The 'indy/IWC darling' tag...

[CyberPunk]

Okay, so I've been reading a lot about how Vince thinks that the 'supposed indy or IWC darlings' can't draw and thus he keeps on trying to push people who he thinks are created in WWE. The debacle that was Royal Rumble is also blamed on the 'indy and IWC darlings' like Bryan, Ambrose and Ziggler. And I've been wondering about the truth of all this.

I honestly don't know what Vince thinks about these superstars, but if he really thinks this way, isn't it a completely flawed thought process? I mean, isn't Daniel Bryan a WWE creation? How many fans start chanting 'Bryan Danielson' when he walks down the aisle to the ring? Isn't the whole 'Yes' chant created inside the WWE too? Didn't he get over doing 'Team Hell No' which was a midcard, albeit an entertaining story?

Ziggler, the IWC favorite so to speak, how did he get over? He was Nikki from that "Spirit Squad." He came back and got over by doing all of it in WWE. The pop I hear for Ziggler in the arena, are they coming from computers? I thought those present in arenas are paying customers.

What about Cesaro 'the IWC darling?' His giant swing that got him over was within a WWE ring. He was doing pretty fine till he was suddenly kicked to the curb.

Apart from these, the future of WWE, NXT, is full of indy stars. But they all have given up their names to take up a WWE gimmick. If they get over on WWE programming, wouldn't it be WWE's victory?

My point is, Vince allegedly pushes people who are set in particular WWE mold, or who fit in his vision of a superstar. Therefore, he doesn't push the so called IWC or indy darlings. If that's true, why sign these superstars in the first place? If he thinks a Finn Balor or Kevin Owens can never be main event players or be future of this company, why hire them at all? If a Daniel Bryan, who is a WWE creation btw, does well and gets super over with the fans, why he is constantly pegged down? This boggles my mind.

IWC i.e. Internet Wrestling community is part of a larger fanbase. Anyone with a keyboard is part of this community. If they like something and are vocal about it, how do they become hindrance to Vince's vision? Afterall, wouldn't Vince want to cash in on popularity of WWE superstar, wherever he comes from or however he looks? And then there is the notion that casual viewers won't take up these superstars. Isn't it completely contrived way of looking at their own roster?

So, my question is, why WWE/Vince seemingly work against their own roster? Why are they so concerned with 'look' of a wrestler? Why do they allegedly pull the indy/IWC darlings down? Why can't both types of superstars (WWE/Indy) work in prominent roles?

I hope I am making some sense. I am looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Vince McMahon is a cancer who never had the slightest clue about wrestling. He was a great marketer and negotiator, and managed to make a monster of the WWF by roping in huge celebs in 1985, but he still knows nothing about content. At any time the WWF was good, it was because Vince was surrounded by officials with great minds, or stubborn talent who didn't subscribe to his garbage.

WWE is now the dictatorship Vince always wanted it to be, with actually competent creative minds like Cornette, Ross and Heyman long banished from their backstage roles, and a soulless, subordinate corporate shill as the face of the company.

 

[pipebomber]

Vince McMahon is a cancer who never had the slightest clue about wrestling. He was a great marketer and negotiator, and managed to make a monster of the WWF by roping in huge celebs in 1985, but he still knows nothing about content. At any time the WWF was good, it was because Vince was surrounded by officials with great minds, or stubborn talent who didn't subscribe to his garbage.

pretty much this. And the funny thing is, only a few of his stars ever really started there. Hogan was a top name in AWA before coming to WWE, Jericho had a large following from WCW, Shawn was a big tag star in AWA, Brett was a Star in Calgary.

You Could say that The Rock, Kurt Angle, and Brock Lesnar were created by WWE, but Kurt is a legit Olympic Gold Medalist. Brock is a freak of nature, and at the time of his rise was a 300 pound guy who could do a shooting star press as well as lift the big show on his shoulders and f-5 him with relative ease. The Rock had charisma that was off the charts, and even he didn't connect right away.

All of those guys had some intangible it factor that you could put your finger on that seriously helped their careers.

 

[Alastor]

So, my question is, why WWE/Vince seemingly work against their own roster?

