Daniel Bryan? I don't get it...

[SuperBP]

Optimist: Are you kidding me? The whole point of Daniel Bryan being "bland" as you put it, is to make him different from everybody else. When was the last time that you saw someone withe the technical work that Daniel Bryan has been showing week in and week out in the WWE? Probably not since 2006 when Kurt Angle left the company.

Daniel Bryan, or even Bryan Danielson for that matter, has never been out to be the biggest guy out there. In the indys, he called himself the best wrestler in the world. I'm not saying that he is THE absolute best wrestler in the world today, but he is definitely in the Top 20. Go to YouTube, and watch some his matches from ROH. He can bring the best out in anybody out there. And that is what I believe many people like about him. He can go out there and make anybody look good.

People love Daniel Bryan because he is just like them. As many people before me have said, he is the "everyman". He is the Dusty Rhodes of this generation. And before anybody starts jumping on me for that statement, let me clarify what I mean. Dusty Rhodes was not what the typical wrestler. He wasn't that tall. He wasn't ripped from head to toe. He was who he was, and he couldn't care less what people thought about him. He was an inspiration to the common man. And that is what Daniel Bryan is now. He is an inspiration to today's common man. He proves that you don't have to look like Dave Batista to make it in wrestling. You can be 5'11" and weigh 185 lbs. You don't have to have the 24" pythons. You can look like a normal person and make it in the wrestling business. And THAT is why people love Daniel Bryan.

 

[Optimist Prime]

People love Daniel Bryan because he is just like them. As many people before me have said, he is the "everyman". He is the Dusty Rhodes of this generation. And before anybody starts jumping on me for that statement, let me clarify what I mean. Dusty Rhodes was not what the typical wrestler. He wasn't that tall. He wasn't ripped from head to toe. He was who he was, and he couldn't care less what people thought about him. He was an inspiration to the common man. And that is what Daniel Bryan is now. He is an inspiration to today's common man. He proves that you don't have to look like Dave Batista to make it in wrestling. You can be 5'11" and weigh 185 lbs. You don't have to have the 24" pythons. You can look like a normal person and make it in the wrestling business. And THAT is why people love Daniel Bryan.

Why would people watch wrestling to watch people "just like them" though? That's like going to the movies and watching a movie about somebody going to work everyday where nothing that significant happens LOL

The whole reason people used to watch wrestling is because it was somewhat of a fantasy land where all these gimmick wrestlers that represented cartoon style characters would literally take you out of your own reality and into a realm of entertainment. Even back before the 80's George Steele would pain his tongue and be "The Animal", Andre was ridiculously big (certainly not like anybody else), Billy Graham would wear crazy attire, etc. Then the late 90's came and the attitude era...and things changed a little bit but the personality was still there and because of that, so was the entertainment.

Now well into the 2000's they're stripping the personality away from wrestling apparently. So no longer do you have the fantasy world you could get lost into...but now you have zero personality. So basically, you're just watching regular joe's running around giving arm bars and drop kicks to with basically no build-up whatsoever.

Pardon me if I say that it's unfortunate and sad...but it's just the way it is I guess. Doesn't mean I have to like the guy though.

 

[Stevolutionary]

As for the music, Gorgeous George, Randy Savage and Ric Flair coming down to something as iconic as Pomp & Circumstance and Also Sprach Zarsthustra actually fit in wresting. Daniel Bryan's cavelry theme song seems like a running gag or something. It certainly doesn't have even close to the same effect as the other two. So if a wrestler comes out to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata it automatically makes sense because other wrestlers came out to Pomp & Circumstance? LOL I don't see the correlation.

What you don't seem to realise is that yes, it is a joke, but that the joke isn't on Bryan - it's on Cole and The Miz. Cole being presented as insular and ignorant of wrestling outside the WWE, and Miz it's heritage, as someone coming from a reality TV background who never went through the indie territories, as they're the ones laughing at it on TV.

The fact you did something exactly the same as The Miz, and misread where the music came from (Bonanza? Star Wars?) shows the joke is also on you. Are you seriously siding your opinion with them, not understanding that that's not actually their real viewpoint? They're both CHARACTERS and designed that way. In reality I imagine both respect him enormously.

Bryan's character is of "classic" grappler. Pre-TV, Pre-Roids, Pre-Faux Metal. A pure wrestler. And that's a gimmick in itself, and one different than anyone else on the roster. Make everyone a vein popping 7ft superman with a metal theme, and that's when it becomes stale and bland.

Also Ride of the Valkyries is NOT Moonlight Sonata. Watch Apocalypse Now and you'll see the context it's most normally associated with in pop culture. if anything it's a more threatening theme than Pomp and Circumstance.

 

[The Brain]

A lot has been said here, but I’ll focus on what I feel to be the main question.

I'm not denying his in-ring ability. I'm just strictly saying that he's boring and I don't understand the overflow of love and admiration...compared to other guys.

I appreciate the conversation, but you know very well why this is. The internet created a reputation for Bryan as the greatest wrestler in the world. The IWC is all about a fast paced thirty minute match regardless if it’s a mat classic or a high flying spot fest void of all sound wrestling psychology. I’ve never seen Bryan wrestle outside WWE so I can’t say what style he had. The point is he’s popular because of his reputation. For years the IWC has read about how great he is and now they’re excited to see him here. Unfortunately his reputation will be impossible to live up to. I’m sure if you polled 1000 fans that do not follow wrestling on the internet very few, if any, will say Bryan is their favorite wrestler.

