OMG, What do you want!?!?

[suleman09]

So I'm not really telling or anything but I feel very annoyed by some people's inconsistent complaining. And I would like to make this thread all about what people truly want to see in WWE and then stick to it! You can't change your mind later.

For example, I remember within these past few years people were complaining that we weren't getting any good feuds and they were over within a few months.
-Ok that's fine, so the problem was that feuds weren't long enough for us to get the most out of it.

Now, the Sasha vs Charlotte story has been going strong for a few months with new matches they are having, so it's not the same 1v1 match over and over again, they are having entertaining matches and making history. And they are adding different elements like the Dana Brooke angle, then Charlotte wanting to do it on her own, now with Ric back in the picture looking like he's betrayed his daughter and joined her enemy. So it's entertaining (to me at least)
-Now people are complaining that this is going on too long? Remember when Austin vs Rock and HHH vs HBk went on for MONTHS at a time?

I just want to know, what are people looking for in WWe programming as far as feuds go? How long do you want them to last? Do you always want to see the good guy win or bad guy? Or mix it up? What kinds of matches do you want to see?

Please feel free to voice your opinions

 

[Navi]

I don't think it's so much that they are complaining about Banks and Charlotte, because let's face it, those girls have put on some great matches. It's more about the fact that the WWE doesn't seem to have anything to do with the other women on the roster.

For example Bayley. Bayley had great momentum coming out of NXT, and some might argue now that they brought her up at the wrong time because her momentum has vanished. She still gets a great pop from the crowds, but when she's having a match with Alicia Fox over giving someone a "Bayley Bear", it's kind of tame. I guess though feuds have started over dumber things if you look at the past.

Honestly the women's division was too small to get divided in half and they should all be on the same roster. Other than that I think personally that once we get to the Rumble and ultimately Mania things will sort themselves out.

We've just basically had the brand split a few months ago and it takes time for things to work themselves out story wise. Isn't the fall the time of year when the WWE sort of goes into the doldrums? Between Summerslam and the Rumble not much really happens.

Keeping on topic with the thread though there is one thing that is kind of bugging me. Okay I can understand a slow burn to a feud, I get it. The one that is sort of getting to me is the HHH/Rollins/Owens whatever it is.

You had HHH interfere in a match and hand Owens the title. It's been so long ago I can't even remember on what PPV it happened. We've seen nothing for the last 4-5 months from HHH even to explain why he did it, although I think we can all figure it out. But not even Stephanie or Foley seemed to question that the COO of the company ran into a match, changed the direction of it and left.

No one has said anything in the last 4 months, only Rollins calling HHH out. Nothing from Reigns nothing from Owens. It's like if you didn't see it you wouldn't have believed it happened. Now I'm sure that something will come of it, but holy shit it's taking forever. That's my only real complaint about what's happening....well that and I hope that Ellsworth gets his ass kicked by someone, don't care who, just someone has to do it.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

People just want to be entertained. When they start to feel less entertained they try to justify it by coming up with any excuse that pops in to their head. "Bad booking", "lazy booking", "repetative" seem to be the current buzz terms that is most popular right now.

Either that or they see something in a match or story that reminds them of them of the things they hear are bad for pro wrestling for they apt to get turned off and not even give it a chance. Belt swapped back and forth = hot potato = I too smart to like this. It's a smark's conundrum.

Or maybe you are getting two opposite arguments from two different people.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I know we complain a lot, but this year was a very good year for me. Look at the things we got this year:

Styles debut
HHH as world champion
Styles vs Cena part I & II
Club debut
The women matter
Sasha vs Charlotte
Jeri-KO
Y2AJ
Chris Jericho in general
Goldberg
Lesnar squashed
Lesnar destroys Randy Orton
Wyatts as champs
Interesting Smackdown
Ambrose as champ
Brand split
The Miz
An awesome Survivor Series
Finn balor impressive debut

I mean, I know the WWE lacks consistency and a lot of things they do are worthless and boring, but you have to give credit where credit is due and this year has been entertaining and they seem, hopefully, to be going in the right direction in the future.

Of course there were bad moments, but when everything the WWE did was all great and good? Even in the highest heights, during the AE or the Golden Era, there were lots of wtf moments that were completely brutal.

