How much do you blame the roster for their shortcomings?

[Abdullah]

I wasn't going to make this thread but then I read this...

Jun 15, 2017 15:27:25 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

I understand most of the frustration from 2012-2015. But not necessarily 2016-Present. But in some cases like Bayley she was down there for 3 years and was being taught how to cut promo's by some of the best mic men in the buisiness like Dusty Rhodes and this is the best she learned? Like I understand what they teach you backstage is nowhere near the learning experience of actually cutting promo's on TV or in the ring but NXT did a lot of hiding weaknesses and showcasing strengths focusing more on growing as a brand rather than developing wrestlers as a developmental.

Sometimes I just look in the case of The Shield where they swerved everyone by making Rollins the one to turn heel and not Ambrose. Everyone thought Rollins should of been the one to remain face Post Shield run because he was incredibly weak at promo's and had the perfect moveset for a babyface and having a good look. Like Rollin's best promo was worse than Bayley's worst promo he was in that levels of bad. So instead they kind of forced him to act as a heel in changing his moveset and start cutting promo's and he actually succeeded. They actually developed him into a more complete performer.

Like how they are booking Bayley is probably some of the worst booking I've seen WWE ever do. Like this is unbelievable levels of bad. But Bayley isn't doing herself any favors to get out of this situation by just tanking every time she talks or having off nights during big matches. Like there was that match against Charlotte at The Rumble where Charlotte looked like she was at least 5 paces ahead of Bayley and she was just stumbling and botching everything.

I thought the answer to the thread title would be a unanimous: 'no, it's all creative's fault.' But that reply got me thinking that maybe this is a question worth looking at specifically.

If Bayley can't really handle opening a show with a promo, is she the person you want to build your show around? Since Sasha's shine has pretty much vanished on the main roster, what does that say about her? On the flipside, would Jinder's push be more enjoyable despite his mediocrity if he was given better, more original, material?

Bias plays into this as well as your spot on the card. It's easier to say that a guy like Primo or Bo, who has vanished for the most part, is the fault of the writing because they're never featured long enough to make new impressions. With someone like Cesaro, he did get over and that was discarded for reasons to do with those in charge. There's no arguing that.

But for people like Sasha, Bayley, Reigns and Mahal and some others - for those top stars that eat up a lot of TV time and are long-term investments, how much do you blame them for struggling with the constraints of the main roster? I don't have one answer for this but I thought it'd make for an interesting thread.

[Deleted]

For one, the writing on the main roster is absolute shite.
It's hard to really sink your teeth into "well, I'm not a violent person - I'm just happy to be here."
The best promos come from the wrestlers' inspiration at the moment - it's THEM turned up to 11, not what a group of writers, who honestly don't really seem to be fans of the product they are writing for, think you should sound like.

As far as the wrestling goes - some of it falls on the wrestlers for sure, but keep in mind that movesets are severely handicapped once you get to the main roster - and matches are much more formulaic, seeing as they are having the same matches every single week, for what seems like years. Seeing Sasha wrestle twice a month makes her seem like a big deal - seeing her wrestle Alicia Fox every week for 8 weeks makes it redundant and mundane.

Hard to keep your shine when you have no written direction - and have no real chance to perform to your fullest potential due to main roster related issues.

[Cyno]

Every talent has their strengths and weaknesses. Good booking, ideally, doubles down on strengths and hides weaknesses while the talent can practice and improve upon those weaknesses in their spare time. But it is on the talent to improve in their weaker areas, especially when it comes to working matches.

But I also think the very scripted nature of WWE hurts some people who might do better ad-libing their own promos instead of reading from a script. It's a very polished product, but oftentimes sterile and without any heart when it comes to a lot of promos because they're so scripted that I honestly can't believe someone would say that sorta thing in a realistic dialogue. Or WWE has them "miscast" as a role and won't turn them even when teasing it because they apparently hate their fans.

So while I think the talent does have responsibility for themselves and towards the other talent to improve whenever possible, they also can't be fully to blame. I'd say it's about 50-50 for most talents.

[ayumidah]

Maybe 25-35%. Yes, sometimes guys can't make certain things work. But it should also be on creative a bit to hide those shortcomings, not do their level best to highlight them, which they seem to do with a lot of guys. Roman, Corbin, quite a few others who don't have it promo wise a lot are thrown out there, (in Roman's case given very poorly written promos) and then it's supposed to be some big surprise when they crash and burn some. Same with Nakamura. They know his limitations, they don't care, and so we get people watching going "...Why is this guy getting pushed?"

