Under appreciated jobber, or dull main eventer?

[Starshine]

I was inspired by the thread reminiscing on those few weeks Ziggler dyed his hair brown and dropped all aspects of his character in the pursuit of being a serious and aggressive heel.

If given the two scenarios above for one of your favourite wrestlers, which would you prefer to see? Would you rather see the wrestler you like stay the same but put over almost everyone in the company? Or would you be fine with them dropping the character that drew you to them, become cookie cutter, but in turn get a big main event push? Assume wrestling quality is largely unaffected.

[TGM]

I dunno I guess I've got a problem with the question. Jericho dropped all the aspects that made me love him and that made me love him even more.

[The Tank]

Jun 20, 2014 6:32:57 GMT -5 TGM said:

I dunno I guess I've got a problem with the question. Jericho dropped all the aspects that made me love him and that made me love him even more.

Chris Jericho intentionally changed his character to piss people off there.

This is probably meant to be how WWE paints their top guys nowadays, where every face is shoved into this mold of being a wise-cracking coolguy PG version of The Rock who's by and large unflappable except in irrational scenarios (ie, John Cena/Sheamus), and every heel is just...well, unfortunately the easiest way to describe the heels is saying "Chris Jericho's SRS character" because seemingly every heel at the top level just puts on a suit and goes out there and...speaks......slowly.........because............Chris...........Jericho........did......it.........so apparently that's all heels need to do to be over in spite of them apparently not realizing WHY SRS Jericho worked so well.

So what he's saying is "Would you rather have a guy be unique at the bottom of the card or reach the top but become completely homogenized in the process?"

...I hope.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

The very question itself is symptomatic of the problem with WWE's booking style.

We're told that it doesn't matter what our guy is like because he is winning or losing or a star or not a star, and that only the main event matters.

I would MUCH rather have my favourite wrestler be a talented jobber than a boring main eventer, because there should be talent at every level of the show, not just the main event.

[keezy]

I thought 3MB were the perfect jobbers, they got to express themselves and didn't have to protect their reputations, same goes for Santino and Fandango.

There are some guys though, like Zack Ryder, Damien Sandow and to an extent Ryback who have lost their gimmick and traits after being dropped down the card, that's probably the worst way to go.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Depends on your definition of "dull".

When I think of generic, I envision guys like the American Wolves or Tyson Kidd (as of writing), who have no character outside of being good in the ring. And when I think about superstars WWE allegedly homogenized, I think of Shad during his brief midcard push after he turned on JTG, or Damien Sandow before he started doing (the infinitely more entertaining, IMO) impersonations.

Guys like Cena, Orton and Sheamus don't fit into that category with me, because even if they don't appeal to someone personally, they still have established identities (Cena is WWE's moral compass, Orton is a psychopath, Sheamus is a crazy brawler that likes to tell stupid stories). Miz didn't exactly light WWE on fire as champ, but again- even he still had a well defined character by wrestling standards (annoying douche who felt he was entitled to success because of his prior TV background).

I don't know of any superstar WWE pushed to the main event that was just a total blank slate, and stayed over. The closest is Bobby Lashley, and look how that turned out.

[RIHT]

Neither. Fans shouldn't have to choose such a fate for wrestlers they like.

[JCBaggee]

Jun 20, 2014 8:03:36 GMT -5 keezy said:

I thought 3MB were the perfect jobbers, they got to express themselves and didn't have to protect their reputations, same goes for Santino and Fandango.

There are some guys though, like Zack Ryder, Damien Sandow and to an extent Ryback who have lost their gimmick and traits after being dropped down the card, that's probably the worst way to go.

Speaking as someone who is a fan of Ryder and Sandow, if your gimmick doesn't show in your ring work, you didn't really have a gimmick to begin with.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

Jun 20, 2014 10:24:04 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

I don't know of any superstar WWE pushed to the main event that was just a total blank slate, and stayed over. The closest is Bobby Lashley, and look how that turned out.

That's TNA World Champion Bobby Lashley to you, pal! ...so I see what you mean.

[Push R Truth]

I'd rather watch Santino/Slater/Sandow get killed in 80% of their matches than watch bland garbage like Face Sheamus/Cena/Del Rio win all the time.

[keezy]

Jun 20, 2014 12:13:27 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

Jun 20, 2014 8:03:36 GMT -5 keezy said:

I thought 3MB were the perfect jobbers, they got to express themselves and didn't have to protect their reputations, same goes for Santino and Fandango.

There are some guys though, like Zack Ryder, Damien Sandow and to an extent Ryback who have lost their gimmick and traits after being dropped down the card, that's probably the worst way to go.

Speaking as someone who is a fan of Ryder and Sandow, if your gimmick doesn't show in your ring work, you didn't really have a gimmick to begin with.

Technically Ryder is still a Long Island guido and Sandow is still a holier-than-thou intellectual, but with about a minute to showcase that you're left with most of that getting squashed by Rusev or Adam Rose.

[JTH]

Dull main eventers at least won't get fired...

So that.

[Deleted]

I don't get the dull main eventers vote. Why would I like someone that became a main eventer? "It sure is great that this guy is getting a big push. Remember back when he did cool stuff? That should tide me over for the next 10 years while he shits the bed."

[Starshine]

Just to clear some things up, the question is to what extent would you like to see a guy your a fan of succeed. For the sake of argument, Randy Orton is often placed on the podium as the ultimate generic main eventer. The question is, would you like to see a unique guy you like wallow in the undercard, or sacrifice his more unique qualities to become another Randy Orton clone (eg. bland heel, or whitebread babyface)?

Jericho is a good argument of it working. But at the same time, he still put his own spin on the character to make it unique. This is more akin to asking would you like to see serious, aggressive, brown haired Dolph Ziggler main eventing reguarly, or Dolph Zigger as he is doing... well, basically he's doing now, except more jobbing.

Assume everything else is the same, and their job is not on the line in either scenario.

[Deleted]

Since you throw in "assume wrestling quality is unaffected", I'll say generic'd up and pushed to the top. They'll still be able to capture me in the ring (if they couldn't do that before, I probably don't like them anyway), and they'll have a greater platform to do that.

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Generic me up. All I want is money, f*** the fame, I'm a simple man.

['Foretold' Joker]

Dull Main Eventer is an oxymoron ... if your dull you shouldn't be in the main event.

[Starshine]

Jun 20, 2014 21:32:31 GMT -5 'Foretold' Joker said:

Dull Main Eventer is an oxymoron ... if your dull you shouldn't be in the main event.

Dull is also a relative term. Some people like the "clone" wrestlers, some don't.

Stop thinking so hard about it. I just thought this would be an interesting question to peg.