Random Slyfox Comments (questions welcomed, replies not promised) | Page 8 | WrestleZone Forums

Random Slyfox Comments (questions welcomed, replies not promised)

You've been around these forums a long time, you KNOW this is a prevalent attitude amongst Internet fans. You've been to shows, surely you've heard this mentality being uttered like I have. For these types of fans, it's not about pro wrestling, it's about feeling superior. They'll cheer the indy worker because he'll do a bunch of moves he saw in a training video and boo someone like Cena who has proven time and again his ability to put on great matches.

Instead of debating the minutia with you about how a character who has so clearly been mishandled boiling down to "people boo him because they want to feel cool" ill cover this last paragraph....However I will say, as someone I know is a long time fan, you should really expect more from WWE and have higher standards for what they present. Don't try to scapegoat "internet fans" for WWE giving Reigns a squirt gun in a shootout.

His push has failed miserably, and 99% of it can be given to poor decisions and poor creative by WWE. It isn't just 17 year olds in ROH shirts, its literally every single industry insider with a voice saying "this direction and push has been historic levels of tone deaf" but...lets ignore that I guess...





For brevity sake, lets say it is just the big mean internet fans ruining everything (which is a weak-ass excuse, that eschews all accountability, but whatever) .....


Can we not evolve how we look at the distribution of the industry and accept this is not the "vocal minority" anymore? Does it not stand to reason that in the last ten years since the internet and wrestling dedicated websites and podcasts have become more accessable (to the point were the WWE's main business model is internet-based) that there is MUCH, MUCH more overlap between "internet fans" and "casuals" than there used to be? Isn't kind of contradictory to blame internet fans for things not getting over when much of your income is from the internet ??...Furthermore its abundantly clear "hardcore" fans buy the tickets to PPV and WrestleMania....And populate the majority of your major city markets. Its not just the northeast anymore. Perhaps we shouldn't write off every major market city as "smark-havens" and acknowledge hey, maybe the presentations of heroes and what people will latch on to has evolved over time.


Not to mention, this situation seems more flagrant than usual on WWE simply being stubborn.....There aren't the excuses they had with Cena....Cena was (and is) by far and away the top merch seller. Cena was (and is) by far and away their top make-a-wish guy. I get not changing the character or creative direction. In those days, the internet contingency WAS an overwhelming minority.....but its not 2006 anymore. Its a decade later, and for many, most of life itself runs through the internet.....



Reigns could be the top dog in the business if they turned him heel and took the hand cuffs off him creatively. He is an overproduced square peg in a round hole. If you simply want to chalk that up to "some internet fans just wanting to be cool" then there is probably not much reason to even carry on a dialogue. I will say though, with that line of thinking, you should send a resume WWE's way.

Do you ever read the posts on this forum? :rolleyes:

I really try not to ;)
 
Instead of debating the minutia with you about how a character who has so clearly been mishandled
We'll just have to disagree on this. I'm sure you watch more WWE than I do, as I don't watch every Raw and Smackdown (or any Smackdown), but I watch enough Raws and every PPV to see that Reigns has not been handled that badly, from a macro standpoint. The "worst" sin the WWE committed, and I put that in quotes for a reason, is having Reigns win the Royal Rumble instead of Bryan a couple years back. But that's not bad booking, unless the WWE wants to be hostage to the ever volatile fan opinion.

boiling down to "people boo him because they want to feel cool"
That's exactly what happens.

ill cover this last paragraph....However I will say, as someone I know is a long time fan, you should really expect more from WWE and have higher standards for what they present.
Why? I think the WWE gives me close to 30 hours a month in original programming a month and thinking that they're going to have a blow your mind storyline for every feud their top guy has is asking way too much.

Don't try to scapegoat "internet fans" for WWE giving Reigns a squirt gun in a shootout.
Of course I will. They are the problem. Reigns has put on solid matches. He's decent in the ring. He has a believable aura around him and he's fairly charismatic in the ring. Furthermore, he's never done anything wrong outside of the ring, he seems like a good person and he genuinely seems to love the wrestling business.

What exactly is there to boo Reigns for, unless you're an Internet fan who reads news and spoilers on a consistent basis and then complain it's "predictable" when Reigns wins because he's the WWE's golden boy?

His push has failed miserably, and 99% of it can be given to poor decisions and poor creative by WWE. It isn't just 17 year olds in ROH shirts, its literally every single industry insider with a voice saying "this direction and push has been historic levels of tone deaf" but...lets ignore that I guess...
And yet, when his music hits, you get a great pop from the crowd and his matches regularly hold fan interest. Furthermore, if his push was so awful, how come his title win on Raw only a little more than two months ago got such a great face pop? It sure wasn't because people care about Sheamus.

Here's the video if you want to remind yourself of the pop Reigns got and how hard they were cheering for him to win: http://network.wwe.com/video/v537514783

For brevity sake, lets say it is just the big mean internet fans ruining everything (which is a weak-ass excuse, that eschews all accountability, but whatever) .....
Nothing weak about it, it's only the stereotypical Internet fan who is booing him. :shrug:

Can we not evolve how we look at the distribution of the industry and accept this is not the "vocal minority" anymore?
But it's still only a portion of the audience. Furthermore, it's a portion of the audience which is extremely fickle and tends to think themselves above the show, rather than part of it.

Does it not stand to reason that in the last ten years since the internet and wrestling dedicated websites and podcasts have become more accessable (to the point were the WWE's main business model is internet-based) that there is MUCH, MUCH more overlap between "internet fans" and "casuals" than there used to be?
Absolutely there is. I'm pretty sure when I say "Internet fan", you know I'm not talking about the person who visits WWE.com for their news, but rather those who post on forums, read dirtsheets, post on reddit and think because they do those things, they are so much more knowledgeable about wrestling than anyone else.

