|
Post by SeVeN: #TheBadGuy. on Feb 24, 2015 18:42:14 GMT -5
These Reigns threads are turning into the D-Bry Wrestlemania threads of yesteryear.
To be so unpopular his readiness is a very popular topic.
|
|
Psychoblue
Don Corleone
WrestleCrap #1 Kona Crush mark (probably)
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by Psychoblue on Feb 24, 2015 18:43:19 GMT -5
Oh come on everyone likes Mary Sue Roman Reigns. Did you know he can speak 15 languages, has eyes that change colors, knows every martial art, and has a dark secret. He does have a weakness though. He's so awesome that he has trouble relating to other people. Dude, Roman Reigns needs a Jin Kazama gimmick! Don't you agree that "Roman Reigns: Oedipus Complex!?" would be a license to print money!?
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Feb 24, 2015 18:43:41 GMT -5
To go back further to the peak of "f*** Cena", I honestly think that Vince is just a stubborn control freak.
Remember there was a time when big stars could say to hell with this, I go somewhere else. Vince also seems to have a easily bruised ego. He feels that he created all of the great stars of the Two Major eras, despite that they already had the tools. Hogan, no matter how much WWE won't say, was OVER in the AWA. Vince just gave Hulk the platform and possibly the best perfect storm in Wrestling History.
Vince feels that his Superstars are just that. His. If they don't fit the description, just get your check & be happy. Zack Ryder gets himself over? Okay we'll throw him a bone, but we'll also kill his heat so we can make sure he doesn't get too over the people WE want. Guy screws up? Let everybody know live TV he's a goof. Only this other guy matters. Titles(Russo has a big hand in this)? They matter. Depending on who holds them & if WE care.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Feb 24, 2015 18:48:15 GMT -5
Great way to dismiss an excellent piece and a point many have made. Truly that is the best way to go about things. OP hasn't watched in months based on their own admission, so how do they know Roman is ready? How do they know any of their claims are true? /I/ haven't watched in months either. That's why I stay out of the Roman arguments. Because he did watch and what they did drove him away. Read the post, he watched, liked Roman and they made changes that drove him away. He keeps following the product, though not watching it and see them doing more of the same stuff that drove him away. He sees the conversation on here talking about the same issues. That is absolutely fair to comment on. This isn't someone saying he saw two Shield matches, Roman was a pile of suck and going to fail because of that. What he is saying was true when he stopped watching and is true now, to dismiss it because he stopped watching a bad product and thinks that same bad product that is still being pushed will lead to failure is insanity. If things had greatly changed that would be massively different but that is not the case.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Feb 24, 2015 18:51:14 GMT -5
Great way to dismiss an excellent piece and a point many have made. Truly that is the best way to go about things. OP hasn't watched in months based on their own admission, so how do they know Roman is ready? How do they know any of their claims are true? /I/ haven't watched in months either. That's why I stay out of the Roman arguments. You don't have to watch the product to know that the Reigns push isn't working just based off of the things they've done. While I may not have watched every step of the journey, I did watch the Royal Rumble, and I saw Roman's performance in that match. That was admittedly the last show I watched. Still, I could have come in completely blind and I could tell you that having BIG SHOW beat the guy you're trying to push as your new top babyface going into Wrestlemania was a wretched, dumb idea. I could tell you without a single thought that having Roman cutting promos based on Looney Tunes catchphrases was a horrible plan. I could guarantee the second you told me about it that trying to have Daniel Bryan endorsing the guy is just bound to make fans resent him even more. Just like how it failed to work with Rock. People can see right through these smokescreens. Not to mention I've seen failed push after failed push after failed push in the past year alone. At this point it's merely law of averages. The WWE has just been baffling for awhile now. Especially after watching something like NXT, which to me has become like Bizarro-World, though even they aren't perfect. But at least a mistake in NXT is minor compared to a mistake on your flagship show. And trust me, you could point out hundreds of mistakes on Raw nowadays just from reading a synopsis. How is it that your development brand provides more excitement right now then your main roster? Especially given that it's one writer producing the whole thing. Whereas WWE has a whole staff of writers. Why can't your main show be like that as well? Obviously something isn't working. And then you have moments where you have hope that things might just turn around, like at Survivor Series or Money in the Bank with Punk or even last year's Mania? And that hope is then dashed mere weeks later, if you're lucky. Also, I never said anything I wrote was unequivocally true. That's just my stance.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 24, 2015 18:51:42 GMT -5
If Bryan and Reigns were treated like 1a and 1b, I'd be okay with this super forced push. But Bryan's one more verbal BJ for Reigns from 2b status to Cena's 2a.
