Raw Live Discussion 7/7/14

[wildknight]

Jul 8, 2014 20:54:45 GMT -5 WhoCares? said:

Re: Hart with the company 8 years, etc etc... utter nonsense. We're talking about Main Event Builds here, not "time with the company." Hart was not being built for anything for most of his time with the company, much less Main Event status. Bret's actual Main Event build was very fast... thought not really by the actual existing standard, given I'm not sure where people get this notion that the "slow build" has some proven track record.

Yeah, I realized after a while that I read the discussion completely wrong, and I admit defeat.

I know, but WC reiterated the same thing, so it had to be mentioned again.

I feel like part of the problem here is that people are confused about the difference between "a main event build" and "a career." Or at least that they want to use "a career" in place of "a Main Event build" when doing so supports their position.

[WhoCares?]

Ah, well then continue the debate. I'd like to see a winner, even if it breaks out into a full out war.

[WrestleClown]

Jul 8, 2014 20:33:15 GMT -5 wildknight said:

Tired of micro-quoting, so...

1) I agree that Tensai was probably doomed regardless, but I don't remotely agree that an ambush automatically means a feud, and I think it's fairly obvious that Tensai was never "feuding" with Cena.

They had several matches within the span of a couple months, they attacked each other after matches, they had matches with special stipulations.  I think it's safe to say that this wasn't by coincidence.

2) They WERE aiming for Khali to be dominant. Where your argument falls apart is your claim that it failed because it was obvious that his ringwork wasn't good enough. It fell apart as soon as the Punjabi Prison Match didn't happen.

It's obvious that the only reason Khali got a contract was because he was a 7'4 pile of muscle and shit, and they fully intended on running the "Unstoppable Big Guy Monster."  I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the "Unstoppable Monster" card is used almost always for the extremely ripped/stout and bulky/tall and fat/tall and muscular guys out there (The Great Khali, Tensai, Umaga,The Big Show, Andre The Giant, Brodus Clay, Brock Lesnar, Ryback, The Ultimate Warrior).  I never claimed it always works.  Khali is an example of when things don't fall through.  Umaga is an example of when they did.

3) No no no. Not "back before" anything. The fans today are more critical of ringwork? Really? I can't even begin to comprehend that you believe that to be the case. The fans today might believe that they're more critical, but most guys today have an abominable lack of ring psychology that would have left them completely unemployed 30 years ago.

How in the world do them being employed have to do with criticisms from the fans?  You said yourself that ring-work in the recent WWE has been better than it ever has despite them going PG.  Ring psychology isn't all there is to take into account.

Audiences have changed, but none of those changes give any advantage to a slow build over a fast one.

It's not that the audiences have changed, it's that the inner workings of professional wrestling are more exposed now.  So the hardcore fan tends looks at professional wrestling as a critic/manager.  

4) Giving in to fan demand is no more or less likely to result in massive failure than resisting fan demand.

 

I'm not saying resist fan demand period, I'm talking about stretching it out and playing it slow and steady.  Which works wonders when done correctly.  I've seen more people crash from being pushed way too fast than I have from people who had the talent to carry a long build to the top.

5) Ziggler's first WHC reign fell apart because he didn't legitimately have broad fan backing. He was an IWC darling, and the list of guys the IWC has loved right up until they succeeded and then abandoned is as long as my arm. Ziggler's ringwork wasn't lacking at all in that time. He was far ahead of most of the guys in the Main Event in that regard. Ringwork doesn't really have anything to do with success or failure anymore.

My point was that ring-work was the main reason he became a hit with the fans.  He was alright on the mic (Which he makes an arguable point at times), but he was most known for his ring-work.  Once he became champion, it wasn't enough to carry him forward through a successful reign.

6) Sheamus is a top merch mover and does great segment ratings. I don't care what chants he has to "endure."

The mocking chants again and again is direct evidence of what the fans think of him, whether you care or not.  Daniel Bryan got the slow build, and now (Admittedly this could be unrelated to the following) he moves more merchandise than Sheamus, in fact Sheamus wasn't even in the top 8 of merchandise movers of May this year.  Daniel Bryan was 2nd behind Cena.  Sheamus crashed early in his career from being pushed too fast, and recently he just hasn't been able to get over.