That's who I'm talking about.

Isn't kind of contradictory to blame internet fans for things not getting over when much of your income is from the internet ??
See above.

...Furthermore its abundantly clear "hardcore" fans buy the tickets to PPV and WrestleMania
They are and it's abundantly clear it's the more casual fans who buy tickets to Raw and the house shows. But only one group of those fans are fickle and have a problem with a wrestler based on their appearance. :thumbsup:

Its not just the northeast anymore. Perhaps we shouldn't write off every major market city as "smark-havens"
Not every major market is a smark haven. There are just some which are more so than others.

and acknowledge hey, maybe the presentations of heroes and what people will latch on to has evolved over time.
A hero from the 80s would never have hit a Superman punch on their 70 year old boss, but Reigns did. :shrug:

Not to mention, this situation seems more flagrant than usual on WWE simply being stubborn
And they're right. They are clearly following the Cena model. Sure, Reigns may not sell the merch right now that Cena did, but people aren't turning the TV off because Reigns is there. WWE Network subscriptions keep going up, even as Reigns continues to work in and around the main-event. And the fans care about his matches, whether they boo or they cheer.

And, let's face it, who would you replace Reigns with? Cena's hurt, Rollins is hurt, Lesnar is limited, Bryan retired, Orton's hurt, Sheamus was a dud (again), Punk's gone...who would you replace Reigns with that is going to bring to the table what Reigns can without getting booed?

The WWE may be "stubborn" about this, but it's obviously not hurting them and they don't really have many options.

Reigns could be the top dog in the business if they turned him heel and took the hand cuffs off him creatively.
He's not good enough for that yet. He's not good enough on the mic to hold a lengthy feud with mic work and he's still a little too green to make a heel character work in the ring.

Reigns is a power move wrestler. He has very good charisma in the ring with his current work. But if you make him a heel, he lacks the attributes to make a good heel and you'll have to take away some of the things which make him a decent face.

It would be easier to take the handcuffs off him creatively as a face, but the WWE is still a publicly traded company, Vince McMahon's Raw rant notwithstanding.

He is an overproduced square peg in a round hole. If you simply want to chalk that up to "some internet fans just wanting to be cool"
Of course it is. You can even see that mentality here in our forums. For example:

SO whats happening now is everyone knows everything and everyone knows Roman is the guy WWE want to be the new Face of the company,and this ruins the overall show.
The fact that they are booing is because, like you stated in your first sentence, is he is managements pick and the fact that they aren't even trying to hide it.
They started pushing him when he wasn't all that great. Forget his mic skills, they were pretty much nonexistent, ring work was marginal but he's got that look that Vince loves.
Fans are booing because he's being forced on to us despite most of us not wanting him.

That's just from one thread and I got tired of finding more quotes. Over and over again, you see posters talking about the model of a wrestler the WWE/McMahon loves. Why does that matter? It is definitive evidence that wrestling fans love being in the know. And they think because they "know" the WWE, they know why Reigns is getting a push. So they boo him, not because he's getting a push (because lots of guys get pushes and don't get booed) but because he's getting a push as a "WWE guy".

It REEKS of arrogance and I do not understand how someone can see what has happened for years with a great worker like Cena and not see the overwhelming similarities with what is happening to Reigns.
 
We'll just have to disagree on this

Well you and me, Jim Ross, Mark Madden, Steve Austin, Wade Keller, Court Bauer, Alex Greenfield, Konnan, Jerry Jarrett, Kevin Sullivan, and pretty much anyone who is seen as having an opinion worth listening to.


I'm sure you watch more WWE than I do, as I don't watch every Raw and Smackdown (or any Smackdown), but I watch enough Raws and every PPV to see that Reigns has not been handled that badly.

The second half of this certainly proves the first half.



The "worst" sin the WWE committed, and I put that in quotes for a reason, is having Reigns win the Royal Rumble instead of Bryan a couple years back. But that's not bad booking, unless the WWE wants to be hostage to the ever volatile fan opinion

.....to be clear, you DO NOT feel that was a bad decision, even though it basically exploded the entire next year for Reigns?


Why? I think the WWE gives me close to 30 hours a month in original programming a month and thinking that they're going to have a blow your mind storyline for every feud their top guy has is asking way too much.

Well, no one is asking for that. You know for me, personally, I don't need anything more than "you have the title and I want it".


Its about how the character is portrayed. Much like my example with New Day....They didn't shit on the individuals themselves, they rejected the way the gimmick was portrayed.


What exactly is there to boo Reigns for, unless you're an Internet fan who reads news and spoilers on a consistent basis and then complain it's "predictable" when Reigns wins because he's the WWE's golden boy

As I said before, I don't think its as much them hating Reigns personally, but rejecting how things were done from a creative standpoint, much like they rejected the New Day.

Reigns was over when he was the silent killer. The very moment he turned to corny and CLEARLY overproduced line reciting, everyone could smell the bullshit, and they rejected it .


And yet, when his music hits, you get a great pop from the crowd.

I suppose we must have different definitions of this.

. Furthermore, if his push was so awful, how come his title win on Raw only a little more than two months ago got such a great face pop? It sure wasn't because people care about Sheamus.

Here's the video if you want to remind yourself of the pop Reigns got and how hard they were cheering for him to win: http://network.wwe.com/video/v537514783

You know this illustrates my point way more than it does yours? The ONE TIME they allowed his character to have an air of an edge and some authenticity to it, it was insanely over? Something Triple H had to literally have a heated argument with Vince to have done?

Nothing weak about it, it's only the stereotypical Internet fan who is booing him. :shrug:

.