The problem with Reigns is that he passes the show, don't tell test. You have to tell people how great he is because he can't show you (he isn't ready to be considered great yet, he just isn't.)
Anyone could get the Superman Punch and Spear over, sorry, they're high impact moves that look awesome. Put the move on anyone on the roster, it's going to pop people. Reigns' can put on an 'eh not the worst thing ever' promo if he has something to work with.
The get Roman over strategy is 'let's have popular people tell the audience how much better Roman is than they are'.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Feb 24, 2015 18:53:23 GMT -5
Part 2
Low Ki aka Kaval won NXT2, despite booking AND making him & LayCool work. But did the 'E show it? Hell No. Say what you will about Ki, but there is no way you have him lose to a nobody like Tyler Reks "to build him up".
Honestly since Brock left the first time, compound there is no true WCW level promotion, Vince can craft to what ever he wants the WWE to grow.
|
|
|
Post by An Old Villain on Feb 24, 2015 19:02:35 GMT -5
At this point im pretty sure that- unless they float a boat load of money at Lesnar- the WrestleMania main event is going to be worse than Lesnar v Goldberg.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Feb 24, 2015 19:31:33 GMT -5
I don't pay heed to album reviews by people who haven't listened to the music but say they've read the lyrics, either, nor restaurant reviews by people who have only read the menu. But someone who watched the product, got turned off by the product and is telling you why that is and why he believes it is an issue still is not in that category. That is someone to hear out at the least not dismiss in a childish fashion. If you only want to hear out those constantly watch then you aren't looking to hear anyone out. I have no problem with him telling me why he quit watching. That's legit. Telling me people have been saying he isn't ready for months ... when you haven't watched for months ... and bringing up "problems from the latest Raw" ... when you didn't watch it ... no thanks.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Feb 24, 2015 19:58:28 GMT -5
I don't pay heed to album reviews by people who haven't listened to the music but say they've read the lyrics, either, nor restaurant reviews by people who have only read the menu. You're still being incredibly dismissive and rude about it. Why not discuss his points, or y'know, not comment if you're just going to say that? Because I've grown tired of "I quit watching ... now let me tell you what they're doing wrong" posts.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Feb 24, 2015 20:05:19 GMT -5
The problem with this isn't just that "Roman Reigns" will fail because he's gotten everything a top babyface needs and he's on tap to be the next Hulk Hogan. It's not that John Cena's still the Hulk Hogan and WWE won't capitalize for Reigns. It's not even that Daniel Bryan's the most popular face and he, by all rights, should be the next Hogan. It's that- in the heart of hearts, the IWC doesn't want there to be a Hulk Hogan AT ALL. It's not just "Cena hate" or "Reigns hate"- because when CM Punk and Daniel Bryan had the WWE behind them and they were getting chances to be the top babyface hero and be the Hulk Hogan, the fans started to turn on THEM, TOO. It has gotten to a point where it looks like the fans, more than they want any superstar at the top, have the favorite wrestler of "SOMEONE ELSE." The fact that besides Reigns, Cena, or Bryan there's no top faces, or top heels besides The Authority- but that honestly, it doesn't seem like the IWC wants there to be top heels or top faces either. WWE wants it so that "World Wrestling Entertainment" is the draw bringing people in- but fans secretly want it too because if there's no top faces or top heels, it's far easier to say "I want to see more of THIS PERSON. Make them the WWE World Champ!"