Talking Point of the Week: Underdogs in wrestling

[Poit]

TLP Talking Point of the Week:

Generally, wrestlers are are portrayed as underdogs when going against an authority stable. For instance, Daniel Bryan going against the Authority was the underdog story of the modern era. Even Stone Cold Steve Austin going against the Corporation was an underdog story, because he couldn't take on all of them at once.

Sometimes wrestlers portray themselves as underdogs, such as John Cena trying to put over an upcoming opponent by acting as if he cannot win.

Brock Lesnar being on the losing end of a 4-on-1 beatdown by the Authority on Raw has us wondering - who are the least believable underdogs in wrestling? Can a wrestler take on an authority stable without being an underdog? What are the most important attributes for a believable underdog?

[Jazzy Foot]

For me I perhaps view an underdog as someone perceived as "weak" but overcoming the odds to beat the establishment. So Daniel Bryan or Rey Mysterio fit that bill (not sure if the latter was in any kind of Authority-esque storyline but the fact he was small compared to a typical heavyweight champion made him an underdog).

Stone Cold I never viewed as an underdog as such as he had the physical attributes, charisma, persona to fight the establishment physically and mentally.

Daniel Bryan was always meant to come across as weak and puny and well a little pathetic at the best of times from the way he presents himself to the stupid YES movement thing etc. No characters were "scared" of Daniel Bryan whereas Stone Cold struck fear into Vince etc.

[Ruien]

Never viewed Stone Cold as a underdog either. Just a badass who has the odds stacked against him.

As a constant, Rey played the best underdog over his career. Yes, his reign as champion sucked ass but I am looking at his career as a whole.

[loopydate]

Undertaker in the spring. Every year, they'd try to convince us that "maybe this is the year that the streak will be broken." And every year (but one) he "overcomes the odds" to the point where, until the bell actually rang, nobody believed he would ever actually lose. If that's not the definition of an unbelievable underdog, I don't know what is.

[DaveWadding]

Talking Poit of the Week

[Emperor Smeat]

Least believable - Cena for the past several years.

Austin proved someone doesn't have to always be an underdog to take on an Authority figure or stable considering the havoc he would wreck at times to the Corporation on his own.

Being believable as an underdog is probably one of the most important attributes. Its a big reason why Cena's "against all odds" barely makes any sense most of the time. Same for people who are underdogs in name only but don't get the redemption or sweet rewards like Ziggler post-Survivor Series period.

[Maluco]

Depends on a lot of things, some of them not necessarily logical.

Think Bryan has a nerd vibe about him for example and that every man look that made fans see him as the underdog. He would never be chosen, so they routed for him.

Think Eddie was an underdog too, because of a mixture of size and his life story. They were able to build up the fact that he had so much will and fight that maybe he could do something special.

People down on their luck, with inspirational stories, not particularly attractive or superstar like, can all be painted as underdogs.

A big part of the reason Cena was never bought as one if because of his size and his look.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think there has to be an element of fighting from underneath and achieving a new level with every victory. Daniel Bryan did that, but I think Stone Cold Steve Austin was always accepted as "black belt" level in WWE once he first became WWE Champion.

Sami Zayn is absolutely tremendous at being an underdog. Perhaps one of the best ever. This will obviously become more clear as his career attains more longevity, but his program with Cesaro and chase of the NXT Title are perfect examples of underdog storytelling.

[Big Vic]

Least believable - Cena for the past several years.
:y:

[KIRA]

......Dean Ambrose?

[Wishbone]

Least believable for me has to be Big Show when the Authority was picking on him. Dude is supposed to be a 7 ft tall monster that knocks people out with one punch. Why the ever loving hell didn't he just punch every person that came at him one by one and then snap Steph in half?

As for what makes a good underdog, well, I'd say they A) need to be sympathetic and likable, and B) need to teeter that line between looking weak and looking strong. Colin Delaney for example was awful in that regard because even without the deck stacked against him he didn't look like he could ever win. Guys like Bryan, Ziggler, and even Rey Mysterio actually look like they can kick some ass if it wasn't for the machine doing everything they can to stop them.

[Jazzy Foot]

Least believable for me has to be Big Show when the Authority was picking on him. Dude is supposed to be a 7 ft tall monster that knocks people out with one punch. Why the ever loving hell didn't he just punch every person that came at him one by one and then snap Steph in half?