You are either wrong here, or they make up a much, much larger contingent of the fan base now.


Not every major market is a smark haven.

I know. That's my point.



And, let's face it, who would you replace Reigns with? Cena's hurt, Rollins is hurt, Lesnar is limited, Bryan retired, Orton's hurt, Sheamus was a dud (again), Punk's gone...who would you replace Reigns with that is going to bring to the table what Reigns can without getting booed?

Right this second? It would have to be Ambrose. A turncoat Reigns Vs Scruffy underdog Ambrose storyline would come off ten times better with ten times as much heat as what they are going with. Were I to simply spitball, id have had Ambrose help Reigns sustain through the Rumble, only for Reigns to toss Ambrose at a sneaky moment to retain his title. Ambrose goes through Lesnar at Fast Lane for the no.1 contender, and bam, away we go.

Post Mania, you have Aj Styles, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, and the returning Seth Rollins and John Cena.

He's not good enough for that yet. He's not good enough on the mic to hold a lengthy feud with mic work and he's still a little too green to make a heel character work in the ring.

Another thing we will have to disagree on. Except for the mic work art, which I would argue we simply don't know yet. The only way to find out and let him grow is to let him off his leash. You can do this as a heel because as a heel, having egg on your face is fine.

Absolutely there is. I'm pretty sure when I say "Internet fan", you know I'm not talking about the person who visits WWE.com for their news, but rather those who post on forums, read dirtsheets, post on reddit and think because they do those things, they are so much more knowledgeable about wrestling than anyone else.

I am abundantly confident more fans than not do this now. This is another place were our perspectives diverge.



It would be easier to take the handcuffs off him creatively as a face, but the WWE is still a publicly traded company, Vince McMahon's Raw rant notwithstanding.

I disagree. Old timey logic says its easier to take the cuffs off as a heel, since if he fucks up, hey, he is a heel, fuck it. If he says something out of turn, you tell your corporate sponsors "hey, he is a bad guy character." and you get away with it. Hi jack Swagger and Zeb Colter.



It REEKS of arrogance and I do not understand how someone can see what has happened for years with a great worker like Cena and not see the overwhelming similarities with what is happening to Reigns.

There most definitiely is a contingent of this, I think were we disagree is how much of it is the reason for all this. I think it is quite small.


Even if it was the majority of the reason, then its clear this makes up a large portion of your audience, so why continue to plow ahead right into it? Why not utilize your assets to their best degree? The fans are alienated by Reigns, so give them a proper reason to be. They seem to have attached to Ambrose (for reasons you and I don't particularly understand) so utilize it.
 
He's not good enough for that yet. He's not good enough on the mic to hold a lengthy feud with mic work and he's still a little too green to make a heel character work in the ring.

Reigns is a power move wrestler. He has very good charisma in the ring with his current work. But if you make him a heel, he lacks the attributes to make a good heel and you'll have to take away some of the things which make him a decent face.


I know I'm removing some context but the descriptions of Roman Reigns above ("not good enough for that yet", "not good enough on the Mic", "little too green", "decent face") are not the attributes of a guy who should be main eventing Mania two years in a row and being the heir apparent face of the company. People would not reject Reigns if he dominated the midcard this way.

Roman Reigns body of work < Roman Reigns' spot.
 
Definitely in Camp NorCal on this.

The fans rejected Shawn Michaels in 1996 and started cheering for Sid, who they were obviously trying to turn heel. Reigns is obviously charismatic, and I said he'd be the biggest deal when they first debuted, but it's obvious he should be a bad ass rather than Cena 2. Reigns is a lot more like Ahmed Johnson than he is like Dwayne Johnson and should be booked accordingly. You don't even have to turn him heel and give him a mouthpiece manager, you just have to stop forcing a square peg into a round hole.

It's interesting we talk about Punk - much less suspension of disbelief is required to believe a heel will escape with the title through bullshit. Flair and Edge literally spent their entire main event careers doing that, but the difference is that a face doing things against all odds is grating.
 
I forget who said it but someone once said something along the lines of "They're trying to make the next John Cena out of theguy who should be the next Batista."
 
Well you and me, Jim Ross, Mark Madden, Steve Austin, Wade Keller, Court Bauer, Alex Greenfield, Konnan, Jerry Jarrett, Kevin Sullivan, and pretty much anyone who is seen as having an opinion worth listening to.
:rolleyes:

There's only two people on that list (other than the two of us) who have an opinion I consider worth listening to and one of them is still very much stuck in the past when it comes to pro wrestling (Ross).

But it's easy to see Reigns get booed and say "HE'S BEING BOOKED WRONG! RAWR!". But you and I both well know the WWE makes their decisions based on information the rest of us do not have access to and we both know they could not care less about which of their workers is successful, so long as the company is successful.

The second half of this certainly proves the first half.
Well said, but still nonsense. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. I'd argue that one who watches every second of the WWE every week is less likely to be able to look at the big picture. It's way to easy to get caught up with only looking at things in the moment and losing sight of the big picture. And for topics like this you HAVE to be able to see the big picture. You simply cannot look at it on a minute by minute, show by show basis.

.....to be clear, you DO NOT feel that was a bad decision, even though it basically exploded the entire next year for Reigns?
To be clear, you CAN NOT book your biggest show of the year around a fear of one crowd three months before your biggest show. Booking your promotion is such a way will lead to ruin.

So, no, I have absolutely no problem with Reigns winning. The only person the crowd was going to accept was Bryan winning, but that's clearly not the direction the WWE wanted to go. The WWE obviously wanted to promote new stars, while using existing stars in Cena and Bryan to elevate the midcard championships. Would you say their strategy there was a bad decision? After seeing what Cena did with the US title, do you have any doubt Bryan could have done something similar with the IC title? And did we not get a damn fine main-event at Wrestlemania?

