Wrestling is different now to how it was in the early 90s.

Don't get me wrong, RyBack's squash matches are a decent way to spend 3 minutes of a show. Enter, squash, leave. But I'll never watch the show to see that. Especally when they repeat it (i.e. seeing him hit his finisher on two guys was great the first time, can do without seeing it again on 2 different guys the following week) and establish every new guy the same way (RyBack, Tensai, Brodus, Cesaro, Sandow).

What gets me to tune in is story and character development. As Noid says, Ryback doesn't have a character. He's a big guy that beats up little guys 2 at a time. Impressive? Yeah. Interesting? Nah.

Sandow is in a great spot because he has a clearly defined character but I would like to see him in a fued with Ryder pretty much straight away.

There's no reason why they can't take a new character and put him straight into an interesting fued with an established character.

It builds the "domination" aspect of his character. Did you complain about Goldberg not having a character when he first started? And those guys you listed are all being established differently. Unless your definition of being established is as simple as "winning matches".

Didn't see Goldberg's rise so it's not an applicable question.

And yes, I guess my definition of being established is "winning matches". Do we need Sandow, Tensai, Brodus, Sin Cara, Cesaro, RyBack to be winning every match they are in?

Is the only way to establish someone as an interesting character to have them win all the time? They can't build character in a losing effort?

I wouldn't mind all these "winning streaks" if they weren't all happening at the same time and if I wasn't convinced that they will lead nowhere/be ended pointlessly.

Again, I get why they're doing it (winning matches = a guy you should pay attention to) it just doesn't interest me personally.

It depends on the character. I actually posted an idea involving Sandow losing to 'zeke last night in the Smackdown thread. I'm a huge Sandow fan but done right, it could have been great for his character.

If you're building guys as a serious contender/threat, then yes having them win constantly is important. Ryback should not lose a match for a long, long, long, LONG time. His first loss should be monumental.

I'm sick of this whole thing WWE has done for years where everyone loses like half the matches they're in. It's ridiculous. Punk loses a ton, Cena loses a ton... at a certain point, who cares about wins or losses? The title's gonna go on whoever regardless of how much they win or lose. It may be my biggest problem with wrestling today.

That's why I'm glad when they actually have someone like Ryback who they're putting in the slow build of making him look like a beast. It's a small step but dammit, some people need to look more dominant than others. The parity in wrestling needs to end.

The guy who plays Damien Sandow, did he use that name in the Indys? Or is it a new name?

ya u can look him up under the "Idol" Aaron Stevens

John Cena! Tonight, you're going to go one on one with the UNDEFEATED RYBACK!

Cena : Oh no!

*Attitude adjustment*

1 2 3.

Cena : :D

XL-

first-

Yeah, but the thing is... Tatsu isn't even standing out, even with this as his only unique point. More than anything, they have him job to everybody. I don't think they need to go too crazy with Jap wrestlers either, but more than one wouldn't really be a bad thing. If anything, at least they can do what WCW did and have an international show against Japanese promotions, and doing this, it could help people get the "idea" of not only Tensai's status, but Johnny Ace's reputation over there as well.

And not all of the masked mexicans were small, they have some hulks there too that deserve some recognition, but the one that would really be hurt by this is Del Rio, so it may not be a good idea for now.

second-

I do agree with on having every new guy win every match, especially against superstars like Zeke who were monsters during their first appearances, now made to look like jobbers. It doesn't interest me either, in fact, it takes away any kind of storyline realism or WWE's creativity in general.

I miss the days of Taka Michinoku. He was always one of favorite lightweights.

:rofl:

RYBACKKK

That's more likely to happen with Tensai.

You're comparing Ryback to Goldberg, but there are a few things I would like to say about that:

1. Goldberg is arguably more charismatic than Ryback. I have enjoyed some of Ryan Reeves' mic work as an NXT rookie, and as a member of the Nexus he had presence; but Goldberg had something that didn't just come from working out a lot. It's something that cannot be taught, and I truly believe that someone like Goldberg is quite a rarity, and should be appreciated far more as a talent than he is.

2. Goldberg was pretty shit critically, to the point where the only thing that made him interesting was the streak. When he lost that, he lost everything as a character, and WCW would go further and further downhill. There was some interest when he finally signed with the WWE in 2003, but many felt that his run was not special. He became World Heavyweight Champion, but it felt forced and labored and didn't really make the WWE as much money as it should have.