I think it is more of a question of limited spots on the roster. If the guy in the spot is doing exactly what you ask for in their internal assessment, as management why would you suddenly relegate them just because somebody on the internet hates the talent for irrational reasons?

Why are they so concerned with 'look' of a wrestler?

Because this is entertainment and looks matter. Sure talent is a draw, but don't tell me it is the musical talent of boybands that draw money. Michael Bay's movies has a larger box office draw than the Coens.

Why do they allegedly pull the indy/IWC darlings down?

Allegedly. I think it is more of a concern that all the wrestlers had was the indy backing as a draw. If the machine gets behind them, the fans might turn on them.

Why can't both types of superstars (WWE/Indy) work in prominent roles?

CM Punk, the king of indies had a long title reign and worked with the biggest names in the last few years. Daniel Bryan had a whole Wrestlemania booked around him. Ziggler had survivor series last year. Rollins is booked as the main heel for 3/4 of 2014. How about the likes of Kofi, Slater, Ryback, Cody who aren't darlings who suffered just as much from poor booking decisions? The IWC simply pick who isn't in the spotlight and adopt that wrestler as a 'new darling' and continue to shit on WWE every time.

 

[HamSwissman]

I think it is more of a question of limited spots on the roster. If the guy in the spot is doing exactly what you ask for in their internal assessment, as management why would you suddenly relegate them just because somebody on the internet hates the talent for irrational reasons?Because this is entertainment and looks matter. Sure talent is a draw, but don't tell me it is the musical talent of boybands that draw money. Michael Bay's movies has a larger box office draw than the Coens.Allegedly. I think it is more of a concern that all the wrestlers had was the indy backing as a draw. If the machine gets behind them, the fans might turn on them.CM Punk, the king of indies had a long title reign and worked with the biggest names in the last few years. Daniel Bryan had a whole Wrestlemania booked around him. Ziggler had survivor series last year. Rollins is booked as the main heel for 3/4 of 2014. How about the likes of Kofi, Slater, Ryback, Cody who aren't darlings who suffered just as much from poor booking decisions? The IWC simply pick who isn't in the spotlight and adopt that wrestler as a 'new darling' and continue to shit on WWE every time.

Nah. The fans (IWC and non-IWC) want to like who they like, not be told who to like. It certainly isn't "pick random jobber...support random jobber...shit on everything else". I look at it like this; The WWE shits on it's fanbase. The fans shit on the product. We have a certified shitstorm (like the last two Royal Rumbles). When it comes to why the WWE is as bad as it is right now, I've got two words for you: BAD BOOKING!

 

[BuriedByCena]

Vince loves the steroids and muscles. He will never change from that mindset. This is the same guy who yells at the wrestlers to step up, has wrestling matches with them backstage and acts like he is the almighty powerful god.

Vince's Ego is massive. If you can't compare to his size/stature, then you are a failure. If you are not 6 foot 5, 300 pounds and ripped to shreds, then how can the fans possibly like you?

Sadly we are stuck with Vince until he retires/dies. HHH also likes muscles, but he seems more willing to push smaller guys. He understands fans like great matches and don't want to watch Kane and Big Slow attempt to wrestle.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I don't get the IWC tag, if Ziggler, Ambrose, and Bryan were loved by a niche group in the crowd then their fan reaction wouldn't have been as big as it is.

Regarding DB at The Rumble this wasn't 100 fans in a abandoned church being upset at how he got eliminated but 17,000 fans at the Wells Fargo Arena voicing their displeasure.

 

[Kidpolean]

People have to have a certain look to get mainstream attention. Look at The Rock!!! Do you think he is a huge star solely because he cut good promos? Women love the guy even if they never watched wrestling. You will never have that with short small guys. WWE is trying to get media attention so that it can create another era where it is deemed "cool" by society just like the attitude era. That simply wont happen when your main guy is 5'7 and looks like a homeless man. Media wants good looking people and according to society males have to be 6 foot or taller and buff/cut. Its the same reason why 90% of the divas have breast implants.

As much as fans hate it, myself included, If we ever want to see wrestling become popular again and have anything close to the attitude era than we better start cheering for Roman Reigns and getting him on as many late night talk shows as possible. This is the reality of the situation that everyone on here seems to want to ignore.

