Big Poppa Pumpkin
Dennis Stamp
I'll be in the back polishing............ my belt.
Posts: 4,987
|
Post by Big Poppa Pumpkin on Jan 31, 2015 12:00:33 GMT -5
I'm actually hoping they don't give in. Please.. Go ahead with Roman vs Brock If this ends up being a humongous train wreck Lets see If lessons will be learned for 2016 I think we all know they won't be.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 12:36:40 GMT -5
It's a ladder. The whole business works because of the ladder. There will always be one star at the top of it, but there has always been 5 people under that top guy, it was the same in 1999 as it is today. In 1999 the rung between top of the ladder and the next was quite small. Today the rungs between the top of the ladder seem to be miles apart They seem to be but they aren't. At different points in 1999/2000/2001/2002 for example, the Undertaker had been sent back a fair few rungs and then put back up again. So had Kurt Angle. At different points, they were botRh perceived to the very best, as well as 5th or 6th best. It just so happened that the guys were so talented that the fans reacted to them like massive stars regardless. But that whole booking philosophy hasn't changed. Right now, Rollins has gone for example from being below Orton to being above him and if it wasn't for Lesnar, would be clear top heel. Del Rio went from being a guy at the top to being somewhere in the middle. Ambrose is doing really well in terms of crowd reaction, and people perceive that he should be higher, but he's got Ziggler, Bryan, Reigns and Cena to compete with. I don't understand why it feels like the gap was smaller then, it's just one guy underneath another all the way down the roster. If you rise up, you quite literally take someone's spot.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jan 31, 2015 12:44:57 GMT -5
I actually remember the "rungs" (to keep the analogy going) being a lot bigger then then they are now. Back in the Attitude Era it seemed you had a much more clear cut separation of who was a mid-carder and who was a main eventer, whereas nowadays you got guys like Ziggler, Ambrose and Wyatt who are constantly being shuffled up and down the card all the time depending on what notch the WWE needs filled at the moment.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 12:49:33 GMT -5
It's a ladder. The whole business works because of the ladder. There will always be one star at the top of it, but there has always been 5 people under that top guy, it was the same in 1999 as it is today. Any particular reason to believe that, aside from just "That's how it was in the past?" Because the whole business works on perception. You have to know who is expected to win and who is expected to lose, so that when they build up a PPV, and ultimately Wrestlemania, they have successfully built it up so you can't quite figure it out. So that's one reason, in that everything from a clean win through to a dusty finish has to have a meaning. You need to know that if Dolph Ziggler beats Cena clean with no shenanigans, that means he is being elevated. If he needs to cheat, he might not be. You need to know why something is a shock loss vs an expected one. If we didn't have this, the shows would quickly lose structure and PPV matches would be meaningless. Right now, Ziggler is above Big E who is above Zack Ryder. And Wyatt is above Cesaro who is above Fandango. You need to be able to perceive that in your mind, and the whole point of matches is to establish who, right now, is better than who, so they can sell PPVs. If we have Ziggler beat Fandango clean, we know he is better. He beats Cesaro clean, we know he is better. If Wyatt has beaten Ryder and then Big E clean, we know he is better too. So it sets up a big match where we won't be able to call the winner. But if Cesaro beats Ziggler, who beats Wyatt, who loses to Zack Ryder, who beats Fandango, who loses to Big E - how do you put a PPV match on with any combination of those guys? Who do you chose? It's almost like Zack Ryder and Big E should be going at it, but if they want to showcase Ziggler and Wyatt, they've done a bad job. It's the whole point of 'the machine'. Which brings me on to the second reason. Your spot dictates how much TV time you get as well as how many PPV matches. The higher you are, the more likely you are to be featured. You earn a higher spot by doing well in a number of different metrics. Merch, ratings, reactions, buy rates. If they have identified that Ziggler and Wyatt are the two guys they want to feature in a big angle leading up to the next PPV, you don't want Zack Ryder and Fandango to be perceived as bigger stars than them. So you dictate who wins and loses based on their spot on the ladder, in order to establish that perception. It goes right up to the top, and at Wrestlemania, you want your main event to be perceived as such. Because people will buy that event to see who wins. Wrestlemania is where you aren't able to call who wins the matches, where as you know on a given Smackdown that Daniel Bryan is going to beat Kane. And while Bryan vs Kane is slightly boring, it's also vital, because without the boring matches, you don't get the special ones where you can't see which way it is going.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 12:55:24 GMT -5
I actually remember the "rungs" (to keep the analogy going) being a lot bigger then then they are now. Back in the Attitude Era it seemed you had a much more clear cut separation of who was a mid-carder and who was a main eventer, whereas nowadays you got guys like Ziggler, Ambrose and Wyatt who are constantly being shuffled up and down the card all the time depending on what notch the WWE needs filled at the moment. I think Rollins has been risen up due to how well he has done, as has Wyatt. (Although Wyatt hasn't been moved up as much as Rollins) Ambrose was moved up by virtue of Reigns being injured, and now he's back down slightly. Ziggler has been in a pretty consistent spot for a little while now. Swagger is someone that has been moved way up and way down. But that's over about a 6 year period now, which is kind of fair enough. The attitude era was only really 3 to 4 years absolute maximum, so it's understandable why guys didn't get moved up as much in a smaller time frame. Plus the AE had such established stars and no brand split, so it was harder to move up. This era has the remnants of a brand split that has meant certain guys on the roster have been pushed really high on the ladder to make sure main events could happen on both shows.
