Putting Someone Over: Or, Why 99% of You Are Fucking Morons

[Bernkastel]

This thread is hilarious, but mostly thanks in part to Dukes07 - who has proven himself to be an even bigger tool than either ProWrestlingFan or The History. What you believe to be "good wrestling" is actually like watching coins spin down a giant hole. Pointless.

The best thing that Dolph Ziggler has done recently has been distancing himself from Vickie. She was holding him back, but not because she was terrible... it was because she was much better than he could ever hope to be.

The notion that Cena hasn't put over anyone is asinine. In short there's been... Edge, CM Punk, Bobby Lashley, Umaga, Great Khali, Sheamus, and now Dolph Ziggler... so quite a few.

Haiku was spot on - even if some up and comer suddenly gets a random pin off of someone in the big time, why should the fans care if they haven't been caring before?

 

[ABMorales787]

Haiku was spot on - even if some up and comer suddenly gets a random pin off of someone in the big time, why should the fans care if they haven't been caring before?

This. Especially when John Cena has been made to look as probably most human supernatural force on Earth. As stupid as it sounds. To elaborate, the man has losses to likes of Edge, Batista, CM Punk, Sheamus, Randy Orton, an Dam, Shawn Michaels, Alberto Del Rio, The Miz, Triple H, Dolph Ziggler, Kane, Wade Barrett and probably more. All this as a top guy. No top figure in the WWE can boast such a list of losses, a good portion them clean, to so many names. Not Undertaker, not Stone Cold, not Hulk Hogan, not The Rock or Shawn Michaels. But obviously, Cena never puts anyone over. He just losses to them.

Cena ever had a flaw it's WWE's over-dependance of him. Such, lets be honest, when the closest people to match him have failed to measure up (Jeff Hardy, Randy Orton, CM Punk) it's no surprise WWE uses him so highly.

 

[dukes07]

This thread is hilarious, but mostly thanks in part to Dukes07 - who has proven himself to be an even bigger tool than either ProWrestlingFan or The History. What you believe to be "good wrestling" is actually like watching coins spin down a giant hole. Pointless.

The best thing that Dolph Ziggler has done recently has been distancing himself from Vickie. She was holding him back, but not because she was terrible... it was because she was much better than he could ever hope to be.

The notion that Cena hasn't put over anyone is asinine. In short there's been... Edge, CM Punk, Bobby Lashley, Umaga, Great Khali, Sheamus, and now Dolph Ziggler... so quite a few.

Haiku was spot on - even if some up and comer suddenly gets a random pin off of someone in the big time, why should the fans care if they haven't been caring before?

See, this is what I don't understand. I never said that the WWE should ever dump Cena or relegate him down to the midcard or do anything of the sort. He needs to be used more effectively. Instead donkey posteriors such as yourself, call me a tool, because I don't conform to the masses.

You seem to equate Cena losing a feud to Ziggler by flushing money down the drain. Then I hear not just from but others that wins and losses don't matter. But you have a guy who is going to be champ. He has the case. Then why the fuck have him lose more often than not? Where is the logic in that. They did the same thing with Daniel Bryan for the longest time.

The entire point is that if Ziggler won the feud and was not made to look foolish on RAW. Then that helps his cause. Fans are not going to turn away and stop buying Cena shirts if he lost.

As for putting guys over like. Take Sheamus, Cena brought up time and time again how lucky Sheamus was. Cena fell through a table on accident. Cena reminded him time and time again that Sheamus never beat him cleanly. That's fine, Sheamus never did but you also knew that Cena was going to win. In fact Sheamus' big push came after he turned face. After he won the Rumble and then after he won in 18 seconds. Thus telling the fans that he was indeed a man to be reckoned with. And it does not hurt that Trips was behind him all the way. Cena had nothing to do with it.

Also, his losses are all made as a way to protect him. Fine. He rarely loses convincingly. Okay, he is their top guy. When he does "lose" he is always going to get that win back. The fans know that Cena is going to. Cena reminds them that they won unfairly. Those guys he did lose too often don't get management behind them. And many don't deserve to. Someone mentioned Punk: It is hard to be the top guy when Vince books the other guy onto the marquee or they end your program prematurely. Or they fumble your heel turn with extraneous nonsense. If you are going to get the ball then you need to be able to run with it. Cena has his role and he can continue to make money for them but change is sometimes good.

A win, as in the case of Kidman or Ziggler means nothing if management does not get behind it and follow it up. It is meaningless then. But if they continue and book that person strong then fans will get behind them. The LA Clippers were perennial losers and fans stayed away in droves. But they started winning and the fans came back. Fans are not going to think that Ziggler is a piece of shit because he lost in the past. They are going to remember his current wins and his current push. There will be a few that do of course but in the long run it will help him and probably the company and he does not need to supplant Cena.

