What do you think of Batista's comments?

[Providence Peep]

According to Ryan Clark:

Former World Heavyweight Champion Batista spoke with The Daily Star in the UK to promote The Scorpion King 3 and talk about his MMA career. Here are some highlights:

The current WWE product:
“It’s brutal. I can’t watch it. I can’t connect with it. I no longer know this business. I don’t do PG wrestling.”

The Miz and today’s Superstars:
“Love me or hate me, when I was there everyone took one look at me and knew I could beat someone up. I don’t think they look at Miz that way.”

“It’s sad. It’s not their fault. These days the guys have their hands tied, they are so limited in what they can do. The difference is that guys like Rock, Austin, Triple H, excuse me, but they had to have the living sh*t beat out of them to get where they are. They went through war and the audience knows it and the audience appreciates it. The guys today will never get to that level. It’s sad, but that’s the reason for it.”

Just wondering what you guys think of what Batista said. Do you agree with him, or do you think he's just being a bitch? Because I think his remark about how he looks and how tough he is shows just how much of a mark he is for himself.

[Kalyx triaD]

The last point I completely agree with. I hate seeing artificially skyrocketed superstars and lack of physical independence. They talked about Johnny Nitro's parkour style and he never got to use it the way Jeff Hardy did ten years ago. I happen to like the Miz. Not crazy about this twitter integration. But still, it's the first time I've watched the show on a semi-weekly basis so I guess I can deal.

[MoFo]

:lol: @ "his MMA career"

He hasnt even had a fight yet ffs

[Jordan]

I'm not a PG hater but I think I may have an understanding of the "bigger picture", better than Dave. He was skyrocketted just like Miz and didn't have many good matches, and when he did they relied on unprotected head shots and lots of color. So whatever, Dave is our generations tame and professional Warrior.

He's become irrelevant overnight.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Was he wearing a pink polo with a popped collar when he made these comments? This will have a tremendous bearing on my opinion on these comments.

[Xero]

Batista has said he got into the business "to do what Austin did", and they essentially changed things up and made it PG. Not that it's surprising, but he makes it come off like "this is the the flavor of the month, I need to get into this! It'll never change!" He's a bandwagon jumper.

PG isn't the problem, it's the writing and WWE going after shitheads like Batista who have a good body and little else.

[Providence Peep]

PG isn't the problem, it's the writing and WWE going after shitheads like Batista who have a good body and little else.

http://www.wrestlingnewsarena.com/wp-content/lg-gallery/Funny%20Wrestling%20Pictures/batista.jpg

[Providence Peep]

Was he wearing a pink polo with a popped collar when he made these comments? This will have a tremendous bearing on my opinion on these comments.

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1003/douchebag-professional-douchebag-batista-demotivational-poster-1268703607.jpg

[weather vane]

I hate that it is PG because I think the product would be that much better if it wasn't. With that being said, the product is probably the best it has been in a short while. I feel like there is a lot of potential for the future if the WWE just let loose a bit.

[Ermaximus]

TL;DR

[Rammsteinmad]

When I was there everyone took one look at me and knew I could beat someone up.

*cough* Booker T *cough*

[Splaya]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1003/douchebag-professional-douchebag-batista-demotivational-poster-1268703607.jpg


Any coincidence it says Diva of the Year on the TV behind him :shifty:

[Kane Knight]

We're in the era of mediocrity, but it's hardly because you can't look at these guys and think "They could beat someone up."

[Rammsteinmad]

What CM Punk has done this year has been a lot better, fresh and entertaining than anything big Dave has ever done. Including his 2005 stuff when he legit was 'hot'.

[Ermaximus]

http://www.wrestlingvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/batlashystand8-11.jpg

Tag Name=The Konami Bathturds?

[Hanso Amore]

Well there is something to be said. Austins original iconic moment was being covered in blood, screaming, unwilling to tap to the Sharpshooter. That match made him a star.