|
|
|
Post by dreamer75 on Jan 31, 2015 14:14:16 GMT -5
In 1999 the rung between top of the ladder and the next was quite small. Today the rungs between the top of the ladder seem to be miles apart They seem to be but they aren't. At different points in 1999/2000/2001/2002 for example, the Undertaker had been sent back a fair few rungs and then put back up again. So had Kurt Angle. At different points, they were botRh perceived to the very best, as well as 5th or 6th best. It just so happened that the guys were so talented that the fans reacted to them like massive stars regardless. But that whole booking philosophy hasn't changed. Right now, Rollins has gone for example from being below Orton to being above him and if it wasn't for Lesnar, would be clear top heel. Del Rio went from being a guy at the top to being somewhere in the middle. Ambrose is doing really well in terms of crowd reaction, and people perceive that he should be higher, but he's got Ziggler, Bryan, Reigns and Cena to compete with. I don't understand why it feels like the gap was smaller then, it's just one guy underneath another all the way down the roster. If you rise up, you quite literally take someone's spot. In the AE Kurt and Taker could take on someone like Rock/Austin and you the fan believe they have a good decent chance of winning despite never boing "the guy" like those 2 were cleanly. If someone like Rollins/Ziggler/Abrose/Wyatt takes on Cena/Orton you know they have to have a mountain of shenanigans to beat Cena and no way could you think they could beat cena/orton clean
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,055
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jan 31, 2015 14:15:39 GMT -5
Hmm, it is odd. If they're not gonna put Bryan into the main event of Wrestlemania, I could see that, get someone new over. But, they should have at least went about it differently. It is the issue again where Vince needs to go. Let's say this report is bullshit, and it could be. They're still wanting to push Roman Reigns as the top guy and some fans might not buy into him. I think Vince is still back in the 80s with his thinking that they can keep pushing a guy and it will work. Hell, I wonder if Rocky Maivia didn't get injured and put out of Vince's mind when so much other stuff was going on that maybe Vince would have kept going with that gimmick too. Hell, with John Cena, I feel maybe a year as a heel in 2005 or 2006 could have done wonders for him in regards to fan popularity in the future. I have heard that WWE and the Tapout brand announcing a partnership for merchandise, and I feel Tapout might want to have Daniel Bryan as their guy, considering he kinda fits the mould of a spokesman they're looking for. This grappler who makes guys, well, tap out. I feel though that WWE might be like, no, f*** that, we want, maybe John Cena or someone else to be the main guy with this brand, though this is all my bullshit speculation and pondering. CM Punk talked about WWE not wanting certain guys on say, the cover of a video game, and that's where I get that idea. I kind of get the feeling that the only reason Punk was on the cover of 13 was because of his "13" Tattoo, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jan 31, 2015 14:17:13 GMT -5
Hmm, it is odd. If they're not gonna put Bryan into the main event of Wrestlemania, I could see that, get someone new over. But, they should have at least went about it differently. It is the issue again where Vince needs to go. Let's say this report is bullshit, and it could be. They're still wanting to push Roman Reigns as the top guy and some fans might not buy into him. I think Vince is still back in the 80s with his thinking that they can keep pushing a guy and it will work. Hell, I wonder if Rocky Maivia didn't get injured and put out of Vince's mind when so much other stuff was going on that maybe Vince would have kept going with that gimmick too. Hell, with John Cena, I feel maybe a year as a heel in 2005 or 2006 could have done wonders for him in regards to fan popularity in the future. I have heard that WWE and the Tapout brand announcing a partnership for merchandise, and I feel Tapout might want to have Daniel Bryan as their guy, considering he kinda fits the mould of a spokesman they're looking for. This grappler who makes guys, well, tap out. I feel though that WWE might be like, no, f*** that, we want, maybe John Cena or someone else to be the main guy with this brand, though this is all my bullshit speculation and pondering. CM Punk talked about WWE not wanting certain guys on say, the cover of a video game, and that's where I get that idea. I kind of get the feeling that the only reason Punk was on the cover of 13 was because of his "13" Tattoo, honestly. I think he was the most Attitude Era-ey guy they had at the time