 

[CyberPunk]

People have to have a certain look to get mainstream attention. Look at The Rock!!! Do you think he is a huge star solely because he cut good promos? Women love the guy even if they never watched wrestling. You will never have that with short small guys. WWE is trying to get media attention so that it can create another era where it is deemed "cool" by society just like the attitude era. That simply wont happen when your main guy is 5'7 and looks like a homeless man. Media wants good looking people and according to society males have to be 6 foot or taller and buff/cut. Its the same reason why 90% of the divas have breast implants.

As much as fans hate it, myself included, If we ever want to see wrestling become popular again and have anything close to the attitude era than we better start cheering for Roman Reigns and getting him on as many late night talk shows as possible. This is the reality of the situation that everyone on here seems to want to ignore.

I get what you're trying to say, but that's actually not true. A good looking, talentless hack would not cut it wherever he goes. The Rock is once is a lifetime superstar who has an amazing blend of looks, charisma and talent. Do you remember Rocky Maivia? Do you remember the 'die Rocky die' chants? Can you believe that persona of Rock going anywhere? Once the Rock was unleashed as the loudmouth, smack talking man, he got popular and attained that mainstream attention.

Look at any sports. Or showbiz. Looks do not matter if fans and audience are not interested. I am not saying Roman Reigns can't crack it. But he needs time to develop and get these fans behind him. And as far as a Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler is concerned, they have enough going for them to warrant fan's and media's attention. Mainstream attention you say? Haven't you seen the 'Yes' chants spilling out of WWE onto other realms of sports? Daniel Bryan or Ziggler or Ambrose may not be your typical Greek gods, but they sure as hell know how to get the crowd behind them. Looks didn't do it for them, their talent did. Why do you think Dana White signed CM Punk? Because he can draw money despite what he looks like.

Talent draws fans. Looks are just added bonus, but it doesn't help create stars. Otherwise every porn star today would be a Hollywood superstar.

 

[chuckmdubya]

The IWC isn't anything new to McMahon or WWE. (no insult intended) the IWC is the same things as the marks that used to hang out outside arena's hours after a show with sharpie's and 8x10's. Same people that have been going to conventions and writing letters to WWE telling them what they wanna see.
WWE has almost always given fans what they want to give them, not what they wanna see. The exception to this of course is the attitude era, and we'll never see anything like that again. There will never be another head to head competitor, if you wanna do that, then you might as well make a pile of money and set it on fire.

 

[Kidpolean]

I get what you're trying to say, but that's actually not true. A good looking, talentless hack would not cut it wherever he goes. The Rock is once is a lifetime superstar who has an amazing blend of looks, charisma and talent. Do you remember Rocky Maivia? Do you remember the 'die Rocky die' chants? Can you believe that persona of Rock going anywhere? Once the Rock was unleashed as the loudmouth, smack talking man, he got popular and attained that mainstream attention.

Look at any sports. Or showbiz. Looks do not matter if fans and audience are not interested. I am not saying Roman Reigns can't crack it. But he needs time to develop and get these fans behind him. And as far as a Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler is concerned, they have enough going for them to warrant fan's and media's attention. Mainstream attention you say? Haven't you seen the 'Yes' chants spilling out of WWE onto other realms of sports? Daniel Bryan or Ziggler or Ambrose may not be your typical Greek gods, but they sure as hell know how to get the crowd behind them. Looks didn't do it for them, their talent did. Why do you think Dana White signed CM Punk? Because he can draw money despite what he looks like.

Talent draws fans. Looks are just added bonus, but it doesn't help create stars. Otherwise every porn star today would be a Hollywood superstar.

Talent draws wrestling fans to watch wrestling. Talent can make you an icon in wrestling, The rock is a global icon. He gets movie roles because of his looks. I dont care how talented DB is he would never get the movie roles and reach the success that The Rock has. Neither would a guy like Kane. The porn industry I looked upon negatively by society, however, pornstars in the 80s were huge stars before it became taboo. Kim Kardashian is a talentless hack that I on the cover of every magazine and has a show!!! Looks can take you places but in wrestling you need talent to get over with the WWE crowd and looks to get over with everybody else.