By building Ryback up so much, are you setting him up for a fall comparable to Goldberg's? The biggest stars in wrestling do lose. Even The Undertaker will lose at events that aren't WrestleMania. If Ryback cannot make money losing matches, then what good is he past his first loss? Keep that in mind.

I don't buy that Goldberg is more charismatic that Ryback. Goldberg wasn't very comfortable period on a mic. His "it" factor is overrated. If you wanna say "Ryback hasn't worked the mic with his current character so I won't judge him on it yet" then that's fine. You can't then turn around and make a claim Goldberg being in any way better on the mic though. Based on what? It's one or the other.

There's a difference between hyping a streak and just having a guy win constantly. You don't need to hype a streak with Ryback ala Goldberg. There is a big gap between that and just letting him dominate.

There's also a HUGE difference between someone like Taker or even Hogan back in the day losing once in a blue moon and CM Punk losing about as much as the rest of the upper card while being pushed as "the guy".

Someone doesn't need an established undefeated streak with a number next to it for a loss to be earth shattering. They just need to build up a habit of constantly winning. No one cares if CM Punk loses a non-title match on Raw no matter how big of a deal they try to make it.

Like I said, I think I would say parity is THE number one issue with wrestling today.

You completely went off on a KK-like tangent without understanding what I was saying at all.

I never said that Goldberg was better on the mic than Ryback. I said that I believe he was more charismatic. CHARISMA DOES NOT EQUATE TO MIC SKILLS! How many times this needs to be stated to people within the IWC is baffling. So far, this can supported by the evidence that Goldberg made a ton of money, whereas Ryback has not. I know, I know -- it's far too early to judge -- I'm just ruffling feathers. But Goldberg did have something to him that Ryback isn't displaying just yet. Maybe Ryback will figure out the Rubik's cube and put it all together for himself. We'll see.

I wasn't comparing Hulk Hogan and The Undertaker to CM Punk...I was comparing them to Goldberg and Ryback. Hell, I was comparing CM Punk to Goldberg and Ryback. The thing is -- wins and losses don't matter as much as anybody thinks. That's why Chris Jericho is still a much bigger star than Tensai, despite Jericho losing almost all his matches since returning, and Tensai winning them. For a perfect example, see how Stone Cold Steve Austin got so tremendously over by losing to Bret Hart. Not every wrestler is going to follow that template, of course, but a guy's mystique lies in the fact that he dominates, in today's climate, he's going to find himself in the position of Ezekiel Jackson so fast.

I see what you're saying here, but the thing is, CM Punk does win almost all of the time. When the WWE Title is on the line, anyway. He's had a run that has lasted since November of last year, and he's constantly proving to the audience that he's "The Best in the World" (buy the t-shirt).

Big Show, on the other hand, just destroyed the undefeated Brodus Clay and the Tag Team Champions for fun. Will that clear dominance truly make him the star monster of the WWE, or will he go back to square one when he loses next?

He does not win almost all of the time. When the title is on the line, yeah he has escaped. When it isn't though, you can pretty much bet he's gonna lose more often than not and Michael Cole's gonna exclaim "Daniel Bryan just pinned the champion!" like it didn't just happen the week before... or the month before with Jericho... or the month before that with Jericho... or before that with Ziggler... and so on, and so on. The "best in the world" seems like it should carry with it the stigma that you're almost unbeatable. Especially since you're the WORLD CHAMPION. Instead he loses randomly... just like everyone else... that's where the parity comes in. It's as big of a deal when the world champion loses as a match as it is when most of the roster does.

As for Show, he'll go back to square one when he loses next. Because that's not how you do it. I said I like when guys are dominant... I mean that over a long period of time. Getting them established for what they are is a big deal. Show has been a monster, then a jobber, then a monster, then a jobber, then a monster, then a jobber. It's not consistent. If they want Brodus to face someone big after they're done with Show, they'll have Brodus beat him. Then if they wanna push Kane for a title match that month, Kane beats Brodus. Now they wanna push Show again so Show beats Kane that month... It's a shit formula. Not at all what I'm talking about.

Big Show, when you really look at it, has been super-dominant, actually. No, not his entire career, but what did he do before his heel turn? He beat Cody Rhodes for the IC Title, and then lost it when Cody was sneaky and got a bit of a fluke victory against him. Before that, Show was involved in the World Heavyweight Title picture, where he put Daniel Bryan over time and time again -- I'll give you that. Before that, though, Big Show was the World Heavyweight Champion. And before that, Show was beating Henry by DQ and basically proving that he should be the World Heavyweight Champion. Before that, Show was kicking the ass of The Corre, etc.

