|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:11:18 GMT -5
Bryan's been popular across different cities for ages. The timing wasn't right? Tell that to Batista. It's not good enough for Bryan to merely be champion at "some point". The ideal opportunity is presenting itself to WWE right now. A Rumble win and Wrestlemania classic against Lesnar. This kind of stuff books itself. WWE creates unnecessary problems for itself by trying swim against the tide.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:12:42 GMT -5
Not necessarily. They may like Reigns in a certain spot on the card for now, but it doesn't mean they want him in a spot that they'd prefer another wrestler to be in. Protecting his career is WWE's responsibility, not the fans. Would that really excuse booing him for that reason though? I mean, since when do fans know more than numerous decision makers who have access to loads of different metrics to judge response, as to whether someone is ready or not? We have fans in this thread taking aim at his moveset, his ability to work, his promos etc, but he's over. So he get to the point where hypothetically, the company has put him in the main event, it's not going to change, and the decision is to boo? And it's not a decision about 'we don't like this guy'. You're saying it's a 'We like him, but we don't think he's ready, so we're booing it' even though the guys in the company who have way more experience in assessing pure talent to judge readiness, have deemed it ok. Note again I'm not saying the fans are wrong to dislike a choice, but that it's a bit unfair to boo someone because they supposedly aren't ready, from a skills perspective, when it isn't there job to judge that, and they can't possibly do it as well as people in the business.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 3, 2015 21:13:49 GMT -5
It's certainly a strange argument: to suggest that the reaction of the Wrestlemania audience, the largest live audience of the year actually willing enough to pay for WWE content in 2015, doesn't matter because reasons. Because the WrestleMania audience is a conglomerate of a certain type of fan. WWE runs like 300 shows a year and 200 of those shows aren't televised. Those 200 shows often don't get the same kind of response as the ones you see on tv. Sheamus is a guy who always was getting big pops at house shows, despite his tv reaction at times being lukewarm. The WrestleMania audience consists of REALLY hardcore fans from all over the country, as well as the even more hardcore fans from other countries. Their reaction definitely represents a portion of the audience, but there's an even bigger portion who doesn't have the money to fly across the country or spend 300 bucks on tickets. They're the ones who don't get counted for at Mania, and they're probably the biggest part of the WWE audience.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:16:02 GMT -5
Bryan's been popular across different cities for ages. The timing wasn't right? Tell that to Batista. It's not good enough for Bryan to merely be champion at "some point". The ideal opportunity is presenting itself to WWE right now. A Rumble win and Wrestlemania classic against Lesnar. This kind of stuff books itself. WWE creates unnecessary problems for itself by trying swim against the tide. They don't try and swim against the tide, they are just cautious about assessing what the tide is, and not being overly swayed by one cities reaction over another. Clearly it got the point with Bryan last year where it wasn't just a smark / home town reaction, and therefore it convinced them to go for it. But the company has to make sure it is doing what the mass audience wants, overall, and not being swayed by one or two cities. And actually that is smart. The Wrestlemania crowd does matter, but it can't be denied that it tends to give off the smarky reactions, particularly in recent years. And why they do matter, you're probably going to see more hardcore fans in their mid 20s and early 30s flying in from all over the place attending the event as you are to see a family with 3 kids aged 3, 7 and 10 who are attending because WWE are in their home town. And the company makes the best decision bearing in mind all of that.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 3, 2015 21:16:34 GMT -5
Since always.
The fans are your customer. They dictate what they want.
By your rationale, they woulda kept Austin heel against Bret Hart.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:18:30 GMT -5
They wouldn't so much be booing him, but rather vocalising their frustration with WWE booking. It's unfortunate for the wrestler, because they are being put in a difficult position, but like I said, that's WWE's fault.
What are these mysterious metrics? Was there some sacred research that suggested that Batista would be a better choice than Bryan last year? Or is it more likely to say that WWE simply were out of touch and oblivious to fan demands?
