|
Post by Mark613 on Jan 28, 2015 15:04:04 GMT -5
You're either trolling or insane. I'm really not sure. speaking the truth is trolling now? Where's te counterpoint? Is not Bray Wyatt only an entrance and promos? Do the crowds not go silent when he wrestles? Has Cesaro had any real reactions to his matches other than the giant swing? And Ziggler was not out popping Reigns anytime last year, also Reigns sells more merch than him as well. Belee Dat. Insane is expecting to get your way everytime you cry. Smarks don't run the shows, it's still there book to write. Get over yourselves, and acting like the Network is solely aimed at the IWC because its an online content provider....yeah and Netflix is only aimed at filesharers....hilarious hiw the old man is supposed to be out of touch, when the smark element still try to act like its ECW 96. * Cesaro was as hot as anybody coming out of Mania, and the battle royal win. The ovation he got when he eliminated Big Show was huge. You are either deaf, or didn't watch, to dispute that. * Ziggler has had massive crowd support for the last two years, and was basically the most over talent coming out of Survivor Series, and was positioned as such. * Crowds being into any portion of a character is important. If they're hooked by Bray's entrance and promos, that's still worlds ahead of many others on the roster. His matches with Cena had tons of crowd excitement, and people were responding to him in the Rumble. *Bryan is the most over, and beloved character in the WWE in almost a decade, and has done it in spite of the way the company views him. There was no grand plan from Summer 2013, leading to Mania. I'm not sure why somebody who is criticizing a terribly booked match is a "crying smark" in your opinion. If you think people discussing current wrestling events and sharing their opinions are wrong, what are you doing on a message board? And this is the last time I'll address this... You also don't understand my comment that the IWC doesn't exist anymore. The Network is an online service, and anybody who has access to it, also has access to every other wrestling website, and "community" that exists out there. Thus, and sorry if you can't follow me on this, The Network exists in the same world as all other online pro-wrestling content and fans. Again, you're either trolling or blind to reality.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Jan 28, 2015 18:08:39 GMT -5
Cesaro eliminated Big Show with an impressive feat of strength, anyone gets a pop out of picking up the giant.
He was supposed to be the second coming and was given the two managers who got him some stream, but lets be honest, when his matches came on, were the crowds not doing CM Punk chants? If this guy was so over, maybe the typical Randy Savage, Jerry, JBL chants wouldn't happen.
Ziggler only gets decent reactions in certain locations. Put him in places where the crowd isn't smark central it's lukewarm at best. Looked at the merchandise sales and Ziggler isn't even top ten. I had a link but I'm using my phone and the mobile version here is barebones.
And Cena/Wyatt at Mania was a ghost town, even if I thought it was the match of the night, crowd didn't reflect that. Only time Wyatt matches have crowd reactions is when it's a gimmick match, you didnt notice most of his matches now are gimmicked?
I'm blind right? You like them, it doesn't make them a star. And online streaming is the future of television. "You IWC cuz you online" logic doesn't work there.
|
|
|
Post by Mark613 on Jan 28, 2015 20:07:01 GMT -5
Cesaro eliminated Big Show with an impressive feat of strength, anyone gets a pop out of picking up the giant. He was supposed to be the second coming and was given the two managers who got him some stream, but lets be honest, when his matches came on, were the crowds not doing CM Punk chants? If this guy was so over, maybe the typical Randy Savage, Jerry, JBL chants wouldn't happen. Ziggler only gets decent reactions in certain locations. Put him in places where the crowd isn't smark central it's lukewarm at best. Looked at the merchandise sales and Ziggler isn't even top ten. I had a link but I'm using my phone and the mobile version here is barebones. And Cena/Wyatt at Mania was a ghost town, even if I thought it was the match of the night, crowd didn't reflect that. Only time Wyatt matches have crowd reactions is when it's a gimmick match, you didnt notice most of his matches now are gimmicked? I'm blind right? You like them, it doesn't make them a star. And online streaming is the future of television. "You IWC cuz you online" logic doesn't work there. If the machine got behind any of them, at this point, the job would be easier making them viable and credible main event talents, than it is for Reigns right now. One reason that the "Attitude Era" is so fondly remembered is because it wasn't about one face or one talent. You had a roster that the promotion got behind, and supported, and pushed. Name me five main event talents that WWE got behind and have a sustained push to in the last 10 years, that were people who were not first over organically. You can't. There is a reason why it has been the Cena show since Brock left in 2004. Reigns is just a few missteps in his push from being the next Led Luger, Sid Vicious or Diesel (not Nash, Diesel). I hope I am wrong, but those are all manufactured headliners who got there because of the look, not because they were genuinely over.