 

[Alastor]

Nah. The fans (IWC and non-IWC) want to like who they like, not be told who to like. It certainly isn't "pick random jobber...support random jobber...shit on everything else". I look at it like this; The WWE shits on it's fanbase. The fans shit on the product. We have a certified shitstorm (like the last two Royal Rumbles). When it comes to why the WWE is as bad as it is right now, I've got two words for you: BAD BOOKING!

Sure they can choose who they want to like. But the same criticism they put on talent they don't like can be applied to some of those who they prefer. And the flaws are brushed off.

Random Fandango cheer. Random Bo Dallas backing. Random Swagger backing. Always has, always will be.

Laugh at Punk saying Vince tell him to make Reigns look strong. Complain when their favourites are not made to look strong. IWC logic 101.

 

[Draven Filth]

Here's whats funny though about when they DO go with these internet darlings.

They made punk the champion for over a year......The ppv rates didn't go up, tv ratings didn't go up, his merchandise didn't outdraw the top guy...Why? Because punk wasn't a draw. just because the fans cheer you dosen't make you a draw. And I'm not talking about the random hometown crowd or the 1 off. I'm talking about a general thing.

Same with bryan last year. Everyone was saying "oh bryan should take cena's spot"....Did the PPV Buys go up? no. Did ratings go up? no. Yes people came to the arenas and chanted Daniel bryan, and they yes/no'ed everything. but did that make him THE draw or was he just part of the show.

But then you take Ryback...A guy who the internet HATED, Put him in a fued for the belt...Suddenly Hell in a cell does a good ppv number, suddenly you see his shirt in the arena, his segments on tv do good to strong numbers....I can honestly say (until they fucked him up) people were watching to see him.

Does this make the WWE smarter then we think? Maybe...or maybe its because the biggest part of the darlings fanbase (punk, bryan, casero, ziggler) are cheap bastards who steal the ppv's, don't go to the live shows, and don't buy any merch.

And i dare anybody to give me the "well we show support by cheering, booing, and making our voices heard" argument....Motherfucker what is a movie's success based on? A tv show's success? A Games Success? Its not how much people love it, or how much they hate it. It's all based on how many people watch it and how much money it makes.

 

[CyberPunk]

Here's whats funny though about when they DO go with these internet darlings.

They made punk the champion for over a year......The ppv rates didn't go up, tv ratings didn't go up, his merchandise didn't outdraw the top guy...Why? Because punk wasn't a draw. just because the fans cheer you dosen't make you a draw. And I'm not talking about the random hometown crowd or the 1 off. I'm talking about a general thing.

Same with bryan last year. Everyone was saying "oh bryan should take cena's spot"....Did the PPV Buys go up? no. Did ratings go up? no. Yes people came to the arenas and chanted Daniel bryan, and they yes/no'ed everything. but did that make him THE draw or was he just part of the show.

But then you take Ryback...A guy who the internet HATED, Put him in a fued for the belt...Suddenly Hell in a cell does a good ppv number, suddenly you see his shirt in the arena, his segments on tv do good to strong numbers....I can honestly say (until they fucked him up) people were watching to see him.

Does this make the WWE smarter then we think? Maybe...or maybe its because the biggest part of the darlings fanbase (punk, bryan, casero, ziggler) are cheap bastards who steal the ppv's, don't go to the live shows, and don't buy any merch.

And i dare anybody to give me the "well we show support by cheering, booing, and making our voices heard" argument....Motherfucker what is a movie's success based on? A tv show's success? A Games Success? Its not how much people love it, or how much they hate it. It's all based on how many people watch it and how much money it makes.

Your logic couldn't be more flawed. Everyone thinks if someone becomes the main guy, ratings have to go up. That is completely wrong. First test is if someone can sustain the numbers that were there. Sustain what you have and then you build from there. Do you honestly believe that the numbers will go up just because the guy at the top change? Then Cena must be the worst draw ever because the numbers dropped over the years. Merch sales? Punk was selling merchs, sometimes more than Cena, when he was at the top. You put someone at a position and build from there. Before someone draws more, he has to draw at least similar to what there was before.