Yes he's over, but being over in his current spot is a world apart from being pushed to the Rumble/Lesnar victories being suggested. More pressure will be on him in all aspects, including promos, where he struggles, and he'll be exposed, which is why personally I think he needs at least another year to hone his skills.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:19:40 GMT -5
Since always. The fans are your customer. They dictate what they want. By your rationale, they woulda kept Austin heel against Bret Hart. No man, I made a specific point that this wasn't my argument. The point I was arguing against wasn't that fans are saying 'boo! we don't like this guy!' and reacting to the character and the presentation, either positively or negatively. But actually saying, yeah we like him, but we don't think he is ready, based on an objective assessment of his talent, so we are going to boo him. Fans are definitely qualified and entitled to state their opinions on the characters and the presentation of the guys on the roster, and the business wouldn't function without it, but they are in no way qualified to assess that talent from an objective standpoint, as much as the people in the company are. There is a difference there.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:20:43 GMT -5
Bryan's been popular across different cities for ages. The timing wasn't right? Tell that to Batista. It's not good enough for Bryan to merely be champion at "some point". The ideal opportunity is presenting itself to WWE right now. A Rumble win and Wrestlemania classic against Lesnar. This kind of stuff books itself. WWE creates unnecessary problems for itself by trying swim against the tide. They don't try and swim against the tide, they are just cautious about assessing what the tide is, and not being overly swayed by one cities reaction over another. Clearly it got the point with Bryan last year where it wasn't just a smark / home town reaction, and therefore it convinced them to go for it. But the company has to make sure it is doing what the mass audience wants, overall, and not being swayed by one or two cities. And actually that is smart. The Wrestlemania crowd does matter, but it can't be denied that it tends to give off the smarky reactions, particularly in recent years. And why they do matter, you're probably going to see more hardcore fans in their mid 20s and early 30s flying in from all over the place attending the event as you are to see a family with 3 kids aged 3, 7 and 10 who are attending because WWE are in their home town. And the company makes the best decision bearing in mind all of that. The audience in multiple cities are once again showing widespread support for Bryan, which greatly outstrips the response for Reigns. I would argue that even if smaller, non-smark venues, the response for Reigns often dwindles to one of mild apathy. His responses can be very erratic.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:22:30 GMT -5
Since always. The fans are your customer. They dictate what they want. By your rationale, they woulda kept Austin heel against Bret Hart. No man, I made a specific point that this wasn't my argument. The point I was arguing against wasn't that fans are saying 'boo! we don't like this guy!' and reacting to the character and the presentation, either positively or negatively. But actually saying, yeah we like him, but we don't think he is ready, based on an objective assessment of his talent, so we are going to boo him. Fans are definitely qualified and entitled to state their opinions on the characters and the presentation of the guys on the roster, and the business wouldn't function without it, but they are in no way qualified to assess that talent from an objective standpoint, as much as the people in the company are. There is a difference there. What qualifications does one need?
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 3, 2015 21:22:59 GMT -5
They don't try and swim against the tide, they are just cautious about assessing what the tide is, and not being overly swayed by one cities reaction over another. Clearly it got the point with Bryan last year where it wasn't just a smark / home town reaction, and therefore it convinced them to go for it. But the company has to make sure it is doing what the mass audience wants, overall, and not being swayed by one or two cities. And actually that is smart. The Wrestlemania crowd does matter, but it can't be denied that it tends to give off the smarky reactions, particularly in recent years. And why they do matter, you're probably going to see more hardcore fans in their mid 20s and early 30s flying in from all over the place attending the event as you are to see a family with 3 kids aged 3, 7 and 10 who are attending because WWE are in their home town. And the company makes the best decision bearing in mind all of that. The audience in multiple cities are once again showing widespread support for Bryan, which greatly outstrips the response for Reigns. I would argue that even if smaller, non-smark venues, the response for Reigns often dwindles to one of mild apathy. His responses can be very erratic. If I may ask then, would you have put Santino over Bryan at Elimination Chamber in 2012?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:24:02 GMT -5
The audience in multiple cities are once again showing widespread support for Bryan, which greatly outstrips the response for Reigns. I would argue that even if smaller, non-smark venues, the response for Reigns often dwindles to one of mild apathy. His responses can be very erratic. If I may ask then, would you have put Santino over Bryan at Elimination Chamber in 2012? No, because Santino is a comedy character. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 3, 2015 21:24:34 GMT -5
It's certainly a strange argument: to suggest that the reaction of the Wrestlemania audience, the largest live audience of the year actually willing enough to pay for WWE content in 2015, doesn't matter because reasons. Because the WrestleMania audience is a conglomerate of a certain type of fan. WWE runs like 300 shows a year and 200 of those shows aren't televised. Those 200 shows often don't get the same kind of response as the ones you see on tv. Sheamus is a guy who always was getting big pops at house shows, despite his tv reaction at times being lukewarm. The WrestleMania audience consists of REALLY hardcore fans from all over the country, as well as the even more hardcore fans from other countries. Their reaction definitely represents a portion of the audience, but there's an even bigger portion who doesn't have the money to fly across the country or spend 300 bucks on tickets. They're the ones who don't get counted for at Mania, and they're probably the biggest part of the WWE audience. Hypothetical scenario. Bryan is back and let's say the Authority doesn't pull him from the Rumble. Between now and the end of January, there's no indication he's out of the Rumble. Any time Reigns gives a promo about winning the Rumble, people give him a lukewarm reaction. This is on Raw and Smack down every week until the Rumble. What would you say to that?
