Behold him as World Champ?

[J.J.]

In what became a Feud of the Year candidate.



I disagree. He was very over. Much more so than most of the roster at the time. It's why despite not doing a lot throughout the year, he was put with Taker at Mania. It was a match the fans could invest in and believe. Not many people have been deserving of a Taker Mania match throughout the last few years; Michaels, HHH, Lesnar, and Punk. Can't see WWE just throwing Wyatt in there if he weren't over with the fans. He was also in a feud with Dean Ambrose that started out very strong. Both guys may not have come out of it any better, but Wyatt didn't come out any worse either. He lasted almost an hour in the Rumble match. Than came his spectacular work in building the Taker match. His feud with Ryback.... yeah, sucked, but than he made up for it by targeting Reigns. I'd say all in all, Wyatt has always remained in the upper echelon, with or without his family.

Do you know what over means? Over as in he gets a reaction, yes. Zack Ryder, The Miz, Big Show, Kane, are over in that sense then. Hell X-Pac had the most heat over a decade ago, I guess he was over enough to be etched in as a future champ. But he's not over from a booking standpoint. That is my point.

The topic is about do we want to see Wyatt as a world champ. If he's not going over in the feud, then no. I don't care if his feud with Reigns was Feud of the Year candidate, that's irrelevant. He faced Undertaker and Roman Reigns, how did that turn out for him in terms of him going over? It didn't - which is why I say as of right now he's not world champion material.

 

[OYDK]

Do you know what over means? Over as in he gets a reaction, yes. Zack Ryder, The Miz, Big Show, Kane, are over in that sense then. Hell X-Pac had the most heat over a decade ago, I guess he was over enough to be etched in as a future champ. But he's not over from a booking standpoint. That is my point.

Do I know what over means? I don't think you know what over means.

Over means you are cheered or respected by the crowd. That's the only meaning of over there is in wrestling. Also, X-Pac was not over. He had heat. There's a difference. Do you mean he needs to GO over more? Because that means something different entirely.

I think the word you're looking for is "positioning". Bray Wyatt's not positioned well enough from a booking standpoint. In that sense, I actually agree with you. He needs to start winning feuds or at the least booked stronger in the feuds he loses. But learn what a terms mean before chastising me.

 

[J.J.]

Do I know what over means? I don't think you know what over means.

Over means you are cheered or respected by the crowd. That's the only meaning of over there is in wrestling. Also, X-Pac was not over. He had heat. There's a difference. Do you mean he needs to GO over more? Because that means something different entirely.

I think the word you're looking for is "positioning". Bray Wyatt's not positioned well enough from a booking standpoint. In that sense, I actually agree with you. He needs to start winning feuds or at the least booked stronger in the feuds he loses. But learn what a terms mean before chastising me.

Over has always had separate meanings. Example - The Rock during his time in NOD was extremely over as a heel and Stone Cold was extremely over as a face. Anytime you garner a reaction from the crowd rather cheers or boos. When The Miz and Sandow teamed - Miz was over with the crowd as a heel and Sandow was over as a face in the duo. Miz was boo'd - again it was a reaction meaning he's over as a heel, Sandow was being cheered meaning he's over as a face. Fans are still buying into Wyatt's chatacter which makes him over in that sense. Which I never denied. When Hulk Hogan won the belt from Iron Shiek you can say Shiek put Hogan over or Hogan went over on Shiek.

As far as the X-Pac response. When Heath Slater who is a heel comes out and insults <insert town name here> that is generating heat from the crowd. Xpac was disliked strongly for whatever reason which made his character over as a heel. Over in this sense is based upon crowd reaction.

Now from the other example of over. At TLC - Sheamus defeated Roman Reigns but League of Nations and Triple H put Reigns OVER by playing victim to his post-match assault which put him OVER as a fan favorite that night. The next night Sheamus put Reigns over by winning the championship. Vince McMahon further put Reigns over by selling a Superman Punch.

There's no wrestling term called "positioning". It's either you're BOOKED to win in a feud or a match, or you're BOOKED to lose. Wyatt was booked to lose to Undertaker and was booked to lose to to Roman Reigns. Wyatt not being ready for the title is an issue of how he's booked not 'positioning'.

Chastising you isn't what I was doing. But instead I was correcting you on a term in which you weren't acknowledging it's full meaning.