That alone was not it, but hey, Ill play advocate. But the booking is the main difference.

But a PG product has not been a major boom since the 80s, and the most recent boom was during an adult swing.

[Nicky Fives]

He does have a point with Miz.... the guy is entertaining as hell and great in the ring, but it doesn't look like he'd kick someone's ass in a bar fight.....

[Kane Knight]

What CM Punk has done this year has been a lot better, fresh and entertaining than anything big Dave has ever done. Including his 2005 stuff when he legit was 'hot'.

Good thing Bats was solely talking himself up and not comparing the new guys to legends from the Attitude Era.

OH WAIT.

I know people probably are going to pretend that Punk is as big as the Rock, austin, and Trips in their prime and all, but Bats' only comparison was between his look and the Miz's.

And it's true. Batista looked like a monster who was gonna wreck shit. Miz looks like a douche. This isn't going into mic skills, wrestling ability, etc., and while I'm not a fan of the Miz, I don't think that really matters in terms of this critique.

On a side note, how the fuck did I end up defending Batista?

[Emperor Smeat]

The WWE being PG isn't the sole reason for any problems or struggles with the company or else TNA would have somewhat better numbers due to their more "edgier" content in terms of blood, riskier moves, and swearing.

I think it was revealed either by Vince or somewhere else that being PG helps the WWE keep and gain a lot of advertisers who didn't want to associate with the riskier RAW/Samckdown shows even though the Attitude era helped a lot more in terms of ratings and viewer interest.

[Kane Knight]

WWE being PG isn't a problem, period. Shitty writing is shitty writing. The following started to die off during a much more risque brand of wrestling.

[Xero]

Yeah, PG is huge for advertisers. It opens them up to bigger and more main stream ones. Something like their deal with Mattel shows that. That's an enormous deal for them because they now have a powerhouse behind their figure line, versus Jakks, who was basically wrestling figures and.... ????

PG wrestling can be entertaining and it can still be violent. Hell, I'm willing to bet they could get away with some blading without ruffling too many feathers. But the fact is that the direction of the company and writing is to blame for the shit side of their product and not the rating.

You don't need a TV-14 rating to have a monster like Batista to come out, beat the shit out of someone and have them carted off on a stretcher. You need it for every other word being a swear, buckets of blood and raunchy material. And frankly, all of those are a crutch to lean on for writers and bookers and not some magical formula that automatically makes something good.

[Pintint]

The problem with the product (if there is a problem, which I dont really think ATM) is stagnation. WWE tends to stagnate their product, and not allowing any new ideas/storylines to emerge.

But recently (dating to when Nexus angle started), I think WWE has been doing a great job. Sure. Nexus fizzled out, but WWE has been trying new things, pushing guys like Miz and Punk and letting Cena step aside for a bit. Cena is great, but WWE stagnated on him for too long.

[Xero]

WWE is absolutely doing better. They've built and are building more stars in the past two years than they have since Cena got the top spot. Very few 2005-2009 got a push that kept going. But once 2010 hit, guys started to get pushes and keep getting pushed.

Punk, Cody, Ziggler, Del Rio, Mark Henry and Sheamus are either already seen as top stars or are being built to be top stars down the line between 2010 and 2011. I don't think you had that many between 2005-2009, to be honest. Even just looking at the established top stars in Punk, Del Rio, Henry and Sheamus. I honestly can't think of one between 2005 and 2009 who didn't have the rug completely pulled out from under them within three months.

[Providence Peep]

We're in the era of mediocrity, but it's hardly because you can't look at these guys and think "They could beat someone up."

http://s11.allstarpics.net/images/orig/8/i/8isrnkbev00ai8r0.jpg

:shifty:

[Kane Knight]

http://s11.allstarpics.net/images/orig/8/i/8isrnkbev00ai8r0.jpg

:shifty:

Yeah, but Santino gets a pass because he's <s>rehashing 2 decade old Jay Leno routine</s> innovative and hilarious. Plus, he was always supposed to be a <s>fan insert</s> bit of a loser.