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 14:41:12 GMT -5
They seem to be but they aren't. At different points in 1999/2000/2001/2002 for example, the Undertaker had been sent back a fair few rungs and then put back up again. So had Kurt Angle. At different points, they were botRh perceived to the very best, as well as 5th or 6th best. It just so happened that the guys were so talented that the fans reacted to them like massive stars regardless. But that whole booking philosophy hasn't changed. Right now, Rollins has gone for example from being below Orton to being above him and if it wasn't for Lesnar, would be clear top heel. Del Rio went from being a guy at the top to being somewhere in the middle. Ambrose is doing really well in terms of crowd reaction, and people perceive that he should be higher, but he's got Ziggler, Bryan, Reigns and Cena to compete with. I don't understand why it feels like the gap was smaller then, it's just one guy underneath another all the way down the roster. If you rise up, you quite literally take someone's spot. In the AE Kurt and Taker could take on someone like Rock/Austin and you the fan believe they have a good decent chance of winning despite never boing "the guy" like those 2 were cleanly. If someone like Rollins/Ziggler/Abrose/Wyatt takes on Cena/Orton you know they have to have a mountain of shenanigans to beat Cena and no way could you think they could beat cena/orton clean If Kurt was taking on Rock or Austin as a heel when they were faces, he would have been one of the top heels. When he took on Austin in 2001, he was one of the top faces. It's like saying you don't believe Cena could beat Orton or vice versa in 2009. If they had a match between Austin and Angle, they would have built up both to be at the top of their respective alignment before facing. Rollins is in an interesting position because he is underneath Lesnar on the heel side, but still the top heel on most TV shows because Lesnar isn't there. But you damn near almost saw Rollins beat Lesnar at the Royal Rumble. Ziggler and Ambrose have never been positioned as legit threats to a Cena type main eventer, they are where Jericho was in early 2000. Hence Jericho needing Hebner's stupidly fast count to beat HHH at that time. It is honestly no different now to how it was then. They would build Kurt or Taker up if they were needed in the main event, and reduce them slightly if required further down the card. It's like just before Punk's contract was due to expire in 2011, they built him up before making him the number one contender, so he was top heel at that time. Kurt had some times where he'd face Rey Mysterio and Edge in 2002. If he's facing them, there is 100% a heel that is being booked stronger than him higher up the card at that point. When Taker is facing A-Train and Nathan Jones, there is 100% a face that is booked stronger than him at that point in time.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Jan 31, 2015 14:45:26 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is everyone talks about Daniel Bryan being near Cena's age and Roman being the future for a much longer time.....Roman Reigns is just 4 years younger than Daniel Bryan, almost to the day (3 days apart). Yeah yeah "more mileage on Daniel's body", but it's still just 4 years apart, and even if he didn't play much I can't imagine all the college/pro football Reigns played was a breeze. You could get a good couple of years out of Bryan before moving on to Reigns, and still have good mileage from him. Doesn't have to be all one guy for as long as possible- you can have one, then the other later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:17:09 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is everyone talks about Daniel Bryan being near Cena's age and Roman being the future for a much longer time.....Roman Reigns is just 4 years younger than Daniel Bryan, almost to the day (3 days apart). Yeah yeah "more mileage on Daniel's body", but it's still just 4 years apart, and even if he didn't play much I can't imagine all the college/pro football Reigns played was a breeze. You could get a good couple of years out of Bryan before moving on to Reigns, and still have good mileage from him. Doesn't have to be all one guy for as long as possible- you can have one, then the other later. That's what I don't get. Why not just give the fans what they want, Bryan is their guy. Let him have his time in the spotlight but have Roman waiting in the wing being slowly built so that when its time for someone else to be at the top they can slide Reigns in there.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,108
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Feb 1, 2015 1:54:57 GMT -5
Okay, look.
One thing I don't want to hear anymore is that Reigns shouldn't be facing Lesnar because it's not believable that Roman could beat Brock.