As for what makes a good underdog, well, I'd say they A) need to be sympathetic and likable, and B) need to teeter that line between looking weak and looking strong. Colin Delaney for example was awful in that regard because even without the deck stacked against him he didn't look like he could ever win. Guys like Bryan, Ziggler, and even Rey Mysterio actually look like they can kick some ass if it wasn't for the machine doing everything they can to stop them.

I disagree with the last statement. Mysterio and Ziggler look like they can kick as do smaller guys like Guerrero and Jericho maybe it's the way they present themselves, their characters etc. Bryan's nerdy, grungey type look (well he's from Washington state right?) just didn't appeal to me.

People seem to hate on Mysterio's reign as champ. I guess part of him being champ was the emotion of the aftermath of Eddie dying but it was believable for e because his high flying stunts and for a small guy he could pack a punch. Bryan I believe is taller than Mysterio and same height as Guerrero but didn't look tough or imposing at all.

He was certainly an underdog but not one I felt I could cheer whereas I did for Eddie and Rey particularly the former as it was nice to finally see himm get the main event push he deserved but was denied back in WCW.

[drave]

http://i.imgur.com/tOzltmU.gif

[Jazzy Foot]

http://i.imgur.com/tOzltmU.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtc7QzFzjPY

[Simple Fan]

Underdogs have to be believable for me to like them. I was not a big fan of Daniel Bryan because he just came off to underdoggish. Everyone knew Bryan was going to win at Mania, and beating HHH, Orton, and Batista just wasn't believable to me. Chris Jericho winning the Undisputed Title was one of the best underdog stories to me because I didn't expect him winning, with all the big names that he was up against.

[Jazzy Foot]

Underdogs have to be believable for me to like them. I was not a big fan of Daniel Bryan because he just came off to underdoggish. Everyone knew Bryan was going to win at Mania, and beating HHH, Orton, and Batista just wasn't believable to me. Chris Jericho winning the Undisputed Title was one of the best underdog stories to me because I didn't expect him winning, with all the big names that he was up against.

The reason I lost interest or never really got into the Daniel Bryan angle was the manner in which he was made to fight the Authority:

- Winning the title against Cena only to be pedigreed by Triple H and Orton cashes in.

- Beats Orton at NoCs only to be stripped the next night.

- Doesn't even take part in the RR for whatever reason and is put in the WM main event and wins the title. Gives up title a month or so later due to legit injury.


The issue I have is that by making him champion, the excitement of watching him overcome the odds was non existent. He had already been champion even for a few seconds and then again at NoC, it wasn't like it was something new or history-making even if it was him being champ at WM 30. He had already become a 3 time WWE Champion, in addition to his WHC reign and in terms of stats had achieved more than many before him.

I guess what I'm saying is that he not even been allowed to win the belt even if for a few seconds, that anticipation of finally getting to see him win the title would have built up and up. Sure he was shit hot most of the time but I honestly feel WWE could have taken advantage of this far more had they not already put the belt on him and had allowed him to overcome the odds "the hard way" i.e. winning the Royal Rumble, beating Batista in a cage or HIAC match etc. As per usual WWE creative dropped the ball.

I do believe Bryan would have been central to the Survivor Series angle and perhaps if there had been an intention to "end" the Authority storyline it was going to be at the hands of Daniel Bryan. His injury unfortunately put a spanner in the works.

I don't think the Authority storyline will ever end as such, it will just come and go and maybe that is the best route to take given they didn't move forward with Bryan or Ziggler (after he got the winning pin) or even Sting.


Bryan was indeed built as the underdog but this could have been so much more exciting and intense but I found it repetitive eventually and not being a huge fan of Bryan or his gimmick perhaps reinforced my negativity for the angle.

[Wishbone]

Bryan never really won the title though. He beat Cena only to lose it minutes later. He won it again only to have it stripped from him. Seeing him win the title at 'Mania was perfect because he was finally rightfully crowned as the champion he should have been all along. It wasn't supposed to be a story of "can he do it" because we already knew he could. It was a story of "can he get back what was rightfully his to begin with".

"Bryan's nerdy, grungey type look (well he's from Washington state right?) just didn't appeal to me" - Appealing and believable are two completely different things. Bryan's background and intensity made it believable that he was a technical mastermind. People also love to exaggerate when it comes to his size. Even during WM30 he was in great shape. The dude was not just some scrawny nerd. The beard and long hair may have given him a "hobo" vibe, but Bryan was far more believable physically than CM Punk and even guys like Jericho and Mysterio in recent years. The only reason Eddie looked more believable was the roids and look where that got him.