[Rammsteinmad]

Good thing Bats was solely talking himself up and not comparing the new guys to legends from the Attitude Era.

OH WAIT.

I know people probably are going to pretend that Punk is as big as the Rock, austin, and Trips in their prime and all, but Bats' only comparison was between his look and the Miz's.

And it's true. Batista looked like a monster who was gonna wreck shit. Miz looks like a douche. This isn't going into mic skills, wrestling ability, etc., and while I'm not a fan of the Miz, I don't think that really matters in terms of this critique.

On a side note, how the fuck did I end up defending Batista?

It doesn't really matter what Batista was yapping on about, my comment still stands. Stop overanalyzing everything.

[Juan]

It's Kane Knight. Overanalyzing and criticizing things on the internet is half of his daily routine.

[Juan]

*waits for witty KK insult*

[Droford]

I think the WWE has more things going right for it right now than it did when he was around. And I think he's just jealous and/or pissed off that things didn't fall to shit when he left, they were able to find people to replace him and render him pretty much irrelevant because no one really gives two shits about him and his "MMA Career"..in other words he needed them more than they needed him. Probably quite the blast to his ego..

[Gertner]

He does have a point with Miz.... the guy is entertaining as hell and great in the ring, but it doesn't look like he'd kick someone's ass in a bar fight.....

Daniel Bryan is a legit looking bad ass.

[XCaliber]

He's right to a degree about those before him busting their ass to get over but comparing himself to The Miz is like comparing apples to oranges there have been several main eventers that didn't look particularly tough.

[Tom Guycott]

He does have a point with Miz.... the guy is entertaining as hell and great in the ring, but it doesn't look like he'd kick someone's ass in a bar fight.....

Neither did Joey Styles, but... well...

Daniel Bryan is a legit looking bad ass.

It's the beard. Yeah, I know how great the guy actually is in the ring (and I'm not looking to turn this into a discussion about him being misused/buried/never-ammount-to-shit-in-WWE) but clean shaven, smiling DB doesn't instill the instant "don"t fuck with me" factor as the one who went to the Mike Knox School of Badassery.

[Blakeamus]

There was shitty writing before they switched to "PG".

[KIRA]

I have this weird feeling that if someone tried Santino for real we'd have to notify their family afterward.

[The Naitch]

Majority of wrestlers who are retired are always bitter about something

[D Mac]

Guess Bats won't be in the Rumble then.

[Juan]

Did you think he was?

[owenbrown]

when the first 4 words in this thread are "According to Ryan Clark" this is automatically terrible.

[Kane Knight]

It doesn't really matter what Batista was yapping on about, my comment still stands. Stop overanalyzing everything.

Yeah, how dare I actually talk about what was said, rather than playing "sour grapes" along with you?

[#1-norm-fan]

http://s11.allstarpics.net/images/orig/8/i/8isrnkbev00ai8r0.jpg

:shifty:

Santino doesn't look like he could beat someone's ass.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wZMrOV22rRc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And now he does.

See what a difference a change in character can make? Look is overrated.

[Wake Up Call]

I think he has a good point. You look at past champions (John Cena, Batista, Big Show, Undertaker, HHH, Austin, ect.) and they looked like they could have kicked the shit out of anyone. I've said this before, CM Punk has a mouth that can yap and yap, but when you look at the guy compared to the guys he is talking down too, this includes Vince, you think to yourself, why doesn't he just get up and slap the shit out of Punk?

However, the same can't be said about Miz, because he resorted to "cheating" so buying him as a legit contender wasn't far fetched. However with Punk, it is.

Same with Daniel Brian, the guy looks like a bum on the side of the street compared to Henry.