You cannot book your promotion out of fear of one audience, especially when that one audience is at the show which sets up the biggest show of your year. Booking that way WOULD be a bad decision.

To be clear, are you saying the WWE should have gone against the plans they had made for months in the future, just to please one audience?

Well, no one is asking for that. You know for me, personally, I don't need anything more than "you have the title and I want it".
Well they essentially are.

Its about how the character is portrayed. Much like my example with New Day....They didn't shit on the individuals themselves, they rejected the way the gimmick was portrayed.
But Reigns is essentially the same character he was when crowds were cheering hard for him. The only thing that changed was the idea he was Vince's golden boy.

As I said before, I don't think its as much them hating Reigns personally, but rejecting how things were done from a creative standpoint, much like they rejected the New Day.

Reigns was over when he was the silent killer. The very moment he turned to corny and CLEARLY overproduced line reciting, everyone could smell the bullshit, and they rejected it .
Reigns is hardly the first or only worker to provide overproduced promos. In fact, it's the norm in the WWE. But no one seems to have a problem with Ambrose doing it. :shrug:

So, again, what's the difference? The difference is Reigns has a great look, the kind of look the Internet fan recognizes as something McMahon likes. So, in order to show how "in the know they are", they boo against the chosen one.

I suppose we must have different definitions of this.
Perhaps one of these days we can start a wrestling university and more clearly define terms.

A pop is a reaction. Good, bad or otherwise, when Reigns music hits, people react. And you get a LOT of cheers, just not from a certain segment of the audience. Again, I suspect it's the same audience who still boos Cena.

You know this illustrates my point way more than it does yours? The ONE TIME they allowed his character to have an air of an edge and some authenticity to it, it was insanely over?
:lmao:

No, it doesn't. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in this post. You have to be able to look at the big picture when talking about booking. You cannot analyze second by second.

You are either wrong here, or they make up a much, much larger contingent of the fan base now.
I'm not wrong (I'm never wrong, you should know that by now ;)) but they do make up a larger percentage of the fan base than they once did, but not so overwhelmingly as you seem to be suggesting in this line.

I know. That's my point.
And he's not heavily booed by a majority of people in every town. :shrug:

I don't guess I get your point. Much like Cena, the level of boos he gets depends on the show and the city.

Right this second? It would have to be Ambrose.
You mean the guy who is a mediocre ring worker who has "turned to corny and CLEARLY overproduced line reciting"?

Why would he be better? You know, besides the fact he doesn't have big muscles?

A turncoat Reigns Vs Scruffy underdog Ambrose storyline would come off ten times better
It's not time for that yet. Reigns vs. Ambrose can be a huge moneymaker, but not yet. That doesn't mean the WWE won't pull the trigger early, but it does mean the money isn't there yet. I LOVE the way the WWE constantly promotes their friendship. I've thought for a long time they need to do more things like that. And, obviously, you'll break them up and have them feud. But neither man is there yet for the feud to truly make big bucks.

Post Mania, you have Aj Styles, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor
...really? You've spent posts telling me how unbelievable Reigns is because he wasn't authentic in his build toward the main event and that people don't boo Reigns because he has big muscles and your choices for the guys to carry the company in Reigns place is two guys from NXT and a man who only debuted a month ago, none of which are guys with big muscles?

You're proving my point. I have no doubt the fans who boo Reigns would happily accept any one of those three. But that only proves my point, not yours.

and the returning Seth Rollins and John Cena.
I know you said after Mania, but that doesn't help the WWE now. They don't even really have a choice, they HAVE to push Reigns.

Another thing we will have to disagree on. Except for the mic work art, which I would argue we simply don't know yet. The only way to find out and let him grow is to let him off his leash. You can do this as a heel because as a heel, having egg on your face is fine.
Reigns is a badass. Badasses don't get egg on their face. And, again, they need Reigns right now.

I am abundantly confident more fans than not do this now. This is another place were our perspectives diverge.
I'm abundantly confident if this were true, then companies like ROH and TNA would be much bigger than they are.

I disagree. Old timey logic says its easier to take the cuffs off as a heel, since if he fucks up, hey, he is a heel, fuck it.
Old timer logic says it is easier as a heel because you have more range to say things in promos. But Reigns has yet to proven he has anything uniquely interesting to say in promos.

There most definitiely is a contingent of this, I think were we disagree is how much of it is the reason for all this. I think it is quite small.
And I think if it was quite small, the level of hatred for Cena would have went away a long time ago.

Even if it was the majority of the reason, then its clear this makes up a large portion of your audience, so why continue to plow ahead right into it?
Because it's as I said earlier. You cannot book your promotion around a fickle audience. You simply cannot be successful that way.

Why not utilize your assets to their best degree? The fans are alienated by Reigns, so give them a proper reason to be. They seem to have attached to Ambrose (for reasons you and I don't particularly understand) so utilize it.
Yeah, it's almost like the biggest difference between Reigns and Ambrose is the size of the individuals. ;)


I have to go, so I haven't proofread. Apologies if anything doesn't make sense right now.
 
Camp NorCal.
Reigns is Rob Lowe in The Invention of Lying aka the dick the girl is with at the start of almost every romcom. No one likes that guy, no matter how much he's portrayed as perfect in every single way.
 
I know I'm removing some context but the descriptions of Roman Reigns above ("not good enough for that yet", "not good enough on the Mic", "little too green", "decent face") are not the attributes of a guy who should be main eventing Mania two years in a row and being the heir apparent face of the company.
As I have said, what choice do they have?

People would not reject Reigns if he dominated the midcard this way.
No, they would likely be cheering him quite loudly. Which essentially proves what I'm saying.
 
