|
Post by Haterade Man 2! on Apr 3, 2010 22:25:28 GMT -5
Ziggler's a heel I wish they would have gotten behind. And originally it seemed to be the case, what-with his awesome match against Batista. But then it was kinda like.."Fudge him". It seems like the ones they get behind usually aren't all that interesting. Ya gotta love how Sheamus, Drew and Swagger are all big guys..even with a lot of the reduced roided-out-bodies, ya gotta imagine Zigglers size plays against him. That's why his finisher's a sleeper hold. It's the perfect way to take down big guys.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Apr 3, 2010 23:06:20 GMT -5
I don't expect or want all of my favorites to become the next big thing. I'm the biggest Bourne mark around, but he's not the type to be a solid main eventer. He has all the potential to be at the top of the midcard, and that's exactly what I hope for his career.
Other guys, yes, I really think need to be pushed further.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Apr 3, 2010 23:09:36 GMT -5
We've been seeing a really stale main event for years now. And we like change. I can't really explain it, but basically, there's nothing exciting going on anymore so when you see a guy like Swagger winning it, it's exciting and makes you want to tune in every week cause you know there will be more exciting feuds to follow. We all seen some sort of mix between
Cena, Batista, Edge, Triple H, Orton, Jericho and Taker. ----------------------------------------- Cena vs Edge (2006, 2009 (with Show for some of it)), vs Batista (2008, 2010), Triple H (2006, 2008 (w/Orton for half), 2009 (w/Orton)), vs Jericho (2005, 2008), vs Taker (NEVER)
Batista vs Cena (2008, 2010), vs Edge (2007), vs Triple H (2005), vs Orton (2008, 2009), vs Jericho (2008) vs Taker (2007, 2009)
Triple H vs Batista (2005), vs Cena (2006, 2008 (with Orton some), 2009 (with Orton)), vs Edge (2006 (with Cena some), 2007 (Rated RKO vs DX)), Orton (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), 2008 (with Cena some), 2009), Jericho (2002, 2009 (Jerishow vs DX)), Taker (2001)
Taker vs Cena (NEVER), vs Batista (2007, 2009), vs Orton (2005, 2006), vs Edge (2008), vs Jericho (2009 (with Big Show), NEVER singles)), Triple H (2001).
Orton vs Cena (2007, 2008, 2009), vs Batista (2008, 2009), vs Edge (NEVER), vs Jericho (2007), vs Triple H (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO) 2008 (with Cena some), 2009, vs Taker (2005, 2006)
Edge vs Cena (2006, 2009 (with Show some)), vs Batista (2007), vs Taker (2008), vs Jericho (2010), vs Triple H (2006 (with Cena), 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), vs Orton (NEVER)
Jericho vs Edge (2010), vs Cena (2005, 2008), vs Batista (2008), vs Taker (2009 (with Show)), vs Triple H (2002, 2009 (DX vs Jerishow)) vs Orton (2007). --------------------------------------------------------
As you can see above, the only nevers we have are Edge vs Orton and Taker vs Cena. Those are the only fresh feuds to do with the constant main eventers. Adding in Swagger and Sheamus opens up new possibilities and matches.