 

[The Man Of 1004 Holds]

I personally am loving the way its gone since the draft. Feuds need to be built in order to mean something and that has been much better recently.
Not only with feuds for current PPVs but also down the line. Such as Jericho and Owens and Miz and Bryan. its all bubbling under the surface and youre not sure when (and in bryans case, IF) something is going to come of it.

Im not saying its all there yet but its definitely much better than last year.
Things like the tag division are in a bit of a holding pattern but i think thats more to do with waiting for new day to break the record.

As for Seth and HHH. Yeah thats been too slow, well more standing still completely. But i believe this would have started much further down the line had Finn not been injured and this is the best we can do right now. For example, originally Finn and rollins feuded for a bit before Owens got involved and then had HHH turn saying rollin hadnt been getting the job done, it would have been prime for owens v finn and HHH v Rollins to lead to mania from there

 

[#tamale]

I'm pretty sure most fans want to be entertained. It's just that some fans feel that they should be entertained their way. They fantasy book an angle, and if it doesn't happen they feel like creative are screwing up. It's not to say that some fantasy bookings are not entertaining. Some just want things done their way and their way only because they feel they know what's right.

For example Bayley. Bayley had great momentum coming out of NXT, and some might argue now that they brought her up at the wrong time because her momentum has vanished. She still gets a great pop from the crowds, but when she's having a match with Alicia Fox over giving someone a "Bayley Bear", it's kind of tame. I guess though feuds have started over dumber things if you look at the past.

Momentum coming out of NXT does not guarantee success on the main roster. Look what happened to Sasha. She was not insanely popular as soon as she hit the scene. She won the crowd over though through her feud with Charlotte who is the leader of this division. So what can they do with Bayley? Sometimes these things take time.

You had HHH interfere in a match and hand Owens the title. It's been so long ago I can't even remember on what PPV it happened. We've seen nothing for the last 4-5 months from HHH even to explain why he did it, although I think we can all figure it out. But not even Stephanie or Foley seemed to question that the COO of the company ran into a match, changed the direction of it and left.

No one has said anything in the last 4 months, only Rollins calling HHH out. Nothing from Reigns nothing from Owens. It's like if you didn't see it you wouldn't have believed it happened. Now I'm sure that something will come of it, but holy shit it's taking forever. That's my only real complaint about what's happening....well that and I hope that Ellsworth gets his ass kicked by someone, don't care who, just someone has to do it.

You have to remember something. That situation was an audible. Finn Balor was hurt. That is maybe what they hand in mind all along, for HHH to turn on Rollins, but there was no way it was supposed to happen that quickly after Summerslam. They just accelerated the situation because of an injury.

 

[Azane]

Reminder;
The IWC is made up of thousands, if not millions of people, so seeing hypocritical criticisms is normal, because it's different people complaining.

The length of Feuds is different from just having matches every single week/month. Sasha vs Charlotte should have wrestled once every couple PPV cycles, not 3x per ppv, with Sasha predictably winning every RAW title and Charlotte winning every PPV matchup.

They're doing different matches, but they're telling the same story. Ric Flair's interference from almost a year ago, and Sasha vs Charlotte's hometown back and forth being the exception.

There's a handful of women on RAW getting neglected and being misused because Sasha has to fight Charlotte every week, and then their last ever match has happened 3 times now. a freaking HITC Ladies match didn't end their rivalry.

The Feud's been money since NXT, but we've seen over 30 matches between the 2 now, it's gone on way way too long and it makes John Cena vs Randy Orton or Miz vs Ziggler look interesting. (Btw, those are both 2 feuds that outlived their shelf life by a longshot)

With PPVs every 3 weeks, it's hard to build a long feud without them fighting way too often, but it's one of the issues with their new schedule. 25 years ago, Sasha vs Charlotte going this length would of had 3-4 matches instead of 30, that's why long feuds worked when you had major PPVs, and now you have 2 Roadblocks in 1 year.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I know we complain a lot, but this year was a very good year for me. Look at the things we got this year:

Styles debut
HHH as world champion
Styles vs Cena part I & II
Club debut
The women matter
Sasha vs Charlotte
Jeri-KO
Y2AJ
Chris Jericho in general
Goldberg
Lesnar squashed
Lesnar destroys Randy Orton
Wyatts as champs
Interesting Smackdown
Ambrose as champ
Brand split
The Miz
An awesome Survivor Series
Finn balor impressive debut

I mean, I know the WWE lacks consistency and a lot of things they do are worthless and boring, but you have to give credit where credit is due and this year has been entertaining and they seem, hopefully, to be going in the right direction in the future.