7) Bryan's slow build "paid off" with him winning the title at WM30? Really? So that's all that matters, winning a fake title? Funny, I thought the point was to have a long, successful run, not to win a couple of matches at one PPV. Bryan could have had that long run... if they'd moved on his popularity with the fans six months in.

It was a peak of a very successful run, and you know it.  He won two matches at Wrestlemania, and one was headlining the show for the WWE championship.  If that isn't evidence of a "Successful run" to you, I don't know what is.

8) Your opinion of when Edge, etc had their "best runs" doesn't mean all that much to me in terms of this discussion, sorry. I'm sure plenty of fans would strongly disagree that anyone had their best rivalry/matches with Cena.

The question you gave me was, whose career did Cena help immensely?  My answer is Edge, and there's no refusing that answer whether or not you think it was "Edge's best rivalry."  After that feud, Edge was set, until he was dragged down by being involved with Vickie Guerrero and all of that nonsense.

Without question, you're simply wrong about Barrett, who has enjoyed much greater success in not one but two gimmicks following the whole Nexus thing. Most Barrett fans consider the Nexus thing to be a time when he was being made to look worthless and weak... and I agree with them.

It doesn't matter.  Being involved with Cena gave Wade Barrett the exposure he needed to catch everyone's attention and move forward.  It doesn't matter if he played the "Cowardly Heel", it still gave him exposure, and that was exactly what he needed.  Said exposure lead to him being able to move on to better gimmicks.   So yeah, that's another instance where being involved with John Cena helped someone's career.

I never suggested that what comes after a Cena rivalry is Cena's responsibility, but it's equally ridiculous to claim that working with Cena is evidence of a push.

It's evidence that Roman Reigns is getting exposure and that he's involved with some of WWE's top players.  

Re: Hart with the company 8 years, etc etc... utter nonsense. We're talking about Main Event Builds here, not "time with the company." Hart was not being built for anything for most of his time with the company, much less Main Event status. Bret's actual Main Event build was very fast... thought not really by the actual existing standard, given I'm not sure where people get this notion that the "slow build" has some proven track record.

Yeah, except if Roman Reigns has been in the WWE for 8 years while being neglected, I would be a supporter for a fast build because he's become somewhat of a name and he'd at least be somewhat recognizable to the fans.  At this point, he's been in the WWE for 2-3 years as a stooge with The Shield who didn't even have matches for the first several months.  They just disrupted and interfered in matches.

*Honk*

[wildknight]

Jul 8, 2014 21:44:00 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

It's obvious that the only reason Khali got a contract was because he was a 7'4 pile of muscle and shit

This may be the only thing we agree on. Khali was blatantly hired (and pushed) because he was huge, and for no other reason. However, you're taking two different kinds of workers and trying to make them the same thing. Really big guys like Khali are pretty much always pushed the same (and are generally pretty much always terrible), but "big men" and "powerhouses" are two different things. Big men are almost always pushed as "monsters" but powerhouses aren't always pushed that way, and Reigns really hasn't been.


... the rest of the stuff, I feel like we're just saying 'yes it is!" vs. "no its not!" so I don't see much point in continuing. I think there's something to be said for striking while the iron is hot in the wrestling business, today more than ever when fans are so fickle and guys are working far more matches in front of far larger audiences. If you disagree, that's fine... but I'm going to continue calling what has happened with so many guys lately to be a tremendous misstep on the part of the company, and I think the companies dire straits are pretty good evidence of that.

[WrestleClown]

Jul 8, 2014 22:00:58 GMT -5 wildknight said:

Jul 8, 2014 21:44:00 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

It's obvious that the only reason Khali got a contract was because he was a 7'4 pile of muscle and shit

This may be the only thing we agree on. Khali was blatantly hired (and pushed) because he was huge, and for no other reason. However, you're taking two different kinds of workers and trying to make them the same thing. Really big guys like Khali are pretty much always pushed the same (and are generally pretty much always terrible), but "big men" and "powerhouses" are two different things. Big men are almost always pushed as "monsters" but powerhouses aren't always pushed that way, and Reigns really hasn't been.


