DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Or if it was just to put Wyatt over period. Bryan aside. His problem now is that he can't back up his words and it makes all those scary sounding promos laughable. When he beat the big fan favorite of the day cleanly, it went so far in giving him that aura that a character like him needs. The "Undertaker auru" if you will. It should have been the start of something huge for him. Instead... Yeah. He's just another guy nowadays.

And that is the main problem. It's not so much "make everyone look good", because they really aren't doing that, it is expecting the next big thing to just develop into a homegrown, top-tier, multimedia superstar inside of 6 months... and if they can't make that happen, that talent is essentially worthless and jobs to the next 6 month project. They derail a guy/gal/team/angle/division at the expense of another, then subsequently tear down the thing they built to go a different way.

They rarely let fans take the journey with the developing rising star anymore. Revisionist WWE history will make it seem as if Austin 3:16 took the world by storm the second he walked in the door. Or, that The Rock just showed up out of nowhere and electified everyone. These guys took YEARS to get to the top. They had feuds, rivalries, face and heel turns, secondary title runs, show-stealing matches, and a few legendary promos sprinkled in over that length of time... time for them to become three dimensional characters. CM Punk wasn't big because he was an eye-rolling "indy darling" (which shouldn't always be uttered with such disgust... just because a guy makes a name for himself elsewhere shouldn't automatically earn him scorn.) Not picking on the guy, but to expect this to *just happen* for Roman Reigns was just foolishly presumptuous.

As Fan said, Bray Wyatt should have been approaching Undertaker-esque levels of phenom about now. Mankind promos and Deadman dominace in Kane-like angles. Instead, he's become a glorified manager- a player/coach who goes in and lays down for the babyface of the week. When they split off Harper and Rowan, it was like they wanted all three to just *be over* as singles competitors. They had Bray just tread water, seemed to give some sort of push to Harper, and decided selling sheep masks to the kids was all they needed to present Rowan as a babyface. After that short lived and wholly unnecessary breakup, where they DIDN'T EVEN DO THE OBVIOUS of having Harper and Rowan have a massive, proper feud, they get back together as a tag team because reasons until Erik got hurt. So now, Harper, who is doing essentially nothing, is back with Wyatt doing essentially nothing. But hey, look how massive that new guy flanking him is, huh?! He's looking imposing enough to be world champion in 6 months, right?? The focus isn't remaining where it should be. In this stable, the biggest guy shouldn't necessarily be the biggest threat. Bray should be this wicked mastermind, Luke should be his loyal leftenant, and the new guy should be a wild-card. Instead, he's the focus at the expense of the other two. Until his shelf-life of being big and tall expires. Then he'll be lost in the shuffle too and job on a regular basis to the next guy they want to build instantly, only to derail that momentum for the *next* guy...

[The CyNick]

The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.

Foley lost to tons of guys.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more. Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero. Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock. Foley lost to tons of guys. The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s". WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

It's not that Hunter was jobbing to Marc Mero. It's that he wasn't being pushed and penciled in to be world heavyweight champion back then, only to have them go "oh, nevermind". Sure, he ended up being an idea of what they wanted in a prototypical "guy" in the midst of being overshadowed by better, but SOME of that was bad luck, and he still had room and time to grow. He SLOWLY and believably "became better" (read: moved up the card) over time. His character evolved. He got things to do that didn't just disappear as corners were written into or something new came along and all of the focus had to be shifted to that instead of HHHs current angle.

And you can ask anyone here that I am far from a banner carrier for HHH, but if he had a time machine and were placed in the mix now with everything he had then, he would end up as a tremendous flop; and most of that would be through no fault of his own. They wouldn't let him organically work his way up the card... he would get a push to the moon, then, when the fans clearly vocalize they aren't buying that, they make him languish in the lower midcard/curtain jerk jobber who barely gets TV time until he gets a "he's still employed?" Timer like JTG had online. He wouldn't get a fair shake or time and exposure to grow organically.