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Jan 29, 2015 15:38:12 GMT -5
speaking the truth is trolling now? Where's te counterpoint? And this is the last time I'll address this... You also don't understand my comment that the IWC doesn't exist anymore. The Network is an online service, and anybody who has access to it, also has access to every other wrestling website, and "community" that exists out there. Thus, and sorry if you can't follow me on this, The Network exists in the same world as all other online pro-wrestling content and fans. Again, you're either trolling or blind to reality. Oh come on Mark, WWE is the UNIVERSE! It doesn't have room for a small thing like a community! Just like Rusev, it will CRUSH the community!
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Jan 30, 2015 3:28:54 GMT -5
Steve Austin was the main guy, Rock became the main guy after Steve Austin was home recovering from neck surgery. There seems to be misremembering of the AE.
Foley was also a utility guy to make heels, and a very effective one at that. But he wasn't the main guy.
|
|
|
Post by Mark613 on Jan 30, 2015 10:10:19 GMT -5
Steve Austin was the main guy, Rock became the main guy after Steve Austin was home recovering from neck surgery. There seems to be misremembering of the AE. Foley was also a utility guy to make heels, and a very effective one at that. But he wasn't the main guy. I'm not saying Rock didn't become a mega-star in part thanks to Austin being gone in 2000, but he had already been a main event player for nearly 2 years at that point, with a solid push behind him the whole time. (From late 1997 feuding with a face Austin, leading through the Rumble, where they were the final two, and by the end of 1998, Rock was the top heel in the company. He received a solid, and sustained push.)Foley flirted with main-event status throughout his early run in WWF (fall of 1996 he main-evented two PPV's, vs Taker and Michaels) and for those, sure I'll give you the "utility guy" status. Once he did the sit-down interview with Ross, and busted out the "Three Faces of Foley", he was on his way to being a regular in the main event picture, after securing tons of fan support. Throughout mid-to-late 1998, Foley became one of the top characters on the show, and continued to build a huge following, and eventually we got into his title runs, and match-ups with Rock and HHH. To call him a "good hand" or a "utility guy" in 98/99 and early 2000 is straight-up untrue. He was one of the most over guys on the roster, and the company supported him through-out. To say that the AE didn't have more than one "face" is ridiculous. While Rock stepped up in Austin's absence, they were both top guys at the same time during 1999 and 2001. In addition, the company fully pushed and got behind Foley, Taker, HHH, Big Show, (and prior to them being out for the rest of the era, Bret and Shawn) etc; AND, none of them debuted and were pushed directly into the main event as solo-stars, with very little solo experience. Bringing it back to the discussion at hand... There is no reason why the company cannot function this way now. Why can't it be Bryan and Roman both as top two faces? Why does it have to be a singular company babyface? Bryan as Austin to Roman's Rock? Again, there is a reason why you cannot name 5 top guys in the last decade who didn't build organic fan support (ala ALL fo those listed above from 1997-2001) before breaking out... because there haven't been any. Any attempted super-pushes into the main event picture, prior to developing a real following or support, left the talent fizzled out to mid-card status a year later, see Sheamus, ADR, etc; Bryan has managed to grab and keep the loudest and most vocal baby-face on the roster for going on two years now. The company has not given him any sort of sustained support, that somebody with his support, should have. There is money being left on the table, and that is an undeniably terrible business decision.
|
|
|
Post by Mark613 on Jan 30, 2015 12:12:58 GMT -5
One more thing... Everything related to the Rumble this year, and Bryan coming back not to win. To put this in perspective, compare it to 2002 (as just reviewed on Review-A-Wai). A couple of weeks before the Rumble, Triple H returns following a career-threatening injury, and comes back to being more over than he was when he left. Triple H vows to win the rumble and go onto Mania and win the title.
HHH has been around for 5 years at this point, and is no youngster, nearing age 34 in a few months.