Of course there were bad moments, but when everything the WWE did was all great and good? Even in the highest heights, during the AE or the Golden Era, there were lots of wtf moments that were completely brutal.

I totally agree with you. Many here wear rose-colored glasses with the Attitude Era, and say how today's wrestling is not as good.

But the actual wrestling matches during the AE, except amongst the top six or seven guys, was horrendous. There were too many useless stables (D.O.A., The Oddities, The Truth Commission, Los Boricos etc), and 1998-99 was the low point in the Undertaker's career (His Ministry gimmick, both in character and his in-ring work). Also, the "Higher Power" thing was stupid, and its reveal undid months of storylines, and its motivation didn't make sense.

The Attitude Era lived off one big storyline, and many of the era's defenders forget that it didn't have much under that.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

in a perfect world, wrestling and it's fans would go back to when the product wasn'T so scripted and the fans weren't so fickle. I Mean it'S getting harder and harder these days to be an affective heel because unless you're a lousy wrestler, the fans will cheer for you. I take for exemple both world champions, Kevin owens and AJ Styles. Both guys are great talents, both guys a superb wrestlers, both guys are doing everything they can to get boo out of the building, in any other era they would be the hottest heels in the company but because they are who they are, they get cheered.

personally, all i would really want, is for the IWC fans to actually help the performers in the ring and react properly to what the performer is doing. Outside of the product being super scripted, this is my biggest problem with wrestling today. It really take me out of a match when the heel is the doing is heel stuff in the ring and he's still the biggest babyface in the match.

As far as booking is concern, i really would love WWE to give the performers a little bit more freedom to take chance on promos, i think it would help certain performers a lot if they could just go out there an be themselves instead of being what the writers think they should be. I take for exemple roman reigns and sasha banks, their 2 performers that have trouble with scripted promo's especially sasha who feel really unconfortable with her babyface character since joining the main roster. Can you imagine if they say to sasha, go out there and just be yourself, no trying to put over the woman's revolution, no using every tagline imaginable to tell how you guys are making history. Just sell the match by being what you think the boss character should be. I guarantee you that sasha would be 10 times more over and the feud even with the lazy booking would look way better. Same goes for Roman, the guys as natural charisma that i haven't seen in a performer since John Cena, the problem is that he's stuck with cutting scripted promos every week. If you give him bullet point and say go out there a cut a promo, the guy would probably be more over because when let to be himself and not what WWE want him to be, he's a great promo.

So for me that kinda what i would make me happy for 2017, IWC fans actually not trying to hijack every show and react accordingly to what the performer is doing in the ring instead of who the performer is and for WWE to let their performers more freedom on promo and not have every single word scripted for them.

 

[Mudlup50]

Okay buckle in, I have a bit to actually say about this.

For one, the gripe with the Charlotte/Sasha feud is that their is no feud. Say you only watch WWE main roster shows, can someone point me to when they actually had a reason to feud? They've been feuding since Royal Rumble with nothing to feud over aside from the belt. At the beginning of the feud it only made sense for Sasha to actually win the belt but the WWE dug their heels in and said no, we want Charlotte to hold the belt for 4 more months! So right there, a chunk of the feud's momentum was gone. Now you look at this feud and it's been going on all year and there's nothing there. Yes they've had good matches, but the storyline isn't there. If you look at the best feuds of all time, it's the storyline that mattered more than the matches, by having a good reason to feud, the matches could work out after that. I like to look at the Triple H/Shawn Michaels feud as an example, they had a legit reason to feud, for the fans to believe they would wanna destroy the other guy. This feud's story has basically been "I'm the best, no I'm the best!" And it's boring, especially bad when modern WWE relies on that story too much. Even worse when the feud goes on for a year.