... the rest of the stuff, I feel like we're just saying 'yes it is!" vs. "no its not!" so I don't see much point in continuing. I think there's something to be said for striking while the iron is hot in the wrestling business, today more than ever when fans are so fickle and guys are working far more matches in front of far larger audiences. If you disagree, that's fine... but I'm going to continue calling what has happened with so many guys lately to be a tremendous misstep on the part of the company, and I think the companies dire straits are pretty good evidence of that.

Powerhouses are also usually given the "Debut Monster run", especially if they have the physique to match.

I think your more important investments should be people with enough talent to capitalize on the slow build.  Brock Lesnar is an example of striking while the iron is hot.  They threw in a guy who had no business being where he is to take advantage on using his amateur background and appeal to the casual fans.

Overall with Roman Reigns, I would like to see some notable victories in some big feuds and then drive him toward the WWE championship.  Putting him in the forethought of more fans will only increase that desire.  If Roman Reigns is good enough, he can hold the momentum through good promos, good ring-work and with the WWE hopefully knowing what the hell they're doing.  After it builds, they sling-shot him toward the WWE championship.  That's my vision for him, anyways.  I'm sure it doesn't coincide with yours, but I think pushing him too fast is too much of a risk.  I'm not happy with the way they're pushing Rollins, but since we're already here, if/when he crashes, at least we won't be losing much.

*Honk*

[iodill8]

Jul 8, 2014 22:29:42 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

Jul 8, 2014 22:00:58 GMT -5 wildknight said:

This may be the only thing we agree on. Khali was blatantly hired (and pushed) because he was huge, and for no other reason. However, you're taking two different kinds of workers and trying to make them the same thing. Really big guys like Khali are pretty much always pushed the same (and are generally pretty much always terrible), but "big men" and "powerhouses" are two different things. Big men are almost always pushed as "monsters" but powerhouses aren't always pushed that way, and Reigns really hasn't been.


... the rest of the stuff, I feel like we're just saying 'yes it is!" vs. "no its not!" so I don't see much point in continuing. I think there's something to be said for striking while the iron is hot in the wrestling business, today more than ever when fans are so fickle and guys are working far more matches in front of far larger audiences. If you disagree, that's fine... but I'm going to continue calling what has happened with so many guys lately to be a tremendous misstep on the part of the company, and I think the companies dire straits are pretty good evidence of that.

Powerhouses are also usually given the "Debut Monster run", especially if they have the physique to match.

I think your more important investments should be people with enough talent to capitalize on the slow build.  Brock Lesnar is an example of striking while the iron is hot.  They threw in a guy who had no business being where he is to take advantage on using his amateur background and appeal to the casual fans.

Overall with Roman Reigns, I would like to see some notable victories in some big feuds and then drive him toward the WWE championship.  Putting him in the forethought of more fans will only increase that desire.  If Roman Reigns is good enough, he can hold the momentum through good promos, good ring-work and with the WWE hopefully knowing what the hell they're doing.  After it builds, they sling-shot him toward the WWE championship.  That's my vision for him, anyways.  I'm sure it doesn't coincide with yours, but I think pushing him too fast is too much of a risk.  I'm not happy with the way they're pushing Rollins, but since we're already here, if/when he crashes, at least we won't be losing much.

*Honk*

To address your last paragraph, Mr. Clown, I'll say this (because if Wild bothers to reply to you, he'll probably say something I agree with):

You DO know that Roman is like, 28, right?
You DO know that he's been in a wrestling since he was like, 16, right?
Don't you think your plans for him are BIT too long?


As for WhoCares?- You're a mod, bro! You can't promote full-blown forum wars, whether they be figurative or not! #SetoForMod2k16

[WhoCares?]

Jul 8, 2014 22:39:24 GMT -5 iodill8 said:

As for WhoCares?- You're a mod, bro! You can't promote full-blown forum wars, whether they be figurative or not! #SetoForMod2k16

I didn't promote anything...... ANYTHING.


I've got my eye on you.

[BaneTheDestroyer]

Jul 8, 2014 22:39:24 GMT -5 iodill8 said:

Jul 8, 2014 22:29:42 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

Powerhouses are also usually given the "Debut Monster run", especially if they have the physique to match.

