Johnny D
Don Corleone
Creature of the Night Forever
Posts: 2,093
|
Post by Johnny D on Feb 24, 2012 16:07:45 GMT -5
..to get your opponent over?
I personally don't think you do. Maybe I'm a bit biased but I watched Taker vs Orton at Mania 21 recently and I think Taker did a great job of putting over Orton in that match and still keeping his streak intact. But what are other people's opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Feb 24, 2012 16:09:59 GMT -5
No, you dont. But lo and behold, we get people screaming that the streak needs to end every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bone Daddy on Feb 24, 2012 16:12:21 GMT -5
Of course not. Bret and Austin (among other examples) proves that.
This is the mistake they keep making with Ziggler. They could have him beat punk or cena or whoever within an inch of their lives, and then have him lose by a roll up and he would be WAY over. Instead they have him lose clean over and over
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Feb 24, 2012 16:14:39 GMT -5
There's getting someone over and there's putting someone over. Putting someone over is an actual insider term meaning losing to them, i.e. who's going over (or "am I effing going over, if you will); then there's getting someone over. Taker versus Jeff Hardy for the Undisputed title: Taker went over, but that match definitely helped Jeff Hardy get more over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2012 16:16:20 GMT -5
No. I would argue that Punk put Ziggler over like a champ during that match that they had on Raw a while back. Of course they haven't done much interesting with Ziggler since.
Also, Flair used to be the master at putting a guy over while beating him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bone Daddy on Feb 24, 2012 16:28:25 GMT -5
No. I would argue that Punk put Ziggler over like a champ during that match that they had on Raw a while back. Of course they haven't done much interesting with Ziggler since. Also, Flair used to be the master at putting a guy over while beating him. Back in the NWA days I think a guy got more over in his territory by almost beating Flair than he would have if he had won |
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,037
|
Post by dav on Feb 24, 2012 16:32:36 GMT -5
Not really. You can still make people look great without losing to them. Hogan did a lot of making people look important without having to lose to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigermaskxxxvii on Feb 24, 2012 16:37:07 GMT -5
No. I would argue that Punk put Ziggler over like a champ during that match that they had on Raw a while back. Of course they haven't done much interesting with Ziggler since. Also, Flair used to be the master at putting a guy over while beating him. Back in the NWA days I think a guy got more over in his territory by almost beating Flair than he would have if he had won And Sting got over more by a 45 minute draw with Flair than most people get with victories. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Feb 24, 2012 16:37:23 GMT -5
Of course not. Best recent example I can think of is HHH's series of matches with Jeff Hardy before Jeff eventually won the belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Feb 24, 2012 16:40:48 GMT -5
I think this is the reason that they gave Cena the "overcome the odds" booking for so long. In theory, his opponents are supposed to look good in losing based on the fact that they've smacked him around for a good 20 minutes.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Feb 24, 2012 16:42:40 GMT -5
although it's already been mentioned, the end-all be-all, IMO, is The Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy ladder match. Jeff was already pretty over as 1/2 of a really popular tag team, but that match got him over as a legitimate singles competitor. And for a non-WWE example, in ROH, the Joe vs. Punk trilogy. Punk already had a pretty decent rep on the indies, but he was still basically an "upper midcarder", if you will. The two draws and the one loss made CM Punk the guy on the indie circuit(Sure, it really helped Joe,too, in proving that he could work longer matches, but he won  ) |
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Feb 24, 2012 17:06:21 GMT -5
..to get your opponent over? I personally don't think you do. Maybe I'm a bit biased but I watched Taker vs Orton at Mania 21 recently and I think Taker did a great job of putting over Orton in that match and still keeping his streak intact. But what are other people's opinions? No, you don't have to lose to put somebody over. Just look at Austin/Bret Wrestlemania 13. Or Taker/Foley Hell in a Cell. Or the first Shawn/Razor ladder match. Thing is, those matches were between people who were roughly on the same level of overness...well besides Austin/Bret. When things are uneven (like Main Event vs. jobber), a jobber can be put over like crazy without winning. Just look at TAKA vs. Triple H in 2000, Rock vs. Eddie, Rock vs. Hurricane, even Jericho vs. Maven for the title in 2001...all one sided matches on paper, but the underdog got in plenty of offense and looked like a real threat. Unfortunately, WWE never really figured out how make anything of those moments. But sometimes the loss needs to happen. HHH and Booker at Wrestlemania 19 is a perfect example. Booker never was taken seriously as a real main eventer in WWE because he never got that big win over anybody. Yea, he beat Rey Mysterio for the Smackdown title...big deal. If he beat HHH back in 2003, he could have been a name that's up there with Rock and Austin if things worked out just right, even if they didn't he would have been a much bigger star. |
|
)