Also I’m sure Bryan’s nerd boy image is relatable to a lot of internet fans. They see him as one of their own. He is overlooked by his peers because of his bland appearance, but he can contribute as much as they can. There are probably some guys that were considered dorks in high school that were really fun to be around if you got to know them. Their physical appearance put an unfair stereotype on them from the start and instead a bunch of brainless meatheads reigned as most popular. A win for Bryan is a symbolic win for them.

 

[Optimist Prime]

What you don't seem to realise is that yes, it is a joke, but that the joke isn't on Bryan - it's on Cole and The Miz. Cole being presented as insular and ignorant of wrestling outside the WWE, and Miz it's heritage, as someone coming from a reality TV background who never went through the indie territories, as they're the ones laughing at it on TV.

The fact you did something exactly the same as The Miz, and misread where the music came from (Bonanza? Star Wars?) shows the joke is also on you. Are you seriously siding your opinion with them, not understanding that that's not actually their real viewpoint? They're both CHARACTERS and designed that way. In reality I imagine both respect him enormously.

Bryan's character is of "classic" grappler. Pre-TV, Pre-Roids, Pre-Faux Metal. A pure wrestler. And that's a gimmick in itself, and one different than anyone else on the roster. Make everyone a vein popping 7ft superman with a metal theme, and that's when it becomes stale and bland.

Also Ride of the Valkyries is NOT Moonlight Sonata. Watch Apocalypse Now and you'll see the context it's most normally associated with in pop culture. if anything it's a more threatening theme than Pomp and Circumstance.

So basically what you're saying is...is that he's Santino with far better wrestling skills?

Nobody is saying that a "classic" grappler can't be cheered for...but absolutely adored and loved and admired beyond belief? THAT is what doesn't make sense.

Imagine if you've watched wrestling forever...and then all of the sudden some guy comes out like Eugene and EVERYBODY started to love him beyond belief...they were writing articles and threads about how great he was...and the admiration was ridiculous. I'm almost positive you would take a step back and scratch your head for quite a while, no?

That's what it feels like for me.

 

[Optimist Prime]

A lot has been said here, but I’ll focus on what I feel to be the main question.



I appreciate the conversation, but you know very well why this is. The internet created a reputation for Bryan as the greatest wrestler in the world. The IWC is all about a fast paced thirty minute match regardless if it’s a mat classic or a high flying spot fest void of all sound wrestling psychology. I’ve never seen Bryan wrestle outside WWE so I can’t say what style he had. The point is he’s popular because of his reputation. For years the IWC has read about how great he is and now they’re excited to see him here. Unfortunately his reputation will be impossible to live up to. I’m sure if you polled 1000 fans that do not follow wrestling on the internet very few, if any, will say Bryan is their favorite wrestler.

Also I’m sure Bryan’s nerd boy image is relatable to a lot of internet fans. They see him as one of their own. He is overlooked by his peers because of his bland appearance, but he can contribute as much as they can. There are probably some guys that were considered dorks in high school that were really fun to be around if you got to know them. Their physical appearance put an unfair stereotype on them from the start and instead a bunch of brainless meatheads reigned as most popular. A win for Bryan is a symbolic win for them.

Very well said. This is about the ONLY thing that could possibly make sense for this whole situation.

Thank you for explaining it rationally to me unlike most of the others.

I'm convinced that this is exactly the reason Daniel Bryans is loved so much...because there can't quite possibly be any other reason that makes even a little sense.

 

[natlee75]

While it's easy for Daniel Bryan supporters to simply claim that this is just merely my opinion...it's also just simply common sense.

It's also very easy for people with strong opinions to feel that theirs is the only sensible one.

Just because the guy won a title already doesn't mean that I have to like him.

No, it doesn't. Also, that you don't like him doesn't mean he's not a good or entertaining wrestler. And before you just cram me into the "Daniel Bryan supporters" group, note that I actually agree with you that he's kind of boring and not all that great in the ring... so far.

As I've explained, Rey Mysterio Jr. was given the World Title and my head was spinning in circles for quite some time.

In other words, you've reinforced your opinion that guys like Daniel Bryan and Rey Mysterio should just be put in the back burner in favor of the physically big guys like Hogan, Nash, Savage, etc. That's fine, but there's nothing "common sense" about it.

Do I want "big roided meat bags" wrestling each other? Not necessarily. I'd rather have somebody with a good personality and charisma.

And whether someone has a good personality and charisma really depends on personal preference and opinion. Further, the importance of these characteristics changes with each viewer - some people only care about the matches and the work rate.

I was more than willing to support The Rock because of his extraordinary charisma and personality. He wasn't anywhere near being a great technical wrestler but he executed many of his movies with a certain style that was very entertaining to watch.

On the other hand, guys like Hogan, Nash, Savage, etc. were just boring as Hell in the ring and not really all that charismatic on the mic. I mean Hogan... all he did was rumble into a mic and talk about vitamins and prayers. Savage? Growl, growl, growl, oh yeah, snap into a Slim Jim! Not at all charismatic, and with only one PPV match that I've enjoyed (obviously against Steamboat).