|
|
|
Post by immortalphenom on Apr 3, 2010 23:19:25 GMT -5
We've been seeing a really stale main event for years now. And we like change. I can't really explain it, but basically, there's nothing exciting going on anymore so when you see a guy like Swagger winning it, it's exciting and makes you want to tune in every week cause you know there will be more exciting feuds to follow. We all seen some sort of mix between Cena, Batista, Edge, Triple H, Orton, Jericho and Taker. ----------------------------------------- Cena vs Edge (2006, 2009 (with Show for some of it)), vs Batista (2008, 2010), Triple H (2006, 2008 (w/Orton for half), 2009 (w/Orton)), vs Jericho (2005, 2008), vs Taker (NEVER) Batista vs Cena (2008, 2010), vs Edge (2007), vs Triple H (2005), vs Orton (2008, 2009), vs Jericho (2008) vs Taker (2007, 2009) Triple H vs Batista (2005), vs Cena (2006, 2008 (with Orton some), 2009 (with Orton)), vs Edge (2006 (with Cena some), 2007 (Rated RKO vs DX)), Orton (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), 2008 (with Cena some), 2009), Jericho (2002, 2009 (Jerishow vs DX)), Taker (2001) Taker vs Cena (NEVER), vs Batista (2007, 2009), vs Orton (2005, 2006), vs Edge (2008), vs Jericho (2009 (with Big Show), NEVER singles)), Triple H (2001). Orton vs Cena (2007, 2008, 2009), vs Batista (2008, 2009), vs Edge (NEVER), vs Jericho (2007), vs Triple H (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO) 2008 (with Cena some), 2009, vs Taker (2005, 2006) Edge vs Cena (2006, 2009 (with Show some)), vs Batista (2007), vs Taker (2008), vs Jericho (2010), vs Triple H (2006 (with Cena), 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), vs Orton (NEVER) Jericho vs Edge (2010), vs Cena (2005, 2008), vs Batista (2008), vs Taker (2009 (with Show)), vs Triple H (2002, 2009 (DX vs Jerishow)) vs Orton (2007). -------------------------------------------------------- As you can see above, the only nevers we have are Edge vs Orton and Taker vs Cena. Those are the only fresh feuds to do with the constant main eventers. Adding in Swagger and Sheamus opens up new possibilities and matches. I just don't find any the rookies (with the exception of Swagger, Barrett, and Danielson) that interesting at the moment. I think they should just give a few of these guys a complete overhaul, like they did with Khali's "Punjabi Playboy" gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Apr 3, 2010 23:25:14 GMT -5
We've been seeing a really stale main event for years now. And we like change. I can't really explain it, but basically, there's nothing exciting going on anymore so when you see a guy like Swagger winning it, it's exciting and makes you want to tune in every week cause you know there will be more exciting feuds to follow. We all seen some sort of mix between Cena, Batista, Edge, Triple H, Orton, Jericho and Taker. ----------------------------------------- Cena vs Edge (2006, 2009 (with Show for some of it)), vs Batista (2008, 2010), Triple H (2006, 2008 (w/Orton for half), 2009 (w/Orton)), vs Jericho (2005, 2008), vs Taker (NEVER) Batista vs Cena (2008, 2010), vs Edge (2007), vs Triple H (2005), vs Orton (2008, 2009), vs Jericho (2008) vs Taker (2007, 2009) Triple H vs Batista (2005), vs Cena (2006, 2008 (with Orton some), 2009 (with Orton)), vs Edge (2006 (with Cena some), 2007 (Rated RKO vs DX)), Orton (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), 2008 (with Cena some), 2009), Jericho (2002, 2009 (Jerishow vs DX)), Taker (2001) Taker vs Cena (NEVER), vs Batista (2007, 2009), vs Orton (2005, 2006), vs Edge (2008), vs Jericho (2009 (with Big Show), NEVER singles)), Triple H (2001). Orton vs Cena (2007, 2008, 2009), vs Batista (2008, 2009), vs Edge (NEVER), vs Jericho (2007), vs Triple H (2004, 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO) 2008 (with Cena some), 2009, vs Taker (2005, 2006) Edge vs Cena (2006, 2009 (with Show some)), vs Batista (2007), vs Taker (2008), vs Jericho (2010), vs Triple H (2006 (with Cena), 2007 (DX vs Rated RKO), vs Orton (NEVER) Jericho vs Edge (2010), vs Cena (2005, 2008), vs Batista (2008), vs Taker (2009 (with Show)), vs Triple H (2002, 2009 (DX vs Jerishow)) vs Orton (2007). -------------------------------------------------------- As you can see above, the only nevers we have are Edge vs Orton and Taker vs Cena. Those are the only fresh feuds to do with the constant main eventers. Adding in Swagger and Sheamus opens up new possibilities and matches. I just don't find any the rookies (with the exception of Swagger, Barrett, and Danielson) that interesting at the moment. I think they should just give a few of these guys a complete overhaul, like they did with Khali's "Punjabi Playboy" gimmick. Rookies? Maybe not. I like Sheamus and Swagger and that's it. I think MVP should move over to SD and continue his mini feud with Swagger, they have a couple of great matches on Superstars a few months back. IMO main event worthy matches. I'd love to see a world title feud between those two. Swagger winning the title gives me hope for other guys to jump into the main event too. After the draft, I'd put MVP, Sheamus, Bourne and Big Show on Smackdown. Send Jericho, Punk, The Hart Dynasty, R-Truth and McIntyre to Raw. And this would be my main event division... Swagger, Edge, Jericho, Taker, Sheamus and Big Show. I'd have MVP, Shelton, Morrison and MAYBE Matt Hardy get title matches too. Keep the John Cena's and Triple H's on Raw.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 4, 2010 1:23:06 GMT -5
We need a happy medium. Top guy's like Cena need new and fresh matches against heels that at least look like they're his equal. That's how wrestling works. You can feed people to your top face but you need to keep that line coming. Hogan didn't wrestle every single match against Bundy for 4 years. He had a steady line of all shapes and sizes treated as his equal, even if in reality he always won in the end.