[Sicho100]

I mean, with people like Bayley and Sasha, these are people who HAVE succeeded. It's a little hard to say that it's their fault that they can't get over when they've already proven that they can get over. We have something of a control here - when they were given competent booking (I mean, it's not like NXT's booking was ever revolutionary - it's just basic stuff where they establish and build characters and then have those characters face off in big matches that people want to see), they did well. Now that they are given shitty booking, they aren't doing well. Maybe it's the booking.

And the point about Bayley not being able to carry a 20-minute opening promo. Yeah. Pretty much everyone in wrestling history except for The Rock can't carry a 20-minute opening promo. Because it's a remarkably stupid booking decision. It's not on the talent that they can't pull it off. It's like saying that the fact that the Katie Vick angle sucked is proof that Triple H can't get over.

[angryfan]

Every talent, actor, and hell, everyone in every job has strengths and weaknesses. The key I've found as a trainer has been "use your people right, you damn moron", and it's worked. Look if you run a car dealership and you've gut a guy who can detail a POS to make it look like some show-car, which will make you money. That's great. If, however, the same guy can't add single digit numbers without a calculator, a spotter, and a team of "fact checkers" then maybe you don't put his ass in accounting.

Same deal here.

You had Bayley find a gimmick, a delivery that worked adn that got over, yes it was with a "small audience" but it was with a segment of the audience the company wants since, you know, they pay to go to the NXT shows and, theoritecially, woudl pay to see those characters they have interest in on a larger stage. Weird I know, trying to grow interest in a "product" and moving said product on the rise to a larger audience without, you know, changing it completely, who does that besides everyone, right?

But, if you bring this character up, you add in an actual script, not like "here's what we want you to do, and the points we want you to make, and here's some thoughts on body language or where the camera will be" but "read this, word for word, don't screw it up, be this other thing instead of what worked, it'd just be insane right? Look, let's go with their biggest mainstream crossover guy of the last 15 yaears in Cena. Yes, Brock, I know, but stick with me.

He was a God damn cyborg in developmental. It was ridiculous and on paper, but they brought him up anyway. They said "Get out there and be a white meat babyface, be "aggression" and smile. Smile a LOT. We'll have you work tags with Edge, with Hogan, we'll toss Mysterio out there, they're all brining money so this is a guarantee, now go make that shit work".

It didn't worik. He was mired in "oh look another generic sumbitch, whatever" land. Now, did they say "stick to the script jackass, make what we want to work work"? No, actually they saw him doing his own thing backstage and said, "um, ok, that's natural for you, so, how about you try that".

THAT worked. Not the overscripted, "stay in the lines when you color you asshole" bit they try with everyone. CM Punk was over but until they let him bring more of "himself" to the table, more of the swagger that his character had before, it was just kinda there.

I'm not going to say "it's all crative" nor am I going to say "It's the performer's fault, only their fault". It's a combination. Craetive comes up with stuff, great. The performer has to find a way to make some of it work, but if they are told specifically "do NOTHING outside of what we script" then that part isn't on them, because there's none of THEM in the damn performance.

[thegame415]

I think it's 50/50. This is an episodic show, meaning it's written and the wrestlers virtually do what they are told to do. It's not like Andrew Lincoln makes up Rick's direction on Walking Dead. The writing on the show is terrible. It feels like more of an ensemble with different worlds than one collective show. I think the Attitude Era and Monday Night Wars in general were fun because anyone could face someone, or win virtually any title, at any time.

At the same time, I think so many wrestlers are concerned about the Internet and getting work rate thumbs ups and five-star matches they forget about character and story and just work, in a scripted fight. A character like Val Venis would never work today, because the Internet would complain about Sean Morely being held down and a better worker than the Rock. Guys are such marks for themselves and they want to be the Hardyz/Jericho/Angle etc circa early 2000's they miss that those guys didn't get over cause they were "workers".

[eJm]

Jun 15, 2017 18:51:14 GMT -5 Sicho100 said:

And the point about Bayley not being able to carry a 20-minute opening promo. Yeah. Pretty much everyone in wrestling history except for The Rock can't carry a 20-minute opening promo. Because it's a remarkably stupid booking decision. It's not on the talent that they can't pull it off. It's like saying that the fact that the Katie Vick angle sucked is proof that Triple H can't get over.

Speaking of HHH, there was a reason ratings were down on Raw back in 2002-2004 and that was because every single week, he'd come out and cut a 20 minute promo that would lose the crowd half way in and could have been done in not even 1/3rd of that time.