[Jazzy Foot]

Bryan never really won the title though. He beat Cena only to lose it minutes later. He won it again only to have it stripped from him. Seeing him win the title at 'Mania was perfect because he was finally rightfully crowned as the champion he should have been all along. It wasn't supposed to be a story of "can he do it" because we already knew he could. It was a story of "can he get back what was rightfully his to begin with".

"Bryan's nerdy, grungey type look (well he's from Washington state right?) just didn't appeal to me" - Appealing and believable are two completely different things. Bryan's background and intensity made it believable that he was a technical mastermind. People also love to exaggerate when it comes to his size. Even during WM30 he was in great shape. The dude was not just some scrawny nerd. The beard and long hair may have given him a "hobo" vibe, but Bryan was far more believable physically than CM Punk and even guys like Jericho and Mysterio in recent years. The only reason Eddie looked more believable was the roids and look where that got him.

We'll have to agree to disagree but with regards to his title wins, the fact is he legit won the match each of those times and then was either cashed in or stripped of it. If it had been a case of I don't know, being seconds fro victory and Triple H hit the pedigree then that would have been different or being DQ'd after apparently winning. It would have left the fans waiting and waiting and waiting.

I do get your point but you can see mine even it sees rather nonsensical.

There is something to be enjoyed about being left on edge and seeing the end result actually happen and if truth be told you could argue that the fans never had the chance to even truly savour the third win given his injury.

I refer you back to a point I made in another thread when Sting beat DDP on Nitro to win the WCW title. That was awesome and I remember marking out when he did, and then a few hours later he lost the belt back to DDP. It was a genuine victory even though a brief one.

If Bryan's career is over then I guess the records will say he was a 3 time WWE champion.

[Wishbone]

Oh I agree completely that the fans didn't get to savor the victory thanks to his injury. It's a real shame too. Bryan's career has been cut way too short. I'm just hoping that maybe we'll see a second career down the line ala HBK. I doubt it'll happen since he pretty much looks done, but a guy can dream.

As for the titles, does the WWE World Heavyweight Championship carry on the history of the plain old WWE Championship? Don't know why but I was kinda under the impression that it was considered a new belt or something.

[Jazzy Foot]

Oh I agree completely that the fans didn't get to savor the victory thanks to his injury. It's a real shame too. Bryan's career has been cut way too short. I'm just hoping that maybe we'll see a second career down the line ala HBK. I doubt it'll happen since he pretty much looks done, but a guy can dream.

As for the titles, does the WWE World Heavyweight Championship carry on the history of the plain old WWE Championship? Don't know why but I was kinda under the impression that it was considered a new belt or something.

I think it just assumes the new lineage tbh.

I actually miss having two titles, two champions, there was a point both were held in high regard, one headlining the ppv over the other but then eventually the WWE title was given priority and kept getting pushed and then the decision was made the combine the two.

It may just be a belt but for me it's the symbol of a wrestler being picked out as better than the rest (just with WWE title and WHC) and there are a fair few on the roster who deserve to be one of the "top guys" but obviously don't have the WWE title:

- Bray Wyatt
- Dean Ambrose (but in the title picture)
- Wade Barrett
- Dolph Ziggler
- Even Roman Reigns but he needs to really go back to school or something to learn the ropes.

[Wishbone]

I think it just assumes the new lineage tbh.

I actually miss having two titles, two champions, there was a point both were held in high regard, one headlining the ppv over the other but then eventually the WWE title was given priority and kept getting pushed and then the decision was made the combine the two.

It may just be a belt but for me it's the symbol of a wrestler being picked out as better than the rest (just with WWE title and WHC) and there are a fair few on the roster who deserve to be one of the "top guys" but obviously don't have the WWE title:

- Bray Wyatt
- Dean Ambrose (but in the title picture)
- Wade Barrett
- Dolph Ziggler
- Even Roman Reigns but he needs to really go back to school or something to learn the ropes.

I'm a little torn on the title situation. I thought I'd absolutely love having one title again in WWE, but now that it's happened it's been a bit less "epic" than I thought it would. I don't know what I was expecting but honestly the title is still about the same in prestige as it was before. Nothing has really improved and all that seems to have happened is that now we likely won't see a lot of guys that you mentioned ever hold a world championship. I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is if they were just gonna continue booking shit in the exact same way then maybe we should've just kept the two belts. At least then some of the guys who deserve more than the midcard could actually get it even if it was considered a "second tier" title.