Now Bret Hart I could understand. His personality wasn't the greatest...but he was a good technical wrestler with great ring attire, great theme song, cool shades, etc.

The theme song is great to get fans going at the beginning of a match, but it's not really core to a great performer. I think Hogan's tune is catchy, but he still sucks/sucked.

Bret was great because even without a strong, solid personality, he always told a great story in the ring.

So at least there were elements of why he became popular and successful. Daniel Bryan coming down to the theme song of Bonanza is basically a slap in the face to wrestling as a whole. Anything and everything that used to represent the glory days of wrestling and entertainment has been thrown out the window in favor of mediocrity and comedy relief.

What exactly are the "glory days of wrestling?" Maybe it's because I didn't grow up watching early 80's WWF and NWA, but even shortly after I became a fan of the industry and went back to watch those old PPVs on tapes, I was never really impressed with a lot of the bigger names.

Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Piper, etc. were simply never entertaining to me. Okay, Warrior maybe a little bit, I'll admit.

I will agree with you, though, that the over exposure of comedy bits is a bit grating. I can understand why they continue to use Santino like he's a moron, but I'd personally rather see him kick some ass with those Olympic level judo skills.

I've always said...if you ONLY like flip flopping around the ring and ONLY the wrestling moves...go to a circus and watch the trapeze artists flip flop around...or go to your local high school gym and watch a wrestling meet. You guys would probably LOVE it.

But when you start taking away the element of the "build up" of the match and rely solely on just the match itself...it becomes infinitely more boring.

Well, that really depends on the match. Any match that involved Bret back in the day was awesome, whether I knew the build-up or not. I can still go back to my DVDs and watch any one of Bret's PPV matches and enjoy it for the work and the story being told.

Maybe it's because of your love for guys like Hogan, Savage, Nash, etc. who had no in-ring skills and relied entirely on the build-up that you have such a bias.

Personal opinion? Not really...because it's common sense.

You keep saying that yet you've offered no real support for the argument.

It's as if movies in the theater just showed the ending to all of the movies.

That's simply a bad comparison. If you want to use movies as a comparison, a more appropriate correlation would be the matches as the exciting action sequences and set pieces and "the build-up" as the story and dialogue in between.

And guess what - there are a LOT of moviegoers who love more action and less dialogue. Just look at how well any Michael Bay movie does, LOL.

I'm sure there would be some people who loved the idea...but it just takes away a lot of the whole element of it all. The people who liked the idea could simply say "well you guys liking to watch the whole movie thinking it's much better is just your opinion" Is it? Or is it just common sense?

No, it's not. It's your opinion of what's important versus anyone else's opinion of what's important.

If you think more talking and less wrestling is good, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's sensible nor does it mean that anyone else should feel the same way.

Back to the topic at hand, though, I think that really Daniel Bryan is only popular with the WWE Universe because he was at odds with The Miz. Had he just been another member of Nexus, he probably wouldn't be doing a whole lot right now.

"Being myself" is fine and dandy, but eventually you need something other than your own little personality strike to differentiate you from the pack. If he continues with this gimmick - or lack thereof - then he won't get any further than the level he's already climbed to.

 

[blackmetalbuick]

Count me as one of the people who see absolutely nothing special in this guy. I never bothered to follow him in the indys, but of course knew of his reputation. I remember the first time I looked up a picture of him and I laughed at his physique just because it didn't compare to this mythical wrestler I kept hearing about. Maybe it's from years of watching WWE, but I do expect wrestlers to be impressive looking athletes or body builders. I don't buy the whole "he's an everyman, people like that they can relate". I don't want to see what an average 180lb male would look like in a wrestling ring lol. It's not entirely about overall size either, other guys like Ziggler or Bourne look more impressive than Bryan and they aren't huge guys. They obviously just spend time in the gym.

Aside from image, he has shown me nothing interesting in the ring. I know, WWE can tend to limit people. I'm sure there's much more to him than what I've seen so far, but he's in the WWE now and whatever moveset he has formulated for himself isn't very interesting.

Can't cut a decent promo either.

I've enjoyed seeing Sheamus destroy him two weeks in a row. Hopefully he won't last long.

 

[natlee75]

Okay I just have to address this since you have said it twice now, when exactly did Ride of the Valkyries become the theme song from Bonanza. They sound nothing alike, I really have no clue what that is about.

I was wondering about that. I've never seen an episode of Bonanza but for some reason I kept thinking about the theme song from Benny Hill.

Ride of the Valkyries is a great classical masterpiece (one of the only ones I like myself). It's really not all that different from using Also Sprach Zarathustra or Pomp and Circumstance.

As for Daniel Bryan, I would have to say what is special about him is that he is great in the ring, and though you wouldn't know it from WWE they guy has a ton of personality and is great on the mic when given a chance. I have to say based on your opinion of Rey Mysterio and your sig, it seems you may be suffering from a bit of bias towards size over skill.

Therein lies the problem - in WWE, he doesn't have a ton of personality and isn't great on the mic... and WWE seems to be pushing him to be like that (or maybe that was just his idea).

He has to show something soon if he wants to get anywhere in the company. He's currently holding onto a title that may not even be around a half-year from now, then where's he going to go?

Bryan Danielson may be great, but I definitely couldn't see Daniel Bryan anywhere near the main event.