I remember on some post show for some PPV, they asked Bayley how she felt not being a part of the Women's Hell in a Cell match and it hits you. By time the WWE decides to push Bayley or Nia Jax there won't be a first left for them. Let me ask you this, if they built a Charlotte/Bayley feud, why couldn't they give them the honor of being first Iron Women match of the main roster? I also want to add that a Hell in a Cell should end a feud, especially when said feud has been going on for over 10 months

Frankly, the Sasha/Charlotte feud has been boring for months and a feud should never reach that point. The length of a feud should be measured by how interesting it is, that's why an Undertaker/Kane program can go on for years but a feud pitting Alicia Fox and Nia Jax shouldn't! In the end, who wins should be based on future stories or the story of the feud. So in this feud for instance, Charlotte needs to win so she can feud with the face Bayley. My point being, you can't always say the face needs to win a feud because that'd be boring. We need the mixture of faces winning and heels winning to keep us interested.

I want feuds where there is a reason to feud, I'm a storyline fan not a wrestling fan and so seeing the same basic match a dozen times does nothing to me. This is why I'm a fan of the current Rusev/Enzo story even if others aren't, they have a reason to fight and it makes sense. While the dynamic of face and heel is off, that's more an issue of modern WWE and it's audiences than the feud itself.


And for the record, I think Charlotte and Sasha have definitely proven themselves during this feud but it's just went on far too long.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Completly agree with the above post. But the fact is that we are in the minority in not licking the sasha banks vs charlotte for all the reason mentions above. Most fans still love this feud considering the reaction they get everytime they appear on tv. So all I'm hoping is that this ironman match is the end of this feud and whoever win get to spin off in another feud with somebody else like bayley or nia jax.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

As long as I have air in my lungs to breathe and strength in my fingers to type I will continue to fight and defend the brilliance that has been Sasha vs Charlotte. This feud IMO can already be inserted into the conversation of best feud of 2016 and the greatest female rivalry in the history of wrestling.

But instead of ranting about how influential and revolutionary that feud has been, let me try to answer the title of this thread. For me personally, there are 3 things I do like and there are 3 things I don't like about feuds in wrestling.

1. Storytelling - I like when you can feel the passion/energy from the involved parties both in and out of the ring - The story doesn't have to be complicated at all, but please put your heart in it and make it believable. A great example of this would be the Kevin Owens & Sami Zayn feud; it literally looked like they couldn't be in the same room without hell breaking loose and in the ring they gave it their all every single time they faced off.

Conversely, I hate when things seem forced, formulaic, or pointless - I liken wrestling to any show or sport in the sense that most people wouldn't watch if they knew with certainty what was going to happen. They also would be turned off if the storyline doesn't make sense. Too many WWE storylines in the last 5 years fall into this category. Forced? Roman Reigns has quite a few entries, but I think the Roads to both WrestleMania 31 and 32 are great examples. Formulaic? Go to every John Cena feud besides AJ Styles; lose the first win the next 8. Pointless? Think back to last year when Sheamus and Randy Orton fought on a weekly basis for literally 2 months with no sort of development or meaningful promo.

2. Execution - A feud/rivalry cannot be considered classic if it produces no classic matches. This is a big reason why Trish and Lita's feud has outlasted so many of the women's feuds over a decade later. Team LayCool sharing the belts and calling Mickie "Piggy James" was pretty memorable for me but I can never put it in high esteem because I cannot recall a single match they ever had. The classic matchup doesn't have to be a gimmick match at all, it can literally just be a series of singles matches but please just make them good (i.e. Shawn Michaels v Undertaker 2009-2010).

The story can be as good as you want but if the matches fall flat the feud falls flat. Is Randy Orton v Triple H an all-time classic feud? There have been very few stories that have been better thought-out and more brilliantly executed than this story of Evolution mentor turned mortal enemy. The crowd was white hot behind Randy in 2004, turning him top face in an instant. In 2009, Randy was the most hated guy in the business when he punted Vince and proceeded to dismantle the McMahons. The storylines couldn't have been better but many argue that they've never produced a 4 or 5 star match. Perhaps an even better example would be Brock vs Goldberg in 2004. It was supposed to be the two most dominant forces in recent memory colliding for an epic battle that turned into a very forgettable match that had to be re-done last month.