[Jazzy Foot]

I'm a little torn on the title situation. I thought I'd absolutely love having one title again in WWE, but now that it's happened it's been a bit less "epic" than I thought it would. I don't know what I was expecting but honestly the title is still about the same in prestige as it was before. Nothing has really improved and all that seems to have happened is that now we likely won't see a lot of guys that you mentioned ever hold a world championship. I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is if they were just gonna continue booking shit in the exact same way then maybe we should've just kept the two belts. At least then some of the guys who deserve more than the midcard could actually get it even if it was considered a "second tier" title.

If they were ever going to merge titles it really should have been the US and IC title as it pains me to say this as a WCW fan from back in the day, the US title doesn't mean a thing any more whether Cena is holding it or Owens wins it etc.

If anything having more titles on the roster would have increased interest and added greater meaning/weight to matches. Ideally I'd like the following either back or created:

- WWE Title.
- WHC
- IC Title
- Cruiserweight title for the smaller guys or just keep the US Title
- Tag team titles.
- Hardcore Title (difficult in a PG Era).
- Replace the Divas with the Women's Title which sounds more prestigious and less wishy washy.
- Women's Tag Team Titles

Possibly revive the TV title. Could have done that if WWE had gone with Sting as a GM and he created that for that purpose.

The fact Bray Wyatt has gone on this long without a belt and it took so long for Ryback to be given a belt just shows how little regard WWE have for some of their stars and if TNA were even a fraction of what WCW was in it's prime in terms of quality and the financial incentives, they'd have already jumped ship.

Whilst Bray Wyatt isn't old, his popularity is still pretty high and I fear if WWE wait too long it could just be that fans may well move onto the next guy etc. I feel this has happened to Barrett.

At one point I sensed (perhaps wrongly) that Kofi Kingston and Big E Langston were extremely popular and had main event potential but that has well and truly been extinguished. Wade Barrett even as "King" is not going anywhere and I don't see Sheamus recapturing the belt even when cashing in.


Ambrose I hope gets the belt sooner rather than later and whilst not his biggest fan, Reigns has some potential but really needs some help behind the scenes otherwise he will be remembered as one of the biggest flops in wrestling. Having him spear and squash people like Goldberg did won't work and in the long term it didn't work for Goldberg because no storyline other than having him squash people could work for him.

[Wishbone]

If WWE could be trusted with booking well designed feuds I'd love to see what you described. Ideally I'd like to see the brand split back and have it actually mean something. I always liked the idea of the two warring brands. Perhaps have it boil down to something like this:

RAW
WWE Championship
Intercontinental Championship
Tag-Team Championships

Smackdown
World Heavyweight Championship
Cruiserweight Championship
Women's Championship

Then they could have each show focus on something different. Smackdown could be a show more geared toward "smarks" with lots of high flying and technical stuff from the cruiserweight division, and it could actually focus on women's wrestling and allow women like Natalya, Charolette, Paige, etc to actually show off their skills. They could also bring in women like Awesome Kong and such who don't have looks but can go in the ring.

RAW could then be the more "sports entertainment" of the two shows. It could focus more on star power and whatnot, and they could keep women like the Bellas and such there to do their Total Divas stuff and just be eye candy. Having the tag-team division there would also give more incentive to the people who enjoyed Smackdown to watch since it'd be something they didn't usually see over on the blue brand.

If WWE did this I honestly think they'd have a better product. Two separate creative teams working on vastly different products would be a breath of fresh air, and it would justify WWE having like 20 hours of programming a week since it wouldn't all be the same shit over and over again. And with the cruiserweight and women's divisions being focused on more you'd have more for a lot of the people in NXT to do. I mean as much as I love everyone down there for the most part there's a good chance a bunch of them won't ever make it in the mainstream WWE. But if Smackdown were handled more like how I described it would give those people a place to go and possibly become stars.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I'd say Spike Dudley winning the Cruiserweight Championship, second to perhaps only Hornswoggle (UGH), seemed to me, at least to be a pretty amazing underdog story for him, and the heel turn (outta nowhere), where he earned the nickname "The Boss" (long before whoever this NXT Diva is going by a nearly identical nickname ever set foot in a WWE ring) and would order Bubba and D-Von around was fucking brilliant.

[SNLfunnyguy]

123 Kid, when you consider the climate of wrestling when he beat Razor. Hands down.

[Poit]

Thanks for all your replies! We recorded yesterday, and here's the episode for your listening pleasure:

<iframe width="100%" height="100" id="audio_iframe" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/vrfd8-56f5b7?skin=9" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>