[Aguakate]

I think he's got a point, it's just that coming from BATISTA, who is on the same boat alongside Miz and the rest of the new guys (in that he had it "easy", didn't have to fight and claw his way to the top, etc), then you kinda go like "There's the pot calling the kettle black".

[#1-norm-fan]

I think he has a good point. You look at past champions (John Cena, Batista, Big Show, Undertaker, HHH, Austin, ect.) and they looked like they could have kicked the shit out of anyone. I've said this before, CM Punk has a mouth that can yap and yap, but when you look at the guy compared to the guys he is talking down too, this includes Vince, you think to yourself, why doesn't he just get up and slap the shit out of Punk?

However, the same can't be said about Miz, because he resorted to "cheating" so buying him as a legit contender wasn't far fetched. However with Punk, it is.

Same with Daniel Brian, the guy looks like a bum on the side of the street compared to Henry.

There are ways to get by other than a simple look though. Check the Santino video I posted for example. Daniel Bryan's got his submission expert and wrestling skills to lean on.

Look at Chris Jericho and Bill Goldberg side by side. Goldberg would beat the fuck out of him, right? ...

[Xero]

Look is important but perception is more important.

You can even apply this to a shoot. Look at Frank Mir. If you saw him on the street and didn't know who he is, you're not going to automatically assume he could kick your ass. But if you've seen any of his fights you'd know he'd kick your ass in a heartbeat.

I just chose Frank Mir because he's the first one that popped into my head, but this works with a lot of MMA guys. Not all of them are Brock Lesnars and yet they could snap someone like Batista in half.

[#1-norm-fan]

And why can't the same rules be applied to wrestling? It's not legitimate competition so all that can be done is for someone to play the character of someone who can snap someone in half.

[D Mac]

Did you think he was?

He could have been one of the "guests".

[Xero]

And why can't the same rules be applied to wrestling? It's not legitimate competition so all that can be done is for someone to play the character of someone who can snap someone in half.

It can be, has been and has relied on it at times. It's just that, currently, the product in WWE relies much more on look and not perception.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'd say it relies on neither at the moment actually. More specifically on Raw where the character development is shit.

[Wake Up Call]

No writing can make a boring entertainer entertaining. D.B. could be given the biggest push of his life, well he sort of is now isn't he, and he will still be boring. I don't think they have the talent to be entertaining. Which touches on something else Batista said, none of these guys will ever be as big as Rock, HHH, Austin, ect.. because they don't have the charisma

[Xero]

Daniel Bryan will never be a viable top star who could carry WWE in the same vein that someone like Austin, Hogan or Cena has. He will never be as big as someone like Shawn Michaels. But that doesn't mean he isn't an asset and could be used to his strengths instead of shoehorning him into something he isn't. And Bryan isn't lacking charisma, especially in-ring charisma. He's just held back.

Would you say that Rob Van Dam doesn't have charisma? That fucker was ridiculously charismatic in ECW. But when he came to WWE, his nuts were completely cut off promo-wise. He was over huge, though, because of what he did in the ring and his "cool factor". Bryan doesn't have the time to pull off even something like Van Dam did (and granted, his style does demand a bit more time), and rarely gets to shine in the ring. But when he shines, it shows.

WWE, to an extent, does manufacture guys to fail, whether it's their intention or not. When anyone is given a gimmick where the head commentator shits on him, completely overshadows his matches and is a complete dork, of course that's a set up for failure.

Where's the harm of giving Bryan a "gimmick" where he puts on a good 5-10 minute match every week, elevating others while still elevating himself? The harm is that it doesn't fit into WWE's plan, despite the fact that even something as simple as that would help the product overall and would only take up one segment a week.

[Pintint]

Daniel Bryan will never be a viable top star who could carry WWE in the same vein that someone like Austin, Hogan or Cena has. He will never be as big as someone like Shawn Michaels. But that doesn't mean he isn't an asset and could be used to his strengths instead of shoehorning him into something he isn't. And Bryan isn't lacking charisma, especially in-ring charisma. He's just held back.