Fact is, WWE lazily rode on their laurels for 5 years until they realized that despite arena pops, these "top draws" were actually not drawing on PPV anymore. Hence the gimmick PPVs. Its a smokescreen to buy time and increase brief interest while they rebuild the main event and upper mid-card before that hot-shot burns itself out, too.
|
|
|
Post by perpetualn00b on Apr 4, 2010 2:14:47 GMT -5
As you can see above, the only nevers we have are Edge vs Orton and Taker vs Cena. Those are the only fresh feuds to do with the constant main eventers. Adding in Swagger and Sheamus opens up new possibilities and matches. Eh, I'd toss in Taker/Jericho too. They haven't had a proper feud. And didn't Taker and Cena have a feud back in 02-03 or thereabouts?
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobain on Apr 4, 2010 2:22:21 GMT -5
While I don't like Sheamus the guy is 32 years old already. Young in wrestling terms now a days but there is that 35 stigma. I think they felt forced to rush him.
As someone said earlier it comes down to wanting to see fresh new feuds and matches. When the same guys are always on top the shows get boring and people have less interest.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 40,485
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Apr 4, 2010 2:25:05 GMT -5
As you can see above, the only nevers we have are Edge vs Orton and Taker vs Cena. Those are the only fresh feuds to do with the constant main eventers. Adding in Swagger and Sheamus opens up new possibilities and matches. Eh, I'd toss in Taker/Jericho too. They haven't had a proper feud. And didn't Taker and Cena have a feud back in 02-03 or thereabouts? Yeah, in 03 & Edge/Orton had a feud in 04, unless this is just for when they were main eventers.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Apr 4, 2010 2:41:07 GMT -5
Agree with the OP really. Sheamus and Swagger are the two best recent examples. Two guys given a world title without being over. They are clearly trying to get them over by being champ, but that's not really how it's supposed to work is it? The title should be the end reward for getting yourself over and making yourself the top of your side of alignment (heel or face). Neither of them met this criteria when they won the belt. Sheamus flopped big time with his title reign. Swagger, in my opinion, will go the same way, but he may well prove me wrong. QFT, building a guy up by putting the belt on them is a piss poor way to do it and all it does is bring the belt down. Sheamus reverted to having middle of the show jobber squashes as WWE champion. What does that say about the meaning of the title? The only way to build up a young guy is incrementally with time, as WWE did with Miz. Every year since he joined, he has been built up more and more. With that said, every top WWE guy has had serious recent injuries (Cena,Orton,Edge,HHH) or are counting down their last years until retirement (Taker,Batista,Jericho,Mysterio,Show). WWE has to use these guys ,while they still have them, to work lengthy programs with guys to get them over. The HHH-Sheamus feud should have happened before putting the belt on Sheamus.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Apr 4, 2010 5:29:29 GMT -5
For a title that apparently means the square root of jack shit, Swagger winning the belt sure has provoked a lot of talk on here. If that level of interest is replicated with all wrestling fans, that can only be good for Swagger and the WWE no?
People talk about Takers streak as some guaranteed way of kickstarting someone to the main-event. Why won't being the World Champion do similar?
This is the WWE, the land where very few people get reactions and threads about dead crowds are a regular occurance. If they sit around waiting for people to 'catch fire' before pushing them, Vince would be six-feet under before anyone got a push.
As a result of being 'hotshotted' the title, Sheamus is one of the most over heels they've got. It worked for him, I'm sure it'll work for Swagger. Everyone starts off not being over.
There is balance there too, as there are other guys taking the slower path, like Miz, Morrison, Kofi and Christian. It's not an ordely queue though, and if people are good enough, they'll get to the top eventually (like Edge).