Okay, fair enough, but most of these same people want Bryan fighting Lesnar instead.
As though that would be MORE credible?
You could throw Reigns and Bryan into the machine from The Fly and combine them into one person with the best attributes of each and I would still expect Lesnar to crush them.
I don't want D-Bry to fight Bork.
Because I LIKE Bryan, and don't want him getting eaten and crapped out by that monster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 1:59:02 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is everyone talks about Daniel Bryan being near Cena's age and Roman being the future for a much longer time.....Roman Reigns is just 4 years younger than Daniel Bryan, almost to the day (3 days apart). Yeah yeah "more mileage on Daniel's body", but it's still just 4 years apart, and even if he didn't play much I can't imagine all the college/pro football Reigns played was a breeze. You could get a good couple of years out of Bryan before moving on to Reigns, and still have good mileage from him. Doesn't have to be all one guy for as long as possible- you can have one, then the other later. Like I said earlier in this thread.... Hogan became the guy at 31. Bret became the guy at 37. Austin became the guy at 34. Rock became the guy at 27. Triple H "became the guy Vince wanted to push as their main guy for a bit" at 33. Cena became the guy at 28. Besides special circumstances, most guys become "the guy" in their 30s. By that point, they'll have matured enough, connected with the audience on a deeper level and they have it all down. Rock and Cena are special cases, extremely special cases mind you. Rock is a talent you only meet once every generation, he's special and hell he had to wait until Austin was out for that too. Cena on the other hand had to get it after the other 2 guys they tried to make their headliners were either too immature (Orton) or they just didn't have all the company was looking for (Batista). Cena had to be the first guy in the building and the last guy to leave AND be equipped with amazing mic skills, good wrestling skills, do whatever the company asked, be amazingly over AND have Wolverine healing to be "the guy". In order for someone to be "the guy" at a young age they have to be ridiculously gifted and they have to hit multiple areas. Reigns doesn't have that. Daniel Bryan is 33. He is the right age. That's it. It should be a no-brainer given this company's history but I guess not.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Feb 1, 2015 2:46:46 GMT -5
Okay, look. One thing I don't want to hear anymore is that Reigns shouldn't be facing Lesnar because it's not believable that Roman could beat Brock. Okay, fair enough, but most of these same people want Bryan fighting Lesnar instead. As though that would be MORE credible? You could throw Reigns and Bryan into the machine from The Fly and combine them into one person with the best attributes of each and I would still expect Lesnar to crush them. I don't want D-Bry to fight Bork. Because I LIKE Bryan, and don't want him getting eaten and crapped out by that monster. I can buy Bryan facing Brock because he's a smaller faster guy who can "stick and move" and wear Lesnar down with kicks and holds. I can't buy Reigns facing Brock because while Reigns is bigger than Bryan, Lesnar is bigger than him, AND more athletic, AND can out-wrestle him.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Feb 1, 2015 5:05:08 GMT -5
I can't buy Reigns facing Brock because while Reigns is bigger than Bryan, Lesnar is bigger than him, AND more athletic, AND can out-wrestle him. Pretty much this. Lesnar has been booked at absolutely unbeatable - at the Rumble alone he kicked out of an AA at one, survived three consecutive AAs and a Curbstomp, and still won cleanly. Are we supposed to believe a Superman Punch and spear are gonna keep him down for a three count? Only way I buy anybody beating him is the Rocky vs. ivan Drago situation. Someone is going to have to survive/avoid the onslaught and gradually wear him down. Bryan I can buy doing that. Hell, I can buy Ziggler doing that through sheer guts and determination, or Ambrose through just being too crazy to know when to stay down. Reigns? I don't even buy him not getting gassed before Lesnar.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Feb 1, 2015 7:28:19 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is everyone talks about Daniel Bryan being near Cena's age and Roman being the future for a much longer time.....Roman Reigns is just 4 years younger than Daniel Bryan, almost to the day (3 days apart). Yeah yeah "more mileage on Daniel's body", but it's still just 4 years apart, and even if he didn't play much I can't imagine all the college/pro football Reigns played was a breeze. You could get a good couple of years out of Bryan before moving on to Reigns, and still have good mileage from him. Doesn't have to be all one guy for as long as possible- you can have one, then the other later. Like I said earlier in this thread.... Hogan became the guy at 31. Bret became the guy at 37. Austin became the guy at 34. Rock became the guy at 27. Triple H "became the guy Vince wanted to push as their main guy for a bit" at 33. Cena became the guy at 28. Besides special circumstances, most guys become "the guy" in their 30s. By that point, they'll