Triple H returns to the Rumble to a massive reaction, and has a decent run in the match, and eliminates the top stars to go on and win. With the returning from injury storyline, HHH goes on to win at Wrestlemania, and become a main event mainstay for the next decade.
Listening to the Review this week, everybody was happy with The Rumble booking that night. The night-of response was hugely positive. It got over, because it was simply the right thing to do, made the most sense, and had the most fan support.
Now, contrast that with this year, and with everybody saying that those complaining over Bryan's treatment, to "get over it".
Bryan, nearly the same age as HHH was in 2002 (so strike out that argument about Bryan being too old to be the face of the company). Bryan has a nearly identical built-in story return as HHH had in 2002.
If you booked the 2002 Rumble like they did the 2015 one, you would have had Maven win, last eliminating The Big Bossman and Rikishi, who had run through HHH, Austin, Angle, and RVD, the clear crowd favourites.
EDIT - oops, accidentally wrote 2013, instead of 2015 originally.
|
|
|
Post by daltonimperial on Jan 30, 2015 13:37:44 GMT -5
Yes, because Maven = Roman Reigns.
Once you saw the Beautiful Day video, it was hard to imagine HHH coming back and losing. Bryan had none of that hype this year: his return (technically, his appearance announcing his return) was unannounced, he wasn't mentioned the next week on Raw, he won a tag match on Smackdown, lost to Bray on Raw, and beat Kane on Smackdown (I may have flipped the Smackdown matches). He interacted with Steph, not HHH/the main Authority storyline with Cena/the title. I'm not saying that Reigns was better positioned (death feud with Big Show), but Bryan was not positioned strongly before his return (WWE didn't hype his return, didn't mention things like the Giants World Series parade, didn't have training/recovery videos, or even Reigns-esque live via satellite promos) or afterward. His story is not as strong this year as when he should have won the Rumble last year after being screwed and screwed and the fan reaction being enough to get him out of being "Daniel Wyatt" after two weeks. Here, his feud remains with the Authority (HHH/Steph for stripping him, Kane for "injuring" him) and he has no connection with Brock (vs. Orton, the guy who took the title from him way back in Summerslam 2013). Guy reclaiming the title he never lost and David-Goliath (even though Bryan fans wouldn't accept Goliath winning, so there isn't much tension) is a good story, but not a no-brainer to me.
I don't remember the TV around the time of the 2002 Rumble, so I can't find a great parallel (plus, so many people were over that I think it was unlikely WWE could push someone around that time when the crowd so clearly wanted someone else, but it's possible). I actually think a decent one would be RVD (though he was obviously popular with the hardcore fans who are driving the Bryan bandwagon (there are plenty of casual fans on board the Bryan bandwagon, so don't think I'm suggesting it's just hardcore fans who want Bryan)), but RVD hadn't really been established yet in WWE as a top, world title level guy (much like Reigns, who's had one title shot in a 4-way and one singles PPV match).
At the same time, while HHH was a great choice, there were plenty of other people who had reasonably been positioned as potential winners (beyond being over; again, I don't remember the TV, so I'm basing this off PPVs): Austin lost in the finals for the Undisputed Title, Kurt (who had won one of the titles around 9/11) had lost in the semis. Undertaker had turned heel and was trying to establish whatever his gimmick was, so he could have been a plausible winner. Even Kane, coming off his epic 2001 performance eliminating 11 guys, could have been seen as a darkhorse.
As for the other fan favorites this year, Ambrose has become a prop comic who loses to holograms and exploding TVs, recently seen fighting with candy canes; Ziggler "got rid of the Authority" (even though Sting was the one who actually took out HHH and put Ziggler on top of Rollins) for about 40 days, was unceremoniously fired (after meekly guessing that his punishment would be 90 days instead of standing up to HHH/Steph), and got rehired when Sting distracted Rollins enough for Cena to roll him up a week (or two) before the Rumble.
I understand being frustrated and thinking the Rumble was terribly booked (for everyone, including Reigns, but obviously Ziggler/Ambrose/Bryan, too). If Bryan wasn't winning, they shouldn't have brought him back (much the same for Orton, and maybe even Sheamus). If they did bring him back, at least make his elimination mean something. But Reigns was over as as part of the Shield and was trying to find his footing as a singles star before the injury, the live via satellite promos, and the infamous Looney Reigns run of promos. Booked correctly (not perfectly, but better), Reigns would not have been rejected as strongly as he had been even though Bryan would have remained the fans' primary choice. But the Maven comparison is just absurd.