- then the next month "Great. It was awesome! Now do THIS PERSON as WWE World Champ!". There's some truth in that. I think many fans want something new or at least fresh, something that gives us that same excited feeling as they had in the past. A new champion is the quick version of that, we hope they'll usher in a new era. Punk running away with the title briefly promised that change but soon it was back to unsatisfying nonsense like Nash texting himself as Punk was overshadowed by familiar faces. Bryan and WM30 in general promised a new era but The Authority stayed and Bryan was soon stuck feuding with Kane. So we hope the next new champion will be different. There's no hope with Reigns because like Mr Waffel-Buffet says we've seen this push before, like you say I don't want the next Hogan or Cena, I want the first____. Actually f*** that, I do want the WWE brand to be on top. I liked Hogan but he had support from Warrior, Piper, Macho Man.. I liked Austin and The Rock but they wouldn't have been the same without Mankind, Undertaker, Kane, DX, Vince... Last year I hoped I could say that about Bryan with The Shield and Wyatts as stables, Cesaro and maybe a couple of others in strong positions supporting him but most (but not all) of that group are worse off than they were last year. That is a strong point, but it also kind of missed the point I was making. When I say "the fans don't want a Hulk Hogan", it's not just the "they want a guy who's LIKE Hulk Hogan, or LIKE Steve Austin, or LIKE The Rock, or LIKE John Cena, or LIKE Bruno Sammartino as the top babyface", but the more damning part: "The fans don't want a TOP BABYFACE or a TOP HEEL at all." The fans' problem is less the "I don't want the next Hogan or Cena, I want the first Roman Reigns/Daniel Bryan". It's not "They had Hogan, but he had Warrior, Piper, Savage- and Austin and the Rock had Mankind, Undertaker, Kane, DX, Vince". It's that they REALLY want a more ECW-style, or even UFC-style style of roster- where one PPV Daniel Bryan can be the WWE World Heavyweight Champion and fight Brock Lesnar for the title, and the next PPV Daniel Bryan can be fighting Curtis Axel for the title and lose to him, and the next month Curtis Axel can fight Bull Dempsey in what later proves to be Dempsey's only match on the main roster- or Seth Rollins fights John Cena for the title, and the next month Cena's fighting Darren Young for the title, and the next month Young is fighting Alex Riley for the title, and the next month Riley is fighting Enzo Amore for the title, and ALL OF THOSE THINGS make perfect sense. That's more of a problem- since UFC can do that because they're a legitimate sport. ECW tried that, and it was a big reason for the company's death that they never went all-in with people like Rob Van Dam when he had the potential to be their top babyface, in large part due to a top babyface not being the ECW way. Even if the WWE is the draw- even if you have a number of viable babyfaces and heels- you need one guy who is the top babyface- and right now, the fans want parity, not a top star.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Feb 24, 2015 20:27:38 GMT -5
There's some truth in that. I think many fans want something new or at least fresh, something that gives us that same excited feeling as they had in the past. A new champion is the quick version of that, we hope they'll usher in a new era. Punk running away with the title briefly promised that change but soon it was back to unsatisfying nonsense like Nash texting himself as Punk was overshadowed by familiar faces. Bryan and WM30 in general promised a new era but The Authority stayed and Bryan was soon stuck feuding with Kane. So we hope the next new champion will be different. There's no hope with Reigns because like Mr Waffel-Buffet says we've seen this push before, like you say I don't want the next Hogan or Cena, I want the first____. Actually f*** that, I do want the WWE brand to be on top. I liked Hogan but he had support from Warrior, Piper, Macho Man.. I liked Austin and The Rock but they wouldn't have been the same without Mankind, Undertaker, Kane, DX, Vince... Last year I hoped I could say that about Bryan with The Shield and Wyatts as stables, Cesaro and maybe a couple of others in strong positions supporting him but most (but not all) of that group are worse off than they were last year. That is a strong point, but it also kind of missed the point I was making. When I say "the fans don't want a Hulk Hogan", it's not just the "they want a guy who's LIKE Hulk Hogan, or LIKE Steve Austin, or LIKE The