[The CyNick]

But that's not even true. A lot of people on here act like everyone went on this steady upward trajectory to the top. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hunter was at a certain level, then was pushed down, then back up, then right to top with the original DX, then kinda back down to mid card with face DX, then slowly up from there. Then as champ he was booked like a CS heel. It wasn't until his 3rd run as world champ that they really started to make him a killer, and primarily that was because Foley was a crazy person willing to do anything.

Rock had an early push, then fell off the face of the earth, then up and down. Until he reached the heights he did.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I'm pretty sure well all remember that. The key with the attitude era was they were forced into certain situations to put immensely talented and ready guys into certain spots which helped the company succeed. They were forced because they had competition. Now they don't. So when things get stagnant and mediocre, they can just remain as such. Yeah their is some nibbles and bites of change, but then Vince goes "Nah I'm not feeling this" and kind of goes back to status quo and we get backstage segments with fart jokes.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

I disagree. Once a wrestler proved themselves worthy of a push, the WWE got completely behind said guy and pushed him huge. Austin in 97', Rocky/Hunter in 98/99, Angle (to a certain extent) in 2000/2001, Lesnar in 2002, Orton/Cena/Batista in 2004. Nowadays, this 50/50 non-sense in an effort to make everyone look credible, is having an adverse effect.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero. Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.

Yes, but that was before their big pushes. The WWE didn't start going 'crazy' with Rocky and Hunter until shortly before Summerslam 1998. After that, both guys were protected big time and only lost to 'bottom feeders/mid carders' in an extremely flukey way.


Same thing with Cena. Obviously - in 2002/2003, Cena was doing his fair share of jobs as part of 'paying dues', but once he proved himself worthy, etc., the WWE strapped a rocket to his chest and protected him greatly. Hence - Cena's rapid rise and dominance throughout 2004, which allowed him to get to the top in 2005.


Orton from late 2003-Summerslam 2004 = same thing. Batista from around mid/late 2004 - Wrestlemania 2005 = same thing.

Foley lost to tons of guys.

During his peak (mid 1997-2000), who did Foley really lose to outside of Austin, Kane, Undertaker, Rocky, and Hunter? He lost to NAO who were being groomed to be the top tag team in the WWE.


Between 1997-2000, a clean win over Foley in a feud usually indicated that said wrestler was going to get pushed big time. A victory over Foley usually meant something special.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s". WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think the WWE could have done a better job in elevating certain guys that clearly deserved better (i.e. Rusev).


Do you mean to tell me that CM Punk circa 2011 wasn't worthy enough to break away from the pack? How did Hunter squashing Punk in 2011.......when Punk was white hot.......help Punk or the business at all?

[The CyNick]

I will admit a bias when it comes to Punk. I think he's a heck of a worker, but I never saw him as someone who could be "the guy". He just looks like someone who came off a 4 day heroin binge. If I were WWE I wouldnt want him to be the face of the franchise, and I think he's the type of guy who would limit the growth of the company.

That said, I dont think one win or one loss to a guy with Hunter's stature will hurt your push no matter who you are. Just like Austin never got hurt losing two huge matches to Bret Hard squeaky clean. If you have talent, the fans will see that. Heck, Daniel Bryan lost to Wyatt and he was still the most over guy in the company for a period of time.

I think Punk got over to the portion of the audience that likes him, and he did great. But I dont think he had the ability to be a guy like Austin or Rock who brought in casual fans.

Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

So I dont have sympathy for a guy like Kevin Owens who got to debut in a program with the guy who has run the place for a decade. Thats a big deal. Do you think Neville would have preferred working three high profile matches with Cena or that program with the actor guy and Stardust? Its up to Kevin Owens to scratch and claw and prove he is BETTER than Cena, so he can take his spot. Thats what I think guys are missing today.

I do understand what you are saying about it appearing that back in the Attitude Era there appeared to be more clearly defined levels. Opening card guy, then IS tile level guys, then main eventers, then your top guy. Now its more of a thing where one month you could be working a program with a main eventer, but then next month you are in some random IC level program. Is that hurting getting guys to the next level? Possibly. But Im not convinced. I still maintain if you have the talent, you cant be held down forever.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

Mankind won most of their early encounters. Including a Boiler Room Brawl that saw Bearer turn on Taker.