Would you say that Rob Van Dam doesn't have charisma? That fucker was ridiculously charismatic in ECW. But when he came to WWE, his nuts were completely cut off promo-wise. He was over huge, though, because of what he did in the ring and his "cool factor". Bryan doesn't have the time to pull off even something like Van Dam did (and granted, his style does demand a bit more time), and rarely gets to shine in the ring. But when he shines, it shows.

WWE, to an extent, does manufacture guys to fail, whether it's their intention or not. When anyone is given a gimmick where the head commentator shits on him, completely overshadows his matches and is a complete dork, of course that's a set up for failure.

Where's the harm of giving Bryan a "gimmick" where he puts on a good 5-10 minute match every week, elevating others while still elevating himself? The harm is that it doesn't fit into WWE's plan, despite the fact that even something as simple as that would help the product overall and would only take up one segment a week.

I think we need to give it time. WWE is certainly having plans for Daniel Bryan, hence him winning the MITB. Cole calling him a dork actually serves to better him imo, since Cole is a heel that isnt suppose to be taken seriously. When Miz debuted, JBL crapped on him ALL THE TIME and Miz still turned into a huge star.

Give it time. I'm pretty confident Bryan will main event eventually.

[Next Big Thing]

It can be, has been and has relied on it at times. It's just that, currently, the product in WWE relies much more on look and not perception.

Agree there. One thing the WWE did to make the "little" guys get over perceptually that they don't do as much today was highlight on commentary, vignettes and interviews attributes that gave them an advantage over bigger opponents. Bret was the best technical wrestler in the business (Excellence in Execution) and they made sure you knew it on the broadcast. Shawn was the charismatic athlete with heart (The Showstopper) and they made sure that was on display. J.R. always reminded people about the "educated feet" of RVD. Eddie had the whole "lie,cheat, steal" thing going for him. Even early on in CM Punk's WWE tenure there was always some mention of his "muay thai."

Most of the younger guys aren't really given those niche attributes that they can use to compensate for a lack of physical presence.

[#1-norm-fan]

No writing can make a boring entertainer entertaining

Hmm. I don't think that's true.

For example, there was a span before WrestleMania XX where I found Benoit entertaining based simply on his journey to the world title. And I always found Benoit boring as fuck. I give his entertainment abilities no credit whatsoever.

[Aguakate]

No writing can make a boring entertainer entertaining.


Bret Hart is not an entertaining or interesting person in real life, yet he was actually entertaining there for a while.

[Juan]

I would hardy call shoot interviews "real life"

[Aguakate]

I would hardy call shoot interviews "real life"

I'm not talking about this interview, just him in general. He's not an entertaining guy. He seems pretty boring.

I guess I got this view on him after watching "Wrestling with Shadows".

[Juan]

Well whenever I sit down and have coffee with him, I'll let you know for sure.

[Aguakate]

Well whenever I sit down and have coffee with him, I'll let you know for sure.

Ok, Juan.

:nono:

[#1-norm-fan]

To be fair, Bret Hart is a pretty boring entertainer.

[#1-norm-fan]

Yet his character was entertaining back in '97. Another good example.

[Aguakate]

Yet his character was entertaining back in '97. Another good example.

Yep. Good writing can take a boring performer and make him a World Champion. A Hall of Famer.

Granted, he had the actual wrestling ability.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well, in his case his wrestling ability made him a World Champion and a Hall of Famer.

I don't know that writing can make a boring character into a hall of famer alone. My only point was a boring entertainer can be made entertaining by writing. Obviously there's a limit to how far they can go leaning just on how well their character is written.

[Xero]

On the flip side, shitty booking can make a great entertainer bad. Nick Dinsmore could have been more than "that wrestling retard", for example. Not saying he'd be a main eventer or anything, but he could have been something more and had better longevity.

Though, to be fair, there are some that can overcome it. Like Dusty in his WWF run.