Rock, or LIKE John Cena, or LIKE Bruno Sammartino as the top babyface", but the more damning part: "The fans don't want a TOP BABYFACE or a TOP HEEL at all." The fans' problem is less the "I don't want the next Hogan or Cena, I want the first Roman Reigns/Daniel Bryan". It's not "They had Hogan, but he had Warrior, Piper, Savage- and Austin and the Rock had Mankind, Undertaker, Kane, DX, Vince". It's that they REALLY want a more ECW-style, or even UFC-style style of roster- where one PPV Daniel Bryan can be the WWE World Heavyweight Champion and fight Brock Lesnar for the title, and the next PPV Daniel Bryan can be fighting Curtis Axel for the title and lose to him, and the next month Curtis Axel can fight Bull Dempsey in what later proves to be Dempsey's only match on the main roster- or Seth Rollins fights John Cena for the title, and the next month Cena's fighting Darren Young for the title, and the next month Young is fighting Alex Riley for the title, and the next month Riley is fighting Enzo Amore for the title, and ALL OF THOSE THINGS make perfect sense. That's more of a problem- since UFC can do that because they're a legitimate sport. ECW tried that, and it was a big reason for the company's death that they never went all-in with people like Rob Van Dam when he had the potential to be their top babyface, in large part due to a top babyface not being the ECW way. Even if the WWE is the draw- even if you have a number of viable babyfaces and heels- you need one guy who is the top babyface- and right now, the fans want parity, not a top star. WWE did try to do the parity thing. When they ended the brand split, they tried to make almost everyone look like a contender and it just resulted in making the roster excessively top heavy to the point where new talents have to be rushed up the card because there are no worthwhile undercard talents for them to feud with. That system is The reason WHY guys like Axel, Young, and Riley are in the positions they are now and why Reigns is getting a big push that he isn't ready for.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Feb 24, 2015 20:34:30 GMT -5
But someone who watched the product, got turned off by the product and is telling you why that is and why he believes it is an issue still is not in that category. That is someone to hear out at the least not dismiss in a childish fashion. If you only want to hear out those constantly watch then you aren't looking to hear anyone out. I have no problem with him telling me why he quit watching. That's legit. Telling me people have been saying he isn't ready for months ... when you haven't watched for months ... and bringing up "problems from the latest Raw" ... when you didn't watch it ... no thanks. So using evidence from here, accounts from people on here that back up how he felt months ago, and appears, to him, to indicate a large issues, renders his thoughts invalid? Why bother reading what anyone has to say if you just want to turn a blind eye to them? That makes no sense to me. This isn't him not watching in years and saying something that is completely without merit, he's seeing an issue that drove him away months ago becoming a bigger issue and is questioning things because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 20:36:43 GMT -5
Personally I stopped watching wrestling in the late 90s when wrestlers stopped all having mullets. I've just been doing a lot of lucky guessing since joining here.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 24, 2015 20:41:52 GMT -5
Every time I watch NJPW lately, I'm struck at how every level of the card feels important, yet the main event is clearly built up as the must-see attraction. Put another way, Tanahashi is the top dog in NJPW, but Okada, Styles, and others are consistently made to appear his equal for long stretches of time, and the show hypes and builds up matches for the Jr. Heavy, Tag and Jr. Tag, and other titles like they truly mean something...maybe they're not AS important as the IWGP heavyweight title, but they're different, and thus still have prestige. Hell, Nakamura may be the most over guy in the company right now, and he's holding their IC title (as he often does), having amazing matches that are hyped up and given a huge spotlight.
