This Sheamus title run doing anything for ya?

[AriadosMan]

Feb 1, 2010 2:55:35 GMT -5 @irontyger said:

He's being booked as if he had a character like The Miz, as opposed to someone who's supposed to be this dominant guy who has Cena's number. Just makes no sense. I get wanting a cowardly heel that squeaks by his opponents but he's the wrong guy for that purpose.

Hell, The Miz looks MORE courageous and dominant than Sheamus now. When you've got a midcarder that looks more savage than your Invincible Irish Killing Machine, something is very very wrong.

[taylorandborland]

He shows up on Raw during the last couple of minutes every week

[Celgress]

Feb 1, 2010 14:28:43 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Feb 1, 2010 2:55:35 GMT -5 @irontyger said:

He's being booked as if he had a character like The Miz, as opposed to someone who's supposed to be this dominant guy who has Cena's number. Just makes no sense. I get wanting a cowardly heel that squeaks by his opponents but he's the wrong guy for that purpose.

Hell, The Miz looks MORE courageous and dominant than Sheamus now. When you've got a midcarder that looks more savage than your Invincible Irish Killing Machine, something is very very wrong.

That is the problem. Sheamus has never been booked to look like an invincible killing machine. Far from it IMHO. Sheamus just like some cowardly schmuck who just happened to got lucky a couple of times. And who now finds himself terribly out of his league. I know this isn't what they were going for, but it is what happened. To correct this error they need Sheamus to decisively defeat at least one main eventer. Which the E appeantly won't book, for some unknown reason.

[AriadosMan]

Feb 1, 2010 14:37:13 GMT -5 Celgress said:

Feb 1, 2010 14:28:43 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Hell, The Miz looks MORE courageous and dominant than Sheamus now. When you've got a midcarder that looks more savage than your Invincible Irish Killing Machine, something is very very wrong.

That is the problem. Sheamus has never been booked to look like an invincible killing machine. Far from it IMHO. Sheamus just like some cowardly schmuck who just happened to got lucky a couple of times. And who now finds himself terribly out of his league. I know this isn't what they were going for, but it is what happened. To correct this error they need Sheamus to decisively defeat at least one main eventer. Which the E appeantly won't book, for some unknown reason.

If they're bringing back Edge and turning Orton face (or at least tweener) its presumably to protect their marketability. Its unfortunate that Sheamus as champ is turning into the wrestling equivalent of Leno at 10pm, but worries about "devaluing" an ME by having Sheamus win are understandable.
Which begs the question: why didn't WWE take their time and give him more of a midcard build in the first place, so that he could a) establish a record as a killing machine and b) develop a rapport with the audience? Goldberg didn't get pushed this high this far, but it meant alot more when he did win the title because there was sufficient buildup.

[Celgress]

Feb 1, 2010 14:42:09 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Feb 1, 2010 14:37:13 GMT -5 Celgress said:

That is the problem. Sheamus has never been booked to look like an invincible killing machine. Far from it IMHO. Sheamus just like some cowardly schmuck who just happened to got lucky a couple of times. And who now finds himself terribly out of his league. I know this isn't what they were going for, but it is what happened. To correct this error they need Sheamus to decisively defeat at least one main eventer. Which the E appeantly won't book, for some unknown reason.

If they're bringing back Edge and turning Orton face (or at least tweener) its presumably to protect their marketability. Its unfortunate that Sheamus as champ is turning into the wrestling equivalent of Leno at 10pm, but worries about "devaluing" an ME by having Sheamus win are understandable.
Which begs the question: why didn't WWE take their time and give him more of a midcard build in the first place, so that he could a) establish a record as a killing machine and b) develop a rapport with the audience? Goldberg didn't get pushed this high this far, but it meant alot more when he did win the title because there was sufficient buildup.

True, I'm just saying having Sheamus defeating a main eventer is the only way I can see to save his run/character at this point. If the E had taken their time and pushed him correctly, as you pointed out, than this wouldn't be necessary. However they didn't, and now it is. This of course now puts them in a rather prickly pickle as you also pointed out, doesn't it.

[bob]

honestly before his match with Orton last night not a damn thing

now.......maybe, but he really needs a clean victory (not counting the table match vs Cena) over main event talent

[Avalanche Alvarez]

He's being "used" like a light heavyweight heel that has to cheat or get DQ'd to win...but the f***er is huge and is supposed to tear through everyone.

Kinda like using a samurai sword to cut through a vat of gelatin and it gets stuck. The gelatin didn't get any tougher, it's the sword, damnit!