Look at Pittsburgh or the entire Rust Belt as an example: The area relied on one thing, steel. It had a monoeconomy where the entire edifice was built off of steel. Fuck high school because you had a job in a factory waiting for you. College? No thanks. Money is flowing in, keep spending etc. Then the jobs started drying up and the factories closing. 100000's of people moved out and moved on. It has taken decades for Pittsburgh to recover and many other towns and cities in the area have not. Why didn't they diversify then? Now, WWE has been getting better in giving guys a push but at the same time you also want to look towards your future by protecting your past. Ziggler is talented and over and is going to have the world title sooner rather than later, so it behooves WWE to get fully behind him and not have AJ help him win every time.

Some of you are young lads. Get out and experience the world. Time to break up with that high school girlfriend and taste different fruit. You will enjoy it.

 

[Bernkastel]

See, this is what I don't understand. I never said that the WWE should ever dump Cena or relegate him down to the midcard or do anything of the sort. He needs to be used more effectively.

So you believe that WWE should job their biggest star, who makes them the most money, needlessly without any sort of story [because random big clean wins by heels don't equate to a money making scheme - see Tensai.]

Instead donkey posteriors such as yourself, call me a tool, because I don't conform to the masses.

I called you a tool because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about; and it's hilarious because you act like your some scholar on the subject.

You seem to equate Cena losing a feud to Ziggler by flushing money down the drain.

It would be because people don't want to see Ziggler win; they want to see John Cena win - but take a beating in the process. The fans want to see Ziggler make it as hard for Cena to win as possible.

Then why the fuck have him lose more often than not? Where is the logic in that.

Clean wins against the top guy should only be used to enhance a face turn - like if Ryback where to pin Cena clean in the future. If a heel is going to win then it makes sense for them to play dirty... like Punk has done all year.

Pro Wrestling 101 right there.

They did the same thing with Daniel Bryan for the longest time.

And him getting over a mixture of luck and sheer brilliance. The fans created the Yes! chant, so WWE flipped it and had Bryan respond with the No! chant.

The entire point is that if Ziggler won the feud and was not made to look foolish on RAW. Then that helps his cause. Fans are not going to turn away and stop buying Cena shirts if he lost.

That's not how things work - heels are supposed to be foolish, either that or rash, if they weren't then it would defeat the whole purpose of having a bad guy.

As for putting guys over like. Take Sheamus, Cena brought up time and time again how lucky Sheamus was.

Classic face to heel psychology.

Cena fell through a table on accident. Cena reminded him time and time again that Sheamus never beat him cleanly.

More face to heel psychology. Cena was enticing Sheamus to defend the title by playing to his inner coward. And that's exactly what happened.

That's fine, Sheamus never did but you also knew that Cena was going to win.

The job of a heel isn't to win - it's to make the face's job of winning as hard as possible.

In fact Sheamus' big push came after he turned face.

Faces are pushed - not heels. Again, it's the heels job to make the face's job of winning as tough as possible.

What Cena did for Sheamus is that he took a new, green guy that the fans did care about and made him look like a legitimate threat. On the opposite side, it was obvious that Daniel Bryan was never a threat to Sheamus and the fans picked up on that immediately.

Also, his losses are all made as a way to protect him.

He rarely loses convincingly.

Okay, he is their top guy. When he does "lose" he is always going to get that win back.

Someone mentioned Punk: It is hard to be the top guy when Vince books the other guy onto the marquee or they end your program prematurely.

Punk has never been the top guy - the one time WWE tried pushing him as the top guy they realized that he wasn't anywhere close to Cena's level, let alone the Rock's level who would returning for some big matches.

Or they fumble your heel turn with extraneous nonsense.

The only way to fumble a heel turn is if the fans don't buy into it like they did with Randy Orton years ago. It's actually pretty hard to screw up a heel turn as heat is easy to get. Any Joe Shmo can do it.

If you are going to get the ball then you need to be able to run with it. Cena has his role and he can continue to make money for them but change is sometimes good.

Not if no one else can chase the title as good as you can - the change you talk about are more fresh heels in the title scene. And WWE is using Cena to build Dolph Ziggler.

A win, as in the case of Kidman or Ziggler means nothing if management does not get behind it and follow it up. It is meaningless then.

Congrats. You finally understand what all of us arguing against you have been trying to say from the beginning.

Some of you are young lads. Get out and experience the world. Time to break up with that high school girlfriend and taste different fruit. You will enjoy it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Haiku was spot on - even if some up and comer suddenly gets a random pin off of someone in the big time, why should the fans care if they haven't been caring before?

I've talked about this on my site before. If Austin had been given the title right after Mania 13, it would have worked. However, instead they gave him another year of seasoning and THEN gave him the belt. By that point he was ready to be champion and there was no turning back for him. A good example of how this worked in modern times is Miz. He worked his way up the card and started rubbing elbows with big names until he could give them challenges and then he started beating them. Since he had gotten so close before, the wins weren't shocking and could be accepted.

You have to build people up, not throw them out there and expect them to stand on their own.