 

[natlee75]

No bias. I personally think Shawn Michaels was the greatest all around performer of all time and he wasn't that big at all. He had the total package though in every which way.

It's funny - I know exactly why people love HBK, but I kind of lost interest in him after he started going back to the Rockers high-flying ways. The only time I really liked him was right after he sent Jannetty through the glass and became a much more grounded mat technician.

No bias towards size what so ever. I'm just a big fan of the entire element of wrestling and not just the match itself.

It's kind of funny to read "wrestling" and "not just the match" used that way. If you want to talk about traditional professional wrestling, there wasn't so much of the soap operatic elements originally... Vince made the emergence of the really heavy soap opera elements possible with all the television and PPV deals.

Your perspective reminds me very much of the South Park WTF episode.

I would trade a great build-up to a match for a match filled with flip flopping any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

That's certainly your prerogative. I myself, and many others I'm sure, would like to actually see a match and not just the build-up. ;-)

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

Ok, it's clear you have no clue who BRYAN DANIELSON is. I Like him so much because he is a good wrestler. He could put on great promos too, especially with Michael Cole and Miz. I don't even consider his gimmick to be a nerd gimmick. I don't mind if you just hate the damn guy becasue you don't watch him in ROH, but don't create stupid theories of thinking only nerds follow him. If you watched him fight people like Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Low Ki, Christopher Daniels, (ROH) CM punk, Nigel McGuiness and especially KENTA, then you'll see he's not a nerd. Like I said, I don't mind if you think he's a nobody just because you never watched ROH, I like Daniel Bryan because he's a great wrestler. He brings something new to the table, he won't become like John Cena or Randy Orton. He'll become more like Christian or Chris Jericho, because they have talent.

 

[Calderownz]

The guy can work. If I want flash, I wait/look elsewhere on the card. When I watch his matches, I'm looking for artistic wrestling with innovative moves/styles. If you like the actual movements of wrestling and watch one of his better matches in ROH and don't get what you're looking for, I don't know what you're looking for.

The guy can work.

If you want flash, then look elsewhere. Not everyone has to be the same, great personality/average work in the ring. Sometimes it can be the other way around. ANd he's got a lot of personality when given the chance to begin with.

 

[The Brain]

It's kind of funny to read "wrestling" and "not just the match" used that way. If you want to talk about traditional professional wrestling, there wasn't so much of the soap operatic elements originally... Vince made the emergence of the really heavy soap opera elements possible with all the television and PPV deals.

Your perspective reminds me very much of the South Park WTF episode.


That's certainly your prerogative. I myself, and many others I'm sure, would like to actually see a match and not just the build-up. ;-)

Professional wrestling as we know it involves much more than just the match from bell to bell. If it didn't there would be no reason for interviews, video packages, backstage skits, personal feuds, or anything else. The build and storyline are crucial parts of professional wrestling. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Savage and Steamboat had a great match at WM3. If two unknown indy guys put on the exact match in some high school gym I would not care. It would not be as good. Savage vs. Steamboat was great because of the feud, the build, the crowd/atmosphere, the significance, and the action from bell to bell. The bell to bell action is only one piece of the puzzle that makes a great match.

 

[natlee75]

No trolling whatsoever. Why? Because I don't agree with your opinion it must be trolling?

I just simply and truly don't understand anything about the guy.

Mr. Perfect (Curt Hennig) was one of the best technical wrestlers ever and there wasn't much hooplah over him. He was popular and such but not to the extent that Daniel Bryan is...and Curt Hennig had a great gimmick!!

You DO realize that the make-up of the wrestling fan base is very different now than it was back then, right? How high a percentage of the WWF fans in those days do you think actually believed wrestling was real? LOL

His vignettes were awesome and extremely entertaining. He would do stupid things like spit and slap his gum in mid air and toss his towel around his back and catch it. As stupid as they were...it made the fans angry and it was great. Daniel Bryan is basically Chris Benoit without the rotting teeth.

And that's not a bad thing to aspire to be. Chris Benoit was one of the most impressive wrestlers to ever step foot in a ring. I couldn't give a rat's ass about what storyline was in - I just wanted to see the man wrestle!

As for the music, Gorgeous George, Randy Savage and Ric Flair coming down to something as iconic as Pomp & Circumstance and Also Sprach Zarsthustra actually fit in wresting.

How so? What makes those songs any more "appropriate for wrestling" than Ride of the Valkyries? You've already been called out on inaccurately associating it with Bonanza several times unless maybe you were just hyperbolizing in an attempt to lend some sort of credence to your argument...?

Daniel Bryan's cavelry theme song seems like a running gag or something.

It sounds odd only because we've grown accustom to guitar riffs and bass in entrance themes. If Ric Flair had come out to Valkyries instead of Sprach, you'd be going on about how awesome a theme song it is.

It certainly doesn't have even close to the same effect as the other two.

And why is that? It seems to me that the only reason you say that is because the other two songs have been used as entrance themes and this one hasn't. Maybe you love Ric Flair and Randy Savage and that's why their theme songs are so grand and spectacular to you.

On the other hand, Randy Savage's theme song seems decidedly non iconic to me. All I think about when I hear is "Graduation song." Very iconic indeed, LOL.