3. Result - The end of a feud is the ideal time to produce an iconic moment in the business - From HBK's boyhood dream in 1996, to Chris Benoit's 18-year odyssey in 2004, to Daniel Bryan's YES Movement in 2014, we have seen a whole bunch of rivalries culminate in some of the most memorable and emotional moments of all-time. In all 3 examples, those moments were only possible because WWE Creative opted to go with the right choice.

I know the smarks in the crowd unreasonably think they can hijack the show and every fan thinks they're a booker but WWE Creative has to admit they've not been 100% with their choices. Some examples of feuds where perhaps the wrong guy was chosen and no real memorable moment was created? Cena/Nexus '10, any Bray Wyatt feud, Del Rio/Ziggler '13, Edge/Del Rio '11. They all have potential, but the result made it seem forgettable and negated any momentum created or any buzz generated from promos or any other storyline developments (including the matches themselves)

So while I ended up rambling anyway, I hope the OP can appreciate the fact that I rambled about the relevant topic. I want a logical, believable conflict that is resolved via skilled performances in a way that garners massive crowd response (regardless of it's positive or negative).

As it relates to Sasha/Charlotte, their ring psychology has been second to none. Charlotte has established herself as one of the best talkers in the company during this feud as well, and I think we can all agree that their matches have consistently been at least 4 stars. As for the result, we've already seen several moments that seemed pretty emotional (loved seeing Ric come down for Sasha) but we can only ultimately judge that when it comes. Regardless if the heel or face wins the feud you just have to feel it and it has to mean something (Brock/Taker is a great heel example).

 

[therockiswwf]

3 hours is going to give Raw problems that realistically they cannot currently fix (drawn out angles, repetitive matches, etc.). It will take time to fix Raw's thin roster due to the third hour. Without the third hour, a lot of problems would be solved. SD is chugging along pretty well right now. So I'll complain about something they can fix.

Making wins and losses matter. They are doing a horrendous job at this and two examples really stick out. Jericho/Miz beat AJ/Ziggler respectively. The night after Wrestlemania, Jericho and AJ both get put into the same #1 contender's match for the WWE title. 2 weeks after Miz beat Ziggler, they both get put in the same #1 contender's match for the WWE title on the last Smackdown. AJ and Ziggler got the same reward as the winner. Neither got punished. Neither had to do something extra to get into that match. Little things like keeping AJ/Ziggler out of those matches would make a loss mean so much more. It would give me a reason to be bummed that someone lost or be happy that someone won.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

As long as I have air in my lungs to breathe and strength in my fingers to type I will continue to fight and defend the brilliance that has been Sasha vs Charlotte. This feud IMO can already be inserted into the conversation of best feud of 2016 and the greatest female rivalry in the history of wrestling.

But instead of ranting about how influential and revolutionary that feud has been, let me try to answer the title of this thread. For me personally, there are 3 things I do like and there are 3 things I don't like about feuds in wrestling.

1. Storytelling - I like when you can feel the passion/energy from the involved parties both in and out of the ring - The story doesn't have to be complicated at all, but please put your heart in it and make it believable. A great example of this would be the Kevin Owens & Sami Zayn feud; it literally looked like they couldn't be in the same room without hell breaking loose and in the ring they gave it their all every single time they faced off.

Conversely, I hate when things seem forced, formulaic, or pointless - I liken wrestling to any show or sport in the sense that most people wouldn't watch if they knew with certainty what was going to happen. They also would be turned off if the storyline doesn't make sense. Too many WWE storylines in the last 5 years fall into this category. Forced? Roman Reigns has quite a few entries, but I think the Roads to both WrestleMania 31 and 32 are great examples. Formulaic? Go to every John Cena feud besides AJ Styles; lose the first win the next 8. Pointless? Think back to last year when Sheamus and Randy Orton fought on a weekly basis for literally 2 months with no sort of development or meaningful promo.

2. Execution - A feud/rivalry cannot be considered classic if it produces no classic matches. This is a big reason why Trish and Lita's feud has outlasted so many of the women's feuds over a decade later. Team LayCool sharing the belts and calling Mickie "Piggy James" was pretty memorable for me but I can never put it in high esteem because I cannot recall a single match they ever had. The classic matchup doesn't have to be a gimmick match at all, it can literally just be a series of singles matches but please just make them good (i.e. Shawn Michaels v Undertaker 2009-2010).

