Where have the "I hate Roman Reigns" threads gone?

[d_henderson1810]

I have noticed that there don't seem to be endless threads about how Roman Reigns sucks, how terrible Roman Reigns is, how he should get a career-ending injury or die, etc.

How come? I mean, Roman is still in WWE? He hasn't retired, like you all wanted?

It's the same with John Cena. For years, Cena was the root cause of everything bad with WWE, in your opinions. Yet, people don't even yell "CENA SUCKS!" in the audience with the same verocity as they once did.

Can I venture a reason why? Because neither are in the title picture anymore.

I have thought for the longest time that fans hate to see anyone be WWE Champion for too long. This is why we have had superstars be mutiple time champions (some even being WWE Champion over 12 times).

Remember the days when Hulk Hogan held the WWF World Title for 3 years? No-one wanted to see him lose it. Every PPV saw him posing at the end to the "Hulkamaniacs", with "Real American" playing, having vanquished another challenger to the title.

Or even further back, when Bruno Sammartino held the belt for 6 years, and then won it back and held it for another five years. That wouldn't happen today.

No, whenever someone has a lengthy run with the title, all I read here is how undeserving the champion is, and that someone else should be champion instead.

It's one thing when the belt is held by someone who you think is "Vince's boy", but even when some underdog you want to see win it instead does, you then turn on him as well.

The big example of this is C.M. Punk. For two years, I heard people saying that C.M. Punk should be champion, that he deserves the belt more than _(enter random name here). You moaned on and on about how Punk was a superior wrestler, and you all cheered when he won MITB two years in a row.

But when he held it for fourteen months, you all wanted him to lose the belt. I noticed a wane in his popularity (more than just because he turned heel). You people should have wanted him to hold it forever, since you begged for it for so long. Yet you all turned on Punk, until he lost the belt. Some here only get behind Punk now because he has left WWE, and had a go at Vince.

It would have been very interesting to see if Daniel Bryan had had a long title reign after Wrestlemania XXX. You all wanted him to be champion, and the fans ruined shows until they got their own way. Whaa! Whaa! Yet if Bryan had held the belt for the next six months, or longer, I wonder if he would still be as popular today. Injury and his career ending didn't make people sick of him as champion.

Could this be because you people resent success? You hate seeing someone be champion and therefore be at the top of WWE? You go for the underdog, someone who you see hasn't been champion, and want him to win it instead, because you project your own loser life onto this person, and say that you can relate to him, because you haven't made it in your job either. But when this underdog finally wins it, and then holds it for a year, you don't like him anymore, and want to see him lose. You now say he sucks and boo him, because you realize that, while your former "hero" is now a winner, you are still a loser, and you have been left behind. So, you then want some other up-and-comer to win it, moan and bitch until it happens, and then when it happens, and he is champion for too long, then bitch and moan about that.

My prediction:- Many of you will soon start calling for James Ellsworth to become the WWE Champion, and you threaten to boycott Wrestlemania until you get your own way. But he can't hold it for too long, and needs to lose it afterwards (in a screwy finish, so that you can moan about him being "buried") and then go for him as he chases the belt again.

Wins it, loses it, wins it, loses it, that's how it is meant to go, isn't it? This is why the WWE shouldn't pay attention to anything the fans or the IWC say. Because they change their mind like the wind.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I've been thinking about this as well. Nowadays, heels have longer title reigns than faces. Why? Because for some reason, nobody accepts long-term face champions any more. Punk had started getting boos by a small portion of fans while he was a face as well.

We live in an era, where people love heels. We love bad guys, we don't like heroes. We love anti-heroes and dark figures. Look at the popularity shows like Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad have. You see no heroes there. And if you see heroes, they only have the role of the underdog. Long gone are the days of Rambo.

You can see this in the WWE as well. People loves underdogs and heels and anti-heroes, like Bryan, Lesnar and Ambrose.