Ride of the Valkyries is a much more epic and masterful piece of music than Pomp and Circumstance ever will be.

I'll agree to the extent that it's not a great fit for Daniel Bryan.

So if a wrestler comes out to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata it automatically makes sense because other wrestlers came out to Pomp & Circumstance? LOL I don't see the correlation.

My point wasn't that Daniel Bryan shouldn't be in the WWE at all...my question was how I couldn't understand how he was so popular to the point where WWE would break it's own rules and regulations and bring him back.

Exactly when and how did WWE do that? They seemd to follow their own regulations just fine... breaking them would have been bringing Bryan back BEFORE the 90-day clause was up.

THAT is my problem. If he wants to run amidst the mid-carders, that's fine. I have no problem. But I just didn't understand the love and admiration for something so mediocre and boring.

That's because your opinion is that he is mediocre and boring. Did it ever occur to you that the tens of thousands of people cheering for him don't find him mediocre and boring? That's the problem with people who have such extreme opinions - they can't see that anyone could possibly think differently than they do.

Mr. Perfect was a mid-carder for his entire career and is in the Hall of Fame. I don't see anything wrong with it. I just couldn't justify Mr. Perfect being vastly better than Daniel Bryan in every way possible...but having Daniel Bryan being put on some pedestal and loved to the point where he'd inevitably get a push to become champion.

I highly doubt that he'll be pushed beyond the mid-card level if they continue to keep him with this "I don't have a gimmick" gimmick. I can't see him being anything other than an upper midcarder.

And consider... last week, they had him squashed by the big white freak Sheamus.

Chris Benoit was horrible by the way. I never understood the love and admiration for him either. Again, Mr. Perfect was infinitely better than him in every way but Chris Benoit gets the push because fans overvalue him because he can do a head butt from the top rope.

I just never understood it and, like I said, I guess I never will.

Chris Benoit had more mat wrestling talent in his pinky finger than Hogan, Savage, Nash, Hall, Warrior, AND Piper in their whole bodies combined. Nobody overvalued him. If anything, WWE undervalued him. He should have been World Champ more than once and for a longer period of time.

If all you see in Benoit is a head butt from the top rope - one of the dumbest choices of finisher for a guy who could outwrestle 99% of the people in the industry during his life - then I have to seriously reconsider any conclusions I had that you had any sense at all.

 

[rated rkno]

athletic yes.
us title worthy yes but not yet.
rushed back in questionable.
he has the talent, but not the it factor.
he was only rushed back in because everyone hates cole with a deep passion.
deedp enough to make edge a face,
deep enough to want vinces heel character back on tv
just so u dont have to hear cole.
but thats all he has going for him as far as a reason to come back. cole hates him.
and because i dont like him doesnt mean im in to meat heads,
i like the middle wrestlers
randy orton edge dolph ziggler ect.
the reason reys title reign doesnt hold up is because its to far out there
ok rey wins over orton
ok rey wins over angle
but then put him in matches with henry and other huge guys just stretches to far.
the one thing i will give to the wwe on this one is bryant is that he is loosing.
atleast to the big guys.
so do I wanna see him
no.
does he Reaaaaly belong there.
no.
are they using him atleast somewhat well?
yes

 

[natlee75]

And that's understandable and again, I'm not saying he's not a good in-ring performer. But the WWE and anything on television isn't ROH. That's what people don't quite understand. There are build-ups to matches where personality is needed and necessary to entertain the fans as well. This is where he lacks...and this is where I don't understand it.

Well, we all know that WWE doesn't cater to the IWC so he can't be getting a push simply because any of us here care about him. That means that it HAS to be the very audience you speak of who are loving him. Again, you seem to have completely dismissed the fact that your own personal opinions and views about what's entertaining apply only to you.

You sound kind of like a film snob who can't understand why people don't like so and so movie but love so and so other movie... and tries to justify their opinion by saying "it's common sense that people should only like this one type of movie."

If I'm looking for an actor for my play...and one guy knows all the lines and knows exactly where to stand at any given time and has the placement down and everything...does that all flawlessly...but he studders in front of a crowd. Nobody would say that he's the best choice...let alone the best in the world. They just wouldn't.

I don't recall anyone claiming Bryan Danielson was the best actor in the world. Wrestler != actor. Acting out scripted soap opera scenes is simply one part of the job.

I do think you have a point with regards to how he'll do now that he has to stand on his own without The Miz as his foil. You don't need two great personalities to be able to drive a story or "build up" forward, but you do need at least one.

Professional Wrestling isn't just maneuvers in the ring. There's quite a bit more to it...and that's where guys like Daniel Bryan, Chris Benoit, etc. fail miserably and always have.

Professional wrestling is a different thing to different people. You speak as if the high production value giant organizations are the only professional wrestling entities around. Professional wrestling is just as much ROH and other indies and always has been... and they obviously didn't have weekly multimillion dollar television shows and a dozen professional television writers.

 

[jholcomb22]

First of all, OP, open your own blog if you are going to respond to every single post. I know what your stance is since you stated it in the original post. I don't need you to reiterate it after every single person posts a reason they like Bryan.

The biggest problem I have with this is, in the original post, you say "his moves are mediocre," but then when people say he is a great in ring performer you retract and say "I'm not denying his in ring ability."