I think your more important investments should be people with enough talent to capitalize on the slow build.  Brock Lesnar is an example of striking while the iron is hot.  They threw in a guy who had no business being where he is to take advantage on using his amateur background and appeal to the casual fans.

Overall with Roman Reigns, I would like to see some notable victories in some big feuds and then drive him toward the WWE championship.  Putting him in the forethought of more fans will only increase that desire.  If Roman Reigns is good enough, he can hold the momentum through good promos, good ring-work and with the WWE hopefully knowing what the hell they're doing.  After it builds, they sling-shot him toward the WWE championship.  That's my vision for him, anyways.  I'm sure it doesn't coincide with yours, but I think pushing him too fast is too much of a risk.  I'm not happy with the way they're pushing Rollins, but since we're already here, if/when he crashes, at least we won't be losing much.

*Honk*

To address your last paragraph, Mr. Clown, I'll say this (because if Wild bothers to reply to you, he'll probably say something I agree with):

You DO know that Roman is like, 28, right?
You DO know that he's been in a wrestling since he was like, 16, right?
Don't you think your plans for him are BIT too long?

I'll answer these from my knowledge...


What does that have to do with the situation?
Ditto. Also, to my knowledge he was brought directly into WWE with no background experience. I know little about him, but that's what I've heard.
I agree with pretty much everything Clown has said except that I don't like Reigns and I think the whole Edge/Cena feud did not propel Edge's career. That whole thing was months of you win, I win. Edge was a placeholder for the championship at the time, at least that's what I gathered. However, I didn't watch it, I was just updated. Maybe I'm wrong on what happened there too.

Also, I don't really think this is a flame war, just two people with strong opinions on the opposite side of the spectrum. I don't think either's attacking the other, lol. Although, I do see that the argument is pointless as they're just going back and forth saying the same thing over and over, lol.

[WhoCares?]

Eh, while Edge was a placeholder during that feud, if that wouldn't have happened, he probably would have been a midcarder the rest of his career.

[WrestleClown]

Jul 8, 2014 22:39:24 GMT -5 iodill8 said:

You DO know that Roman is like, 28, right?

You DO know that he actually 29, and that is only 5 years older than when Randy Orton became the youngest WWE champion ever?  He's still got 6 years before he's even 35.  Eddie Guerrero was still going until the day he died, and he was 38.  Around 40 is when most wrestlers consider retirement (If they have a say, or they have to retire).

You DO know that he's been in a wrestling since he was like, 16, right?

You DO know that it doesn't matter according to the WWE, right?  They don't incorporate other federations' accomplishments into their own.  That also begs the next question, since he's been wrestling for that long, why did it take him so long to get to the big stage?  I guess that's besides the point, the thing is, is that what he has done with his career before the WWE only matters to his hardcore fans.

Don't you think your plans for him are BIT too long?

Nah.  Give him a 2-3 years of  top feuds, and maybe he'll be ready for a champion within that time.  If not, he'll still have several years to live at the top of the food-chain before he'll have to retire (Assuming a tragedy doesn't happen).

*Honk*

[BaneTheDestroyer]

Jul 8, 2014 22:51:27 GMT -5 WhoCares? said:

Eh, while Edge was a placeholder during that feud, if that wouldn't have happened, he probably would have been a midcarder the rest of his career.

I can't disagree more. Being a placeholder does nothing for you. See Miz. He was at the peak of his career and was a placeholder for a long time, but never went anywhere from it, despite being great at what he did (and I don't care who says he wasn't great, he was, even if you don't like him).

[WhoCares?]

Jul 8, 2014 22:56:58 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

Jul 8, 2014 22:51:27 GMT -5 WhoCares? said:

Eh, while Edge was a placeholder during that feud, if that wouldn't have happened, he probably would have been a midcarder the rest of his career.

I can't disagree more. Being a placeholder does nothing for you. See Miz. He was at the peak of his career and was a placeholder for a long time, but never went anywhere from it, despite being great at what he did (and I don't care who says he wasn't great, he was, even if you don't like him).

I didn't mean being a placeholder. I meant his feud with Cena.