[AriadosMan]

Feb 1, 2010 14:47:27 GMT -5 Celgress said:

True, I'm just saying having Sheamus defeating a main eventer is the only way I can see to save his run/character at this point. If the E had taken their time and pushed him correctly, as you pointed out, than this wouldn't be necessary. However they didn't, and now it is. This of course now puts them in a rather prickly pickle as you also pointed out, doesn't it.

Agreed, he needs a clean win to actually break the glass ceiling and get people to care one way or the other. Its kinda sad that they're unwilling to break the glass ceiling even when the new talent is made champion, but they booked him into this Catch-22, and the run will (likely) end with Sheamus getting demoted to midcard and considered "a waste" otherwise.

[baerrtt]

I get the impression that the company, on purpose, aren't clearly attempting to create another Brock Lesnar in Sheamus but rather another Yokozuna. In other words taking a monster mid card heel with barely enough time in the promotion to build audience rapport, give him the big belt and basically book him as being more akin to the Honky Tonk Man than a killing machine. It's standard Vince 101 booking.

Face it we may as well start a historical thread as to why, with the exceptions of Superstar Billy Graham and Triple H, Vinces Sr and Jr never booked any of their heel world champions credibly. Some like JBL or Punk last year were saved by their mic skills but overall Sheamus just seems to be yet another placeholder for the belt.

[tap]

Feb 1, 2010 14:00:05 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

It's just a way of protecting the rest of their main eventers on Raw.

This also bothers me. The three top people on Raw, Cena, Triple H, and HBK, are so over (and for so long) that SOMEONE decisively defeating them (i.e. clean) won't kill their credibility. There is no reason why Cena and Triple H are booked so strong still at this point in time.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Feb 1, 2010 15:36:01 GMT -5 @tap said:

Feb 1, 2010 14:00:05 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

It's just a way of protecting the rest of their main eventers on Raw.

This also bothers me. The three top people on Raw, Cena, Triple H, and HBK, are so over (and for so long) that SOMEONE decisively defeating them (i.e. clean) won't kill their credibility. There is no reason why Cena and Triple H are booked so strong still at this point in time.

Perception is reality in wrestling. When HHH said that's what Vince always says in their segment the other week, it was a bit of a shoot, because Vince does always say it.

It will kill their credibility. It won't kill their reaction, but it will kill their credibility. If you had someone like HBK booked to lose decisively to Sheamus, Orton, Rhodes, Dibiase and Big Show for 5 weeks in a row, you will have killed his credibility. I don't mean competitive matches, I mean decisive losses. Then HBK looks nothing like a mid-carder. You need to believe a certain guy can beat someone else, for the whole show to make sense, because if you do something inplausible with one guy, it screws the whole system up.

Like when MVP was on his losing streak gimmick. The Smackdown when his name was announced to face Show, the crowd didn't react in a 'YEAH! Maybe MVP has a shot' like they would now, they reacted in a 'siiiiigh, for goodness sake, it's obvious he doesn't have a chance' and that's because they'd successfully killed his credibility. They did it for a storyline, so he still got screen time, but they sent him right down the ladder and he was losing cleanly to Kung Fu Naki. It shows that you can build someone up again no problem, but you can also kill their credibility through losses.

If they want to keep all main eventers as main eventers, then certain things are allowed, and not allowed, in order for the show to be plausible. A main eventer can't sqaush another main eventer, unless they want the sqaushee to be moved down. A heel can beat a guy below them clean, but can't often beat a fellow main eventer clean, unless they want to move him higher up, over the guy he pins clean in order to make him one of the very highest guys in the company and be in the very highest feud.

Anyway, what I'm saying is with all this, is that they know exactly what they are doing with Sheamus. If they wanted to build the show around him ala Lesnar, then they would. But Lesnar was a freak, from a kayfabe standpoint he literally had no weakness, he was the complete wrestler, so they can do that. Sheamus is good, he's unique, and he is believable, but they don't want to build the show around him. He isn't a once in a lifetime kind of find, he's simply a very good find. So they don't want to book him like he is suddenly their very top guy, at the expense of guys like Cena and Orton who are just as good.

The guys constantly have to prove themselves. Jeff Hardy done well enough, kept enough heat in his feud with Orton at the start of 08 that they trusted him with a world title win by the end of the year. Foley has mentioned in his books that they tried to get Val Venis ready to main event in a feud with him, but that he never quite caught on as they needed, so Val didn't prove he can hang.