I can appreciate your point that he is not great on the mic. That's an easy fix. WWE needs to bring back managers who work as mouthpieces for good wrestlers who aren't the best speakers. He has a brash attitude that any manager could run wild with.

Other than that, it sounds like you are a wishy washy WWE watcher, and before you post a reply to this, i'll show you where I'm coming from in your own words: "I was a huge wrestling fan in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's and I continuously try to get back into it recently." I assume that you trying to get back into it is watching an occasional episode of raw. I doubt you are ordering any PPV or watching NXT and therefore are missing out on Bryan's best matches while in WWE.

You also keep making references to WWE giving us "the end of the movie instead of the whole thing," instead of setting up a good story with beginning, middle and end. If you had seen NXT, you would know they had been setting up Miz vs Bryan for 6 months. Their feud was a great story that took it's cue from real life. People calling Miz the rookie, turned into a struggle between mentor and rookie, then Bryan's return and eventual capture of the US Championship. It's not like WWE said on episode 1 of NXT, they said Bryan is great. He gets a US title shot. He wins and stops everything with Miz. It went on for awhile. You just need to watch it.

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

athletic yes.
us title worthy yes but not yet.
rushed back in questionable.
he has the talent, but not the it factor.
he was only rushed back in because everyone hates cole with a deep passion.
deedp enough to make edge a face,
deep enough to want vinces heel character back on tv
just so u dont have to hear cole.
but thats all he has going for him as far as a reason to come back. cole hates him.
and because i dont like him doesnt mean im in to meat heads,
i like the middle wrestlers
randy orton edge dolph ziggler ect.
the reason reys title reign doesnt hold up is because its to far out there
ok rey wins over orton
ok rey wins over angle
but then put him in matches with henry and other huge guys just stretches to far.
the one thing i will give to the wwe on this one is bryant is that he is loosing.
atleast to the big guys.
so do I wanna see him
no.
does he Reaaaaly belong there.
no.
are they using him atleast somewhat well?
yes

OK, you honestly are the definition of the word smark. I don't like the word smark but thats what you are. You seem to have such a strong opinion, yet you can't back it up. Daniel Bryan has the it factor. I know that after watching him in ROH for the last eight years. He does deserve to be United States champion, just because WWE were that much of idiots just to fire him for being to damn violent. And please write with proper grammar before saying anything at all. And if your so confiedent that Daniel Bryan is some loser, give me evidence, besides that the creative team made him job to bigger guys and cater to rookies.

 

[natlee75]

Why would people watch wrestling to watch people "just like them" though? That's like going to the movies and watching a movie about somebody going to work everyday where nothing that significant happens LOL

Another bad comparison on your part.

Watching an "everyman" in wrestling is like going to a movie to watch an "everyman" in situations that are typically handled by big buff action heroes.

When every action movie that comes out stars Arnold, Dolph or Sly, things start getting stale. Bruce Willis as John McClane was popular because he was supposed to be an every day, regular cop who found himself in an extraordinary situation. Would Die Hard have lasted as long with Arnold or Stallone as McClane? Probably not.

The whole reason people used to watch wrestling is because it was somewhat of a fantasy land where all these gimmick wrestlers that represented cartoon style characters would literally take you out of your own reality and into a realm of entertainment. Even back before the 80's George Steele would pain his tongue and be "The Animal", Andre was ridiculously big (certainly not like anybody else), Billy Graham would wear crazy attire, etc. Then the late 90's came and the attitude era...and things changed a little bit but the personality was still there and because of that, so was the entertainment.

If that's your preference, that's fine. The thing is that there are a lot of people who as adults didn't enjoy the three ring circus that was the 80's WWF all that much. I admittedly liked a lot of the larger than life stupid gimmicks but then again I was in high school still... and I like Disney movies. ;-)

On the other hand, I don't think I could really take much of Red Rooster, Giant Gonzales, The Gobbledy Gook, Bastion Booger, Skinner, etc. and so forth as a 30+ adult, though. I enjoyed wrestling much more during the era of Bret Hart, HBK, Austin, The Rock, etc.

Now well into the 2000's they're stripping the personality away from wrestling apparently. So no longer do you have the fantasy world you could get lost into...but now you have zero personality. So basically, you're just watching regular joe's running around giving arm bars and drop kicks to with basically no build-up whatsoever.

Absolutely wrong. There are still tons of these gimmick characters (more subdued and not as child-oriented for the most part), but eventually when everyone is a gimmick, someone who is more down to Earth stands out a lot more...

Pardon me if I say that it's unfortunate and sad...but it's just the way it is I guess. Doesn't mean I have to like the guy though.

You absolutely don't. There are plenty of people on both companies' rosters that I have no interest in whatsoever.

 

[natlee75]

So basically what you're saying is...is that he's Santino with far better wrestling skills?

Nobody is saying that a "classic" grappler can't be cheered for...but absolutely adored and loved and admired beyond belief? THAT is what doesn't make sense.

What's more interesting to me is why you've taken it upon yourself to try to understand why anyone else likes what they like. Why does it even matter to you? It obviously does from what you've posted here.

Imagine if you've watched wrestling forever...and then all of the sudden some guy comes out like Eugene and EVERYBODY started to love him beyond belief...they were writing articles and threads about how great he was...and the admiration was ridiculous. I'm almost positive you would take a step back and scratch your head for quite a while, no?