The story can be as good as you want but if the matches fall flat the feud falls flat. Is Randy Orton v Triple H an all-time classic feud? There have been very few stories that have been better thought-out and more brilliantly executed than this story of Evolution mentor turned mortal enemy. The crowd was white hot behind Randy in 2004, turning him top face in an instant. In 2009, Randy was the most hated guy in the business when he punted Vince and proceeded to dismantle the McMahons. The storylines couldn't have been better but many argue that they've never produced a 4 or 5 star match. Perhaps an even better example would be Brock vs Goldberg in 2004. It was supposed to be the two most dominant forces in recent memory colliding for an epic battle that turned into a very forgettable match that had to be re-done last month.

3. Result - The end of a feud is the ideal time to produce an iconic moment in the business - From HBK's boyhood dream in 1996, to Chris Benoit's 18-year odyssey in 2004, to Daniel Bryan's YES Movement in 2014, we have seen a whole bunch of rivalries culminate in some of the most memorable and emotional moments of all-time. In all 3 examples, those moments were only possible because WWE Creative opted to go with the right choice.

I know the smarks in the crowd unreasonably think they can hijack the show and every fan thinks they're a booker but WWE Creative has to admit they've not been 100% with their choices. Some examples of feuds where perhaps the wrong guy was chosen and no real memorable moment was created? Cena/Nexus '10, any Bray Wyatt feud, Del Rio/Ziggler '13, Edge/Del Rio '11. They all have potential, but the result made it seem forgettable and negated any momentum created or any buzz generated from promos or any other storyline developments (including the matches themselves)

So while I ended up rambling anyway, I hope the OP can appreciate the fact that I rambled about the relevant topic. I want a logical, believable conflict that is resolved via skilled performances in a way that garners massive crowd response (regardless of it's positive or negative).

As it relates to Sasha/Charlotte, their ring psychology has been second to none. Charlotte has established herself as one of the best talkers in the company during this feud as well, and I think we can all agree that their matches have consistently been at least 4 stars. As for the result, we've already seen several moments that seemed pretty emotional (loved seeing Ric come down for Sasha) but we can only ultimately judge that when it comes. Regardless if the heel or face wins the feud you just have to feel it and it has to mean something (Brock/Taker is a great heel example).

And until I take my last breath I will defend my point as to why this feud is nt as great as some pfans make it up to be.

First of the storytelling was lazy and repetitive. While the matches we're great, the constant playing yo yo with the title made the feud feel repetitive.

Also, the repetitve booking of the matches themselves, for some reason, dana brooke was really easy to take out in all these matches which took away from the feud. If only sasha would have been screwed from winning the title one time during the feud it would have made her victory seem so much bigger in the end.

Also the feud lasted too long, this feud should have ended at hell in the cell with sasha winning instead of 2 months later.

The promos have range from great to gringe worthy at time especially on sasha banks part.

The fans are starting to turn on them which is the proof that this feud as lasted too lng

Also, you got the problem of being force feed all these tag line and be overshadowed by this whole making history and women revolution non sense. It feel force and un natural coming from their mouths.

If you look at all the really great feud throughout history, what made them great was how the performers could tell a story and how promos felt organic and not scripted. It wasn't all about the matches like this feud is all about. In the end, yes they have had some great matches but that just what it was, a aeries of good matches that meant nothing in the end. I'm like alot of fans that really hope that this is truly the end of this feud and that other women's are able to get a chance to shine on raw instead of being held back because of these 2.

 

[d_henderson1810]

in a perfect world, wrestling and it's fans would go back to when the product wasn'T so scripted and the fans weren't so fickle. I Mean it'S getting harder and harder these days to be an affective heel because unless you're a lousy wrestler, the fans will cheer for you. I take for exemple both world champions, Kevin owens and AJ Styles. Both guys are great talents, both guys a superb wrestlers, both guys are doing everything they can to get boo out of the building, in any other era they would be the hottest heels in the company but because they are who they are, they get cheered.

personally, all i would really want, is for the IWC fans to actually help the performers in the ring and react properly to what the performer is doing. Outside of the product being super scripted, this is my biggest problem with wrestling today. It really take me out of a match when the heel is the doing is heel stuff in the ring and he's still the biggest babyface in the match.