have matured enough, connected with the audience on a deeper level and they have it all down. Rock and Cena are special cases, extremely special cases mind you. Rock is a talent you only meet once every generation, he's special and hell he had to wait until Austin was out for that too. Cena on the other hand had to get it after the other 2 guys they tried to make their headliners were either too immature (Orton) or they just didn't have all the company was looking for (Batista). Cena had to be the first guy in the building and the last guy to leave AND be equipped with amazing mic skills, good wrestling skills, do whatever the company asked, be amazingly over AND have Wolverine healing to be "the guy". In order for someone to be "the guy" at a young age they have to be ridiculously gifted and they have to hit multiple areas. Reigns doesn't have that. Daniel Bryan is 33. He is the right age. That's it. It should be a no-brainer given this company's history but I guess not. None of them had serious neck injuries before they decided to push them as "the guy". Also Hogan, Rock, Austin and to a lesser but still considerable extent Cena, were all marketing dreams who were getting commercial deals, mainstream TV appearances, movie offers, toy endorsements etc, that Bryan, for one reason or another - doesn't. Bryan isn't THAT marketable I don't think. His look may appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think this is getting on the cover of any magazines any time soon It may be shallow and superficial...but it's kinda true.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 1, 2015 7:48:19 GMT -5
You know everyone keeps saying Bryan isn't marketable like Austin, Rock, Etc. but isn't he one of the main guys who appears on their Total Divas crossover show. I haven't watched much but I have seen him, and Cena a lot on one of the episodes I did watch. Also none of them had serious neck injuries before becoming the guy?
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Feb 1, 2015 7:51:03 GMT -5
You know everyone keeps saying Bryan isn't marketable like Austin, Rock, Etc. but isn't he one of the main guys who appears on their Total Divas crossover show. I haven't watched much but I have seen him, and Cena a lot on one of the episodes I did watch. Also none of them had serious neck injuries before becoming the guy? Austin was already the guy by that point. They were holding off the title but he was definitely the guy. Also times have changed in respect of how they deal with injuries. Also he was back in the ring inside a couple of months. Had Austin been out for 8 months, things may have been different.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 1, 2015 7:56:47 GMT -5
Austin was the guy as much as Daniel Bryan is the guy. He was loved by fans and had a ton of potential but he wasn't in main event feuds. I mean he got a shot at Taker's title but was then shuffled off into Tag title feuds until he eventually broke his neck trying to capture the IC title. I know the IC title had more prestige back then but even then it wasn't the title you gave "the guy".
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,745
|
Post by Dub H on Feb 1, 2015 7:57:04 GMT -5
Like I said earlier in this thread.... Hogan became the guy at 31. Bret became the guy at 37. Austin became the guy at 34. Rock became the guy at 27. Triple H "became the guy Vince wanted to push as their main guy for a bit" at 33. Cena became the guy at 28. Besides special circumstances, most guys become "the guy" in their 30s. By that point, they'll have matured enough, connected with the audience on a deeper level and they have it all down. Rock and Cena are special cases, extremely special cases mind you. Rock is a talent you only meet once every generation, he's special and hell he had to wait until Austin was out for that too. Cena on the other hand had to get it after the other 2 guys they tried to make their headliners were either too immature (Orton) or they just didn't have all the company was looking for (Batista). Cena had to be the first guy in the building and the last guy to leave AND be equipped with amazing mic skills, good wrestling skills, do whatever the company asked, be amazingly over AND have Wolverine healing to be "the guy". In order for someone to be "the guy" at a young age they have to be ridiculously gifted and they have to hit multiple areas. Reigns doesn't have that. Daniel Bryan is 33. He is the right age. That's it. It should be a no-brainer given this company's history but I guess not. None of them had serious neck injuries before they decided to push them as "the guy". Also Hogan, Rock, Austin and to a lesser but still considerable extent Cena, were all marketing dreams who were getting commercial deals, mainstream TV appearances, movie offers, toy endorsements etc, that Bryan, for one reason or another - doesn't. Bryan isn't THAT marketable I don't think. His look may appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think this is getting on the cover of any magazines any time soon It may be shallow and superficial...but it's kinda true. Kinda off-topic but,maybe not.Punk was marketable,he got a bunch of offers from different companies ,all that good jazz for marketing. Higher Ups still didn't give a danm.Bottom line is,WWE will do what WWE thinks.Besides MARKETABLE
|
|