 

[dukes07]

So you believe that WWE should job their biggest star, who makes them the most money, needlessly without any sort of story [because random big clean wins by heels don't equate to a money making scheme - see Tensai.]



I called you a tool because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about; and it's hilarious because you act like your some scholar on the subject.



It would be because people don't want to see Ziggler win; they want to see John Cena win - but take a beating in the process. The fans want to see Ziggler make it as hard for Cena to win as possible.



Clean wins against the top guy should only be used to enhance a face turn - like if Ryback where to pin Cena clean in the future. If a heel is going to win then it makes sense for them to play dirty... like Punk has done all year.

Pro Wrestling 101 right there.



And him getting over a mixture of luck and sheer brilliance. The fans created the Yes! chant, so WWE flipped it and had Bryan respond with the No! chant.



That's not how things work - heels are supposed to be foolish, either that or rash, if they weren't then it would defeat the whole purpose of having a bad guy.



Classic face to heel psychology.



More face to heel psychology. Cena was enticing Sheamus to defend the title by playing to his inner coward. And that's exactly what happened.



The job of a heel isn't to win - it's to make the face's job of winning as hard as possible.



Faces are pushed - not heels. Again, it's the heels job to make the face's job of winning as tough as possible.

What Cena did for Sheamus is that he took a new, green guy that the fans did care about and made him look like a legitimate threat. On the opposite side, it was obvious that Daniel Bryan was never a threat to Sheamus and the fans picked up on that immediately.

Punk has never been the top guy - the one time WWE tried pushing him as the top guy they realized that he wasn't anywhere close to Cena's level, let alone the Rock's level who would returning for some big matches.



The only way to fumble a heel turn is if the fans don't buy into it like they did with Randy Orton years ago. It's actually pretty hard to screw up a heel turn as heat is easy to get. Any Joe Shmo can do it.



Not if no one else can chase the title as good as you can - the change you talk about are more fresh heels in the title scene. And WWE is using Cena to build Dolph Ziggler.



Congrats. You finally understand what all of us arguing against you have been trying to say from the beginning.

Again sorry about not being able to quote properly. I will take the time to learn but Jesus, learning....

Let me start with the follow up to a win. I never argued against that. That was my point from the get go. I have never disagreed with that. But I will say that if you constantly bury a guy after a big win then it does not help him. That was my point with Sheamus and countless others.

It hurts Punk when the company does not fully get behind him. WWE is shortsighted when it comes to booking. Lesnar returns and in three weeks he loses. Say what you will, that is not smart.

Classic heel/face psychology in my opinion is that the face chases the heel. The heel does dastardly things and ultimately the face prevails, more often than not. I understand that WWE is PG but the heel rarely looks like he is going to prevail. That is where my lack of drama comment comes in. You pretty much know going in who is going to win. Sure, a heel will get lucky and win but then it is rarely followed up on. Then again I have never liked how WWE books its heels. They are typically the cowardly heel getting run ripshod over by the big time faces. It is an opinion of mine and I don't like how WWE does it. They brought in Vader and he ultimately got buried, Big Show and so many potential monster heels that were never utilized properly (Vader initially was but HBK had a lot to do with his de-push). I like strong heels and dislike most super-faces, it is a preference of mine. Anytime a heel wins in WWE they get their ass kicked after the match so the face does not look bad....

Take Scott Steiner in WCW, his last great run. It was compelling TV because he took out Booker T then Sting then Nash and DDP. He was unstoppable and no one could control him. They had to rally all the faces in order to take him out. That was the plan. It was slightly aborted when WCW brought Booker back early due to falling ratings and the hope that he'd garner interest. But Steiner looked unbeatable but then here comes the WCW faces to dethrone him, or you bring back Goldberg. That is the type of heel that I like. Though I fully understand that not all of them could be like that. (I do hear that Mark Henry was close this past year but I did not watch).

My entire point is that a win COULD establish a guy: I think Ziggler has that potential. You are not going to give Heath Slater a clean win. Tensai should not have won unless they decided to follow up. They didn't. It was clear that WWE did not know what it was doing. They had a potentially solid angle with Punk going after Ace but then put him on the sidelines for Cena and it became almost painful to watch.

When we were talking about "rubs" it was mentioned about Hogan and Savage. Well, Savage was already over and they were looking to pass the torch but they kept Hogan lingering and that hurt Savage as he looked to be a lackey.

As for Warrior: His big breakthrough moment was SummerSlam 88 when he beat the Honkytonk Man, thus solidified when be beat Hogan. Undertaker with his feud against Jake the Snake. That made him, turned him into an unbeatable monster.

Most of those were well booked events. Often they were wins, and sometimes they weren't such as Sting v. Flair but then again the follow up was well done and they were pushed as the potential was seen. You have a guy in Ziggler who has a title shot and will win it but they keep him floundering in the midcard. Punk on the other hand has been booked pretty poorly. Is this Cena's fault? No. But WWE has to realize that they are doing a pretty poor job as they rely on the same guy or guys over and over. Getting big buyrates by bringing back a HHH or Rock or Undertaker instead of building for the future. I think Vince realizes this and that is why there have been so many shake-ups. Change is hard. Ask WCW.