For the record, I HATE using the term "smark". But sometimes it's just the easiest way to say something.
Definitely in Camp NorCal on this.

The fans rejected Shawn Michaels in 1996 and started cheering for Sid, who they were obviously trying to turn heel. Reigns is obviously charismatic, and I said he'd be the biggest deal when they first debuted, but it's obvious he should be a bad ass rather than Cena 2. Reigns is a lot more like Ahmed Johnson than he is like Dwayne Johnson and should be booked accordingly. You don't even have to turn him heel and give him a mouthpiece manager, you just have to stop forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Camp NorCal.
Reigns is Rob Lowe in The Invention of Lying aka the dick the girl is with at the start of almost every romcom. No one likes that guy, no matter how much he's portrayed as perfect in every single way.
You are both in Camp Norcal and then explain it in ways which supports what I'm saying.

Let's put it it another way. Both of your reasons are essentially "smark" reasons. You're not claiming the problem is with Reigns, but rather with things that could, theoretically, improve in 15 minutes. If Reigns would suddenly start being more of a bad ass (whatever that means), then suddenly the problem you see would instantly go away.

That is CLASSIC smark reasoning and is exactly what I'm saying is the reason people boo Reigns. Furthermore, as I said in my last post to Norcal, you CANNOT book your promotion around this type of logic, because you'll be turning wrestlers face/heel and changing their gimmick so fast it would make Vince Russo's head spin.

You say you're in Norcal's camp, but your logic essentially supports my position.

Tasty said:
It's interesting we talk about Punk - much less suspension of disbelief is required to believe a heel will escape with the title through bullshit.
Punk was a face for months after he won the title from Cena. Surely you haven't forgottten the long, drawn-out feud with Johnny Ace and the Jericho feud, have you?

People didn't seem to have a problem with Punk on top overcoming the odds, even as his character increasingly became more and more bland...
 
:rolleyes:

There's only two people on that list (other than the two of us) who have an opinion I consider worth listening to and one of them is still very much stuck in the past when it comes to pro wrestling (Ross).

But it's easy to see Reigns get booed and say "HE'S BEING BOOKED WRONG! RAWR!"

Couldn't possibly be because its true....I mean, the WWE has never booked anyone poorly ever!



But you and I both well know the WWE makes their decisions based on information the rest of us do not have access to and we both know they could not care less about which of their workers is successful, so long as the company is successful.

Well.....If that's how you feel :shrug:

Well said, but still nonsense. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. I'd argue that one who watches every second of the WWE every week is less likely to be able to look at the big picture. It's way to easy to get caught up with only looking at things in the moment and losing sight of the big picture. And for topics like this you HAVE to be able to see the big picture. You simply cannot look at it on a minute by minute, show by show basis.

Im quite aware of the big picture.



Big things are comprised of all their smaller components.



To be clear, you CAN NOT book your biggest show of the year around a fear of one crowd three months before your biggest show

Even if you know full well this is going to destroy everything you are trying to do for the next year?


I'm sure you DO know there was a million and one ways to avoid what happened at the rumble and still end up with Roman in the main event of Mania Vs Lesnar?



:

Well they essentially are.

But Reigns is essentially the same character he was when crowds were cheering hard for him. The only thing that changed was the idea he was Vince's golden boy.

If teaching doesn't work out, you have a fine carreer available as a lawyer, politician, or upper management ;)



To be clear, are you saying the WWE should have gone against the plans they had made for months in the future, just to please one audience?

So as to avoid the massive ripple effect they had on every other audience for the next year (and likely, forever)?


I mean, sounds smarter than what they DID do.


The only person the crowd was going to accept was Bryan winning, but that's clearly not the direction the WWE wanted to go. The WWE obviously wanted to promote new stars, while using existing stars in Cena and Bryan to elevate the midcard championships. Would you say their strategy there was a bad decision? After seeing what Cena did with the US title, do you have any doubt Bryan could have done something similar with the IC title?

So then why have Bryan make an emotional comeback at the Rumble? Could he not have done all this without it? Fuck, put him in the title match(from that same show) for a title he never actually lost maybe? Have him return the next night on RAW to beat Wade Barret (the IC champ at that time)


A million and one other ways to accomplish your plans than what they did. When circumstances dictate, you adapt and overcome.



So, again, what's the difference? The difference is Reigns has a great look, the kind of look the Internet fan recognizes as something McMahon likes. So, in order to show how "in the know they are", they boo against the chosen one

So instead of realizing this is happening and compensating for it, you just plow headlong into the mountain anyways.


That's been much of my point throughout this. Whether its fair or not, valid criticisms or not, the result is still the result....and further, was beyond predictable.


Realize it, accept it, try to work around it, especially since this segment of fans makes up much more of your paying audience than they did in 2006.


And he's not heavily booed by a majority of people in every town. :shrug:

I was going to come with the obvious response here, but we will go with....


We have already established you don't watch the shows, and I do.



Why would he be better? You know, besides the fact he doesn't have big muscles?

Perhaps him being cheered by the entire crowd at every building(that's my understanding of how the whole babyface thing works, anyway) and being a better merch seller than Reigns (Ambrose is second only to Cena)



We have similar complaints about his work. However, he is cheered by everyone, and Reigns is not.


It's not time for that yet.

But it clearly is.



Had Reigns turned on im in the Rumble, and they spent the next three months telling that story, it would have made for a fantastic culmination.



...really? You've spent posts telling me how unbelievable Reigns is because he wasn't authentic in his build toward the main event and that people don't boo Reigns because he has big muscles and your choices for the guys to carry the company in Reigns place is two guys from NXT and a man who only debuted a month ago, none of which are guys with big muscles.

