Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThruTheWire
Here's a situation... Batista debuts as DEACON BATISTA. Wow he was fucking SHIT! He got FUCKED by a shitty gimmick and shitty and few opponents. The guy is HUGE (like Masters), doesnt get to beat alot of big names and wow.. he still wasn't over. He comes to RAW and get's THE ANIMAL gimmick where he is basically allowed to destroy every good wrestler on the roster with very little selling. People eat that shit right up.
Master's on the other hand, get's to wrestle fans... Stevie richards, Val venis....
and not achieve even very decent victories. He is being fucked.
|
The guy also has a better look (HE doesn't make me laugh when he comes to the ring), though currently his dancing is laughable. The guy also makes his moves look worth a fuck (His Spinebuster actually makes the move look valid). Masters has come down to the ring, attempting to look like a "Masterpiece" while chewing gum, his moves are sloppy.
I mean honestly, the best comparison you can draw between the two is that they're big. Batista didn't magically become good because of his new gimmick, nor was he bad because of his last one. A gimmick can hurt or help a wrestler, but when you have nothing to work with, a good gimmick can't save you.
Repackaging someone doesn't make them any better. In fact, it didn't sstop BAtista from getting BOOED when he started talking, or after he won the championship. So I'd say your comparison is a weak one. Especially since, instead of immediately being thrust up to work with a main eventer, he...You know...Was someone's sidekick, and actually developed and progressed.
But Hell, everything else is valid...Except for most of it, which I have just argued against. Oh, and the fact that Batista's popularity seems to be waning now that the novelty is wearing off. But yeah, other than that, brilliant way of putting me in my place.