I had this shoehorned in somewhere but I will add it here: The fans were rightfully upset that Bryan lost in 18 seconds and turned on what happened. It made Bryan a face and got him even more over. Too bad he is saddled with Kane right now but at least it is entertaining.

Anyway, just my five dollars worth.....Enjoy the games.

EDIT: I saw the Miz mentioned. I would argue that Ziggler has been there too. Miz's booking was pretty schizo. It had its ups and downs. I think Ziggler like Miz could be taken seriously. But then again I know that Miz's title run was not very popular and he never looked dominant. I for one was not really a fan. I saw Over the Limit live when he lost the title and people were pretty sick of him at that point but the fans were ultimately indifferent to the match. No one really cared that Cena won, sure there were the usual cheers and boos but overall it was pretty silent. Bret Hart got the biggest pop along with Christian.

As for Austin: They could have put it on him but Bret did not have the title. There were moments in 97 where they thought about it. But indeed the booked it beautifully, much like Sting up to Starrcade 97. Today, it is not booked so well. Management needs to do a better job.

 

[#tamale]

I pretty much agree with what you have posted. Great post. It's something internet fans forget, a heel with virtually no strong build getting a clean win over an established face makes no sense. The heel needs to just have a strong showing pushing the face to the limit in order to get noticed. Like I always say, keep it simple.

I remember Jericho responding to a question in an interview about heels getting cheered and clean wins over faces and states that he hates being cheered by smart crowds when he is a heel and does everything in his power to get booed (which worked) and how heels are supposed to win dirty because they are HEELS. They are supposed to cheat to win and then the next night talk about how they obliterated their opponent last night, lie about the events that happened and what not.

Which leads me to my problems with Ziggler. Ziggler has been giving every opportunity to get over as a heel, he has held nearly every title in the WWE, holds the MITB case, been paired with a great heel manager in Vickie, got Jericho fired, was the Sole Survivor, has his own little stable right now, yet he is still not over as a heel. He literally does nothing to draw heat. NOTHING. Not even cheap heat. When Punk turned heel, he wants to draw heat, even if it's cheap heat. He only gets a response during PPV events by smart fans and that doesn't even carry through during the rest of the shows.

 

[braveh]

Unless we are talking about Goldberg and Ryback or wrestlers that are built based on a streak or seeming unbeatable.....you make a huge mistake that 99% is also doing. And that is putting so much emphasis on one match.

Ziggler's career is not going to be based on one match. Daniel Bryan's loss at Mania didn't kill or halt his career.

The IWC wants to believe that one match will make and break a wrestler in every case and it's just not true for most wrestlers.

 

[dukes07]

Unless we are talking about Goldberg and Ryback or wrestlers that are built based on a streak or seeming unbeatable.....you make a huge mistake that 99% is also doing. And that is putting so much emphasis on one match.

Ziggler's career is not going to be based on match. Daniel Bryan's loss at Mania didn't kill or halt his career.

The IWC wants to believe that one match will make and break a wrestler in every case and it's just not true for most wrestlers.

I agree. Though it has been more than one match with Ziggler. All I will say about this dead horse: Is that I believed that since Ziggler is going to become champ, he can come out of his feud on top of Cena. Go on and win the title. It is a matter of shoddy booking in my opinion.

If it works then the WWE has a new star. If it doesn't, have Cena or someone else kick his ass and take the belt off him. I don't think it would hurt Cena or his credibility had Ziggler come out on top of what became an admittedly anti-climactic feud. So now you have to figure out what to do with Ziggler to make him look like a legit champ when he becomes one.

As for Cena they will probably put the title on the Rock when they should be using him to put over Punk. Then you have Cena/Punk at WM with the former winning. Rock does not need the title. I do realize the smart money is on Rock v. Cena at WM but it should not be for the belt. You can build Cena v. Punk and have the blow off later in the year....Or you have Cena win at the EC PPV and then beat the Rock at WM.

 

[shattered dreams]

I agree with the general concepts but I am not sure I agree about the Ziggler examples. I have seen only maybe two minutes of the story between the two but it gave me the distinct impression that WWE was presenting a story where Ziggler was clearly out of his league when facing Cena. I might buy into the just being there or what happens later stuff if WWE hadn't already failed to build anyone in such a manner in recent memory in spite of seemingly trying many times. If you want to argue WWE shouldn't build Ziggler in the first place I might listen, but that is a different discussion than is Ziggler being put over just by being there. I consider the most legitimate criticism that the Cena character takes is that how it wins and loses goes a long way towards not putting people over.