What does it matter, as long as they become four quadrant stars?


I have admitted that maybe a portion of the crowd only hates Roman because of muscles.....but like I said, it comes down to who will be over and who wont.


If they want to hate them, let them hate him. It was David Vs Goliath, not Goliath Vs Goliath.


I didn't give one bit of thought to any of those guys body types, only to their individual abilities and popularity.


I know you said after Mania, but that doesn't help the WWE now. They don't even really have a choice, they HAVE to push Reigns.

So this is an ok excuse to use for Reigns to be pushed as a top baby face who gets booed out of every building and has unimpressive merch sales, but not for them to run a betrayal feud with the guy who gets cheered by everyone and outsells him at the merch table?



In a feud that would undoubtedly be super over?

Reigns is a badass. Badasses don't get egg on their face.

Then why does he ignore massive amounts of people booing the shit out of him? Why in moments that are supposed to be your classic babyface pop moments he stares off blissfully in the distance as thunderous boos come down? That's not egg on your face?


I'm abundantly confident if this were true, then companies like ROH and TNA would be much bigger than they are.

???? Why?? Because they are shit?


Take a look around just this forum, and its easy to gauge which promotions are popular or peak interest, or are well regarded.


TNA and ROH are not among them.

Old timer logic says it is easier as a heel because you have more range to say things in promos. But Reigns has yet to proven he has anything uniquely interesting to say in promos.

he hasn't really been given the chance though, right? Even if he does fail in his heel promos, he is supposed to fail sometimes, he is a heel.

Because it's as I said earlier. You cannot book your promotion around a fickle audience. You simply cannot be successful that way.

Are they that fickle though? Daniel Bryan and Dean Ambrose say no.



Yeah, it's almost like the biggest difference between Reigns and Ambrose is the size of the individuals. ;)

Well, and one gets cheers from the entire audience/is second to Cena in merch and one isn't. There is that difference too.





Like I said, wether you feel the reasons are valid or not, someone is either accepted by the entire audience, or they aren't. You act like people shouldn't be able to change plans.








Whenever WWE brass are asked why the WWE survived and every other company died, they always answer with a sneer -


"They simply could not adapt and evolve with the times. They couldn't change plans, could not alter their ways"
 
You are both in Camp Norcal and then explain it in ways which supports what I'm saying.

Let's put it it another way. Both of your reasons are essentially "smark" reasons. You're not claiming the problem is with Reigns, but rather with things that could, theoretically, improve in 15 minutes. If Reigns would suddenly start being more of a bad ass (whatever that means), then suddenly the problem you see would instantly go away.

That is CLASSIC smark reasoning and is exactly what I'm saying is the reason people boo Reigns. Furthermore, as I said in my last post to Norcal, you CANNOT book your promotion around this type of logic, because you'll be turning wrestlers face/heel and changing their gimmick so fast it would make Vince Russo's head spin.

So the only reason movies in the romcom genre are successful is because smarks want to watch them? It's a human reaction to dislike a smug perfect person, that's why I don't like him. Otherwise I'd contradict every romcom I've ever watched.
 
For the record, I HATE using the term "smark". But sometimes it's just the easiest way to say something.


You are both in Camp Norcal and then explain it in ways which supports what I'm saying.

Let's put it it another way. Both of your reasons are essentially "smark" reasons. You're not claiming the problem is with Reigns, but rather with things that could, theoretically, improve in 15 minutes. If Reigns would suddenly start being more of a bad ass (whatever that means), then suddenly the problem you see would instantly go away.

I don't have a problem with Reigns, the royal rumble is the only main WWE programming I've watched for about 6 months. However, it was clear from that, and when I was watching more regularly before I moved out here, that Reigns is not being played to his strengths. Three years ago Ryback's became immensely popular with the whole audience just by doing exactly the sort of thing that reigns should do. Reigns is charismatic in the ring, but not remotely so out of it. The solution is simple - don't have him trying one liners, don't have him being "against authority", don't have him doing anything except smashing through people. The time he has been most over with the whole audience is when he was in the shield basically being a silent broody type. Book him like Goldberg, not like Steve Austin because that is what he has the skill set for - by your own admission he's not exactly setting the world on fire on the microphone, so take it off him.

That is CLASSIC smark reasoning and is exactly what I'm saying is the reason people boo Reigns. Furthermore, as I said in my last post to Norcal, you CANNOT book your promotion around this type of logic, because you'll be turning wrestlers face/heel and changing their gimmick so fast it would make Vince Russo's head spin.

You don't have to change the way you book people weekly, you have to play to people's strengths from the outset. Like I said, the same people that are booing Reigns were cheering Ryback, and more importantly cheering Reigns when he was the quiet one in the Sheild. The reason they aren't now is because they aren't invested in the character and a big part of that is because the character doesn't fit the man. Rocky Maivia was never going to be the face of the company, neither was The Ringmaster or Pre-Rapper John Cena. All of them found a character that suited them and the crowd got behind it.

Punk was a face for months after he won the title from Cena. Surely you haven't forgottten the long, drawn-out feud with Johnny Ace and the Jericho feud, have you?

It's exactly the same point though isn't it? Punk, who remember they were trying to keep heel at first, was in a character that fit him, so people were invested in him fighting John Laurinaitis. Another key factor in the difference between them is that the audience hated Johnny Ace and quite like Triple H. It's much harder for Reigns, regardless of muscles.

I understand your point, I just think there's more to it - otherwise Ryback would never have taken off a few years ago and the same people wouldn't cheer Brock Lesnar.
 
Roman Reigns' Social Media numbers have seen a huge increase since he was introduced into the WWE title scene. At present, he is set to eclipse Triple H in the rankings and is also regularly the most talked about Superstar alongside WWE Giants, the Rock and John Cena.


