Forget Reigns.... Give it to Ambrose

[DirtyJosé]

Also, not to mention, his spear is the best-looking amongst all the spears done by WWE superstars in the last decade or so.

Until someone tops Edge spearing Jeff from a ladder, no, no this is just wrong. Would you like some knee pads while you're down there?

I really don't get the hate towards the spear (or anything else Reigns does) from a section of internet fans... generally. But you are an evergreen dumbfuck, so I'm not astonished at all.

It's because it's the new chokeslam, a move you give a big guy when they can't do much else or no one knows what else to give them. Any appeal to many viewers has been drained by the proliferation of it over the last decade. It's just not special or impressive any more, except to those with limited experience with the product.

Also, I know you have a rampant case of the butt hurts, but please stop trying to flame. You come off like a high school kid. Please learn the language better before you try using such colorful remarks.

Aha! Didn't let me down.
No, I'm pushing for Reigns because he is a better candidate than Ambrose against Lesnar. Simple as that.
Oh, and those "other doofus marks"' daily excreta contain more wrestling knowledge and sense than your brain ever did and ever will.
As soon as I saw "Unread 1", I was sure it must be you quoting one of my posts and typing something idiotic as usual. Thankfully, I only visit once in a while these days, so I don't have to witness more of your facepalm-inducing comments.

So your response is "no, he's just better, k? rawr flamey butt hurts"? Awesome, typical Shart Madden avoiding the topic and flaming when he can't produce a decent argument.

Reigns has nothing that isn't already in abundant supply in WWE. Big guys who can't talk. How long before he's running Freebird-style with Rybaxle?

Stop bitching, you clown. First of all, his character doesn't require him to talk much; Masked Kane, Undertaker, even Lesnar didn't need to "talk" to get over. Their characters did the work. Secondly, he is very agile for a heavyweight wrestler. Finally, it seems like you don't even know what charisma means... this isn't surprising either.

Comparing him to three of the best? And Kane spent a lot of time with a lot of shit gimmicks before being Kane worked out for him, largely as a result of his vast experience. Reigns does not presently have such experience. Undertaker is at the very very least one of the best five performers WWE has ever seen in its history, and Reigns is...well, not. Finally, Brock Lesnar is a different beast entirely, his weakness on the mic covered by Heyman. Reigns had Ambrose and Rollins to hide this while they were still together. Reigns is about the only guy I know of who makes Randy fucking Orton look good on the stick. He's that bad.

By this delusional logic, R-Truth can also defeat Lesnar for the WWE Championship and it'll be perfectly fine, because he has more moves, more experience, and can get everyone to say "What's up?".

I know it's hard because you're terrible with our language, but is R-Truth currently involved in a semi-main event push? Is he even on TV? Really, I haven't seen him in a long while. So, this delusional logic you speak of? You got it wrong because you failed to understand the argument actually put in front of you. Perhaps you should try knowing what the fuck you are talking about once in awhile. Might embarrass yourself less.

Ambrose's "skill set" is basically punches, kicks, rebound from the ropes, Dirty Deeds. Reigns wins.

Comments like this and the bulk of your argument lead me to conclude that you are a hopeless mark. By this I mean that you buy too much into the image game that it starts to blur the line of reality and entertainment for you.

"Skill sets" refers to far more than just "moves". There is a much bigger picture here than just whether or not mouth-breathers can or will accept guys like Reigns or Ambrose "beating" Lesnar. Big pushes lead to big spots lead to big focus. Ambrose seems better built of the two to handle a run like that. Such a push for Reigns will only reveal his weaknesses. Ambrose is a more well-rounded performer than Reigns, and to pretend otherwise simply based on a move list is pure markdom.

Prior indy experience doesn't matter.

Tell that to Punk and Bryan.

Kayfabe-wise, they have pretty much the same experience. In fact, Ambrose wasn't even on NXT I think. Reigns wins.

See, here you go again. You are likely the biggest mark I've ever seen on here in a good long while, if not ever.

Communicating and connecting with the crowd isn't only about mic skills. Or else, all masked wrestlers would be nothing. Draw.

Because masked wrestlers don't talk? Like Mankind?

Your godfather Ambrose probably won't even be able to lift Lesnar for a suplex, even with the latter jumping.

Godfather? Man, you're really losing it with this post the longer it goes on. Maybe try actually thinking out your points and where you really stand on things before posting, instead of getting mad that someone doesn't agree with you and said so. It'll go a long way towards keeping you from making embarrassing posts like this.

Also, do you know how Lesnar lost in UFC the few times that he did? It wasn't from a suplex. It was from punches, kicks, and submission holds. Again, maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you'd stand a better chance. Thank you, come again.

You know that those zero-time world champion faces don't go from losing most of their matches, to beating the top heel of the company, the world champion, the man that ended an era, that owned the face of the company, and is in the form of his life- beating that guy- within 8 months. Ha. ******.

Just proving the point that a W/L record only seems to matter to true marks. A loss can still be a win for a performer if it serves a purpose down the road. Ambrose's losses to Rollins only makes his inevitable victory that much more meaningful. People who know what the fuck they are talking about call this good booking (if it's followed through with, it IS WWE after all). A win doesn't mean all that much if it generated no excitement and no reaction. Getting the best in a feud with Orton is pretty much this for everyone who has been against him in the last few years, including Reigns.

 

[Kidpolean]

The hell is all this talk of "believability"? This is pro wrestling. They haven't booked based on which guy can "believably" beat another in at least 25 years. That's stupid. It's ALL about storytelling. Small guys beat big guys, unathletic guys beat world class athletes, and everything in between.

Ambrose is OVER. Ambrose does, in fact, look cool. Look at Ambrose then look at Reigns, then look at people 15-25. Which one looks more like the younger crowd? It's not the guy with long hair and a Swat vest. Ambrose appeals to misfits and a lot of wrestling fans grow up misfits because pro wrestling is and always (yes, even during the attitude era) been a sort of side culture.

Believability to beat someone goes out the window when a guy can work, talk, take a beating, has credibility as a tough guy, is believably crazy, and is over.

Imagine the story. Ambrose takes all the punishment and keeps coming in his demented way that everyone loves. Rebound lariats that he'll throw as hard as he can because he's old school. Ambrose is one of the few guys I honestly do think would be a legitimate badass. Look at his indy career. The guy has no fear.

Ambrose looks cool? How old are u?

looking closer to the average person is irrelevant. Ambrose looks like a balding guy that you would find drunk sitting on the side of a bar at 7 am. Nothing about him is cool. He even has a terrible, annoying voice. Could you even imagine him in a suit? Rollins has a better look than Ambrose.

Reigns has a look that immediately catches your attention which is what the WWE needs. The only problem is that he can't talk or wrestle.