As others have said, the biggest problem is them looking at superstars that aren't suited to certain roles, giving them those roles anyway and acting shocked when it doesn't work, blaming the talent for not somehow turning a dog crap from the local park into a Michelin star gourmet meal Gordon Ramsey would be proud of.

If you were a director and you hired the first person you saw in a role without watching their audition, even though they weren't auditioning for the role you just cast them in, that director would be rightly ridiculed for it. So why is it fine WWE looked at Bayley and thought 'You know what'd suit her? 2004 era Maria' when there's evidence that it's not the role she'd be good at?

[angryfan]

Jun 15, 2017 19:10:51 GMT -5 eJm said:

Jun 15, 2017 18:51:14 GMT -5 Sicho100 said:

And the point about Bayley not being able to carry a 20-minute opening promo. Yeah. Pretty much everyone in wrestling history except for The Rock can't carry a 20-minute opening promo. Because it's a remarkably stupid booking decision. It's not on the talent that they can't pull it off. It's like saying that the fact that the Katie Vick angle sucked is proof that Triple H can't get over.

Speaking of HHH, there was a reason ratings were down on Raw back in 2002-2004 and that was because every single week, he'd come out and cut a 20 minute promo that would lose the crowd half way in and could have been done in not even 1/3rd of that time.

As others have said, the biggest problem is them looking at superstars that aren't suited to certain roles, giving them those roles anyway and acting shocked when it doesn't work, blaming the talent for not somehow turning a dog crap from the local park into a Michelin star gourmet meal Gordon Ramsey would be proud of.

If you were a director and you hired the first person you saw in a role without watching their audition, even though they weren't auditioning for the role you just cast them in, that director would be rightly ridiculed for it. So why is it fine WWE looked at Bayley and thought 'You know what'd suit her? 2004 era Maria' when there's evidence that it's not the role she'd be good at?

Thanks, you said Michelin Star and now all I can here in my head is Lloyd Lewelan from Archer screaming in a creative meeting, "My marraige is on the rocks, and I have two Michelin tires!"

[eJm]

Jun 15, 2017 19:24:27 GMT -5 angryfan said:

Jun 15, 2017 19:10:51 GMT -5 eJm said:

Speaking of HHH, there was a reason ratings were down on Raw back in 2002-2004 and that was because every single week, he'd come out and cut a 20 minute promo that would lose the crowd half way in and could have been done in not even 1/3rd of that time.

As others have said, the biggest problem is them looking at superstars that aren't suited to certain roles, giving them those roles anyway and acting shocked when it doesn't work, blaming the talent for not somehow turning a dog crap from the local park into a Michelin star gourmet meal Gordon Ramsey would be proud of.

If you were a director and you hired the first person you saw in a role without watching their audition, even though they weren't auditioning for the role you just cast them in, that director would be rightly ridiculed for it. So why is it fine WWE looked at Bayley and thought 'You know what'd suit her? 2004 era Maria' when there's evidence that it's not the role she'd be good at?

Thanks, you said Michelin Star and now all I can here in my head is Lloyd Lewelan from Archer screaming in a creative meeting, "My marraige is on the rocks, and I have two Michelin tires!"

You're welcome.

Jun 15, 2017 18:59:27 GMT -5 thegame415 said:

At the same time, I think so many wrestlers are concerned about the Internet and getting work rate thumbs ups and five-star matches they forget about character and story and just work, in a scripted fight.

But again, this isn't mostly decided by the talent, most of the time it's decided by booking, agents and Vince and how they feel gets a reaction from the audience because if that was genuinely the case and they felt like they didn't do the job they should be doing, that sort of stuff would be changed quickly.

I say this mostly because a lot of those guys on that roster have demonstrated that they DO know about storytelling and character development. Cesaro had his feud with Eddie Kingston across several feds, Kevin Owens had his feud then tag team then feud again with El Generico in ROH, AJ Styles had the match with Nakamura at Wrestle Kingdom, Nakamura had HIS match with Kota Ibushi at the show the year before, Seth Rollins had his quest for the ROH title, most of the stuff I mentioned and others were why the WWE signed a chunk of those guys.

But these matches now are there to pop the crowd because that's what WWE wants and that's what they feel the audience wants. It's like if you had a bunch of action figures from a cartoon and just had them do action scenes from the show instead of the storybeats of an episode because it entertains you. Show it to someone else and, even though they'll enjoy it, they won't have the same investment.

[Deleted]

My problem with the hide everyone's weaknesses and showcase everyone's like they do on NXT argument is because the talent is only featured once or twice a month vs being featured every week on TV filling in more air time. Reminds when Balor came back and for 2 or 3 weeks in a row all he did was just wrestle matches and that's it no promos.