Could the WWE perhaps be taking such numbers(amongst others) into consideration when continuing the Roman Reigns Babyface push, boos be damned?


Here's a Link for Info: http://fanpagelist.com/category/athletes/wwe/view/list/sort/fans/
 
First of all, before I get to responding, I just wanted to pass along the fact I went to a WWE house show Saturday night, and this is the show I saw:

Neville defeated King Barrett with Red Arrow in the opener. Really strong reaction for Barrett for some reason, more than Neville. Nice back and forth match

* Bo Dallas and Heath Slater defeated Damien Sandow and Darren Young. Bo won for his team with a roll-up on Sandow, holding the tights. Huge pop for Sandow, he was really over

* Rusev squashed Fandango by submission. Lana was in demand again tonight and actually sang to Rusev but it was hard to hear

* Ryback defeated Rusev in a really physical match that came after Rusev demanded real competition. Ryback worked as a babyface and showed no signs of the turn he started on TV

* Enzo Amore and Colin Cassady with Carmella defeated The Ascension. Good pops for the NXT stars and good match. The Wyatt Family without Bray Wyatt destroyed them after but Big Show made the save

* Enzo, Big Cass and Big Show defeated Erick Rowan, Luke Harper and Braun Strowman. This was really good as far as in the ring goes and overall entertainment. Cool to see the NXT stars get props from Show after the match

* WWE Divas Champion Charlotte beat Becky Lynch to retain. Really good match, one of the best of the night

* WWE Tag Team Champions The New Day beat The Usos to retain. They had several comedy or dance spots but it was done well, very entertaining

* Kane beat Bray Wyatt in the main event. Wyatt dominated the whole match up until the last minute or so
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0228/608077/wwe-live-event-results/

Kind of lacking in big name talent and I was a little disappointed...then I remembered that the WWE just doesn't really have big name talent at the moment, with everyone injured. Not a bad show, though the incomptents taking tickets at the door couldn't get everyone into the arena on time. I missed all but the last minute or two of the opening match, stupid arena officials.
 
Let's see if I can shorten this, though it wouldn't surprise me if I can't...
Well.....If that's how you feel :shrug:
Is it wrong? Do you really think the WWE says, "if *insert wrestler here* can't make us money, then we don't want anyone making us money?".

Im quite aware of the big picture.

Big things are comprised of all their smaller components.
And big picture says Roman Reigns is now a legitimate believable main-eventer, is apparently doing well enough in the minute by minute ratings and is apparently alongside big names in social media.

Just because a certain segment of fans boo him because he's a main-eventer with big muscles, that doesn't mean those fans have legitimate reasons to boo or that the WWE should base their booking around them.

Even if you know full well this is going to destroy everything you are trying to do for the next year?
How was it destroyed? He main-evented multiple PPVs and won the WWE Championship. He became a legitimate main-eventer. What was ruined?

If teaching doesn't work out, you have a fine carreer available as a lawyer, politician, or upper management ;)
:)

So as to avoid the massive ripple effect they had on every other audience for the next year (and likely, forever)?
Nah, Reigns isn't booed by other audiences because of one audience. The type of fan who booed him at Royal Rumble was already booing him and would have booed him anyways.

So then why have Bryan make an emotional comeback at the Rumble?
For reasons I've already mentioned. You cannot have your lead-up show to your biggest show held hostage to one audience.

So instead of realizing this is happening and compensating for it, you just plow headlong into the mountain anyways.
Because it doesn't matter when you do it. The fans who boo Reigns now are going to boo him whenever he gets in the main-event. It doesn't matter when and the WWE needs him now.

If those fans are still booing Cena, then they are going to boo Reigns. So unless you plan on keeping Reigns in the midcard forever, he's going to get booed in the main-event.

Realize it, accept it, try to work around it, especially since this segment of fans makes up much more of your paying audience than they did in 2006.
The fans who boo are still paying. And their not keeping the fans who like Reigns from paying.

You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I was going to come with the obvious response here, but we will go with....

We have already established you don't watch the shows, and I do.
Oh, come now, I never said I don't watch the shows. I said I never watch Smackdown and I don't catch every minute of every Raw. But I watch enough Raws and enough segments of various Raws (including the end/top of the hour segments) and every PPV.

Perhaps him being cheered by the entire crowd at every building(that's my understanding of how the whole babyface thing works, anyway) and being a better merch seller than Reigns (Ambrose is second only to Cena)

We have similar complaints about his work. However, he is cheered by everyone, and Reigns is not.
He is cheered by everyone and that's my point. When I said "why would he be better", I was referring to why people cheer him and not Reigns. And it all goes back to my original point of WHY they boo Reigns and not Ambrose, which is why I included the "big muscles" part.

Ambrose is no different than Reigns. Former shield, has already worked main-events, over scripted mic work...I agree with you that the audience who boos Reigns would cheer Ambrose, that's actually 100% in favor of my point.

They would cheer Ambrose because he does not have big muscles. It all comes back to that point.

But it clearly is.

Had Reigns turned on im in the Rumble, and they spent the next three months telling that story, it would have made for a fantastic culmination.
Nah. Reigns is a newly minted main-eventer and Ambrose is still in the upper midcard. That feud should happen when both men are solid main-eventers. That's when the money happens.

What does it matter, as long as they become four quadrant stars?
For the very reason this entire discussion started is why it matters. Those guys you named being thrown in the main-event would not be any more "authentic" than Reigns in the main-event. While I agree with you they would likely be cheered, that only furthers my point.

Reigns gets booed because he has muscles and those guys simply aren't big like Reigns is. That's been my point all along.

