SacredMesa
Pre-Show Stalwart
More specifically in 2011 after Triple H took over for Vince in the wake of CM Punk leaving with the title after Money in the Bank. This has been the thing that has kinda bugged me after seeing the whole Daniel Bryan angle and build up to Wrestlemania last year. Did I love seeing Daniel Bryan become champ and enjoy the story? Yeah but I couldn't help feel that it would of been better with CM Punk back in 2011.
If you think about it the story in general would of made a lot more sense back then. Triple H is forced to fired Vince because of CM Punk and the title situation, leaves it with that whole "I love you pop" line and then we see him constantly trying to do things to get CM Punk back into the WWE, even "caving" to the kind of change Punk wants, and in the process giving the big fan favorites like Ziggler/Bryan/Cesaro/etc some type of rub as Triple H shows he is listening to the fans and after seeing this for a while CM Punk finally returns under a WWE contract...just for Triple H to stab him in the back in revenge for Vince and take the title from him for any of his lackeys, Orton/Miz/Triple H himself whoever. It builds and culminates with CM Punk playing the arrogate jackass who doesn't give a damn about authority, and we get a story very similar to Vince and Stone Cold, but with the personal element of them always being able to refer back to the moment where Triple H had to fire Vince because of Punk. Could easily of introduced The Shield during this as heels going after Punk for the authority, perhaps of even included Ryback as another member of this authority as well. And some of the people who got a shot earlier, Ziggler/Bryan/Cesaro/etc side with Punk. In the end it seems like it had a lot of potential to be a great rivalry but also include a lot of the roster in various ways and get people over.
vs
What we got with the Daniel Bryan story which boils down to "Authority doesn't want Bryan to be champ because he doesn't look the part." While I enjoyed the story and the pay off I have to admit the whole thing felt rather petty and as much as they tried to really make it feel personal it fell kind of flat to me in that regard, instead coming off more as a hard working man over coming adversity story than something that was really and truly personal. Daniel Bryan played a great underdog who over came everything but let's be honest he doesn't have that badass rebel quality that the "sticking up to authority" angle really seems to thrive with. It also only really served Daniel Bryan himself, and let's be honest with how big the "yes movement" is it's hurting other wrestlers when WWE tries to give them a shot instead of going back to Bryan and I feel part of that is how much the authority angle really impacted everyone but Bryan.
Again I'm not trying to belittle the story Daniel Bryan had, and again I personally enjoyed it, but what do you think? Do you feel that the authority angle would of been better served happening in 2011 with CM Punk as oppose to 2013-2014 with Daniel Bryan? Do you prefer the underdog story or the rebel story? Would you prefer the story that could include so many other wrestlers in various roles or just the one that focused on one guys attempt to stand up for himself?
If you think about it the story in general would of made a lot more sense back then. Triple H is forced to fired Vince because of CM Punk and the title situation, leaves it with that whole "I love you pop" line and then we see him constantly trying to do things to get CM Punk back into the WWE, even "caving" to the kind of change Punk wants, and in the process giving the big fan favorites like Ziggler/Bryan/Cesaro/etc some type of rub as Triple H shows he is listening to the fans and after seeing this for a while CM Punk finally returns under a WWE contract...just for Triple H to stab him in the back in revenge for Vince and take the title from him for any of his lackeys, Orton/Miz/Triple H himself whoever. It builds and culminates with CM Punk playing the arrogate jackass who doesn't give a damn about authority, and we get a story very similar to Vince and Stone Cold, but with the personal element of them always being able to refer back to the moment where Triple H had to fire Vince because of Punk. Could easily of introduced The Shield during this as heels going after Punk for the authority, perhaps of even included Ryback as another member of this authority as well. And some of the people who got a shot earlier, Ziggler/Bryan/Cesaro/etc side with Punk. In the end it seems like it had a lot of potential to be a great rivalry but also include a lot of the roster in various ways and get people over.
vs
What we got with the Daniel Bryan story which boils down to "Authority doesn't want Bryan to be champ because he doesn't look the part." While I enjoyed the story and the pay off I have to admit the whole thing felt rather petty and as much as they tried to really make it feel personal it fell kind of flat to me in that regard, instead coming off more as a hard working man over coming adversity story than something that was really and truly personal. Daniel Bryan played a great underdog who over came everything but let's be honest he doesn't have that badass rebel quality that the "sticking up to authority" angle really seems to thrive with. It also only really served Daniel Bryan himself, and let's be honest with how big the "yes movement" is it's hurting other wrestlers when WWE tries to give them a shot instead of going back to Bryan and I feel part of that is how much the authority angle really impacted everyone but Bryan.
Again I'm not trying to belittle the story Daniel Bryan had, and again I personally enjoyed it, but what do you think? Do you feel that the authority angle would of been better served happening in 2011 with CM Punk as oppose to 2013-2014 with Daniel Bryan? Do you prefer the underdog story or the rebel story? Would you prefer the story that could include so many other wrestlers in various roles or just the one that focused on one guys attempt to stand up for himself?