If in this run Sheamus proves he deserves to be booked like a dominant heel in the future, then they will go for it. This is only his first run though, so even to hold the belt is already a fantastic opportunity. He's already been given a heck of a lot by the company, and they didn't really need to do anything with him in reality, and he would have been fine with that.

[Tarik Dee]

Sheamus is my favourite wrestler and i want the better for him, on this case a clean victory against a main eventer or a face turn, really i cant see him as a heel, Celtic Warrior screams Badass babyface for me.

[tap]

Feb 1, 2010 15:57:50 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

Perception is reality in wrestling. When HHH said that's what Vince always says in their segment the other week, it was a bit of a shoot, because Vince does always say it.

I agree with this, but it also kinds of run counter to what you're arguing later just by looking at what's being said in this thread.

People see Sheamus as some kind of monster heel just by his look. But, the way he's booked, he's booked like JBL in 2004, just eeking out victories. The look (and in-ring talent) doesn't match the result. Add on to this that the guy was on TV for about 6-7 months and then gets rocketed up the card, he's not taken seriously. Why? Because he retired Jamie Noble and kicked the King in the face. The King and Noble are nowhere near as important as Cena or Triple H, booking wise, so, Sheamus beat up some nobodies. He doesn't look legitimate. And in the main event even moreso. Perception is reality, and many people in this thread are saying that, at least, by the looks of it, Sheamus isn't being used properly, holding THE belt of the company on THE show of the company.

I think people confuse winning cleanly and being put over sometimes, only because there is a difference between the two (but the two can also function with the same goal in mind). In this thread, a lot of people are comparing Sheamus' run with the top belt with Miz's run with the U.S. belt. Some people are saying that working with Cena put the Miz over. I don't think it did. It got him noticed, sure, I wouldn't deny that, but all the mic time Miz got meant nothing when Cena treated him like a joke and dominated most of the matches. Even the one match where Miz got some good offense in didn't really build him up as legitimate. It took the Miz to revamp his look and getting away from Cena in the competitive U.S. title scene (which at the time was between Kofi and Swagger) for Miz to look legit. Miz grew on his own. Cena never put Miz over (i.e. made him look legit) nor did Miz beat Cena clean.

When someone beats someone clean, they're going over (looking legit) because people thought they couldn't beat the other person. The way Lesnar dominated the Hardys, RVD, Hogan, the Rock, and even the Undertaker made him look even more legit than he did just by his look and his talent (and having a mouthpiece like Heyman helped immensely). Sheamus hasn't had anything like that though. Putting the belt on someone just to get them over I think is bad for business, because if they're not over as you would like them to be or don't get over at all, you make the belt look bad. The belt in of itself is meaningless; it is a metaphor. It is put on wrestlers that the company believes people either want to pay to see (a face) or will pay to see to get beaten (a heel). The way to get people to pay to see you or see you get beaten up is you build them up, you legitimate them, you take them seriously. When you just throw the title on someone who hasn't been built up, you make the belt look bad in comparison, so when someone does beat your champ, who cares, because they were just some loser keeping the belt warm anyway. That's a bad business model, in my opinion.

It will kill their credibility. It won't kill their reaction, but it will kill their credibility. If you had someone like HBK booked to lose decisively to Sheamus, Orton, Rhodes, Dibiase and Big Show for 5 weeks in a row, you will have killed his credibility. I don't mean competitive matches, I mean decisive losses. Then HBK looks nothing like a mid-carder. You need to believe a certain guy can beat someone else, for the whole show to make sense, because if you do something inplausible with one guy, it screws the whole system up.

Your main eventers can't be main eventers forever. When they solidify their main event status, when that status wanes somewhat, to the point that it warrants that wrestler X shouldn't be on top of the card, you take them out of the main event. However, enough of that status remains that a) you can reinsert them into the ME if the top draw isn't working b) the top draw needs someone to work against, and c) most importantly, it gives the talent moving up the card the air of legitimacy. "I beat X, now I'm coming for you, Y!" In this day and age, with the brand split and the lack of an equal competitor to WWE, the life cycle of the aura of a ME talent diminishes. Whereas it took Edge 8 years with the company to get to the ME spot, it now takes less than 3 years to get to the top (Batista, Cena, Orton, Lesnar). And now, maybe even less. Cena and Triple H have won countless titles between them. What more can they do on top? Why not slide one of them down the card so they can help grow talent that are moving up the card? And I don't just mean a one month feud that's quickly forgotten (HBK vs. Masters 2005 comes to mind for some reason), but something sustained. Yeah, Triple H for a long time, around 2005 to 2007, didn't have the belt. But he still hovered around the ME scene (barring the one injury in 2007 that kept him away from action). There's nothing wrong with being in the middle of the card to help build guys up to the ME.