As for smarks, well for a group of people who generally complain about the WWE for being too predictable, criticising this seems a bit odd. Truth is, smarks are just marks with different rationale. Sure they may favour things like workrate and charisma over who's good and who's bad in the storyline, but they still just want the guys they like to win and the guys they don't to lose.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Apr 4, 2010 6:02:49 GMT -5
The Kofi "push" annoyed me
He was over and was in a good fued with Orton (For a bit) then he was just cast aside and forgotten about
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Apr 4, 2010 7:51:10 GMT -5
Never say never. Who would have believed that Hunter Hearst-Helmsley, The Ringmaster, one half of the Hart Foundation, one half of the Rockers, Cactus Jack, and a few guys from WCW's Cruserweight division would be the World Champion in WWE. by the time they got the belt, everybody could've believed it
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Apr 4, 2010 8:13:40 GMT -5
You cant keep going back to Triple H, Undertaker, Cena or Orton etc.. When your quick push experiement doesnt last. I dont think Cena will be around for another 5-10 years to be honest as I see he may the take the Rock's route and head off for Hollywood. No guarantee Orton will be around. Though he is the most likely. Triple H and Taker are on their literally last legs. You have to eventually put your faith in the younger guys CONSISTENTLY for the future of the business.. Or else there wont be a future. And they need to go over the established guys sooner or later. A win over taker at mania would blast start some young guys career, if booked right.. Ok so he doesnt get 20-0.. Its a FREAKIN WORK!!! Not a shoot. That would be great for a new guys career to jump start it for sure. A big Mania win over Triple H would help a Morrison or another future up and comer. what no one seems to realize is that if the person who beats the Undertaker at Wrestlemania could end up viewing it as a curse. If he isn't immediately pushed hard then people would say they wasted the Undertaker's streak. If they did push him hard then fans would use the ending of the streak to declare that the WWE was pushing this guy down our throats. He'd constantly be dogged by fans saying the streak should have been preserved or should have been ended by someone other than him.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Apr 4, 2010 8:14:54 GMT -5
Hey, have you heard of this guy named Dolph Ziggler? I heard he uses a sleeper hold as his finisher. You got Triple H out there destroying Sheamus the new monster in a quick one sided match almost at Mania. with both of his quads blown out and 10 years past his prime about.. You got Shawn and Taker headlining Mania.. Who past their best days quite a few years ago.. Lets face it.. They had their time to shine.. Its time for the future. its almost as bad as watching Flair and Hogan on TNA blading each other and having ME matches. Come on now!!! When is enough enough? I felt the match was mostly in Sheamus' favor.
|
|
|
Post by immortalphenom on Apr 4, 2010 8:25:59 GMT -5
You cant keep going back to Triple H, Undertaker, Cena or Orton etc.. When your quick push experiement doesnt last. I dont think Cena will be around for another 5-10 years to be honest as I see he may the take the Rock's route and head off for Hollywood. No guarantee Orton will be around. Though he is the most likely. Triple H and Taker are on their literally last legs. You have to eventually put your faith in the younger guys CONSISTENTLY for the future of the business.. Or else there wont be a future. And they need to go over the established guys sooner or later. A win over taker at mania would blast start some young guys career, if booked right.. Ok so he doesnt get 20-0.. Its a FREAKIN WORK!!! Not a shoot. That would be great for a new guys career to jump start it for sure. A big Mania win over Triple H would help a Morrison or another future up and comer. what no one seems to realize is that if the person who beats the Undertaker at Wrestlemania could end up viewing it as a curse. If he isn't immediately pushed hard then people would say they wasted the Undertaker's streak. If they did push him hard then fans would use the ending of the streak to declare that the WWE was pushing this guy down our throats. He'd constantly be dogged by fans saying the streak should have been preserved or should have been ended by someone other than him. Finally, somebody who agrees with me on this.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Apr 4, 2010 8:42:05 GMT -5
Agree with the OP really. Sheamus and Swagger are the two best recent examples. Two guys given a world title without being over. They are clearly trying to get them over by being champ, but that's not really how it's supposed to work is it? The title should be the end reward for getting yourself over and making yourself the top of your side of alignment (heel or face). Neither of them met this criteria when they won the belt. Sheamus flopped big time with his title reign. Swagger, in my opinion, will go the same way, but he may well prove me wrong. I agree with this, for the most part. It seems like the WWE is doing this ass-backwards process where they think the title belts are going to make someone explode in popularity a la the UFC or something. In wrestling, it's always been the other way 'round. The title belt (especially the BIG one, the World belt) was your end reward for being so over, and selling so many tickets and selling out so many arenas that you were a safe bet to be the "top guy" in the company and headline shows. Now, that's not to say that "winning" the belt didn't