I have admitted that maybe a portion of the crowd only hates Roman because of muscles
The portion of the audience who boos him. :shrug:

.....but like I said, it comes down to who will be over and who wont.
Reigns is over. :shrug:

Unless you are one of those who thinks John Cena isn't over (and I know you better than that), then Roman Reigns is over.

I didn't give one bit of thought to any of those guys body types, only to their individual abilities and popularity.
But the fact those guys would likely be solidly cheered is EXACTLY the point I'm making about why they boo Reigns.

So this is an ok excuse to use for Reigns to be pushed as a top baby face who gets booed out of every building and has unimpressive merch sales, but not for them to run a betrayal feud with the guy who gets cheered by everyone and outsells him at the merch table?
The WWE is making money hand over fist. They just experienced their highest revenue grossing year in history and, if I remember correctly, profited over $24 million. They have money.

They need main-eventers right now, but they don't necessarily need to blow a future money making feud. Reigns vs. Ambrose when both men are legit main-eventers will make more money than it would right now.

Then why does he ignore massive amounts of people booing the shit out of him? Why in moments that are supposed to be your classic babyface pop moments he stares off blissfully in the distance as thunderous boos come down?
A badass doesn't care. :shrug:

Again, I refer you back to Cena.

???? Why?? Because they are shit?
That they are, but the type of fan who boos Reigns are the type of fan who would watch those shows.

he hasn't really been given the chance though, right? Even if he does fail in his heel promos, he is supposed to fail sometimes, he is a heel.
You can tell how good someone is on the mic. Reigns isn't there yet to be given the freedom to be a great heel on the mic.

Are they that fickle though? Daniel Bryan and Dean Ambrose say no.
Yes. Mr. Kennedy, Dolph Ziggler, Zack Ryder, even CM Punk, etc. all show the Internet fan is incredibly fickle.

Well, and one gets cheers from the entire audience/is second to Cena in merch and one isn't. There is that difference too.
Completely irrelevant to our discussion. :shrug:

We're talking about why Reigns gets booed. Showing me that a scrawny guy is popular doesn't help your case.


Again, I don't have time to proofread, but hopefully everything will make sense.
 
So the only reason movies in the romcom genre are successful is because smarks want to watch them? It's a human reaction to dislike a smug perfect person, that's why I don't like him. Otherwise I'd contradict every romcom I've ever watched.
Movies =/= Wrestling

The solution is simple - don't have him trying one liners, don't have him being "against authority", don't have him doing anything except smashing through people. The time he has been most over with the whole audience is when he was in the shield basically being a silent broody type. Book him like Goldberg
When you have 5 hours of TV to fill every week, a 3 hour PPV every month and Reigns has been on TV for three and a half years, you have to do more with him than what the WCW was able to do with Goldberg at the beginning.

It's exactly the same point though isn't it? Punk, who remember they were trying to keep heel at first
The moment Punk sat down at the top of the ramp and cut a promo, the WWE was obviously no longer interested in keeping him heel.

I understand your point, I just think there's more to it - otherwise Ryback would never have taken off a few years ago and the same people wouldn't cheer Brock Lesnar.
Lesnar is a different situation, for reasons I've mentioned, and look what happened to Ryback once the WWE gave him a chance to sniff the main-event.
 
Movies =/= Wrestling

Eh, my philosophy differs from most in that particular idea, but the character description I gave still holds. He's got a face I'd want to punch, but that may just be me growing up with every other form of media I've ever consumed engineering me to hate people like him.
 
First of all, before I get to responding, I just wanted to pass along the fact I went to a WWE house show Saturday night, and this is the show I saw:

Neville defeated King Barrett with Red Arrow in the opener. Really strong reaction for Barrett for some reason, more than Neville. Nice back and forth match

* Bo Dallas and Heath Slater defeated Damien Sandow and Darren Young. Bo won for his team with a roll-up on Sandow, holding the tights. Huge pop for Sandow, he was really over

* Rusev squashed Fandango by submission. Lana was in demand again tonight and actually sang to Rusev but it was hard to hear

* Ryback defeated Rusev in a really physical match that came after Rusev demanded real competition. Ryback worked as a babyface and showed no signs of the turn he started on TV

* Enzo Amore and Colin Cassady with Carmella defeated The Ascension. Good pops for the NXT stars and good match. The Wyatt Family without Bray Wyatt destroyed them after but Big Show made the save

* Enzo, Big Cass and Big Show defeated Erick Rowan, Luke Harper and Braun Strowman. This was really good as far as in the ring goes and overall entertainment. Cool to see the NXT stars get props from Show after the match

* WWE Divas Champion Charlotte beat Becky Lynch to retain. Really good match, one of the best of the night

* WWE Tag Team Champions The New Day beat The Usos to retain. They had several comedy or dance spots but it was done well, very entertaining

* Kane beat Bray Wyatt in the main event. Wyatt dominated the whole match up until the last minute or so
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0228/608077/wwe-live-event-results/

Kind of lacking in big name talent and I was a little disappointed...then I remembered that the WWE just doesn't really have big name talent at the moment, with everyone injured. Not a bad show, though the incomptents taking tickets at the door couldn't get everyone into the arena on time. I missed all but the last minute or two of the opening match, stupid arena officials.

I considered going but decided not to spend the money. So upset I missed Enzo and Big Cass. That may be the most underwhelming main event I can think of though.
 
Thoughts on this?

With what I said I meant any Sly argument, not just Cena. Cena has been a big draw, but I don't think he's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm in the middle on him. I can go from one week hating him to the next marking out for him.

Which is why I don't argue with Sly. He turns stuff around and pretty makes up his arguments as he goes. Why bother with it when he's just going to find one tiny flaw in your argument and never actually defends his point at all?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top