[Damian Rey]

I cannot fathom the logic in arguing performers in a scripted sport "scratch and claw" or that guys are "missing" such a trait in an environment where their development and direction is determined by somebody else no matter their talent or desire. Makes no sense.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well maybe if Kevin Owens were talented enough to put on good matches with Cena instead of the three shitty ones he had, he'd be over! Or if Bray Wyatt could cut a halfway decent promo, he wouldn't have become a boring, directionless character! Definitely their fault. Not the brilliant writers.

I mean... these are the guys who wrote such meticulous, well thought out things as"Brie Bella has gone from Nikki's mortal enemy/slave for a month to her best friend in such a flawlessly written transition, you didn't even notice!" and "Wade Barrett is a badass bareknuckle fighter as these vignettes hyping his return will show you... SWERVE! He's a generic chicken shit heel a week later!". Probably should release those shitty guys like Owens and Wyatt and sign some guys who can shine under their brilliant light.

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by The CyNick But that's not even true. A lot of people on here act like everyone went on this steady upward trajectory to the top. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunter was at a certain level, then was pushed down, then back up, then right to top with the original DX, then kinda back down to mid card with face DX, then slowly up from there. Then as champ he was booked like a CS heel. It wasn't until his 3rd run as world champ that they really started to make him a killer, and primarily that was because Foley was a crazy person willing to do anything. Rock had an early push, then fell off the face of the earth, then up and down. Until he reached the heights he did.

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead I'm pretty sure well all remember that. The key with the attitude era was they were forced into certain situations to put immensely talented and ready guys into certain spots which helped the company succeed. They were forced because they had competition. Now they don't. So when things get stagnant and mediocre, they can just remain as such. Yeah their is some nibbles and bites of change, but then Vince goes "Nah I'm not feeling this" and kind of goes back to status quo and we get backstage segments with fart jokes.

Exactly. It's not that there isn't a constant upward gain, it's that pretty much any momentum someone has gained in recent history has had that momentum over-calculated (Ryback, for example) or WWE hits the reset button (Cesaro).

Go back to when Zack Ryder had his massive popularity spike. Naysayers act as if he didn't deserve it or that fans instantly wanted him as WWE Champion. It is this "all or nothing" line of thinking WWE has come to adopt that has hurt guys in the long run. Instead of using his self-made internet fame as a stepping stone to more TV time, better booking, and storylines to keep fans invested, they kept him off TV, save for backstage cameos. He barely got matches, and usually when he did, he wasn't picking up the win. Eventually, this leads to fans feeling like chumps for liking the guy and not getting any payoff. Yes, he got a short US title run, but that was after he was cooling off, and it didn't help matters that they didn't keep him at that level. They dropped him back down the card where he remained until only recently, and that's on the NXT tag scene.

I legitimately feel WWE is just trying to "create" not just the next breakout superstar, but specifically, the next Rock. And I'm not meaning that in any similarities and family ties with Roman, I mean that they want to manufacture a fan favorite, bill him as a legit WHC contender, and farm him out to Hollywood while still under the WWE banner instead of him deciding to move on after having done everything in wrestling. And if nobody has that instant spark, then they aren't worth investing effort into... at least until, say Cena gets injured or Brock has an MMA fight looming and they go into panic mode. They wouldn'thave to panic if they quit losing interest and build reps credible enough to stand in.

One of my favorite matchups in recent WWE history is Dolph Ziggler and Kofi Kingston. Whenever they have a 1 on 1, they tear the goddamn house down. In all the time they've been in WWE, these two should have been headlining PPVs by now, and it would have been believable, because they could have been built to be actual title threats. Instead, they constantly tried to keep Kofi as the kid friendly high-flyer, and Dolph was (and still is) being used as a prop in stories happening to the women around him... Vicki, AJ, Summer Rae/Lana. The best setup they gave the guy was that Survivor Series win, and... they didn't do shit with it. Cesaro got a false start becoming a Real American, thenanother becoming a Heyman Guy, then another with AtG Battle Royal win... each time, he either fucked off of TV or transitioned away with haphazard akwardness. The best time for Curtis Axel to be on his way was with Heyman, and they took that opportunity to make him look like a foolish meatshield instead, then made him go away.