In my opinion, the hate was never meant for Roman. Roman is great in the ring. It has always been about Roman's booking and his direction. At least that's what I believe a guy with a brain would think.

WWE surived back in the Attitude Era, because they simply changed their format and adapted with the times. I bet Vince hates the Attitude Era, because he was forced to do it. However in life, you either adapt or you perish. It's just the way of things. Right now in the WWE there's Vince, who's refusing to adapt and other people who try to adapt. That's why we have stories that are in middle ground: some of them remind of 80's wrestling, some of Attitude Era booking, some try going over the line but then WWE tweets an apology and the whole thing falls apart.

 

[Navi]

Or maybe it's the fact that fans are indifferent to him now. He got a huge push, two Rumble were centered around him and he main evented Mania twice. None of it really worked and now he's a mid card champion. By comments I've seen in other places, not here on this forum, fans are burned out and don't really care anymore. Which if you think about it that's probably the worst thing that can happen to a wrestler, when the fans just turn off.

It's like having the same thing for dinner night after night, eventually you don't want it and push it away.

 

[ShinChan]

Nice try to make the whole thing as You Vs. Everyone else.

I can't say about others but I never hated the guy itself. The booking for him should have been strong but in reality it was atrocious. I never wanted him to retire. If someone wants him to retire, he isn't a wrestling fan. If someone wants him to die, then he needs to go to doctor.

Comparing Ellsworth with Bryan is really dumb. Ellsworth hasn't even completed a year in WWE and doesn't even possess a contract.

Again you're just trying to differentiate yourself. Your "You All" doesn't include everyone and it can't too.

Cena's only problem is his stale gimmick. But it doesn't make WWE bad nor it did it in the past.

Hating on someone just because he's on top of WWE is even dumber. But doesn't that mean that this person would hate everyone who's on the top?

I would really like to know the "You" which OP mentioned. Since I don't think that he is even a wrestling fan.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I have noticed that there don't seem to be endless threads about how Roman Reigns sucks, how terrible Roman Reigns is, how he should get a career-ending injury or die, etc.

How come?

Roman is not in as significant of a role any longer and WWE is not sending him out to do things that he is not good at doing.

I mean, Roman is still in WWE?

That's a stupid question. Clearly, he is still in the WWE.

You off your meds?

He hasn't retired, like you all wanted?

We wanted that? Are you sure?

It's the same with John Cena. For years, Cena was the root cause of everything bad with WWE, in your opinions. Yet, people don't even yell "CENA SUCKS!" in the audience with the same verocity as they once did.

Can I venture a reason why?

Yes.

Because neither are in the title picture anymore.

Cena's last match was a triple threat for the WWE Heavyweight Title. Do you even watch WWE?

I have thought for the longest time that fans hate to see anyone be WWE Champion for too long. This is why we have had superstars be mutiple time champions (some even being WWE Champion over 12 times).

You make it sound like wanting new things and change is a bad thing.

Remember the days when Hulk Hogan held the WWF World Title for 3 years?

Yes.

No-one wanted to see him lose it. Every PPV saw him posing at the end to the "Hulkamaniacs", with "Real American" playing, having vanquished another challenger to the title.

How many PPVs were there then? How many hours of WWE programming a week?

Or even further back, when Bruno Sammartino held the belt for 6 years, and then won it back and held it for another five years. That wouldn't happen today.

I don't remember that, I'm not that old.

No, whenever someone has a lengthy run with the title, all I read here is how undeserving the champion is, and that someone else should be champion instead.

It's one thing when the belt is held by someone who you think is "Vince's boy", but even when some underdog you want to see win it instead does, you then turn on him as well.

I can't recall seeing anyone turn on AJ yet and few have turned of KO. But go on.

The big example of this is C.M. Punk. For two years, I heard people saying that C.M. Punk should be champion, that he deserves the belt more than _(enter random name here). You moaned on and on about how Punk was a superior wrestler, and you all cheered when he won MITB two years in a row.