Even though HHH was wrestling for a while by 2002 (Terra Ryzin in WCW pre-WWE), he doesn't have the same number of miles on him as Bryan does with his strong wrestling style and many years in ROH; it would be like comparing Kobe or Lebron (who have been playing NBA seasons since age 18) with someone the same age who played four years of college (not nearly as stressful), so their future trajectory would not necessarily be the same even if Kobe/LeBron and the other player were both 34. That HHH was married to Stephanie did play a role as well. Plus, HHH was beating an impotent Jericho, who was rejected (and booked poorly) as the Undisputed Champion, playing a cowardly heel who needed runs in and whose most prominent role in the leadup to 'Mania was picking up dog poop while being overshadowed by HHH and Steph. In theory (with Brock potentially leaving), WWE is trying to transfer as much of the Streak as it could to a new guy by having the challenger beat a strongly booked/protected Brock at 'Mania. Bryan doesn't need that win/rub as much as Reigns does. And if the answer is, "who cares if Bryan doesn't need the rub (beating Brock wouldn't convince WWE execs that he is a potential #1 guy, and the fans already believe he is), just do it," then you also can't complain about Rusev being protected for so long only to be fed to Cena "because Cena doesn't need that win."
You don't have to "get over it" and are free to express whatever you feel. But you risk turning at least one person who is sympathetic to your position against you with hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by Mark613 on Jan 30, 2015 14:04:06 GMT -5
Yes, because Maven = Roman Reigns. - Okay, maybe a bad comparison. But I was trying to think of somebody who had been in the promotion a couple of years, and unproven as a singles guy... How about Jeff Hardy, if he had half the crowd support he did in 2002.Once you saw the Beautiful Day video, it was hard to imagine HHH coming back and losing. Bryan had none of that hype this year: his return (technically, his appearance announcing his return) was unannounced, he wasn't mentioned the next week on Raw, he won a tag match on Smackdown, lost to Bray on Raw, and beat Kane on Smackdown (I may have flipped the Smackdown matches). He interacted with Steph, not HHH/the main Authority storyline with Cena/the title. I'm not saying that Reigns was better positioned (death feud with Big Show), but Bryan was not positioned strongly before his return (WWE didn't hype his return, didn't mention things like the Giants World Series parade, didn't have training/recovery videos, or even Reigns-esque live via satellite promos) or afterward. His story is not as strong this year as when he should have won the Rumble last year after being screwed and screwed and the fan reaction being enough to get him out of being "Daniel Wyatt" after two weeks. Here, his feud remains with the Authority (HHH/Steph for stripping him, Kane for "injuring" him) and he has no connection with Brock (vs. Orton, the guy who took the title from him way back in Summerslam 2013). Guy reclaiming the title he never lost and David-Goliath (even though Bryan fans wouldn't accept Goliath winning, so there isn't much tension) is a good story, but not a no-brainer to me. - All of the things you mentioned are mostly creative choices in the way they brought him back. He SHOULD have been brought back in the same way they positioned HHH in 2003 is what I am saying, if they insisted on bringing him back before the Rumble. Dude is the most over face in the company in terms of a live crowd response, show after show after show. He went out as Champion, never lost the belt, had a heartbreaking year between his injury and his father's death. His return should have been centered around his return in pursuit of the belt that he never lost. That is basic booking 101. I don't remember the TV around the time of the 2002 Rumble, so I can't find a great parallel (plus, so many people were over that I think it was unlikely WWE could push someone around that time when the crowd so clearly wanted someone else, but it's possible). I actually think a decent one would be RVD (though he was obviously popular with the hardcore fans who are driving the Bryan bandwagon (there are plenty of casual fans on board the Bryan bandwagon, so don't think I'm suggesting it's just hardcore fans who want Bryan)), but RVD hadn't really been established yet in WWE as a top, world title level guy (much like Reigns, who's had one title shot in a 4-way and one singles PPV match). - I will agree with you to a degree with RVD. However, on the other side of things, RVD was over huge upon his debut to the vast majority of fans in the audience. Go back and see him working Austin and HHH in 2001, after his return, and tell me that he wasn't. The promotion had