I think WWE is playing a dangerous game by giving all the top spots at WM to part-timers. Yes, that is where the money is right now but it is severely going to effect the money stories available in the future since you can't get mainstream over on the B shows. The Rock is one thing, you obviously use him. Someone like HHH IMO is not worth it all things considered. No one wants to hear it but what did the Taker-HBK matches accomplish? Everyone already knew HBK was one of the best in the ring. Taker was already over at WM. The HHH matches meant even less. Four of Taker's last WMs did absolutely nothing for the future. Is this really a good idea? Would that time have been better spent on a big program between HBK and CM Punk for example?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I'd argue that Ziggler's one PPV win over Cena is bigger than Cena's two wins on free TV, no matter how super human they made Cena look. Ziggler beat Cena on PPV, the only other people who did that last year were Punk, who never beat Cena one on one, John Laurinitas in a match almost everyone predicted the ending to, and The Rock in arguably the biggest match ever.

 

[Darkshot77]

Wow, this is apparently a heated topic. One that I have enjoyed reading. I was myself pondering about the idea of "putting someone over" One moment that sticks out in my mind was the Rey Mysterio/Cody Rhodes feud from 2011-2012. And I must say that the information presented in this thread had made me change my opinion on Rey Mysterio. Information which was so lovely articulated by the OP, Haiku Hogan. Let me explain how I originally thought and how my opinion has changed since.

One thing which has not changed in my disdain for Rey Mysterio, I just do not like him. But up until to day I thought he was the driving factor in the "burying" of several young talents, namely: Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, and Alberto Del Rio. So in Late 2011 Mysterio hit Cody with his knee brace and broke his psyche. This gave us the initially strange, but incredibly successful, deranged Cody Rhodes gimmick, his best gimmick to date, until the paper bag shtick . Fast forward to Wrestlemania where Rey and Cody have a grudge match where Cody wins mostly clean. Many were commending Rey on "putting over" Rhodes, but I remained skeptical, believing that one mach did not put anyone over. When they re-matched at Extreme Rules, Rey one and I immediately denounced Rey as a prick who buries young talent. I based my assumption on the fact that coming out of WM Cody had momentum that appeared to be killed by the loss at extreme rules, as he soon fizzled into the lower-midcard.

Oh how wrong I was, see I understand now that Rey DID put Cody over at Extreme Rules, even by beating him, if only for taking the Disaster Kick off the concessions stand. He made Cody look credible in 2 PPV matchs, what more do you need. Why Cody fizzled had nothing to do with Rey, but from bad booking, Adding silly paper bags to an otherwise great gimmick, re-teaming him with Ted Dibiassi, and the WWE seeing that there was no money to be had in Cody Rhodes, cause he has ZERO heat. Apparent even now, as Damian Sandow caries that team.

So in short, Rey put Cody over in 2 great matches, I should not be blaming him for Cody Rhodes being unable to generate heat. In the same way Cena should not be blamed for not making Dolph look credible as a Main eventer. Cena, the #1 guy in the WWE, has made Ziggler look like a threat. If Dolph can't get over, that's his own fault, not Cena's. Winning does not necessarily put someone over. Does it help, sure, but you can be over in a loss. It is all about what you do with it.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'd argue that Ziggler's one PPV win over Cena is bigger than Cena's two wins on free TV, no matter how super human they made Cena look. Ziggler beat Cena on PPV, the only other people who did that last year were Punk, who never beat Cena one on one, John Laurinitas in a match almost everyone predicted the ending to, and The Rock in arguably the biggest match ever.

I didn't see the win or the other loss but you are clearly missing the point of this thread if you think just winning on PPV is important. HH accurately explains it is all about how these things happen and it sounds like you are saying that in this case aside from a token victory everything else wasn't there.

 

[Bernkastel]

But I will say that if you constantly bury a guy after a big win then it does not help him. That was my point with Sheamus and countless others.

It depends. If the face is chasing the heel and constantly losses that's not being buried...that's making his inevitable win more dramatic. Like Ryback - I think WWE has been booking him perfectly.

It hurts Punk when the company does not fully get behind him. WWE is shortsighted when it comes to booking. Lesnar returns and in three weeks he loses. Say what you will, that is not smart.

Punk has never been successful enough as a face to warrant the WWE getting behind him like they get behind Cena. Lesnar was only around for one program - it would have made no sense at all for him to win and then leave again.

I can tell you have no business sense at all.

Classic heel/face psychology in my opinion is that the face chases the heel. The heel does dastardly things and ultimately the face prevails, more often than not.

Bravo, you understand. You why are you spinning it into something that makes no sense at all?

I understand that WWE is PG but the heel rarely looks like he is going to prevail.

The heel is supposed to make it difficult for the face to win - if it looks sloppy blame creative for piss poor writing. It has little to do with the talent.

That is where my lack of drama comment comes in. You pretty much know going in who is going to win.

Again, blame creative for piss poor writing.

Sure, a heel will get lucky and win but then it is rarely followed up on.
Then again I have never liked how WWE books its heels. They are typically the cowardly heel getting run ripshod over by the big time faces.