[WhoCares?]

Also, to the people who don't like Miz, screw you, he's awesome.

[WrestleClown]

Jul 8, 2014 22:56:58 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

Jul 8, 2014 22:51:27 GMT -5 WhoCares? said:

Eh, while Edge was a placeholder during that feud, if that wouldn't have happened, he probably would have been a midcarder the rest of his career.

I can't disagree more. Being a placeholder does nothing for you. See Miz. He was at the peak of his career and was a placeholder for a long time, but never went anywhere from it, despite being great at what he did (and I don't care who says he wasn't great, he was, even if you don't like him).

The Miz won that feud and earned the victory at WrestleMania 27 for the WWE championship, and wouldn't have even been a thing if the WWE didn't let him have a spontaneous thread of strong showings against John Cena.

What he did from that point on was up to him and the WWE, but pitting him against John Cena worked for him in a positive way.

*Honk*

[BaneTheDestroyer]

Jul 8, 2014 23:04:38 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

Jul 8, 2014 22:56:58 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

I can't disagree more. Being a placeholder does nothing for you. See Miz. He was at the peak of his career and was a placeholder for a long time, but never went anywhere from it, despite being great at what he did (and I don't care who says he wasn't great, he was, even if you don't like him).

The Miz won that feud and earned the victory at WrestleMania 27 for the WWE championship, and wouldn't have even been a thing if the WWE didn't let him have a spontaneous thread of strong showings against John Cena.

What he did from that point on was up to him and the WWE, but pitting him against John Cena worked for him in a positive way.

*Honk*

I'm not sure when you're talking about, because as I always say I never watch continuously, but when he was going "1-0 Against John Cena," etc, that feud was hardly anything, if it was even a feud.

[WhoCares?]

Jul 8, 2014 23:06:29 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

Jul 8, 2014 23:04:38 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

The Miz won that feud and earned the victory at WrestleMania 27 for the WWE championship, and wouldn't have even been a thing if the WWE didn't let him have a spontaneous thread of strong showings against John Cena.

What he did from that point on was up to him and the WWE, but pitting him against John Cena worked for him in a positive way.

*Honk*

I'm not sure when you're talking about, because as I always say I never watch continuously, but when he was going "1-0 Against John Cena," etc, that feud was hardly anything, if it was even a feud.

That's a different feud.

[BaneTheDestroyer]

Jul 8, 2014 23:07:56 GMT -5 WhoCares? said:

Jul 8, 2014 23:06:29 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

I'm not sure when you're talking about, because as I always say I never watch continuously, but when he was going "1-0 Against John Cena," etc, that feud was hardly anything, if it was even a feud.

That's a different feud.

Ahhhh, well that one did nothing for Miz and contained John Cena. Fair enough though.

[WrestleClown]

Jul 8, 2014 23:06:29 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

Jul 8, 2014 23:04:38 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

The Miz won that feud and earned the victory at WrestleMania 27 for the WWE championship, and wouldn't have even been a thing if the WWE didn't let him have a spontaneous thread of strong showings against John Cena.

What he did from that point on was up to him and the WWE, but pitting him against John Cena worked for him in a positive way.

*Honk*

I'm not sure when you're talking about, because as I always say I never watch continuously, but when he was going "1-0 Against John Cena," etc, that feud was hardly anything, if it was even a feud.

Placing someone in a feud with someone else who is more popular isn't always the key to success.  However, to say that no one has or can use John Cena as a platform for the lesser known is untrue.

*Honk*

[BaneTheDestroyer]

Jul 8, 2014 23:10:36 GMT -5 WrestleClown said:

Jul 8, 2014 23:06:29 GMT -5 BaneTheDestroyer said:

I'm not sure when you're talking about, because as I always say I never watch continuously, but when he was going "1-0 Against John Cena," etc, that feud was hardly anything, if it was even a feud.

Placing someone in a feud with someone else who is more popular isn't always the key to success.  However, to say that no one has or can use John Cena as a platform for the lesser known is untrue.

*Honk*

I agree completely. I just don't think that Miz or Edge were good examples, lol.

[WhoCares?]

No offense, but I can't see how Edge isn't a good example.