the choice to accept it, or reject it. And much like they did with most things post-2001, totally fumbled the potential. He was over as anybody could have been at that time.At the same time, while HHH was a great choice, there were plenty of other people who had reasonably been positioned as potential winners (beyond being over; again, I don't remember the TV, so I'm basing this off PPVs): Austin lost in the finals for the Undisputed Title, Kurt (who had won one of the titles around 9/11) had lost in the semis. Undertaker had turned heel and was trying to establish whatever his gimmick was, so he could have been a plausible winner. Even Kane, coming off his epic 2001 performance eliminating 11 guys, could have been seen as a darkhorse. As for the other fan favorites this year, Ambrose has become a prop comic who loses to holograms and exploding TVs, recently seen fighting with candy canes; Ziggler "got rid of the Authority" (even though Sting was the one who actually took out HHH and put Ziggler on top of Rollins) for about 40 days, was unceremoniously fired (after meekly guessing that his punishment would be 90 days instead of standing up to HHH/Steph), and got rehired when Sting distracted Rollins enough for Cena to roll him up a week (or two) before the Rumble. I understand being frustrated and thinking the Rumble was terribly booked (for everyone, including Reigns, but obviously Ziggler/Ambrose/Bryan, too). If Bryan wasn't winning, they shouldn't have brought him back (much the same for Orton, and maybe even Sheamus). If they did bring him back, at least make his elimination mean something. But Reigns was over as as part of the Shield and was trying to find his footing as a singles star before the injury, the live via satellite promos, and the infamous Looney Reigns run of promos. Booked correctly (not perfectly, but better), Reigns would not have been rejected as strongly as he had been even though Bryan would have remained the fans' primary choice. But the Maven comparison is just absurd. - Again, I give that Maven comparison it was an extreme and absurd comparison, but none more than some of the arguments made by others in this thread.
I totally agree with you on all of the other booking stuff about the Rumble this year. It was a terribly booked match. Everybody came out looking worse than they went into it. That's awful. There is absolutely no excuse for it.Even though HHH was wrestling for a while by 2002 (Terra Ryzin in WCW pre-WWE), he doesn't have the same number of miles on him as Bryan does with his strong wrestling style and many years in ROH; it would be like comparing Kobe or Lebron (who have been playing NBA seasons since age 18) with someone the same age who played four years of college (not nearly as stressful), so their future trajectory would not necessarily be the same even if Kobe/LeBron and the other player were both 34. That HHH was married to Stephanie did play a role as well. Plus, HHH was beating an impotent Jericho, who was rejected (and booked poorly) as the Undisputed Champion, playing a cowardly heel who needed runs in and whose most prominent role in the leadup to 'Mania was picking up dog poop while being overshadowed by HHH and Steph. In theory (with Brock potentially leaving), WWE is trying to transfer as much of the Streak as it could to a new guy by having the challenger beat a strongly booked/protected Brock at 'Mania. Bryan doesn't need that win/rub as much as Reigns does. And if the answer is, "who cares if Bryan doesn't need the rub (beating Brock wouldn't convince WWE execs that he is a potential #1 guy, and the fans already believe he is), just do it," then you also can't complain about Rusev being protected for so long only to be fed to Cena "because Cena doesn't need that win." - This is a fair point as well. That said, creative for Jericho was atrocious, and really, they killed him in the eyes of the fans with horrible booking choices. It was a terrible lame-duck main event because of that heading into the Mania.
I believe the correct thing for Reigns would have been Rusev. A big match and big win there, would make him. It also would have been a clear babyface victory, and he wouldn't be put into a situation where half the audience will be booing him because they like Brock more, OR, feel Bryan should have the spot. Unless they scramble and go with a double-turn leading into Mania, Reigns, post injury return, booking-wise is inexcusable. You don't have to "get over it" and are free to express whatever you feel. But you risk turning at least one person who is sympathetic to your position against you with hyperbole. - Again, I'll admit it was a huge exaggeration, and perhaps Matt or Jeff Hardy would have been a better comparison. Both would go on to great success, but neither were ready to be in that kind of position in 2002.
|
|