That's how it's been since pro wrestling began. Did you just start watching this year? Heels are either bumbling evil geniuses, pompous cowards, or vile monsters. There is no such thing as a ******** that people willingly like.

It is an opinion of mine and I don't like how WWE does it. They brought in Vader and he ultimately got buried, Big Show and so many potential monster heels that were never utilized properly (Vader initially was but HBK had a lot to do with his de-push). I like strong heels and dislike most super-faces, it is a preference of mine. Anytime a heel wins in WWE they get their ass kicked after the match so the face does not look bad

The Vader situation has more to do with politics than anything we're discussing in this thread. Big Show was used great in 2003 as well as recently, so I don't why you're upset.

Take Scott Steiner in WCW, his last great run. It was compelling TV because he took out Booker T then Sting then Nash and DDP. He was unstoppable and no one could control him. They had to rally all the faces in order to take him out. That was the plan. It was slightly aborted when WCW brought Booker back early due to falling ratings and the hope that he'd garner interest.

But ultimately it wasn't his job to keep the title - that's another reason why WCW failed when they were trying to use a heel to bring in ratings.

But Steiner looked unbeatable but then here comes the WCW faces to dethrone him, or you bring back Goldberg. That is the type of heel that I like. Though I fully understand that not all of them could be like that. (I do hear that Mark Henry was close this past year but I did not watch).

The monster type of heel is only one type of heel. Cm Punk has spent the past year as a cheater, and it's worked so well that his match with Rock won't be completely one sided.

My entire point is that a win COULD establish a guy: I think Ziggler has that potential. You are not going to give Heath Slater a clean win. Tensai should not have won unless they decided to follow up. They didn't. It was clear that WWE did not know what it was doing. They had a potentially solid angle with Punk going after Ace but then put him on the sidelines for Cena and it became almost painful to watch.

You don't build a potential heel by giving them clean wins over the top guys. You give them clean wins over mid card guys and then create the allusion that they could be a threat to a main eventer. That's what WWE has been doing with Ziggler.

Even though he lost his feud with Cena, the casuals now realize that Ziggler can be a major threat in the future. They realize that by being a threat to Cena, Ziggler is now a threat to Punk, he's a threat to Big Show, and a threat to Sheamus.

I had this shoehorned in somewhere but I will add it here: The fans were rightfully upset that Bryan lost in 18 seconds and turned on what happened. It made Bryan a face and got him even more over. Too bad he is saddled with Kane right now but at least it is entertaining.

Being over does not automatically switch the alignment. Bryan didn't start becoming a face until the "No!" chant was created. His character does that taunt in an effort to try to make the fans forget how much of a dumbass he was as a heel. That was great booking by the WWE.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I didn't see the win or the other loss but you are clearly missing the point of this thread if you think just winning on PPV is important. HH accurately explains it is all about how these things happen and it sounds like you are saying that in this case aside from a token victory everything else wasn't there.

I get what he is saying, and to an extent I think the way Cena won on the first Raw of the New Year was poor booking, but I was commenting more on how people think one win is supposed to put a guy over.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Ziggler loves are angry that Cena keeps beating him clean, people who dislike Ziggler are claiming that it's all part of a "Ziggler's just not in Cena's league" storyline. Now I'd buy into the latter part if there was an actual storyline being built here but there isn't. It's just a pointless filler feud for Cena, just like the last two years they just have Cena feud with someone (Punk or Kane for example) for six weeks till they start building for whatever plans they have for Cena come WM. HH is right it's not if they win the match it's how the loss is handled. Cena constantly winning shouldn't surprise anyone at this point, though Ziggler's repeated losses to him plus the fact that all this year he's been beaten repeatedly by Sheamus has me wondering why WWE is putting any stock in him to begin with.

 

[shattered dreams]

I get what he is saying, and to an extent I think the way Cena won on the first Raw of the New Year was poor booking, but I was commenting more on how people think one win is supposed to put a guy over.

One win pretty much can't put a guy over. That is why I don't get why you are trying to say just one win is so great, especially independent of circumstances. Anytime it is just the result that is important that means people are grasping at straws because the story failed. A win or a loss is only as good as the story it is a part of both in the build and in the actual match.

Edit: Amazing Dynamite just nailed it

 

[Richard Blonoff]

One win pretty much can't put a guy over. That is why I don't get why you are trying to say just one win is so great, especially independent of circumstances. Anytime it is just the result that is important that means people are grasping at straws because the story failed. A win or a loss is only as good as the story it is a part of both in the build and in the actual match.

Edit: Amazing Dynamite just nailed it

I'm not. I get that one win doesn't put someone over. I should have said I'd argue for the people who think a single win gets you over, then say what I said. If you think wins are all that are important and a single win is what thrusts you into the limelight, then a PPV win is better than two free TV wins. I'm not arguing for myself or trying to disprove HH, I agree with him, I'm just making a point because I'm bored.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'm not. I get that one win doesn't put someone over. I should have said I'd argue for the people who think a single win gets you over, then say what I said. If you think wins are all that are important and a single win is what thrusts you into the limelight, then a PPV win is better than two free TV wins. I'm not arguing for myself or trying to disprove HH, I agree with him, I'm just making a point because I'm bored.