That's what it feels like for me.

Except Eugene had more of a personality. ;-)

 

[natlee75]

Professional wrestling as we know it involves much more than just the match from bell to bell. If it didn't there would be no reason for interviews, video packages, backstage skits, personal feuds, or anything else. The build and storyline are crucial parts of professional wrestling. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Savage and Steamboat had a great match at WM3. If two unknown indy guys put on the exact match in some high school gym I would not care. It would not be as good. Savage vs. Steamboat was great because of the feud, the build, the crowd/atmosphere, the significance, and the action from bell to bell. The bell to bell action is only one piece of the puzzle that makes a great match.

I fully understand that there's more to the "art" of professional wrestling than just the match itself although even that is really just a "modern" development. Before the days of regular televised wrestling programming, most people would only see the one match between two guys and it was up to the performers to be able to really convey the whole story in the match itself.

On the other hand, just because there's more than just the match doesn't mean that every single person has to love anything more than the match.

For me, Savage vs. Steamboat was great because the match itself was great from a technical perspective compared to the typical "big beefy guy vs. another big beefy guy" one expected from WWF at the time. I didn't follow wrestling at the time so the "build up" for that match is really irrelevant to me.

At the same time, the "build up" really can't make a match "the greatest of all time" in my view. You could have the best build up in the world leading up to a match, but if the two opponents can't work for squat, the match itself still sucks.

Case in point: Hogan vs. Warrior. I know the context around it. I know the events that occurred. I know what it was all about for the fans. The match was still boring as Hell to me.

Also, consider the many people who really just want to watch the matches. If I go over a PPV disc, the build up and the story isn't going to mean much to me. Truly great performers will be able to captivate me just in the match... nimrods like Hogan and Warrior won't be able to.

 

[natlee75]

OK, you honestly are the definition of the word smark. I don't like the word smark but thats what you are. You seem to have such a strong opinion, yet you can't back it up. Daniel Bryan has the it factor. I know that after watching him in ROH for the last eight years. He does deserve to be United States champion, just because WWE were that much of idiots just to fire him for being to damn violent. And please write with proper grammar before saying anything at all. And if your so confiedent that Daniel Bryan is some loser, give me evidence, besides that the creative team made him job to bigger guys and cater to rookies.

I'd say spelling is just as important as grammar. ;-)

I have to disagree with you about Daniel Bryan having "the it factor." He is reasonably impressive from a technical perspective, but the OP was absolutely correct in stating that he doesn't have much of a personality at all. That's the way he's being booked of course, but the fact still remains that he is pretty boring outside of the ring.

 

[The Brain]

I fully understand that there's more to the "art" of professional wrestling than just the match itself although even that is really just a "modern" development. Before the days of regular televised wrestling programming, most people would only see the one match between two guys and it was up to the performers to be able to really convey the whole story in the match itself.

On the other hand, just because there's more than just the match doesn't mean that every single person has to love anything more than the match.

For me, Savage vs. Steamboat was great because the match itself was great from a technical perspective compared to the typical "big beefy guy vs. another big beefy guy" one expected from WWF at the time. I didn't follow wrestling at the time so the "build up" for that match is really irrelevant to me.

At the same time, the "build up" really can't make a match "the greatest of all time" in my view. You could have the best build up in the world leading up to a match, but if the two opponents can't work for squat, the match itself still sucks.

Case in point: Hogan vs. Warrior. I know the context around it. I know the events that occurred. I know what it was all about for the fans. The match was still boring as Hell to me.

Also, consider the many people who really just want to watch the matches. If I go over a PPV disc, the build up and the story isn't going to mean much to me. Truly great performers will be able to captivate me just in the match... nimrods like Hogan and Warrior won't be able to.

I'm glad you brought up Hogan vs. Warrior because it's a great example. I'm going to disagree and say it was a great match. It was the hype, the build, the atmosphere, and the significance that made it great. Without any of that it is a pretty dull match. All the other elements made it great. There's no way to know, but I'd bet anything that if you were a fan during that time you'd look at this match much differently.

 

[Capsaicin]

Alright, I don't usually post but I have a problem with this one. Just because you don't have good mic skills in the beginning doesn't mean you can't be a gigantic success. Look at Chris Jericho, when he debuted in WCW, he had horrible mic skills. But he was awesome in the ring and eventually was able to improve his mic skills and become an amazing talent. So you just have to give him time.

 

[Optimist Prime]

It's also very easy for people with strong opinions to feel that theirs is the only sensible one.

Not really. I value every part of professional wrestling. The majority of fans who like guys like Bryan Danielson and Chris Benoit, simply don't. They like only one aspect of professional wrestling.

There's a difference. I look at the big picture...others look at the small picture. I'm not saying that my overall outlook is always right...but I look at everything...not just a one dimensional point of view.

No, it doesn't. Also, that you don't like him doesn't mean he's not a good or entertaining wrestler. And before you just cram me into the "Daniel Bryan supporters" group, note that I actually agree with you that he's kind of boring and not all that great in the ring... so far.

I never said that it did. In fact, I said I'm sure that he is a good in-ring talent. But again, I like the whole package...if the guy can only flip flop around the ring and nothing else...stick him in the mid-card area. Many successful wrestlers were mid-carders for their entire careers. Nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately for Danielson, a lot of them were much better than him (personality wise).