As far as booking is concern, i really would love WWE to give the performers a little bit more freedom to take chance on promos, i think it would help certain performers a lot if they could just go out there an be themselves instead of being what the writers think they should be. I take for exemple roman reigns and sasha banks, their 2 performers that have trouble with scripted promo's especially sasha who feel really unconfortable with her babyface character since joining the main roster. Can you imagine if they say to sasha, go out there and just be yourself, no trying to put over the woman's revolution, no using every tagline imaginable to tell how you guys are making history. Just sell the match by being what you think the boss character should be. I guarantee you that sasha would be 10 times more over and the feud even with the lazy booking would look way better. Same goes for Roman, the guys as natural charisma that i haven't seen in a performer since John Cena, the problem is that he's stuck with cutting scripted promos every week. If you give him bullet point and say go out there a cut a promo, the guy would probably be more over because when let to be himself and not what WWE want him to be, he's a great promo.

So for me that kinda what i would make me happy for 2017, IWC fans actually not trying to hijack every show and react accordingly to what the performer is doing in the ring instead of who the performer is and for WWE to let their performers more freedom on promo and not have every single word scripted for them.

When it comes to people cheering heels, maybe the heels aren't doing enough to be booed.

I always remember Randy "Macho Man" Savage. Great wrestler, great character, but the fans booed him. Why?

Because he was a heel who knew how to act like a heel.

"Macho Man" blatantly cheated (and because the fans knew he had the talent to win, it made him more hated, because he didn't cheat to win, he did it just because he could). He took out a very popular babyface in Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat, (who sold the injury like it was real). "Macho Man" also mistreated Elizabeth, telling her where to stand, ordering her around etc. Everything he did was to make fans boo him, and when he went face, the fans embraced him. But he played a heel well.

These days, heels don't "heel it up enough". But heels are more restricted, because of political correctness, so they can't say or do really heinous things, which would make even the hardened wrestling fan turn on him or her. What a heel should do is, the more they get cheered, the more they do something to get himself booed instead. If say, a heel took out Daniel Bryan at the height of his popularity, or someone else everyone loves, then fans will boo this. Heels should do wear-down holds and not be high-flying, so as to make the fans more annoyed. Anything to make the fans turn on him.

People for years have asked for John Cena to turn heel, or Roman Reigns to turn heel, because they are booed. The problem is, if they did this, then the fans would cheer them, and they would be turned back face within six months. John Cena gets more "heel heat" being a face than he ever would as a heel.

 

[ShinChan]

When it comes to people cheering heels, maybe the heels aren't doing enough to be booed.

I always remember Randy "Macho Man" Savage. Great wrestler, great character, but the fans booed him. Why?

Because he was a heel who knew how to act like a heel.

"Macho Man" blatantly cheated (and because the fans knew he had the talent to win, it made him more hated, because he didn't cheat to win, he did it just because he could). He took out a very popular babyface in Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat, (who sold the injury like it was real). "Macho Man" also mistreated Elizabeth, telling her where to stand, ordering her around etc. Everything he did was to make fans boo him, and when he went face, the fans embraced him. But he played a heel well.

These days, heels don't "heel it up enough". But heels are more restricted, because of political correctness, so they can't say or do really heinous things, which would make even the hardened wrestling fan turn on him or her. What a heel should do is, the more they get cheered, the more they do something to get himself booed instead. If say, a heel took out Daniel Bryan at the height of his popularity, or someone else everyone loves, then fans will boo this. Heels should do wear-down holds and not be high-flying, so as to make the fans more annoyed. Anything to make the fans turn on him.

People for years have asked for John Cena to turn heel, or Roman Reigns to turn heel, because they are booed. The problem is, if they did this, then the fans would cheer them, and they would be turned back face within six months. John Cena gets more "heel heat" being a face than he ever would as a heel.

I disagree. I'll give you an example. Just assume that Roman Reigns/John Cena turns on a popular babyface like Daniel Bryan. Will the crowd still cheer Reigns/Cena? I guess, not. Of course, if Cena turns on Roman Reigns, he may get cheered because Reigns isn't himself cheered as much as a babyface should. If Cena turns on someone like Bryan, he won't be cheered either.