You will need more backbone than that if you are going to survive around here as someone that people know their name. Standing out among the noobs is as easy as not being a moron. Well, in your defense most people find even that step hard these days, however, when you start dancing with the big boys you aren't going to get away with coddling Cena's balls so easily. Even if I went down your line of thinking, half a mil watch PPV on TV, 4.5 mil watch Raw. If I watch someone clearly be better than someone else on tv and then hear they somehow won on PPV then it certainly lessens the effect.

Anyone have any interest in evolving the discussion to include why this makes people complaining about A8s number of wins arguably in the 99%?

 

[Papa Pillman]

I have no real feeling about this argument either way, most of you are talking in circles, and for every right point that anyone of you(be it Dukes, KB, Haiku, or Echelon) has made that same person has made as many bullshit points, frankly attempting to read this thread gave me a migraine. But I will say this...

I have seen only maybe two minutes of the story between the two but it gave me the distinct impression that WWE was presenting a story where Ziggler was clearly out of his league when facing Cena. I might buy into the just being there or what happens later stuff if WWE hadn't already failed to build anyone in such a manner in recent memory in spite of seemingly trying many times. If you want to argue WWE shouldn't build Ziggler in the first place I might listen, but that is a different discussion than is Ziggler being put over just by being there.

Shattered Dreams has this absolutley CORRECT. Like 150%.

It is one thing to argue whether or not there is any merit in actually allowing Ziggler to go over in this program. That comes down to what you feel Ziggler's value is now or going forward. The fact that I'm essentially indifferent on Ziggler may lend to my indifference on this argument as a whole, but...

It is beyond any argument that Ziggler has been made to look VASTLY inferior to Cena over the course of this program. I have followed the entire thing and never once did I get the impression that the WWE had any interest in making Ziggler out to look like a threat to Cena.

Anyone who says that Ziggler "has been made to look competitive" over the course of this feud is talking so far out their ass that I can smell it when i read the words.

The only thing this feud has done is to reinforce the fact that Cena is unstoppable. This fued was designed to squash any perception that Cena was losing a step after his "down year". They booked this feud so Cena could enter 2013 on a strong note building into WM. Nothing is wrong with that. But that is how it is.

No matter what angle, direction, or light that you choose to look at it in; Ziggler has in no shape, no form, or in any possible way been made to look like even the most miniscule of a competitive threat to Cena.

Now there is not necesarily anything wrong with that. But let's not lie and act like its not the absolute truth either.

Ziggler has been booked as a joke with no hope who is miles, and miles, and miles, and miles, and miles, and miles, and miles, short of Cena's level. And if you disagree with that you are the one being an idiot.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

I am fine with being in the minority. Cena is terrible. I mean, I cannot recall one feud he has been in that has had drama or been interesting.

You obviously didn't watch his feud with Edge or Randy Orton. Both had drama and both were extremely interesting. You obviously hate Cena because you think it's cool to hate him. You jumped on the bandwagon and don't have the sense to jump back off. Stop following the crowd and get your facts straight then try again.

 

[dukes07]

I just want to make clear yet again that you don't just throw Ziggler a victory and do nothing else with it. Ziggler has become a metaphor for any other guy you are trying to build as well. You can take an established guy and put over an up and comer or a guy that has been around for awhile and put him over. Then it is up to the bookers to keep this guy's momentum going, as well as the guy himself. Ziggler is going to be champ, make him look like one. I think it is pretty easy to follow and it indeed makes sense. Cena is in his mid-30s he is not going to be around forever. You can't keep bringing in the Rock and Brock and Undertaker or Nash or HHH. You have develop your own stars.

Someone said that politics had to do with Vader (I said that). But at the same time you brought in Mankind and had him beat the Undertaker right away and it led to one of the better feuds of the 90s. Also, about Big Show....I am not angry. Why would I get angry on an Internet forum where we are arguing about fake topic? I am talking about his first 3 years so far in WWF, I am in 02 right now.

"You obviously didn't watch his feud with Edge or Randy Orton. Both had drama and both were extremely interesting. You obviously hate Cena because you think it's cool to hate him. You jumped on the bandwagon and don't have the sense to jump back off. Stop following the crowd and get your facts straight then try again."

As for this: Quit acting some sort of repressed majority. You are not Michelle Bachmann pissing and moaning about how whites are becoming the minority. I have said in numerous posts that I stopped watching for a decade and I am only now getting caught up. I am currently watching 02, and moving on. I have changed my opinions since I began watching more and more. But just because I don't like Cena does not mean that I am riding some sort of bandwagon, so stop trying your half-assed Freudian ANALysis. I did not like face Hogan, never liked Trips and used to dislike dominant guys like Goldberg but the fucker grew on me.