Again, too much "all or nothing". Nobody will ever be important if they're all pushed then completely dropped. Nor will they gain anything by simply going by "the look" before there is any character of substance for fans to attach to... and then just dismissing the people the fans are actually getting behind because they "don't see why". They have 5 hours national TV time a week (not counting The Network), they have gotten more people over more reliably back when they only had 1 hour live and a weekend syndicated pre-taping. Its baffling.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I will admit a bias when it comes to Punk. I think he's a heck of a worker, but I never saw him as someone who could be "the guy". He just looks like someone who came off a 4 day heroin binge. If I were WWE I wouldnt want him to be the face of the franchise, and I think he's the type of guy who would limit the growth of the company. That said, I dont think one win or one loss to a guy with Hunter's stature will hurt your push no matter who you are. Just like Austin never got hurt losing two huge matches to Bret Hard squeaky clean. If you have talent, the fans will see that. Heck, Daniel Bryan lost to Wyatt and he was still the most over guy in the company for a period of time. I think Punk got over to the portion of the audience that likes him, and he did great. But I dont think he had the ability to be a guy like Austin or Rock who brought in casual fans. Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented. So I dont have sympathy for a guy like Kevin Owens who got to debut in a program with the guy who has run the place for a decade. Thats a big deal. Do you think Neville would have preferred working three high profile matches with Cena or that program with the actor guy and Stardust? Its up to Kevin Owens to scratch and claw and prove he is BETTER than Cena, so he can take his spot. Thats what I think guys are missing today. I do understand what you are saying about it appearing that back in the Attitude Era there appeared to be more clearly defined levels. Opening card guy, then IS tile level guys, then main eventers, then your top guy. Now its more of a thing where one month you could be working a program with a main eventer, but then next month you are in some random IC level program. Is that hurting getting guys to the next level? Possibly. But Im not convinced. I still maintain if you have the talent, you cant be held down forever.

You do know it's scripted, right?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott Exactly. It's not that there isn't a constant upward gain, it's that pretty much any momentum someone has gained in recent history has had that momentum over-calculated (Ryback, for example) or WWE hits the reset button (Cesaro). Go back to when Zack Ryder had his massive popularity spike. Naysayers act as if he didn't deserve it or that fans instantly wanted him as WWE Champion. It is this "all or nothing" line of thinking WWE has come to adopt that has hurt guys in the long run. Instead of using his self-made internet fame as a stepping stone to more TV time, better booking, and storylines to keep fans invested, they kept him off TV, save for backstage cameos. He barely got matches, and usually when he did, he wasn't picking up the win. Eventually, this leads to fans feeling like chumps for liking the guy and not getting any payoff. Yes, he got a short US title run, but that was after he was cooling off, and it didn't help matters that they didn't keep him at that level. They dropped him back down the card where he remained until only recently, and that's on the NXT tag scene. I legitimately feel WWE is just trying to "create" not just the next breakout superstar, but specifically, the next Rock. And I'm not meaning that in any similarities and family ties with Roman, I mean that they want to manufacture a fan favorite, bill him as a legit WHC contender, and farm him out to Hollywood while still under the WWE banner instead of him deciding to move on after having done everything in wrestling. And if nobody has that instant spark, then they aren't worth investing effort into... at least until, say Cena gets injured or Brock has an MMA fight looming and they go into panic mode. They wouldn'thave to panic if they quit losing interest and build reps credible enough to stand in. One of my favorite matchups in recent WWE history is Dolph Ziggler and Kofi Kingston. Whenever they have a 1 on 1, they tear the goddamn house down. In all the time they've been in WWE, these two should have been headlining PPVs by now, and it would have been believable, because they could have been built to be actual title threats. Instead, they constantly tried to keep Kofi as the kid friendly high-flyer, and Dolph was (and still is) being used as a prop in stories happening to the women around him... Vicki, AJ, Summer Rae/Lana. The best setup they gave the guy was that Survivor Series win, and... they didn't do shit with it. Cesaro got a false start becoming a Real American, thenanother becoming a Heyman Guy, then another with AtG Battle Royal win... each time, he either fucked off of TV or transitioned away with haphazard akwardness. The best time for Curtis Axel to be on his way was with Heyman, and they took that opportunity to make him look like a foolish meatshield instead, then made him go away. Again, too much "all or nothing". Nobody will ever be important if they're all pushed then completely dropped. Nor will they gain anything by simply going by "the look" before there is any character of substance for fans to attach to... and then just dismissing the people the fans are actually getting behind because they "don't see why". They have 5 hours national TV time a week (not counting The Network), they have gotten more people over more reliably back when they only had 1 hour live and a weekend syndicated pre-taping. Its baffling.