And if you think a guy can single handedly change the landscape, you're wrong. If I am watching a show, my favorite can be different from yours, but eventually we both contribute to the final number. It's take more than 1 guy to build the numbers. What about storylines? Do you believe that they don't make any difference? A star may bring eyeballs for couple of nights. Sustaining those eyeballs on your product requires constantly good product.

 

[Bosco7381]

I think it's time some of the fans on here have a reality check I have seen on numerous post on here fans complaining saying they don't like been told who to like have wwe phoned them or message them saying they have to like someone I doubt it have they done a promo on telly saying u have to like someone no so please stop acting like you are be told to like someone when clearly your not just because wwe push someone you don't want pushed or is not your fav you act like a bunch of school kids yes it sucks when your fav superstar is treat like an after thought but shit happens I'm a jack swagger fan before anyone calls me a cena or reigns fan boy

 

[MasterDebator]

Your logic couldn't be more flawed. Everyone thinks if someone becomes the main guy, ratings have to go up. That is completely wrong. First test is if someone can sustain the numbers that were there. Sustain what you have and then you build from there. Do you honestly believe that the numbers will go up just because the guy at the top change? Then Cena must be the worst draw ever because the numbers dropped over the years. Merch sales? Punk was selling merchs, sometimes more than Cena, when he was at the top. You put someone at a position and build from there. Before someone draws more, he has to draw at least similar to what there was before.

And if you think a guy can single handedly change the landscape, you're wrong. If I am watching a show, my favorite can be different from yours, but eventually we both contribute to the final number. It's take more than 1 guy to build the numbers. What about storylines? Do you believe that they don't make any difference? A star may bring eyeballs for couple of nights. Sustaining those eyeballs on your product requires constantly good product.

This. Since the Rumble, I've refrained from entering into any discussions about booking and the reaction to the Rumble that has now become a rather infamous, albeit juicy, controversy. However, I feel like this backlash comes at an interesting, timely crossroads for the WWE because the large part of the issue stems from their treatment of a "top guy" and their laissez-faire attitude towards everyone underneath. CM Punk cited WWE's (Vince's) attitude towards everyone not named John Cena as part of the reason why he fled. What I fear we are about to get is more of the same: a product designed around 1-2 guys and their occasional challengers while the rest of the roster is left to trade victories, dance with the Rosebuds, and jockey to be the next chump to be fed to Cena/Reigns. Vince McMahon built the WWF around ONE star, but back in the 80s, he didn't have 7+ hours of TV time to fill PER WEEK, so logically, applying the same sort of philosophy to today's product is ludicrous.

Yes, Stone Cold Steve Austin was "the guy" during his run, but his supporting cast was stellar. Roman Reigns, if he is who we think he is, will be a guy that will be fed the likes of Seth Rollins, Big Show (ugh), Rusev (perhaps), Wyatt, and some others who may or may not turn heel. What happens to the rest of the roster? What's next for his foes? WWE creative has not shown a knack for writing compelling stories for guys not named Cena (and those in his sphere of storyline influence). Look at Ambrose/Wyatt. The story behind their feud was putrid. A father we'd never heard of, some mumbo-jumbo from Wyatt, and a gimmicked set of matches. Those are two guys the WWE supposedly believes in, yet the attention to detail and the gusto with which creative writes Cena's storylines is lacking.

As a result, I fear that my rejection of Roman Reigns' ascension is not that he'll be champion, but that favorites like Bryan and Ziggler and Ambrose will wallow in the muck and mire of the non main-event. Sure, they'll perform (better than most) and steal PPVs, but will the stories behind those performances be enthralling? I have no faith that they will be.

P.S. Wrestlemania season tends to be the one time per year that sees undercard matches receiving attention, but even that saving-grace has been lacking over the years. Last year's Mania? Lesnar v. Taker was a brutally boring build-up, Cena v. Wyatt had its moments, and...well, that was about it outside of the main-event storyline. Shit, WWE. You wanna air 3hr. shows on Monday and 2hr. shows on Thursday? Give me something to watch for the fucking entirety of the show! I love Game of Thrones because every storyline has something of import going on! Can you imagine if it was just Starks/Lannisters and everyone else was ignored?