As for Lesnar and Cena. I know enough about business that he had a certain amount of dates. You bring in a guy for 5-6 million to hopefully lure in the MMA crowd or guys who stopped watching. You don't job him and then have Cena no sell everything after the match. Guess what, those viewers probably won't return. You build up a monster and have him ultimately taken down. His win against Trips did little to bring that back. Even WWE has acknowledged that it was a mistake and I think pretty much universally it has been panned as a bad move.

 

[dukes07]

You will need more backbone than that if you are going to survive around here as someone that people know their name. Standing out among the noobs is as easy as not being a moron. Well, in your defense most people find even that step hard these days, however, when you start dancing with the big boys you aren't going to get away with coddling Cena's balls so easily. Even if I went down your line of thinking, half a mil watch PPV on TV, 4.5 mil watch Raw. If I watch someone clearly be better than someone else on tv and then hear they somehow won on PPV then it certainly lessens the effect.

Anyone have any interest in evolving the discussion to include why this makes people complaining about A8s number of wins arguably in the 99%?

I have only watched a little of TNA as of late. Once Brooke Hogan got involved I started to tune it out.

However, I try to keep up. If you are going to make a new stable infiltrate an organization something Bischoff continually has a hard on for then you need to make them strong. Initially I thought the booking was well done but at times I wonder if TNA really knows where they are going with it long-term. I thought from what I had seen that it was too early to bring back Sting to defeat them. In fact, TNA gets shit on no matter what they do and there is always discussion of using the older guys to put over younger ones, something I do advocate. But it probably would have worked better for Sting to lose. Not because for Sting wins and losses really don't matter anymore but it would have made Aces look like more of a threat. If TNA is wise they use more of their younger talent to ultimately take out Aces.

At the same time there is a role for the likes of Sting and Angle, you are spending the money on them so you want to use them. Anyway, I think Aces had a lot of potential and while it is getting flack for using WWE castoffs I don't think that is as much of a problem as making them look like a threat and not a comedy troupe with a new reveal each week....I have not seen what they did with Knox but I have heard it was not very smart.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Absolutely 100% spot on Haiku, nice work.

I sometimes have an issue when people don't do a job but only when their refusal affects business in a negative but I don't once recall Austin or Cena doing that EVER. I know much of this forum will disagree but Ziggler can't draw money yet. He's a good worker, he's growing but he simply isn't there yet and he may never be, not a knock against Ziggler but its true. At the end of the day wrestlers and the promotion need to always have money on the mind and need to do what will make the most profit. Ziggler in the main event isn't gonna get 1.5 million buys, rock vs. Cena has proven to get that number.

All in all guys like Hogan, Austin and Cena are successful because they are smart and know how to maximize profits and its ridiculous to hate on them for doing that. If Cena losing to Ziggler at WM was best they would do it, it ain't so they don't. Besides he put over Ziggler anyways so what more do you want?

 

[dukes07]

Absolutely 100% spot on Haiku, nice work.

I sometimes have an issue when people don't do a job but only when their refusal affects business in a negative but I don't once recall Austin or Cena doing that EVER. I know much of this forum will disagree but Ziggler can't draw money yet. He's a good worker, he's growing but he simply isn't there yet and he may never be, not a knock against Ziggler but its true. At the end of the day wrestlers and the promotion need to always have money on the mind and need to do what will make the most profit. Ziggler in the main event isn't gonna get 1.5 million buys, rock vs. Cena has proven to get that number.

All in all guys like Hogan, Austin and Cena are successful because they are smart and know how to maximize profits and its ridiculous to hate on them for doing that. If Cena losing to Ziggler at WM was best they would do it, it ain't so they don't. Besides he put over Ziggler anyways so what more do you want?

I don't think anyone has mentioned that Ziggler belongs in the main event of WM. I am sure if pushed properly he could draw, but no he will never be on the same level of an Austin or Cena or Hogan. We have had people rise up from the midcard like Austin with his breakthrough KotR and of course HHH and Angle and others who worked their way up. They got guys willing to help them along the way and management got behind them. I think Ziggler could be more of an asset to WWE but no, he will never sell millions of shirts or be in the Marine 4....Well shit if Ted DiBiase can then maybe....

Those men you named are not all altruistic where they are some sort of superhero with the best interest of the business in mind. It has been documented where Austin used his clout quite a bit and there have been rumblings that Cena does the same. That does not make them bad men, but of course they are looking out for themselves first and one can hardly blame them for that.

Money is not always the proper motivator because if it was the InVasion would not have happened like it did. That is what happens when you book someone as weak and getting dominated. The fans turn on them and the angle. WWF lost tens of millions due to stupidity and hubris. They also lost money when it came to Brock Lesnar this past year. After he is loss to Cena they had no clue as to what to do with him until the Trips angle unfolded.

Obviously Vince is out to make money but at the same time, such as in every other organization stupid decisions impact that bottom line. The WWE has had their fair share (as well as many that made money).