certainly not. But, when a territory was on fire, and made big by certain things done by the wrestlers, they would sell out all the time. The problem with the indies and being trained by guys who mostly made their name on the indies, is I don't feel the idea of drawing money is taught like it should. Back in the day (and even in WWE today), drawing money is number 1, 2 and 3 in importance, and everything else is behind that. Danielson is one of the few guys who could help train people on the indies, because he has been everywhere, including WWE and through it's developmental system, and can give pointers on what they want. Dragon doesn't need developmental, because he already knows what WWE wants. He already knows how to work tv matches. But a lot of guys, and I've thrown out names like Delirious, maybe drawing money isn't at the top of his list when it comes to training, despite the fact that it should be. To reply to another comment, I feel that Dragon has the potential to be a top guy like Cena and Triple H if given the opportunity. People will talk about his size, but look at it this way. There are people bigger then him, faster, stronger, whatever. There are also people bigger, faster, stronger, and look better then John Cena, Triple H, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, so many other guys. But why are they top guys? It's all about passion and desire. Take Matt Hardy, and I always use this example. This guy was buried, I mean, they might as well have done like they did with Ric Flair, and have Edge throw him in the desert and bury him under some sand. They did everything to bury the guy, to hurt his character, to hurt his career, but you know something. He kept pushing, and he kept pushing. Then they had him in the midcard, but they kept giving him matches on tv, and he would normally have the best match on the show. He kept pushing to the point where the office had to give him a push, because he kept getting over. It doesn't matter what the office thinks. Politics suck, and they do effect people, and can effect in a negative way, and there is backstabbing, and this and that. But if you keep pushing, if you get over strong enough, or if you get enough heat, you'll be a top guy. Booker T. Was he buried? Was he held down? As Booker would say, you damn skippy. But he kept pushing, kept putting on good matches, and either kept getting over or getting heat, and eventually, he became World Heavyweight Champion. RVD, same thing. Politics merely postpone the inevitable. Paul London had to deal with politics, but he didn't want it bad enough, so he stayed where he was. Carlito, same thing. So to say that Dragon couldn't make it as a top guy, I don't believe that. If he takes the opportunity and runs with it, he'll be a top guy.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 28, 2008 22:37:41 GMT -5
I thought most of the stories in PWI were made-up BS. Like almost fanfic. (Ed. Note-Ugh...)
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 28, 2008 22:58:22 GMT -5
The only difference between Punk and Danielson, besides a couple of inches, and possible STD's. Is Punk actually has a look and a gimmick that WWE can sell to it's fanbase.
He's literally a goody two shoes, but looks like a hip young guy.
He's got tatoo's, and a marketable look, I mean he's got a CM Bear out there.
Danielson's got a bland look, and well without the beard he just looks like your average College Student.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 28, 2008 22:58:54 GMT -5
But Booker T and Matt Hardy had marketable looks that worked with the main stream fans. You think pasty skinned, goofy shaped head Dragon is appealing to the general public? Most people won't buy him as "The Guy" if he won't try and atleast look like "The Guy" And that's only if he ever even ends up in the mainstream. And, like it or not, ROH is NOT the mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Dec 28, 2008 23:01:12 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 28, 2008 23:04:14 GMT -5
Maybe Danielson isn't in WWE because there is a chance, no matter how small, that he'll be "Pushed" the way Colt Cabana has(I know HBK has his back, but look at what happened to Cade). Being a part of a main event program, getting a victory over DX, with a pinfall on HBK. The only reason cade failed was Wellness
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Dec 28, 2008 23:06:01 GMT -5
I have a hard time getting into these debates which ultimately just boil down to "WWE vs Indies". I respect WWE and the indies both, and I'm not about to denounce one side or the other.
So I'll just go with my status quo joke reply and say that the anonymous source is Braden Walker, who is actually the best in the world.
|
|
|
Post by DamnYankee on Dec 28, 2008 23:09:00 GMT -5
I have a hard time getting into these debates which ultimately just boil down to "WWE vs Indies". I respect WWE and the indies both, and I'm not about to denounce one side or the other. So I'll just go with my status quo joke reply and say that the anonymous source is Braden Walker, who is actually the best in the world. Neither Braden Walker or Bryan Danielson have anything on Zack Ryder. WOO WOO WOO!!! You know it!!! CLAP IT UP!!!
|
|
|
Post by Hulkshi Tanahashi on Dec 28, 2008 23:09:17 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part. To me, John Cena has a bland, unmarketable look.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 28, 2008 23:10:39 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part. Those Snazzy pants he wears beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 28, 2008 23:12:46 GMT -5
Well, was the Ring Master marketable? I know it's now a famous line that Austin says, but back in 1996, he asked, "What about a t-shirt for Stone Cold?"