Also, I think it was well and truly established in Punk's feuds with Jericho and Ziggler that he was the better wrestler.

You're sticking with PPV matches. Show was losing regularly on free TV too. They used his "monster" status as a way of saying "What an impressive win!" for guys. After a while though, it stops being impressive because it happens regularly. Pretty sure Cody pinned him at one point during that feud too.

As for Punk, again, he was losing to them though. He was shown to be the better wrestler on PPV but if he had lost, it wouldn't have been as big of a deal as back in the day when someone like Hogan or Austin lost. Obviously them being more over has a lot to do with that but you know what else they had in common that Punk doesn't have? They barely EVER lost matches. I'd almost be surprised if a month went by where Punk DIDN'T lose a match.

My point is not that he was not losing to them -- it is that he was clearly the more dominant in the feud, proving that wins and losses don't matter.

If Punk lost every match from now until the end of eternity, and people still thought that he was The Best in the World and better than the guys beating him, then it would not matter if he lost every match from now until the end of eternity.

There you go. Wins and losses don't matter. So why should anyone care about the outcomes of matches?

Seems to me like making people care about who wins matches is a pretty big deal if you're trying to make wrestling interesting...

If you had a magic bank account with unlimited money stored within it, you could spend as much money as you want. It's the same thing with losing in professional wrestling. Of course, no one has a magic bank account -- but a guy like Punk can spend a lot of money if he manages to make more of it at the end of the day.

Keep in mind that it was just a mere few years ago that the win-loss record of Cena really bothered people because it was too much in his favour. Top stars need vulnerability.

You're taking things completely out of context now, KK.

Wins and losses matter in a sense that people are invested in the outcome. There was no excuse for Sting to not win the WCW World Title at Starrcade '97, for example. Anything else would have been shitty, shitty booking.

But people care about why the guys are fighting. They care about the story heading into the match, and what the outcome will [I]mean[I]. That's why CM Punk's story with John Cena last year was so meaningful. Punk had literally won maybe one PPV match in the last calendar year, or something like that. What Punk managed to do was get people to invest in the story and what they thought the outcome was going to be. If it was just Cena vs. Punk for the WWE Title, no one would have given a shit.

You care about who wins matches; but you also care about who loses matches. Ya dig?

Because people didn't like Cena. So Super-Cena just pissed them off more. Do you really think Super-Punk would turn the crowd anti-Punk?

Vulnerability can be made without your top guys losing to half the roster. Hogan had vulnerability and he never lost. He is probably the most over star in wrestling history. Austin had vulnerability. He never lost either. He is one of the most over stars in wrestling history. Rock had vulnerability and he lost a shitload. He is one of the most over stars ever... The difference though... How many times did the fans get sick of him?

I can think of loads of times Austin lost. And loads of times Rock won.

Punk has lost to like D-Bry in a Handicap Match, Tensai in the same Handicap Match, Jericho in a tag team match and then...I can't remember. I think at the very start of the year Ziggler did get one or two falls against Punk in tag team matches.

Is that seriously your case?

You're completely ignoring the other 9-10 non PPV shows full of matches that happen in a given month. I don't see how Punk vs Cena is relevant to the discussion. That feud was built on awesome promos and an intriguing storyline. Not "CM PUNK JUST BEAT THE CHAMPION IN A NON-TITLE MATCH! THAT NEVER HAPPENS EVER! HUGE!!!"

When was the last time you were invested in the outcome of a TV match?

I think WWE is gonna build towards Ryback Vs Sandow, where Sandow finally gets beat.

Austin barely lost during his entire initial face run and the McMahon fued. Hell, he lost the title to Kane via bleeding. In fact McMahon pinned him in a gauntlet match with the corperation on a Raw in England at some point. I believe it was heading into the Royal Rumble. The reason I remember that random Raw match so well is because Austin lost... and it was a huge deal to me... because it was so fucking rare.

Yes, you can think of loads of times Rock won... who can't? I said he lost a shitload. I really thought that was common knowledge.