further legitimize guys in the eyes of the fans...it always usually did. But they had to earn the right to carry that belt. Nowadays, the WWE seems to have the idea that they need to put a belt on a young guy in order to signal to the fans that he's a big deal and should be payed attention to (either cheered or booed). It's almost like they think they're the UFC or an MMA show where fans react more to guys with title belts and dominant fight records than they do the guys without them. The sad thing is, the WWE is starting this process at a time when by and large the belts are so devalued as to add next to NOTHING to the guy wearing them. They change hands so damn often that getting one isn't the achievement that it used to be. Imagine Curt Hennig pulling a stunt like this back in Hogan's day, winning the World title out of the blue on SNME. It would have stunned the wrestling world! Because back then, a belt meant something, and getting elevated to the #1 spot wasn't the litmus test of whether or not the WWF would keep you on the f*****g roster....it was an honor bestowed upon you for being over enough to take that spot over from the current "hot hand". it's my opinion that someone like Mr. Perfect winning the title on SNME would have hurt the title and Hogan. After facing monsters like Andre and Bundy, guys with devestating finishers like Orndorff and Savage yet a guy with a finisher that just ties it's victim in knots is the way he loses it? If being the most over was what got you the belt then Adnre the Giant would have been champion everywhere he went.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Apr 4, 2010 9:01:19 GMT -5
I agree with this, for the most part. It seems like the WWE is doing this ass-backwards process where they think the title belts are going to make someone explode in popularity a la the UFC or something. In wrestling, it's always been the other way 'round. The title belt (especially the BIG one, the World belt) was your end reward for being so over, and selling so many tickets and selling out so many arenas that you were a safe bet to be the "top guy" in the company and headline shows. Now, that's not to say that "winning" the belt didn't further legitimize guys in the eyes of the fans...it always usually did. But they had to earn the right to carry that belt. Nowadays, the WWE seems to have the idea that they need to put a belt on a young guy in order to signal to the fans that he's a big deal and should be payed attention to (either cheered or booed). It's almost like they think they're the UFC or an MMA show where fans react more to guys with title belts and dominant fight records than they do the guys without them. The sad thing is, the WWE is starting this process at a time when by and large the belts are so devalued as to add next to NOTHING to the guy wearing them. They change hands so damn often that getting one isn't the achievement that it used to be. Imagine Curt Hennig pulling a stunt like this back in Hogan's day, winning the World title out of the blue on SNME. It would have stunned the wrestling world! Because back then, a belt meant something, and getting elevated to the #1 spot wasn't the litmus test of whether or not the WWF would keep you on the f*****g roster....it was an honor bestowed upon you for being over enough to take that spot over from the current "hot hand". it's my opinion that someone like Mr. Perfect winning the title on SNME would have hurt the title and Hogan. After facing monsters like Andre and Bundy, guys with devestating finishers like Orndorff and Savage yet a guy with a finisher that just ties it's victim in knots is the way he loses it? If being the most over was what got you the belt then Adnre the Giant would have been champion everywhere he went. Jake Roberts also would have been champion in 87/88. The guy was so popular the WWF feared Hogan would get booed against him. The title is not always around the waist of the most popular wrestler, but a wrestler who needs the title and the formula worked for Hogan. Also the belt is a great way to elevate people and honestly I think Swagger could certainly be a top guy and is one of the few younger guys in the WWE that has what it takes to be a main eventer. As far as it just being the IWC and not the fans, it seems like when they actually elevate some of the younger guys like they did with Kofi for a little bit and now Swagger they like it. Swagger got a pretty big pop when he won the belt, it's a breath of fresh air for everyone. But I think they need to do a better job of building the guys up before they win the belt. Sheamus had an undefeated streak and won a tournament on Raw. But his streak should have been longer and he needed more wins over midcarders and maybe a couple of main eventers to seem as more of a legitimate threat for the title. Swagger should have never been a jobber on Raw and he would have made more sense, he was dominate enough in ECW, if he would have just came off of that and became WHC it would have made more sense.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,514
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Apr 4, 2010 9:35:41 GMT -5
Ill answer the OP's question:
There was this wrestling orginization in Atlanta that failed to build any new stars. Partially because they failed to do that, they no longer exsist.
|
|
|
Post by immortalphenom on Apr 4, 2010 9:44:29 GMT -5
Ill answer the OP's question: There was this wrestling orginization in Atlanta that failed to build any new stars. Partially because they failed to do that, they no longer exsist. I didn't say they shouldn't build new stars. Just that these guys should catch on on their own, not get forced down our throats like McIntyre and Sheamus.
|
|