[#1-norm-fan]

If we're talking about overall booking, I think The Rock was actually booked pretty terribly throughout most of his career. He talked shit and repeatedly lost as a face. Couldn't back it up. To the point where it was bizarre to think of how many titles he was winning while jobbing to anyone and everyone. They really overkilled the whole "Let's have the big time face lose for shock value" on him.

But... he's The Rock. So in the end, he was over anyway.

[Tommy Gunn]

Just for a quick debate, what is PG missing than the attitude days had?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking stiffer more 'realistic' matches, blading, blatantly objectifying the divas as sex objects, what am I missing?

Guys that can get over with the PG restrictions such as CM Punk pretty much stop me from caring too much about what rating the show has.

[Xero]

Just for a quick debate, what is PG missing than the attitude days had?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking stiffer more 'realistic' matches, blading, blatantly objectifying the divas as sex objects, what am I missing?

Guys that can get over with the PG restrictions such as CM Punk pretty much stop me from caring too much about what rating the show has.

That's pretty much it, along with more frequent swearing. And really, I don't think that stiffer matches fall under PG, it's more WWE wanting to protect their wrestlers.

[Kane Knight]

Just for a quick debate, what is PG missing than the attitude days had?

Fans.

[Kane Knight]

Honestly, I don't miss the blading, the tardcore crap, the stiffer wrestling, etc.

I just can't get behind any of the guys they're pushing to the top. This is an era of mediocrity, far as I'm concerned. That's not a problem with them being PG, though.

[XL]

You don't like any of Rhodes, Ziggler, Barrett, Ryder, etc?

I think the upper midcard is stacked right now and probably the best it's been in years. It's kinda exciting to see which guys are breaking through.

[Ice Cream Bar]

WWE has had this issue long before the PG Era. What about that whole era between the Attitude days and the PG days? When did PG even start like 2009? I remember people complaining just as much in 2005 when Batista was on top. His long reign side by side with Cena's was shit on constantly.

He's right about Miz. I think he's great but the way he is packaged is hurting him. He isn't very intimidating and he is corny as fuck sometimes. But they have some up and coming guys who have "the look". Ziggler, Del Rio, Sheamus and Barrett for example. They all look like heavyweights and intimidating. Then you have guys like Punk and Bryan who are intimidating in a Angle or Benoit way - small but excellent fighters. Guys like Miz, Ryder and Rhodes are in the same boat as Jericho but like him will get over for their mic work.

The future stars for the WWE right now is the best it has been since the early 2000s. If they loosen up a bit and write better shit (they proved they can with the Punk/Cena rivalry and the HHH conspiracy storyline a few months ago) then the quality of the product and fanbase should increase. And if it doesn't then you can't really blame WWE.

[#1-norm-fan]

You don't like any of Rhodes, Ziggler, Barrett, Ryder, etc?

I think the upper midcard is stacked right now and probably the best it's been in years. It's kinda exciting to see which guys are breaking through.

No one has really shown they can carry the company. Cena was forced into the role way too quickly and got met with resentment. The concept of long term character development is dead.

Most of the upper midcard will end up as main eventers by default because WWE is now having to scramble to build stars after years of dicking around and half-assing developing new stars. The upper midcard is fine right now. But it's just that. The upper midcard. None of them are main event ready.

[Ice Cream Bar]

Ziggler can. Niggas gonna have PPV's named after him. WWE Presents: Zig Zag - October 2014.

[Tazz Dan]

Cena wasn't pushed into stardom. He was given the ball and ran with it. It didn't happen over night, and he was bumped from his first WM. When he beat Big Show for the US title it was after a good build, and he was built over the next 12 months till he won the big strap. In between he got over big time on his own. I think people forget this a lot.

It wasn't until a couple of years later when he started winning all the time people started to resent him.