But when he held it for fourteen months, you all wanted him to lose the belt. I noticed a wane in his popularity (more than just because he turned heel). You people should have wanted him to hold it forever, since you begged for it for so long. Yet you all turned on Punk, until he lost the belt. Some here only get behind Punk now because he has left WWE, and had a go at Vince.

Um, you do realize that Punk changed his character when he won the title a couple of times. Fans didn't enjoy that as much as the previous character. They also did not enjoy his storylines. He got very repetitive with his promos. It's not a reflection on the talent but a reflection of other things. This isn't hard to figure out.

It would have been very interesting to see if Daniel Bryan had had a long title reign after Wrestlemania XXX. You all wanted him to be champion, and the fans ruined shows until they got their own way. Whaa! Whaa! Yet if Bryan had held the belt for the next six months, or longer, I wonder if he would still be as popular today. Injury and his career ending didn't make people sick of him as champion.

He absolutely would have lost popularity if they kept doing horrible feuds like the one with Kane. He also would have lost popularity as his underdog story could only go on for so long. People don't want the same stuff over and over again. This is normal.

Could this be because you people resent success? You hate seeing someone be champion and therefore be at the top of WWE? You go for the underdog, someone who you see hasn't been champion, and want him to win it instead, because you project your own loser life onto this person, and say that you can relate to him, because you haven't made it in your job either. But when this underdog finally wins it, and then holds it for a year, you don't like him anymore, and want to see him lose. You now say he sucks and boo him, because you realize that, while your former "hero" is now a winner, you are still a loser, and you have been left behind. So, you then want some other up-and-comer to win it, moan and bitch until it happens, and then when it happens, and he is champion for too long, then bitch and moan about that.

Or maybe we like to be entertained when we watch TV and certain people get tiresome after awhile. Just a thought.

My prediction:- Many of you will soon start calling for James Ellsworth to become the WWE Champion, and you threaten to boycott Wrestlemania until you get your own way. But he can't hold it for too long, and needs to lose it afterwards (in a screwy finish, so that you can moan about him being "buried") and then go for him as he chases the belt again.

Sarcasm?

Wins it, loses it, wins it, loses it, that's how it is meant to go, isn't it? This is why the WWE shouldn't pay attention to anything the fans or the IWC say. Because they change their mind like the wind.

Are you off your meds?

 

[Azane]

"People boo because they care about him, any reaction is a reaction."

"people stopped booing him as much, he must be getting over!"

 

[rmp0012002]

A heel champion works better because having faces chasing the title and coming so close to winning brings more suspense. Usually the face winning causes all the interest to drop and then if the booking isn't there then it becomes a waste to put the belt on that person.

In Romans case I just don't think the fans care anymore.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Roman is not in as significant of a role any longer and WWE is not sending him out to do things that he is not good at doing.

I feel that this is also a pretty significant reason as to why Reigns isn't getting dumped on left & right. I never bought into Reigns as a main eventer, at least certainly not as the Cena 2.0 Vince tried to paint him as because he simply wasn't good in the role. If Vince hadn't tried to hard to make Roman Reigns the WWE's next superhero, made him a bit more grounded in terms of his invincibility and tried to utilize him as more than a superhuman badass, then MAYBE it's something that fans could have and still can latch onto.

Reigns as United States Champion, in my opinion, is a perfect spot for him. He's not front & center when it comes to the overall product, he's not put into situations in which he doesn't have the personality or mic skills to handle and he's not booked to come off as invincible all the time. Reigns has the ability to be an overall strong mid-card champion and while I've little doubt that he'll be back in the main event spot somewhere down the line, I think not being in that spot for quite a while might be a very positive thing for his career; of course, it could be all for naught if Vince continues to insist on booking Reigns as the heir apparent to John Cena right down to the same formula used for Cena most of the past decade.