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:25:13 GMT -5
They wouldn't so much be booing him, but rather vocalising their frustration with WWE booking. It's unfortunate for the wrestler, because they are being put in a difficult position, but like I said, that's WWE's fault. What are these mysterious metrics? Was there some sacred research that suggested that Batista would be a better choice than Bryan last year? Or is it more likely to say that WWE simply were out of touch and oblivious to fan demands? Yes he's over, but being over in his current spot is a world apart from being pushed to the Rumble/Lesnar victories being suggested. More pressure will be on him in all aspects, including promos, where he struggles, and he'll be exposed, which is why personally I think he needs at least another year to hone his skills. What are these metrics? Do you seriously think there AREN'T things that the decision makers in wrestling company's use to make decisions that fans aren't aware of? Do you think that they are LESS qualified to assess talent than the man on the street? I mean, just taking the obvious means that there is a little more food for thought required. In the sense that 'ok, this crowd booed Cena a lot, but what do the other metrics say?'. Oh look, his segments were the highest rated. He outsold the rest of the roster combined on merch. He was the highest mentioned guy on the roster on twitter. His house show reaction is consistently the strongest. And this is just obvious stuff, in this hypothetical example, there will be other things that I just don't know. Maybe the whole thing with Batista is that they thought they could make him champion, and get great promotion for the company as he went off to promote a Marvel film as WWE champion? Sure the smarks don't care about that, but it could have attracted new or lapsed fans to the product or simply made the WWE brand more relevant in the eye of the casual viewer, perhaps the parent that sometimes buys their kid a Cena shirt but will also take the child to see a film. I think at first WWE will have noted Bryan's strong reactions in certain cities, but weren't about to make hasty decisions based just on that, when the potential for good cross promotion was there. When it became clear that the reaction for Bryan was the mass audience and not just the niche, they went with it.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:27:18 GMT -5
No man, I made a specific point that this wasn't my argument. The point I was arguing against wasn't that fans are saying 'boo! we don't like this guy!' and reacting to the character and the presentation, either positively or negatively. But actually saying, yeah we like him, but we don't think he is ready, based on an objective assessment of his talent, so we are going to boo him. Fans are definitely qualified and entitled to state their opinions on the characters and the presentation of the guys on the roster, and the business wouldn't function without it, but they are in no way qualified to assess that talent from an objective standpoint, as much as the people in the company are. There is a difference there. What qualifications does one need? To assess the talent of a wrestler? Are you implying the layman's eye is qualification enough? Shall we tell Regal his talents are no longer needed scouting for the company any more, because we've got a few guys on the FAN that will do it for dirt cheap?
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 3, 2015 21:30:30 GMT -5
Since always. The fans are your customer. They dictate what they want. By your rationale, they woulda kept Austin heel against Bret Hart. No man, I made a specific point that this wasn't my argument. The point I was arguing against wasn't that fans are saying 'boo! we don't like this guy!' and reacting to the character and the presentation, either positively or negatively. But actually saying, yeah we like him, but we don't think he is ready, based on an objective assessment of his talent, so we are going to boo him. Fans are definitely qualified and entitled to state their opinions on the characters and the presentation of the guys on the roster, and the business wouldn't function without it, but they are in no way qualified to assess that talent from an objective standpoint, as much as the people in the company are. There is a difference there. Yes, we are qualified. Their work is what we like and decide how far we are willing to follow them. Take someone that people enjoy but don't see as good enough and they fail everytime. Early HBK suffered it, Diesel suffered it, Rock suffered it, Sheamus suffered it and countless others have as well. There is no need to rush someone into a major spot and potentially ruin them.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 3, 2015 21:31:15 GMT -5
They don't try and swim against the tide, they are just cautious about assessing what the tide is, and not being overly swayed by one cities reaction over another. Clearly it got the point with Bryan last year where it wasn't just a smark / home town reaction, and therefore it convinced them to go for it. But the company has to make sure it is doing what the mass audience wants, overall, and not being swayed by one or two cities. And actually that is smart. The Wrestlemania crowd does matter, but it can't be denied that it tends to give off the smarky reactions, particularly in recent years. And why they do matter, you're probably going to see more hardcore fans in their mid 20s and early 30s flying in from all over the place attending the event as you are to see a family with 3 kids aged 3, 7 and 10 who are attending because WWE are in their home town. And the company makes the best decision bearing in mind all of that. The audience in multiple cities are once again showing widespread support for Bryan, which greatly outstrips the response for Reigns. I would argue that even if smaller, non-smark venues, the response for Reigns often dwindles to one of mild apathy. His responses can be very erratic. I don't disagree with you that now Bryan is getting great reactions, that often trump Reigns'. I wouldn't be opposed to him winning the Rumble and I'm about 70% convinced he will anyway. But this thread is about if we should feel sorry for Reigns. If you're entire argument is that he shouldn't get that shot because Bryan still deserves it then fair enough. I don't entirely disagree. Bryan is fantastic and deserves it. But this whole acting like Reigns is about to get booed out the building I'm just not on board with. He's a talent that's over, and if they wanted him to win in order to create another big star I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable decision either.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:31:18 GMT -5
Like what? Noise levels? Pupil responses of the audience? Atmospheric pressure? What?