The Ryder stuff really didn't play to his strengths. The dude has shown pretty much no growth or improvement over the past four years, but he was over and should have been presented better. I don't know how much of it was Vince and how much of it was Ryder himself, but trying to have him "act" in storylines with Kane? Dumb. But Ryder just needs to want it more, I guess.

The push abandonment of Cesaro have sincerely ruined my interest in professional wrestling. I'd also include the plateauing of Dean Ambrose. It's a similar situation with two very different talents -- they can't buy a major singles win.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

the thing is, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-carder.... as long as the mid-carders are presented as a big deal. Not just "another" guy. WWE/WWF at their strongest always had an incredibly credible mid-card, with versatile guys who people would pay to see. It was all part of the act. Nowadays, there's amazing mid-card talent, but they aren't given anything that isn't generic. Nothing to stand out. They literally could have anybody placed in their feuds and it wouldn't make a difference.

If you have a strong mid card, then anybody working with anybody looks credible because everybody is over.

[XL]

What exactly does a guy need to do to "grab the brass ring"/"show he wants it badly enough"?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead the thing is, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-carder.... as long as the mid-carders are presented as a big deal. Not just "another" guy. WWE/WWF at their strongest always had an incredibly credible mid-card, with versatile guys who people would pay to see. It was all part of the act. Nowadays, there's amazing mid-card talent, but they aren't given anything that isn't generic. Nothing to stand out. They literally could have anybody placed in their feuds and it wouldn't make a difference. If you have a strong mid card, then anybody working with anybody looks credible because everybody is over.

Agreed. It really bothers me when a guy loses an IC Title match one month and then goes over and challenges for the US Title the next. There was a period recently where the challengers for the IC and US Titles literally just swapped over.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by XL What exactly does a guy need to do to "grab the brass ring"/"show he wants it badly enough"?

This is a great question. With VERY few exceptions, EVERY segment, promo, interview and match is so scripted, planned and controlled, often by the same people working behind the scenes, who (apparently) rehash the same shitty ideas over and over again with no long term plans or direction.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Tnere was a time where being just a CHALLENGER for the IC title meant you were a big deal.

[XL]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ This is a great question. With VERY few exceptions, EVERY segment, promo, interview and match is so scripted, planned and controlled, often by the same people working behind the scenes, who (apparently) rehash the same shitty ideas over and over again with no long term plans or direction.

You hear all the time about how guys should question and challenge more, go directly to Vince, come up with their own creative, etc. but I just can't see how any of that pays off without guys being labelled as "difficult". They talk about nobody having "passion" or "wanting it" but there are clearly guys on the roster that do.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Vastardikai Mankind won most of their early encounters. Including a Boiler Room Brawl that saw Bearer turn on Taker.

No.

He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating.

Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid You do know it's scripted, right?

Yup.

What does it have to do with the discussion?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid The Ryder stuff really didn't play to his strengths. The dude has shown pretty much no growth or improvement over the past four years, but he was over and should have been presented better. I don't know how much of it was Vince and how much of it was Ryder himself, but trying to have him "act" in storylines with Kane? Dumb. But Ryder just needs to want it more, I guess. The push abandonment of Cesaro have sincerely ruined my interest in professional wrestling. I'd also include the plateauing of Dean Ambrose. It's a similar situation with two very different talents -- they can't buy a major singles win.