Nobody thought that the Stone Cold Steve Austin in early to mid 1996 would draw any money. But, again, there's another example of what I was saying. He grabbed the bull by the horns and started riding it.
The Rock. Al Snow also said a lot of these examples, and talked about how everyone is given an opportunity to get over, and here's a good example. After The Rock failed as a babyface, he was pushed to the back of the Nation, and the Nation was supposed to feature D'lo Brown.
But, Rock kept pushing and pushing, he picked Pat Patterson's brain, and he kept doing little things to stand out.
Bret Hart. He didn't have much flash, but he got himself over. Anybody, like, it doesn't matter who it is. There will be politics, there will be bullshit, but at the end of the day, it's all about what you do in the ring. And I feel Danielson is someone who will get himself over.
Scotty Goldman, why hasn't he been on television? This hasn't been confirmed or anything, but I truely feel he was taken off tv to be put back on again in a better position. Why? Because he got himself over. He had 3 squash matches, and managed to get himself over. That takes talent, but talented people have talent. You know what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 23:31:43 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part. To me, John Cena has a bland, unmarketable look. Yet he's EASILY the most marketable star they have. hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 29, 2008 0:01:38 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part. Right, exactly. The fans first really got a taste of Matt Hardy as a member of the Hardy Boyz, and those guys happend to be all the rage because of there "hip" late '90s attire, fans liked him and his brothers look. Most people associate Hardy originally with that kind of style and thus, he was marketable almost right away. You're telling me that if milk white Dragon debuted in his nasty, "old school" maroon trunks and boots, the fans would like the guy? Hard to get behind someone who looks like he does. And just so we all understand where I'm coming from, I LOVE technical wrestlers and I was a big Benoit mark, but like someone said before...Benoit had a look too him that backed up his ring prowse, Danielson does not. Atleast not to me anyway, and apparently not too a lot of others. We're not trying to say he isn't gifted, but saying he is the "Best in the World" gimmick or not, is kind of silly.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 29, 2008 0:05:11 GMT -5
Well, was the Ring Master marketable? I know it's now a famous line that Austin says, but back in 1996, he asked, "What about a t-shirt for Stone Cold?" Nobody thought that the Stone Cold Steve Austin in early to mid 1996 would draw any money. But, again, there's another example of what I was saying. He grabbed the bull by the horns and started riding it. The Rock. Al Snow also said a lot of these examples, and talked about how everyone is given an opportunity to get over, and here's a good example. After The Rock failed as a babyface, he was pushed to the back of the Nation, and the Nation was supposed to feature D'lo Brown. But, Rock kept pushing and pushing, he picked Pat Patterson's brain, and he kept doing little things to stand out. Bret Hart. He didn't have much flash, but he got himself over. Anybody, like, it doesn't matter who it is. There will be politics, there will be bullexcretory matter, but at the end of the day, it's all about what you do in the ring. And I feel Danielson is someone who will get himself over. Scotty Goldman, why hasn't he been on television? This hasn't been confirmed or anything, but I truely feel he was taken off tv to be put back on again in a better position. Why? Because he got himself over. He had 3 squash matches, and managed to get himself over. That takes talent, but talented people have talent. You know what I'm saying. And sorry to double post, put what would be the point of the WWE taking someone who gets over with the fans off the air? Isn't the whole point of the show to entertain people and sell merchandise? I find it highly unlikely that he was pulled because he wasnt suppost to get over. Did they tell him before "Hey Scotty, we don't think you're worth a damn, so just go out there and make everyone else look good. We don't care one bit about you. Don't f*** this up." I know people like to think the WWE is evil and all, but it's a HUGE company with tons of moving parts. And I doubt the main focus is to bury guys, no matter what us internet rats like to think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2008 3:29:45 GMT -5
Because he's not even close, and he never will be. He gets a contract one day, becomes a main-eventer, and boom, your argument becomes null and void. And WWE has interest in him, otherwise they wouldn't have offered him a contract TWICE already.
|
|