|
Post by cabbageboy on Jan 27, 2019 14:17:09 GMT -5
I think either guy could probably do well on SD, but on Raw everyone winds up scorched earth due to the bad booking or being fed to Lesnar or whatever. Gargano can be a believable top guy against someone like Styles or Bryan, but he'd have no hope against guys like Lesnar or Strowman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 14:23:05 GMT -5
I think Ciampa and Gargano are too talented to fail. They might not be immediate successes (but maybe WWE will get it right, they surprise sometimes), but when they get a feel for things they'll figure a way to stand out. See, I can’t agree on the in the ring thing, she’s been a bit sloppy for sure at times, but she’s still a very good hand. The problem with Bayley is that what you have to do to succeed in the promo driven character laden WWE isn’t the same as the protected taped NXT. It’s why people like Elias and Alexa, and shit I’ll even throw Enzo in their despite being a tool. All of them are terrible to at best passable in the ring sometimes, but having good promo skills and a great character made them some of the most over and pushed in the company. “I wrestle good and have determination is my character” really doesn’t mean much on main roster tv if that’s all you have to offer. I didn't say Bayley was awful. She’s just not the in-ring performer that Cena is. I dunno, I would rather watch a Bayley match than a John Cena match. I think the key difference is Cena found a character that resonated on the main roster and Bayley hasn't. Cena's quality isn't necessarily his in-ring ability but more the audience's investment in him whether they like him or not.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Jan 27, 2019 14:38:41 GMT -5
I didn't say Bayley was awful. She’s just not the in-ring performer that Cena is. I dunno, I would rather watch a Bayley match than a John Cena match. I think the key difference is Cena found a character that resonated on the main roster and Bayley hasn't. Cena's quality isn't necessarily his in-ring ability but more the audience's investment in him whether they like him or not. Cena is a better in-ring performer from his ability to call shit on the fly and read the audience. Pure “wrestling skill”? Sure then maybe its close but actually going out there and working a crowd? Oooooh buddy, not even close. That’s where Bayley falls apart. Her matches feel like they’re in a vacuum and the one time she had to deal with a crowd turning on her, she made it worse!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 14:59:22 GMT -5
I dunno, I would rather watch a Bayley match than a John Cena match. I think the key difference is Cena found a character that resonated on the main roster and Bayley hasn't. Cena's quality isn't necessarily his in-ring ability but more the audience's investment in him whether they like him or not. Cena is a better in-ring performer from his ability to call shit on the fly and read the audience. Pure “wrestling skill”? Sure then maybe its close but actually going out there and working a crowd? Oooooh buddy, not even close. That’s where Bayley falls apart. Her matches feel like they’re in a vacuum and the one time she had to deal with a crowd turning on her, she made it worse! I can't disagree with you that Cena's far better on the fly than Bayley. But, I find John Cena's work exists in a vacuum more than Bayley's. Cena thrives more on moments, like a lot of the drama to following Cena's career was just that he was a guy with a rocket strapped to his back that much of his audience disagreed with, and how he survived in that atmosphere. But when the moment's over I just don't find much rewatchability to any his work. As opposed to Bayley, where when everything works in her favor had some excellent matches with great emotional storytelling that really stand the test of time. If I have the option to watch either of them at their peak, I would go with Bayley. Not that it's a great comparison but it's similar to Macho Man vs. Hulk Hogan. Macho Man didn't like to call his matches on the fly, while Hulk Hogan was one of the best at it, but from a critical standpoint I think many fans would rather go back and watch Macho Man's stuff than Hulk's, there's just more nuance there.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Jan 27, 2019 16:02:07 GMT -5
I worry about anyone getting called up from NXT. If I were getting called up, I'd say on a mic at a TakeOver "You know who was a great wrestler? Chris Benoi"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 16:11:30 GMT -5
Chiming in on the Bayley subject, I feel like if she were anywhere near the level of performer she came off as in NXT she would have at least managed to elevate something on the main roster. She's been dealt a lot of terrible booking, definitely, but I really can't think of much of any matches or segments she's had that were actually worth paying attention to.
If she were really great I feel like it would've shown through at some point or other and it just... hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 27, 2019 19:36:18 GMT -5
Cena is a better in-ring performer from his ability to call shit on the fly and read the audience. Pure “wrestling skill”? Sure then maybe its close but actually going out there and working a crowd? Oooooh buddy, not even close. That’s where Bayley falls apart. Her matches feel like they’re in a vacuum and the one time she had to deal with a crowd turning on her, she made it worse! I can't disagree with you that Cena's far better on the fly than Bayley. But, I find John Cena's work exists in a vacuum more than Bayley's. Cena thrives more on moments, like a lot of the drama to following Cena's career was just that he was a guy with a rocket strapped to his back that much of his audience disagreed with, and how he survived in that atmosphere. But when the moment's over I just don't find much rewatchability to any his work. As opposed to Bayley, where when everything works in her favor had some excellent matches with great emotional storytelling that really stand the test of time. If I have the option to watch either of them at their peak, I would go with Bayley. Not that it's a great comparison but it's similar to Macho Man vs. Hulk Hogan. Macho Man didn't like to call his matches on the fly, while Hulk Hogan was one of the best at it, but from a critical standpoint I think many fans would rather go back and watch Macho Man's stuff than Hulk's, there's just more nuance there. Plus, it isn't like Cena's work was much to write home about when he first starting getting his push to the top. He's certainly improved over the years, but there's kind of a rote Cena "WWE main event style match" pattern that mostly revolves around kicking out of finishers and, as you say, drama that stems more from "Man, are they gonna book him to win AGAIN?" instead of "I genuinely care which of these characters comes out on top." Bayley might still have too many issues of her own, but ultimately if the company thinks she has something to offer then they should be putting her in a position to succeed, minimize her weaknesses, and find opportunities to allow her to work on the shortcomings in her game. Instead, they almost came off like they wanted to salt the Earth on her as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Jan 27, 2019 21:43:49 GMT -5
As good as both are, and as understandable as Ciampa having surgeries is, they blew both their big moments with the heel turns in developmental instead of the mid card.
|
|