Do you think Cesaro cuts a main event level promo?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Tnere was a time where being just a CHALLENGER for the IC title meant you were a big deal.

That was 1985 dude

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by XL You hear all the time about how guys should question and challenge more, go directly to Vince, come up with their own creative, etc. but I just can't see how any of that pays off without guys being labelled as "difficult". They talk about nobody having "passion" or "wanting it" but there are clearly guys on the roster that do.

Do you know what Cesaro did to get in trouble most recently?

[Heyman]

Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts'


Cena and Batista weren't the greatest in the ring, Orton was a prima-donna with a shitty attitude, while Lesnar's mic skills were quite sub-par. Although Lesnar was a tremendous wrestler obviously, his ring psychology and the "sports entertainment" side of things, etc. needed some significant work (perhaps like Cesaro does today).


However - despite the shortcomings of the aforementioned four wrestlers, all four guys were pushed extremely hard once the WWE deemed them ready. Why?!!? Because - The Attitude Era for the WWE had ended, and the company desperately needed new stars to replace Austin and Rocky.


Hence - despite Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar being kind of 'green' and having various 'warts' as performers, the WWE bit the proverbial boner and pushed them hard......and all 4 men achieved great success.


-Orton and Batista became solid main-eventers
-Cena became the Franchise of the WWE (10 years and counting)
-Lesnar became a huge star in both the wrestling world and MMA world.


Was it all rosy? Of course not. Lesnar had the world handed to him, and then decided to leave. Orton became a huge pain in the ass backstage and his pushes were cancelled often times. Batista's ego also spiralled out of control for awhile (before Booker T knocked the shit out him backstage). Anyone with pubic hair disliked Cena's character post Spring 2005.


However - I would argue that the positives of pushing Cena, Orton, Batista, and Lesnar CLEARLY outweighed the negatives.


Fast forward to today, and I think the WWE is in a similar spot to where they were in 2002/2003. The John Cena era is in its twilight, and the company needs new stars to take the "reigns" (Roman Reigns!) so to speak.


Are Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, and Cesaro perfect? No. All 4 wrestlers have their warts.......just as Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar had their warts and shortcomings. However - I think it might be a wise strategy for the WWE to simply strap rockets to their chests and push the hell out of them.


Even though Rollins is heel - book him strong. Have him dominate his opponents with amazing speed, skill, etc. If the fans start cheering, good on them. Make Rollins look as amazing as possible. Ditto for Reigns. Have Reigns dominate everyone in site. If the fans don't like it, tough noogies. Hell - you can flip Rollins/Reigns if it gets real bad.


Wyatt and Cesaro - push them strong as well. Cesaro has paid his dues. Fans are ready to ejaculate their penises over Cesaro. Wyatt also needs to be booked strong again before fans start losing interest in his creepy promos (that almost never come to fruition).


Push
-Reigns
-Rollins
-Wyatt
-Cesaro


Strong as fuck, and make them this generation's version of Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by The CyNick No. He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating. Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

Exactly 1 time, you say?

[XL]

To be fair, even after the initial 2 wins, Mankind ended up buried. Literally. But then, so did Taker.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by The CyNick No. He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating. Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

Mankind won the 2 first encounters an take won the rest:

WWF Monday Night Raw Taping Nov 18th 1996	The Undertaker	def. (pin)	Mankind
WWF Survivor Series '96 Nov 17th 1996	The Undertaker	def. (pin)	Mankind
WWF In Your House 11: Buried Alive Oct 20th 1996	The Undertaker	def.	Mankind	"Buried Alive"
WWF MSG Show (Sep '96) Sep 29th 1996	Shawn Michaels & The Undertaker	def. (pin)	Goldust & Mankind
WWF Xperience Aug 24th 1996	The Undertaker	def.	Mankind	casket
WWF SummerSlam '96 Aug 18th 1996	Mankind	def. (pin)	The Undertaker	"Boiler Room Brawl"
WWF Monday Night Raw Taping Jul 22nd 1996	Ahmed Johnson	def. (pin)	Goldust, Justin Bradshaw, Mankind, Marc Mero, Owen Hart, Savio Vega, Steve Austin, Sycho Sid, The British Bulldog, The Undertaker	11-man battle royale
WWF King of the Ring '96 Jun 23rd 1996	Mankind	def. (pin)	The Undertaker