With the way WWE is structured of having a 2 or 3 hour show, featured weekly, and more air time to air you have to be more well rounded. You can't be weekly good wrestling man who wrestles 3 weeks in 1 week off or you'll get stale.

So I blame a bit on NXT for trying to focus on growing more as a brand and less developing wrestlers as a developmental. I blame a bit on the wrestlers who got to used on the comfort of NXT and being coddled and being a complete a deer in the headlights when they are out of their comfort zone or have a boss who spends less time with you. I blame them a bit for not realizing this and doing their best on learning how to get overall better, address weakpoints, use NXT as a platform to improve, or how to politic backstage on the main roster. Especially on how the Performance Center is the greatest gym filled with so much legendary talent teaching you things and all these multimedia platforms. Likes there's no more excuse to develop to the best of your abilities.

Like don't get me wrong the writing is bad and when it's bad it can be really bad. And there are sure things they even screw up on and WWE has this weird fixation since DB that they somehow made him more popular or he was the chosen one of he can survive shitty booking mentality.

[Capt Lunatic]

For Bayley or Jinder or Nia or whoever to be the next big thing they would need to completely overhaul how WWE's entire "creative" process works.

90% of the roster are dead in the water thanks to scripts ranging from bland to terrible and general apathy from the writers.

It's either "Yeah, go have another match", "Here's your promo, say it just like we taught you." or "Got nothing for you this week."

Guys that have AJ's workrate, Nakamura's charisma, Roman's push or in Asuka's case all three, will survive. Lesser talents(not an insult, there just has to be a 2nd tier) will wither and die, no chance to recover because there's a long ass line at the door.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}{Spoiler}BONUS RANT!
Paul E. was great at hiding his guys weaknesses.

I've seen people in the business say that like an insult. Those people are ****ing marks. Paul E. understood you play to your talent's strengths.

Taz looked like a bad motha******. Paul E. asked "Can you back that up with your work?" Taz could so they booked him as a bad motha******.  Never once did Joey Styles say "But he's only 5'7!" Why? Cause it's not a real contest. It a show. I don't want to watch Will Ferrell in a drama, I don't want to watch Sami Zayne be an annoying child. I want some comedy and a goddamn likable underdog!

There are some great examples of a wrestler not being the total package(AHHH!) and still getting over because creative worked with them and they made a connection with the audience.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2017 20:08:24 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Like don't get me wrong the writing is bad and when it's bad it can be really bad. And there are sure things they even screw up on and WWE has this weird fixation since DB that they somehow made him more popular or he was the chosen one of he can survive shitty booking mentality.

I think it goes back as far as the Rock. I think the Rock and his success in Hollywood got in WWE's heads that a real superstar can elevate written material and it shouldn't be on them. Their dialogue always feels like scrounged up garbage from old Rock scripts and it's just been getting worse and worse.

It's hard to say definitively but I think creative should take most of the blame since they're the ones with the power to see a performer's weak points and make the proper adjustments. Bayley has provided a lot of weaknesses that they could be trying to avoid, they keep putting her in positions where she has to deliver minute-long diatribes about herself and her situations, every rare time there's a Raw Talk she's on there. I don't really hate the whole "I don't wanna hurt anyone" but they used such strong language in the way she was explaining it, that she looks foolish for even being in the business, and they contradict shit they had her do for no reason like the gang warfare angle when the "Womens Revolution" started.

At the same time, though it seems like WWE keeps looking for John Cenas, I really would like to see a whole lot more Mick Foleys in wrestling. I question how many guys think long term about their characters and storylines. Like, if we're to believe that the New Day are given carte blanche as they say they do with their characters and skits, and what we've seen is their vision, is it really that helpful to anyone? They were amusing for a while but they haven't gotten out of schtick territory for years now, and it comes off really self indulgent at this point.

When Kevin Owens is great, he's great, but there are times where it seems like when he's left to his own devices he's fine just being fast workrate funny one liner guy. I don't get the sense that there are guys like Mick Foley who are constantly fantasizing about that great promo at the tail end of a feud leading to a blowoff match that people will talk about through the years, and not just for his own sake, but to build up his peers. I do get the sense that Vince is sort of right about how the majority of his talent are either happy to be there, or maybe just don't have it in them to fight for their ideas anymore, but Mick Foley was responsible for some of the greatest stories in wrestling, and you can read his book to know that everything he did was pretty much a fight. I question whether today's talent think in those terms very much today.

[topdawg]

Mostly creative for putting wrestlers in positions that clearly expose their weaknesses.

Bayley and Corbin are obviously not good talkers, so creative keeps on having them talk.