I then turn around and try to imagine WWE balancing their card like that, and I can't imagine how much restructuring of the show would be necessary to get to that level.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 24, 2015 21:23:10 GMT -5
You're still being incredibly dismissive and rude about it. Why not discuss his points, or y'know, not comment if you're just going to say that? Because I've grown tired of "I quit watching ... now let me tell you what they're doing wrong" posts. So that justifies it, okay.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Feb 24, 2015 21:29:42 GMT -5
I didn't really read much of the OP (no offense) but I can get the gist of what you're saying. Point being, there may only be one way to save the ME of WM. By having HHH/Sting go on last. I know, I know, but it's pretty much a given that A: the crowd is going to shit all over Lesnar/Reigns, & B: HHH/Sting should put on a pretty damn good match. I'm not convinced that HHH will lay down for Sting, but the only way to send the crowd home happy might be for Sting to close out the show standing tall as the victor. Looking at the rest of the card, no other match comes close to being main event caliber, so I'm not sure what else they can do. Again, not saying this is an ideal scenario, just that it might be the only option.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 24, 2015 21:35:04 GMT -5
I didn't really read much of the OP (no offense) but I can get the gist of what you're saying. Point being, there may only be one way to save the ME of WM. By having HHH/Sting go on last. I know, I know, but it's pretty much a given that A: the crowd is going to shit all over Lesnar/Reigns, & B: HHH/Sting should put on a pretty damn good match. I'm not convinced that HHH will lay down for Sting, but the only way to send the crowd home happy might be for Sting to close out the show standing tall as the victor. Looking at the rest of the card, no other match comes close to being main event caliber, so I'm not sure what else they can do. Again, not saying this is an ideal scenario, just that it might be the only option. Hunter, shouldn't you be focusing on running the Smackdown taping?
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 24, 2015 21:54:30 GMT -5
I love wrestling, but there's never going to be true parity in a fictional sport like it. Not so long as you have bookers with conflicting visions, as opposed to a real competition with the puncher's chance in play.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Feb 24, 2015 21:54:41 GMT -5
I have no problem with him telling me why he quit watching. That's legit. Telling me people have been saying he isn't ready for months ... when you haven't watched for months ... and bringing up "problems from the latest Raw" ... when you didn't watch it ... no thanks. So using evidence from here, accounts from people on here that back up how he felt months ago, and appears, to him, to indicate a large issues, renders his thoughts invalid? Why bother reading what anyone has to say if you just want to turn a blind eye to them? That makes no sense to me. This isn't him not watching in years and saying something that is completely without merit, he's seeing an issue that drove him away months ago becoming a bigger issue and is questioning things because of it. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. It makes complete sense to me. If I had watched wrestling my entire life (which is basically true) but I didn't watch last year during Daniel Bryan's run to WM, and I concluded from reading results and certain posts (which happened to validate my conclusions) that he wasn't really over and it was only the YES chant that was over ... that wouldn't make my observation valid. Why? Because I hadn't watched it. I hadn't experienced the run or the fan reactions. I was basing my opinion on whatever agreed with conclusions that I had already made, not on anything real. If I had done the same thing and concluded that Bryan was the most over guy in a decade and completely deserved the main event, I would be in the majority, but opinion would be no more valid. For the same reasons. The OP feels what he feels and believes what he believes -- that Roman has been rushed and is doomed to fail. That is a popular opinion, but it's a projection based at least in part over a lot of posters' angst over someone else not getting the shot, or their general feelings that WWE sucks. Now Roman either will or will not fail. Maybe the OP is right and next year at this time he's Sheamus, or maybe he's wrong. But if he admits that he hasn't watched Roman's singles run, he's just basing that on internet opinions. You may have noticed, the world of forums is a generally negative place (especially when it comes to wrestling forums), so finding posts which validate negative projections, opinions and predictions are fairly easy to find. if you want to validate an opinion that Bryan isn't all that, you can find it even though he's the most over guy with the internet set. You can also very easily find posts which validate the idea that Hogan, Austin and Rock all sucked and were highly overrated. Ironically, many (although not all) of those posts happen to come from people who weren't around to witness it when it unfolded. But I guess they know what they're talking about. It's not like the OP (up to the point I stopped reading, when he admitted he hadn't been watching for months) was blazing a new trail here -- like no one has previously opined that Roman is being rushed, or that he will fail, or that if they merely waited a year all would be well. So when I see someone say they don't watch but they agree with a bunch of things other people (who happen to be anti-Roman) post, no, I don't feel a great need to go any further. So I simply posted that I stopped reading when the OP admitted he hadn't even watched in the months when Roman has been pushed, which, I gather, was a controversial and difficult to understand thing for me to post. I didn't say he was an idiot, I didn't say he had no right to post if he didn't watch, I just said I quit reading at that point. I can't figure out why that's a big deal.
|
|