[The CyNick]

My bad. I forgot the KOTR. Still. Same idea. Mankind wins early, Taker came back and dummied. At the end Mick was back in the mid card and Taker was still headlining.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Heyman Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts' Cena and Batista weren't the greatest in the ring, Orton was a prima-donna with a shitty attitude, while Lesnar's mic skills were quite sub-par. Although Lesnar was a tremendous wrestler obviously, his ring psychology and the "sports entertainment" side of things, etc. needed some significant work (perhaps like Cesaro does today). However - despite the shortcomings of the aforementioned four wrestlers, all four guys were pushed extremely hard once the WWE deemed them ready. Why?!!? Because - The Attitude Era for the WWE had ended, and the company desperately needed new stars to replace Austin and Rocky. Hence - despite Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar being kind of 'green' and having various 'warts' as performers, the WWE bit the proverbial boner and pushed them hard......and all 4 men achieved great success. -Orton and Batista became solid main-eventers -Cena became the Franchise of the WWE (10 years and counting) -Lesnar became a huge star in both the wrestling world and MMA world. Was it all rosy? Of course not. Lesnar had the world handed to him, and then decided to leave. Orton became a huge pain in the ass backstage and his pushes were cancelled often times. Batista's ego also spiralled out of control for awhile (before Booker T knocked the shit out him backstage). Anyone with pubic hair disliked Cena's character post Spring 2005. However - I would argue that the positives of pushing Cena, Orton, Batista, and Lesnar CLEARLY outweighed the negatives. Fast forward to today, and I think the WWE is in a similar spot to where they were in 2002/2003. The John Cena era is in its twilight, and the company needs new stars to take the "reigns" (Roman Reigns!) so to speak. Are Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, and Cesaro perfect? No. All 4 wrestlers have their warts.......just as Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar had their warts and shortcomings. However - I think it might be a wise strategy for the WWE to simply strap rockets to their chests and push the hell out of them. Even though Rollins is heel - book him strong. Have him dominate his opponents with amazing speed, skill, etc. If the fans start cheering, good on them. Make Rollins look as amazing as possible. Ditto for Reigns. Have Reigns dominate everyone in site. If the fans don't like it, tough noogies. Hell - you can flip Rollins/Reigns if it gets real bad. Wyatt and Cesaro - push them strong as well. Cesaro has paid his dues. Fans are ready to ejaculate their penises over Cesaro. Wyatt also needs to be booked strong again before fans start losing interest in his creepy promos (that almost never come to fruition). Push -Reigns -Rollins -Wyatt -Cesaro Strong as fuck, and make them this generation's version of Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista.

Its not that easy though.

If you saw RAW you would see that Reigns is not ready to carry the ball. They could protect him with a mouthpiece, but to be a real top guy week in week out you need to be able to speak. Roman struggles. At best he should be a silent heel with a guy like Heyman.

Rollins is being pushed and I think will slowly be booked to win more matches. He beat Sting, he will beat Kane, and we'll see what's next.

Wyatt is a strange one. I enjoy the uniqueness of his promos. I love the whole presentation of his character, but I don't think he connects well with the audience when it comes to promos. He's an example of a guy who works to the hardcore fans. I think fans like holding up their cell phones for his entrance, but then they get quiet. I think he's a guy who can occasionally main event, but never be the man.

Cesaro I'm on the fence about. I've seen him improve a lot in the last year, and i would love to see him get a real one on one program to see what he does with it. He reminds me of Reigns in terms of promos, but I feel he has more natural charisma.

Theres no need to force guys into main event status. They tried to push Reigns quickly and the fans rejected it at least partially. Cena is still there and going strong. But he needs new dance partners. I think Big E has really elevated his game. I wish Xavier Woods was bigger. I think Kevin Owens is the best new guy they have. And in NXT I'm curious where Apollo Crews ends up.