Often yes, when you consider that the company is run by an old man who doesn't even regard his wrestling company as being a wrestling company.
I don't deny Cena has proven himself as a star. Those aren't mysterious other metrics. They are all verifiable business stats.
The movie WWE barely even mentioned, if at all, on their programming.
Again, Cena isn't the issue.
They went with it, kicking and screaming. It was obvious for ages that Bryan wasn't a niche. Their product had to be hijacked before they realised the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 3, 2015 21:33:17 GMT -5
No man, I made a specific point that this wasn't my argument. The point I was arguing against wasn't that fans are saying 'boo! we don't like this guy!' and reacting to the character and the presentation, either positively or negatively. But actually saying, yeah we like him, but we don't think he is ready, based on an objective assessment of his talent, so we are going to boo him. Fans are definitely qualified and entitled to state their opinions on the characters and the presentation of the guys on the roster, and the business wouldn't function without it, but they are in no way qualified to assess that talent from an objective standpoint, as much as the people in the company are. There is a difference there. Yes, we are qualified. Their work is what we like and decide how far we are willing to follow them. Take someone that people enjoy but don't see as good enough and they fail everytime. Early HBK suffered it, Diesel suffered it, Rock suffered it, Sheamus suffered it and countless others have as well. There is no need to rush someone into a major spot and potentially ruin them. I concur with everything Ric and Kev said
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2015 21:33:54 GMT -5
What qualifications does one need? To assess the talent of a wrestler? Are you implying the layman's eye is qualification enough? Shall we tell Regal his talents are no longer needed scouting for the company any more, because we've got a few guys on the FAN that will do it for dirt cheap? Talent scouting is entirely different. Yes, it takes a honed eye to determine whether a guy might be suited for the WWE, but once the guy is sent in front of an audience, the audience are perfectly capable of determining whether he's worth supporting or not. Take the Rock, the fans rejected his initial character and changes were made. By your definition, the fans had no basis to boo Rocky Maivia. WWE should have stuck with that gimmick. After all, they know best, with their qualifications and metrics.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 3, 2015 21:34:06 GMT -5
Because the WrestleMania audience is a conglomerate of a certain type of fan. WWE runs like 300 shows a year and 200 of those shows aren't televised. Those 200 shows often don't get the same kind of response as the ones you see on tv. Sheamus is a guy who always was getting big pops at house shows, despite his tv reaction at times being lukewarm. The WrestleMania audience consists of REALLY hardcore fans from all over the country, as well as the even more hardcore fans from other countries. Their reaction definitely represents a portion of the audience, but there's an even bigger portion who doesn't have the money to fly across the country or spend 300 bucks on tickets. They're the ones who don't get counted for at Mania, and they're probably the biggest part of the WWE audience. Hypothetical scenario. Bryan is back and let's say the Authority doesn't pull him from the Rumble. Between now and the end of January, there's no indication he's out of the Rumble. Any time Reigns gives a promo about winning the Rumble, people give him a lukewarm reaction. This is on Raw and Smack down every week until the Rumble. What would you say to that? Are you asking do I have Bryan win or do I simply not have Reigns win? I mean my personal preference for Mania is still Godzilla vs King Kong with Lesnar instead of "Unlikeliest of underdogs beats God" so there'd still be some bias in there for the match I'd prefer to see. If Reigns doesn't win, I'd still prefer someone like Ziggler over Bryan given the fact that Bryan's recent injuries add a little too much doubt to suspend my disbelief that he'd have any chance in hell of beating Lesnar "if this was real"
|
|