I don't know why the keep giving Nakamura a microphone when, no offense to the guy, his English is painful to listen to. Just have him come down and beat up some enhancement guy for 3-4 minutes and show off his offense.


Titus O'Neil debuted on the main roster in 2012. It seriously took them 5 years to realize he's a much better talker than wrestler and would be more useful in a managerial role? The Titus Brand though is something they are finally doing right. Crews can wrestle but isn't very charismatic, Tozawa can work but probably has a language barrier, O'Neil isn't putting on 5 star classics anytime soon but is good on the mic.....put them together, hide their negatives and show off their positives.

[nisidhe]

It can depend on the superstar to an extent but, in WWE's case, I will come down hard on Vince, the bookers and Creative every. single. time. a superstar who should be over the next Hogan/Rock/Austin doesn't succeed or doesn't get to that level. Why? Because Vince created an environment which reduced the role of the talent to basically action figures. It was Vince's obvious fetish for strong men that put the geniuses and innovators in the business aside; and it's the corporate mentality that the brand must trump their most engaging and popular performers that has done the most to harm both the business as a whole and the company in particular.

Why are guys "just happy to be there" and refusing to fight for their own ideas? Because they've learned, from the painful experience of seeing many of their heroes in their graves, that it's no longer worth it to throw themselves onto the thorns for Vince McMahon. Why should they? When Vince is totally arbitrary in his whims and has a history of manipulating and triangulating among the locker room, it's natural to settle into a state of learned helplessness and to stop trying. When your ideas become legally theirs and they don't use them anyway, or screw them up entirely, you could be John Cena booking-wise and still feel as though you loved this business more back when you were jerking the curtain at the VFW hall. There are bigger forces at work in this shift in dynamic, as well; but wrestling can be a microcosm of the growing trend of anomie and nihilism that may well either bring on a collapse or spur a shakeup in thinking and a resurgence of engagement.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

I'm confused about why 'just happy to be here" is bad. Yeah, your employees should just be happy to be there and to do their jobs! I'd much rather watch a TV show with actors that act and writers that write. Sure, some interplay is okay when an actor has insight on a character... but overall, a place where everyone does their job and is happy about it seems great.

"Let people get themselves over" is something I always see, but I never know why people are so in favor of it. A good actor with a scripted promo is going to sound better than an ad-libbed promo 99% of the time, because most people are shitty ad-libbers... even the good ones are bad most of the time. Something I amused myself with a while back was counting the times people used "a promo I liked" with "a promo that wasn't scripted" as synonyms. "ALL of the Rock's jokes were totally off the cuff; no one wrote those for him!" "John Cena really wrote those raps!" A bad promo? "Oh man, well, he just was trying to memorize bad lines!"


To this day, the WWE pushes this weird fiction that "the people who succeed here and become stars are the ones who really truly earn it on their own merits!" (it's the new kayfabe: 'Reigns is getting a push!' is the new 'Reigns is a good wrestler!') That has helped them get away with treating their employees pretty bad over the years, and it feeds this totally false narrative that their company is some pure meritocracy. I kind of think a lot of fans want this to be the case: if they like a wrestler, they want everything that wrestler does to be TOTALLY HIM.

The problem is this weird hybrid... they've slightly fallen away from it, but it's still there. Like, I love Aiden English, I'm a big fan of his character and I think he's talented. It wouldn't bother me for him to be employed by the company as the Broadway Jobber... if being way low on the card didn't somehow, in people's minds, implicate something negative or lame on him, personally. Jobbers get paid less, they have less job security, and fans... totally in-the-know, "smart" fans, will be like, "Ah whatever, who cares about that loser?" There's this simultaneous narrative that worth is tied to card-placement and overness, even as it's more apparent than ever that everything's scripted. And fans keep that alive too.

[Chris Legentil -- Mind Freak]

Not at all. You know who I do blame? You.

That's right, you.

Look at yourself, you're a mess. What are you doing with your life? It's time to get out and see the world. You never want to sniff flowers with me anymore cause you're a f***ing deadbeat. 

[Hit Girl]

Not at all.

I blame it entirely on the bookers.

[abjordans]

Honestly, it is kind of the same problem as in hip hop... A lot of these young dudes are squares and not as cool as the previous generations. Also, what they do is pretty far removed from what the legends of the industry do, to the point it is hard to base them on the same criteria.

[Deleted]

I blame neither the wrestlers nor creative.

I blame the fans, especially the ones that takes Dave Meltzer thoughts and opinions as gospel. They are also the ones that would and have hijack shows with their "this is awesome" bullshit.