In other words, you've reinforced your opinion that guys like Daniel Bryan and Rey Mysterio should just be put in the back burner in favor of the physically big guys like Hogan, Nash, Savage, etc. That's fine, but there's nothing "common sense" about it.

That is why they call it the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP...because it's for the HEAVYWEIGHTS. I think if anybody has a bias against any type of wrestler...it's you guys. I'm only looking for tradition here...and of course I'd like to sprinkle in a little bit of personality in there too. Rey Mysterio Jr. winning the HEAVYWEIGHT Championship just doesn't make any sense...plain and simply. COMMON SENSE.

And whether someone has a good personality and charisma really depends on personal preference and opinion. Further, the importance of these characteristics changes with each viewer - some people only care about the matches and the work rate.

I mean I guess so...and everybody backing this guy is living proof. But good personality is usually universal. Sure there are specifics that each enjoy...but more often than not "good" personality is spotted by everyone.

I was more than willing to support The Rock because of his extraordinary charisma and personality. He wasn't anywhere near being a great technical wrestler but he executed many of his movies with a certain style that was very entertaining to watch.

See, now I liked The Rock...and I could understand him being a Heavyweight Champion...but what I liked about him was that I loved to hate him. I realized that he had the goods but some of the things he said were kind of corny and such...and around the time of his success, I was watching WCW anyway because it was far better at that time (not just according to me, ratings wise as well)

On the other hand, guys like Hogan, Nash, Savage, etc. were just boring as Hell in the ring and not really all that charismatic on the mic. I mean Hogan... all he did was rumble into a mic and talk about vitamins and prayers. Savage? Growl, growl, growl, oh yeah, snap into a Slim Jim! Not at all charismatic, and with only one PPV match that I've enjoyed (obviously against Steamboat).

Hogan didn't have to wrestle that well...he had the charisma and personality (regardless of what you thought of his boring promos). He represented a superhero type figure in wrestling. Whether it was his mustache, his horseshoe haircut, his red and yellow, his theme song, whatever it was...he was able to grab everyone's attention. And he didn't need great moves in the ring because he had the "Hulk-Up" which made the fans go wild. The SHOW was the entertainment. You didn't need flip flopping around the ring. Macho Man was great! His voice was part of grabbing everyone's attention too. The way he perched on the top rope...his wrestling attire, everything about him. Nash was different than those guys where he was bigger and had more of a "brawler" image...and his personality was more straight forward and funny and intimidating.

The theme song is great to get fans going at the beginning of a match, but it's not really core to a great performer. I think Hogan's tune is catchy, but he still sucks/sucked.

I guess you had to be around with Hogan to appreciate it. No he wasn't a wrestling guru but he knew how to become the best there ever was somehow.

Bret was great because even without a strong, solid personality, he always told a great story in the ring.

I guess? But there's much more than that as well. As I've explained before and above.

What exactly are the "glory days of wrestling?" Maybe it's because I didn't grow up watching early 80's WWF and NWA, but even shortly after I became a fan of the industry and went back to watch those old PPVs on tapes, I was never really impressed with a lot of the bigger names.

Watching old tapes of what happened and actually living through it while it happened are two totally different things. Apples and Oranges.

Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Piper, etc. were simply never entertaining to me. Okay, Warrior maybe a little bit, I'll admit.

Warrior is a perfect example of somebody with barely any in-ring talent at all...but entertaining nonetheless. He literally looked like a comic book superhero with all these vibrant colors, face paint, tassles dangling down, and looking as if he were literally cut from stone. His entrance music was just extraordinary and got everybody's adrenaline pumping...it was almost like he didn't need to wrestle well. He would get jumped or beat up and "hulk up" by shaking the ropes...and the crowd would go nuts. It was great.

Well, that really depends on the match. Any match that involved Bret back in the day was awesome, whether I knew the build-up or not. I can still go back to my DVDs and watch any one of Bret's PPV matches and enjoy it for the work and the story being told.

I guess, but you almost have to because going back and watching any other match, you don't get to see the build-up of the match at all...so the only thing you can really evaluate is the match itself.

Maybe it's because of your love for guys like Hogan, Savage, Nash, etc. who had no in-ring skills and relied entirely on the build-up that you have such a bias.

Perhaps? But I appreciate the whole package as I've said. I might weigh personality and build up a little more than the match...but that's simply because the build up and personality are necessary to represent far more time than just the 20 minute match.

You keep saying that yet you've offered no real support for the argument.

The whole point of something being "common sense" is that there shouldn't be any explanation. It should be common knowledge. Rating something based on several factors (everything) is always better than rating something based on one single factor (in-ring ability). THAT, is common sense.

No, it's not. It's your opinion of what's important versus anyone else's opinion of what's important.

Again, I rate the person based on several factors. Most of people seem to be rating wrestlings based on one factor only, in-ring ability and that's it. That's not my opinion. That's just somebody being more accurate with something than others plain and simply.

If you think more talking and less wrestling is good, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's sensible nor does it mean that anyone else should feel the same way.

Never said that it should...but they shouldn't dismiss it entirely because they feel the opposite. That's my point. I don't dismiss the in-ring ability entirely. Others seem to dismiss the personality element entirely though. That's the difference here.