[XL]

Where will Apollo Crews end up? A place called Midcard Hell; population 1,203.

[Innovator]

I think they'll strap the rocket to Crews, he's everything Vince loves

[XL]

Don't get me wrong; he's great but WWE just have such a bad track record.

[The CyNick]

When WWE gets a 5 tool player they usually hit it out of the park.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Do you think Cesaro cuts a main event level promo?

It depends on how you define it. He's not great with scripted WWE-style monologues, but he's improved a lot with them. I think he if he were allowed to keep it short, sweet and to his own personal flavor, he could get quite good.

He actually had a mouthpiece last year. A mouthpiece that was party to the ending of The Undertaker's streak. It was a beautiful legacy to bestow upon the next generation of wrestler. But then they had to have the world-beater go and get beaten by the world.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick When WWE gets a 5 tool player they usually hit it out of the park.

Johnny Curtis is the perfect WWE Superstar. Just sayin'.

[#1-norm-fan]

Also, Ryback was everything Vince loves. They booked him as a monster, put him in the main event picture, and unlike Reigns... the crowd fucking ate it up. Everything went right.

... So naturally they started making him job to everyone including Mark Henry CLEAN at WrestleMania and then turned him heel and fed him to Cena.

Genius.

[#1-norm-fan]

Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over.

... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Brilliant.

[Damian Rey]

Ryback is like the example. He should be a much bigger deal.

Johnny Curtis should be a star by now.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Its not that easy though. If you saw RAW you would see that Reigns is not ready to carry the ball. They could protect him with a mouthpiece, but to be a real top guy week in week out you need to be able to speak. Roman struggles. At best he should be a silent heel with a guy like Heyman.

To be honest, I've only watched RAW about a dozen or so times over the past 5-6 years.


But again - you said it yourself - His flaws can be covered, just as Lesnar's weak promo abilities were covered by Heyman back in the day.


And like I said - why is there this notion that a wrestler has to be "almost perfect" in order to get a rocket strapped to his chest? As I pointed out, guys like Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'shortcomings' in different ways, but the WWE still pushed them once they got to a certain level..........and they pushed them HARD.


If Reigns is/was struggling and was getting booed out of the building, why not roll with it like they did with Cena? (i.e. Cena kept getting pushed despite fans over the age of 12 hating on him). Keep pushing Reigns and you could always turn him heel if reactions continue to be "loud boos."

Rollins is being pushed and I think will slowly be booked to win more matches. He beat Sting, he will beat Kane, and we'll see what's next.

In Rollins' case, have him be the opposite of Reigns (i.e. a heel that eventually gets major love/face reactions from the crowd due to him cleanly and dominantly defeating the opposition with pure skill, speed, and athleticism.

Wyatt is a strange one. I enjoy the uniqueness of his promos. I love the whole presentation of his character, but I don't think he connects well with the audience when it comes to promos. He's an example of a guy who works to the hardcore fans. I think fans like holding up their cell phones for his entrance, but then they get quiet. I think he's a guy who can occasionally main event, but never be the man. Cesaro I'm on the fence about. I've seen him improve a lot in the last year, and i would love to see him get a real one on one program to see what he does with it. He reminds me of Reigns in terms of promos, but I feel he has more natural charisma.

Everything you said is true here, but again - why is there this operating assumption that "a guy has to be almost perfect in order to receive a huge push?" Again - I point to the Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista comparison.

Theres no need to force guys into main event status. They tried to push Reigns quickly and the fans rejected it at least partially. Cena is still there and going strong. But he needs new dance partners. I think Big E has really elevated his game. I wish Xavier Woods was bigger. I think Kevin Owens is the best new guy they have. And in NXT I'm curious where Apollo Crews ends up.

Even though Reigns received negative reactions, the reactions were still huge. Why not roll with it? Why not slowly turn Reigns heel with those types of reactions? (while at the same time, having Reigns booked as a guy that dominates his opposition).