How people react to James Ellsworth is the perfect example of today's fickle, fairweather, entitled, wrestling fan.
When he first appeared, and took on A.J., the fans were all behind him. He was an underdog, he was "up against it". A little guy, with a fighting spirit, taking it to the chief heel at the time, and beating him. I heard comparisons to Daniel Bryan, and how Ellsworth is a similar type of character of the underdog you could all relate to.
But then he won, not just once, or twice, but he beat A.J. three times. So, he finally had success. You were all pulling for him. That is, until he was successful. Then you all turned on him, because he wasn't an "underdog" anymore.
You bag John Cena and Roman Reigns, over the years, for dominating, and winning "too much", and say that they are holding back others. You then go for these others, until they too win too often.
The fact is, you hate to see any wrestler be "too successful". It is the Mary Sue Syndrome, where someone has to have flaws, or they are too "perfect", and they must lose, from time to time, and never always win.
If Brock Lesnar was on TV every week and won every match, you would hate on him. You only like it because he only shows up occasionally, and the match is over before you get bored. If Taker won EVERY match, and not just every Wrestlemania match, once a year, then you would have turned on him.
I mean, C.M. Punk is another perfect example of this. For two years, all I heard was how Punk is destined for greatness, how Vince won't push him, how he deserves the title and not Cena. He finally wins it, beating Cena, and you all cheer. But then he holds it, for 14 months. He won it, but for too long in the mind of the impatient modern wrestling fan, who loves the title being hot-potated, then complains how no one is ever made a star and the title is meaningless. The fans turned on Punk, because he was no longer the held down indy star who couldn't break the glass ceiling, he was champion, and he needed to lose it, now!
The only reason Punk is loved again is because he is no longer champion, and stood up to Vince McMahon.
I am convinced that if Daniel Bryan hadn't got injured soon after Wrestlemania XXX, and been off the screens, and hardly wrestled again, that how he would be perceived by wrestling fans today would be different. I don't think Bryan would be as loved if he held the belt for too long, because he is no longer the held-down underdog not given the chance. He is still loved because injury prevented him from getting a proper run, so he was never champion for "too long".
In the old days, Hulk Hogan could hold the belt for three years, and people wanted him to stay champion. These days, fans would turn on Hogan if he held it longer than two months.
I think fans' reaction to this has changed even since the Attitude Era. Back then, you had no problem with "Stone Cold" Steve Austin "winning" every week against Mr McMahon. Many of you had no problems with constant Raw ending with Austin drinking beer over a Stunned Mr McMahon and cronies. I can barely remember Vince "getting one back" on Austin, and making him look weak (the only time I can think of Vince leaving Raw, having bettered Austin was after the Corporate Royal, where Vince pinned Austin, tied him up in the ropes, poured beer on his head, and screamed in his face as the show went off the air). Every other week, SCSA stood victorious. So, why is "Stone Cold" allowed to be a "Mary Sue" or "Gary Stu" but not Cena, Roman or anyone else ?
Many wrestling fans don't know what they want, and ask for opposite of anything that is happening, which is why WWE shouldn't listen to what they have to say, as many of them have NFI.