It's a lame formula. Having a guy lose to make it seem like the other guy can beat him at the upcoming PPV only makes it seem like anyone can beat him on TV... so after a while, who cares? Punk would be better served beating guys like Miz, Ziggler, Cody, etc in good, long matches on Raw to hype him up. He puts on a great match, wins, justifies his best in the world status. They take him to a great match, lose, justify their "almost there" status. Or he faces someone like Jinder Mahal, makes short work of him, justifies his best in the world status while justifying Jinder's "not even close" status.

That's the anti-parity stuff they should be working on. Each guy should have a level. They can over-achieve or under-achieve on any given night but everyone has a level. This "he's unstoppable... unless it's non title or until we're done pushing him for this upcoming match. Then he's just a loser inexplicably" thing is shit.

You just don't get it. You also proved my point. Thank you.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SUuWZfM1NwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL, Young is hitting Otunga's leg. He's clearly horrible.

:roll:

Yes. I proved the point that you are unable to explain how the formula works in any way, shape or form so you evade like a motherfucker.

Seriously... I'm arguing the fact that the whole main eventer losing regularly as a way to build hype is pointless and only makes matches less relevant... and you can't see how bringing up a feud that was based in no way on matches has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

I accept that you ACTUALLY believe the stupid shit you say about Riley and Slater... but you have to be trying to be this dumb now.

lol. Is "throw in a completely meaningless comment to hide that I have no legit argument" the way you're going now? You seriously just should stop trying.

Are you seriously arguing that the guy who has been WWE Champion since November, has made everyone from Alberto Del Rio to Chris Jericho tap-out, and whose slogan is that he is "The Best in the World" is being made to look weaker than the opponents he dominates in his feuds? I am against champions losing non-title matches all the time, too, but Punk has seriously only lost via DQ (as part of a storyline), in tag team matches (in feuds he otherwise dominated) or in Handicap Matches, in which case the overwhelmed party should usually always win (unless we're talking Ryback squashes).

Punk's feud with Cena is exactly my point, and you're backing it up constantly -- "feud that was based in no way on matches." Thank you again. For someone arguing that wins and losses are so critical, you haven't explained how it would even be possible for a feud to be based on anything other than matches.

Isn't that what you did with Alex Riley?

... as am I... SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING!?

At this point, I'm seriously picturing you just seeing my name and trying really hard to form an argument somehow while murmuring to yourself "This is for A-Ry, fucker!"

No, because I actually give valid reasons and video evidence of how shitty Alex Riley is. Not "LOL I'M GONNA EXAGGERATE SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S CAREER TO MAKE HIS REASONING SOUND EQUALLY AS RIDICULOUS!!!"

The fued between Noid and #1-wwf-fan was better then most the fueds in wwe going on right now.

In the end I have to give it to #1-wwf-fan by DQ for the low blow from Noid when he used the A-Rye topic. (which i'm unaware of)

In the beginning Noid had some strong points but #1-wwf-fan has a good point, at least to me when he said that the build up of characters that already exist so that they can go for titles and them losing a bunch of tv matches is stupid not to mention now just completely boring. 1 of the problems is that we have too many PPV. and each one has a new build up.

Ryback
I have to go with Noid that him dominating means nothing in about a month when he loses. He'll need Charisma (mic skills also) to get him over. I think he'll need to dominate for quite awhile. Even after losing he needs to continue to dominate.

Lets not forget
We now have Ryback to add to Damien Sandow, Brodus Clay, Jackson and Mason Ryan.
We already have Kane, Big show, Cena (have to count him since he has a small power based move-set) and of course mark Henry. The "Heavyweight" division is growing in the WWE. It hasn't been really put togather yet but along with some of the other Heavyweights that already are and that can come back the WWE can go in a totally different direction and they can do it real soon.

That monstrous heavyweight brute Damien Sandow.

I ask because the "Sandow" statue is what they award to the bodybuilder who wins the annual "Mr Olympia" contest. So I wonder if Triple H (a bodybuilding fan) had anything to do with the name.

interesting observation

HEY YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!! FEED THE MACHINE!

MAMA BEEN BAAAADDD!

Can't wait for Cena to squash the fuck out of Ryback.

I can

And b4 any1 thinks I am, I would like to state that i do not hate Cena. He was at 1 time my favorite but I just think he needs a hiatus. When I went to raw I was part of the Let's go Cena Chants that have died in recent months. Not the Cena Sux chants

If it happened, I would only be more of a TNA fan!