[Tazz Dan]

That was meant to be a quote to #1WWEFAN btw

[Ice Cream Bar]

nvm misread

also its weird how Cena was wrestling for the WWE Title against Lesnar as far back as Backlash 2003.

[Kane Knight]

You don't like any of Rhodes, Ziggler, Barrett, Ryder, etc?

I think the upper midcard is stacked right now and probably the best it's been in years. It's kinda exciting to see which guys are breaking through.

Meh, Meh, not bad, please die in a fire respectively.

The upper midcard is "stacked" with guys who would be doing dark matches a decade ago, and it's hard to care. We're not even talking the peak of the Attitude Era anymore.

I do like Barrett, I admit. Getting behind him at the top is another story.

Well, getting behind him at the top as a major mover. I have trouble believing Stevie Richards couldn't be a main eventer in the current environment. Just feels like the bar has been lowered. A lot.

[Kane Knight]

Cena wasn't pushed into stardom. He was given the ball and ran with it. It didn't happen over night, and he was bumped from his first WM. When he beat Big Show for the US title it was after a good build, and he was built over the next 12 months till he won the big strap. In between he got over big time on his own. I think people forget this a lot.

It wasn't until a couple of years later when he started winning all the time people started to resent him.

:y:

[#1-norm-fan]

Cena wasn't pushed into stardom. He was given the ball and ran with it. It didn't happen over night, and he was bumped from his first WM. When he beat Big Show for the US title it was after a good build, and he was built over the next 12 months till he won the big strap. In between he got over big time on his own. I think people forget this a lot.

It wasn't until a couple of years later when he started winning all the time people started to resent him.

I didn't say he was pushed into stardom too quickly. I said he was pushed into the role of carrying the company too quickly.

[#1-norm-fan]

I feel like WWE is trying to find someone RIGHT NOW to main event in a month or so and that shouldn't be the case. Someone like Cena now should be there so someone like Sheamus for example doesn't need to jump up there and be THE company. There's definitely something wrong with things when people are calling for Wade fucking Barrett to be world champion right now. The guy's not bad. But he's been in the company for A YEAR AND A HALF. And it's not like he's taken wrestling by storm.

[Kane Knight]

I feel like WWE is trying to find someone RIGHT NOW to main event in a month or so and that shouldn't be the case. Someone like Cena now should be there so someone like Sheamus for example doesn't need to jump up there and be THE company. There's definitely something wrong with things when people are calling for Wade fucking Barrett to be world champion right now. The guy's not bad. But he's been in the company for A YEAR AND A HALF. And it's not like he's taken wrestling by storm.

Yeah, I like Barrett, but that he's at the top of the pile (or near enough to count) is really underwhelming.

[XCaliber]

I feel like WWE is trying to find someone RIGHT NOW to main event in a month or so and that shouldn't be the case. Someone like Cena now should be there so someone like Sheamus for example doesn't need to jump up there and be THE company. There's definitely something wrong with things when people are calling for Wade fucking Barrett to be world champion right now. The guy's not bad. But he's been in the company for A YEAR AND A HALF. And it's not like he's taken wrestling by storm.

Well Sheamus was the WWE Champ only 3 months after he showed up on RAW so there's no reason they could put it out someone else prematurely like Barrett seeing as he was on nXt for a while and was part of a huge angle.

[whiteyford]

Putting the belt on Barrett isnt the problem for me its how they'd book him with the title,if they treat him like a main eventer and make him look on par with Orton/Cena etc. i could buy into him as a world champion. Ideally though you'd want to build someone up over the course of a couple of years rather than months or weeks in some cases.

[Kane Knight]

Well Sheamus was the WWE Champ only 3 months after he showed up on RAW so there's no reason they could put it out someone else prematurely like Barrett seeing as he was on nXt for a while and was part of a huge angle.

Honestly, I felt Sheamus was more believable and it was mostly the "too soon" factor that was a problem.

I could see him as a serious franchise to build shows around but not then and still not now.

Barrett's more of a problem.