[/quote]Like when MVP was on his losing streak gimmick. The Smackdown when his name was announced to face Show, the crowd didn't react in a 'YEAH! Maybe MVP has a shot' like they would now, they reacted in a 'siiiiigh, for goodness sake, it's obvious he doesn't have a chance' and that's because they'd successfully killed his credibility. They did it for a storyline, so he still got screen time, but they sent him right down the ladder and he was losing cleanly to Kung Fu Naki. It shows that you can build someone up again no problem, but you can also kill their credibility through losses. [/quote]

My point earlier with having ME talent lose is this: it doesn't take 5, 6, or 7 losses over a ME'r to make a guy. It takes one. This is why feuds continue, because the guy who lost wants the win back. Then you get to the rubber match. You can trade wins and losses, but in the end, someone has to go over. And most ME talent today when working with midcard talent don't really lose, decisively, then move on. Cena, HBK, Triple H, the Undertaker, Batista, they always end up on the winning side (unless, of course, they end up facing each other, then they have no problem losing).

Which leads me to my next point: there is no more midcard. It's the main event and everyone else. Even back to the chaotic years of the Attitude era, when the belts were made to look like cheap props, there still was some kind of pecking order that allowed for talent to move up and down. You had the lightheavyweight title and the hardcore title to open the show. The tag and European titles for the lower middle card. The IC title for the middle-upper card. Then the main title. And the women's title thrown in for the bathroom break (which, like always, shows how much WWE thinks about women's wrestling). There was still some way that someone like Val Venis could feud with a D'Lo Brown the one minute and then Mick Foley the next. And even then, not every feud was about a title. The Undertaker/Kane feud for the most part never revolved around a title (although Undertaker and Kane revolved around the title, just not together for the most part, barring a 6 week stint in Sept.-Oct. 1998).

This doesn't exist in today's wrestling. How often are the tag titles even defended? There are only maybe 3-4, 5? guys in the U.S. and IC divisions. There isn't even a lower midcard belt to chase anymore like the Hardcore or Euro title. Everyone just kind of floats around while we are treated to an endless rotation of Cena/Batista/Orton/HBK/Taker/Triple H/Edge matches. I think the exception to this rule is someone like Chris Jericho, who, after a ME run, went on to make the IC title look important on Smackdown and the tag titles mean something first with Edge and then with Big Show. The company has tried to do this recently with other ME'rs, to build up talent, and I think it shows (Orton with Kofi, Hardy with Punk, Punk with R-Truth). But, I don't think they've succeeded in the great Sheamus experiment.

Anyone can easily be built up, it's a process that's been done many times. And even after a not-so great run (like MVP's losing streak, like Miz and Cena), you can still get someone over. Now, will they be as over as they could have been since you waited to strike after the iron was hot? I dunno. To me, Samoa Joe in TNA I can't take seriously, because they waited too long to do something with him in the ME scene, and once there, he wasn't booked in a way that was good for the character (that whole worked shoot promo on Hall really soured me on the Joe character). I think Kane in 2003 post-demasking is a great example of this. The guy was over like hell, destroying everyone. And then they put him in a 2-3 month feud with Shane McMahon. Just makes no sense. I think if Sheamus defeated Triple H or Cena or HBK cleanly, it wouldn't kill the credibility of the guy he just beat. It would certainly make Sheamus look like he really belongs in the ME with the belt. The guys who already are in the ME (and legitimately so, with a proper build and being put over) will always have credibility BECAUSE they've made it to the main event. Flair was jobbing to Dykstra in 2006-7 but still looked like a million bucks, the Nature Boy, going into WM 24. And in turn, they'll be able to give that rub to someone on the way up when they're on the way down.

Raven said in a shoot interview, if everyone goes over, then no one goes over. Conversely, if no one is willing to put anyone over, the no one is over.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you're saying, infact I totally agree with the Raven point.

All I'd say is - with Sheamus, they have him positioned probably behind Orton as the number 2 heel on Raw. I can buy this, because he beats mid-carders below that level cleanly. Big Show is underneath him, but they aren't pushing him upwards so much as just booking him so he's still credible. Then underneath that you have the Miz, who doesn't beat mid-carders as easily as Sheamus does, he beats them after a bit more of a struggle.

So Sheamus is being booked to look like the number 2 heel on the roster. I can buy that, because he beats guys like MVP, Finlay and Bourne easily. That's all they want from him as yet. If they wanted him to be above Orton, they'd have Sheamus pin other main eventers, either fairly cheaply, through interference, or through cheating. But they don't want him to overtake Orton, which is why he didn't beat him last night.

Hypothetically, let's say the plan is Sheamus vs HHH and Orton vs Dibiase at Mania. In this case, they'd probably let Sheamus pin one of Cena, HBK, Kofi, or Mysterio (if they let the brand split go agan for Mania season) through the means I mentioned above. That puts Sheamus above Orton, who is now the one weaselling out of big matches or simply being taken closer to the limit by those lower down (like Kofi, or maybe Ted/Cody). Reason being, Sheamus is put over because they want HHH to look like the top guy on the Raw roster, and they are using HHH to do it. So if they wanted HHH to be on top by the end of Mania, Sheamus would have to be established as top heel, so that HHH can beat him and be established as top face. If HHH beat Sheamus in the position he is in now, HHH wouldn't be established as top face, he would be number 2, because Sheamus couldn't beat Cena in this position, so Cena would still be number 1.

That's what I meant by perception. Jeff Hardy doesn't look like he can beat anyone up, but if you book him so that he is the top guy, through gradually giving him wins against everyone else, people will buy it.

As yet, they haven't wanted Sheamus to be top heel or build the company around him. They've pushed him as far as number 2, and all this time they will be seeing whether Sheamus has enough heat that he can give it to the number 1 face. If they judge that he can, then he will be pushed further. Either in this reign or in the future.

And I can buy him as number 2, and so can the fans. He gets a good enough reaction, and is being booked appropriately for the position they are claiming he is at.

[King Devitt and the Woke Mob]

Feb 1, 2010 14:48:28 GMT -5 bob said:

honestly before his match with Orton last night not a damn thing

now.......maybe, but he really needs a clean victory (not counting the table match vs Cena) over main event talent

my problem with that is the aftermath of the tables match. all we hear Michael Cole say is that Sheamus slammed/crushed/demolished Cena with the table/putting him through it when all Cena did was fall backwards. It didn't even look like Cena was pushed at all.

the next night on Raw following that match i expected Cena to call Sheamus on it, extending their feud and making the new champion seemingly have to 'earn' his title.

but they didn't.

they played it up like Sheamus put Cena through the table to decisively win the title. then they book him the opposite way since.

if they had
a) acknowledged that Cena "slipped" it would fit into the character Sheamus is portraying now.

or

b) continued with Sheamus being dominant, inspite of the ridiculous table spot instead of being booked as many other have mentioned, either way this could have worked.

i don't think him having the title was a bad idea, perse, but i think the execution the next night on Raw, was completely backwards to what they are making him out to be.

he does have the intrigue of "the one guy Cena can't figure out" but it also makes the Cena character look bad when he's not showing us too much TO figure out.

[kidglov3s]

When I read about Sheamus needing have wins over people, I hear Heenan in my head saying "Sheamus is the champ, he doesn't have to beat X, X has to beat Sheamus." It seems that philosophy has fallen out of style. Sheamus needs promo time and he needs focus and development as a figure, but I don't think he needs wins. I see him, logically, doing everything he absolutely has to to remain the champion and not one little bit more.

[Tom S]

I see alot of people are still using the fact that sheamus is pale as part justification to not like him.

Hey guys guess what, i don't like Shelton Benjamin because he has no charisma and is black as coal.

[rrm15]

Tonight on RAW, Sheamus was on for 3-4 minutes, got beat up by Edge, and then never showed up again.

Yeah, this is going great for him.

[Krimzon]

Worst run of the current era, even worse than Mysterio's World Title run in 2006. I'm begging them to give him a convincing win. He's too well-built to not be booked like a convincing champion. He won the title on a fluke and has done nothing to prove that he deserves to hold it.

[draus]

I'm disliking it each passing week. No way he should have lasted this long as champ. Not only that but he seems to have brought the credibility of the title down with him, if that was even possible at this point. Having the WWE champion come out for 5 minutes to open a show and not even compete is just bush league. At least the booking of Lesnar as a real monster for months ahead of time was believable. This guy just seemed like he was on the verge of a Snitsky push when he's just handed the title.