Why Are We Obsessed With Clean Finishes?

[Rusty]

No, I don't see how it can be illogical. It makes perfect sense given the storyline that was being told. Whether someone likes it or not is a different story, however.


As for interferences during matches...I do agree that at times it is overdone, but then, this generation seems suckers for the Underdog stories, so no surprise that is the way they seem to be going most of the time in the Main Event matches including the more over babyfaces...regardless of the match type.

No, it still doesn't make sense, because it's professional wrestling.

That's like America losing all 3 world cup matches, yet still making it to the final. The storyline, from a "ranking" perspective, still makes absolutely no sense no matter how much you try to convince me. Wins and losses don't matter.

 

[L@RISANO]

No, it still doesn't make sense, because it's professional wrestling.

That's like America losing all 3 world cup matches, yet still making it to the final. The storyline, from a "ranking" perspective, still makes absolutely no sense no matter how much you try to convince me. Wins and losses don't matter.

Fair enough.

I think it made complete sense as WWE addressed the majority of the plot holes with regards to both matches. The only thing missing now is a reason for Bray Wyatt's interference. Whilst the fact that Randy Orton still has his WWE title rematch available but never brings it up is baffling,to say the least..

As for your point about the US... it doesnt really apply here as the WWE has a stable calked the Authority, thus wins and losses ultimately do not matter unless thats what they want.
In this case - Cena got the no.1 contendership because of Orton being his opponent.
Ambrose wanted revenge on Seth and had no interest in the title and that is exactly what he got.

Pretty simple and it made perfect sense in the end. Well, up until Bray Wyatt decided to interfere at random.

 

[MasterDebator]

Fair enough.

I think it made complete sense as WWE addressed the majority of the plot holes with regards to both matches. The only thing missing now is a reason for Bray Wyatt's interference. Whilst the fact that Randy Orton still has his WWE title rematch available but never brings it up is baffling,to say the least..

As for your point about the US... it doesnt really apply here as the WWE has a stable calked the Authority, thus wins and losses ultimately do not matter unless thats what they want.
In this case - Cena got the no.1 contendership because of Orton being his opponent.
Ambrose wanted revenge on Seth and had no interest in the title and that is exactly what he got.

Pretty simple and it made perfect sense in the end. Well, up until Bray Wyatt decided to interfere at random.

Wrestling, like other television series, sometimes ignores plot-holes for the sake of pushing programs forward. Fans of The Sopranos will remember the classic episode when Christopher and Paulie drive that Russian guy out to the Pine Barrens, only to lose him in the snow after some hi-jinks and shenanigans. Never mentioned again. Orton's title shot? Well, who but the die-hards are complaining about it? And who isn't subscribing to the network or buying a PPV because of an issue of continuity? Mark Henry and Big Show got to wrestle the tag-champs on Monday night. Why? In the end, it's endemic of the poor product on television right now. Rarely will you find a lack of logic in a John Cena storyline, because, like it or not, as Cena goes, so goes WWE. Creative seems to simply not care enough to worry about continuity when it comes to B/C-story-lines or anything not concerning Cena (and I'm not a Cena-hater, mind you).

As far as non-finishes, well, who likes watching a tie? Who enjoys investing hours into a film/TV show only to see something out of left-field interfere with the ending, providing zero closure? No one does, and these non-finishes will eventually push viewers away. I also don't really care about being surprised. I don't watch the Packers on Sunday because I want to be surprised by a random football player from another team running onto the field during the 4th quarter to tackle Aaron Rodgers and ruin the game. It makes no sense. Non-finishes should be used sparingly, but unfortunately for WWE, their roster is so thin that, I feel, they think they have no choice.

Lastly, a non-finish in the midst of a program hurtling towards its end is inexcusable. Ambrose and Rollins have been feuding tangentially or directly for months. Hell in a Cell is MEANT to end programs, not provide a visual detour. If WWE really wants Ambrose and Rollins to take this feud into WM31, what's so bad about Rollins wanting revenge? A win would have propelled Ambrose forward instead of keeping him, and Rollins, in neutral. Wyatt could have easily spoiled Ambrose's party on Monday night, with more viewers, rather than provide a cheaply produced, lame finish.

 

[L@RISANO]

Wrestling, like other television series, sometimes ignores plot-holes for the sake of pushing programs forward. Fans of The Sopranos will remember the classic episode when Christopher and Paulie drive that Russian guy out to the Pine Barrens, only to lose him in the snow after some hi-jinks and shenanigans. Never mentioned again. Orton's title shot? Well, who but the die-hards are complaining about it? And who isn't subscribing to the network or buying a PPV because of an issue of continuity? Mark Henry and Big Show got to wrestle the tag-champs on Monday night. Why? In the end, it's endemic of the poor product on television right now. Rarely will you find a lack of logic in a John Cena storyline, because, like it or not, as Cena goes, so goes WWE. Creative seems to simply not care enough to worry about continuity when it comes to B/C-story-lines or anything not concerning Cena (and I'm not a Cena-hater, mind you).

As far as non-finishes, well, who likes watching a tie? Who enjoys investing hours into a film/TV show only to see something out of left-field interfere with the ending, providing zero closure? No one does, and these non-finishes will eventually push viewers away. I also don't really care about being surprised. I don't watch the Packers on Sunday because I want to be surprised by a random football player from another team running onto the field during the 4th quarter to tackle Aaron Rodgers and ruin the game. It makes no sense. Non-finishes should be used sparingly, but unfortunately for WWE, their roster is so thin that, I feel, they think they have no choice.

Lastly, a non-finish in the midst of a program hurtling towards its end is inexcusable. Ambrose and Rollins have been feuding tangentially or directly for months. Hell in a Cell is MEANT to end programs, not provide a visual detour. If WWE really wants Ambrose and Rollins to take this feud into WM31, what's so bad about Rollins wanting revenge? A win would have propelled Ambrose forward instead of keeping him, and Rollins, in neutral. Wyatt could have easily spoiled Ambrose's party on Monday night, with more viewers, rather than provide a cheaply produced, lame finish.

Never said that WWE doesn't/shouldn't ignore plot-holes. I was merely responding to a post saying that what happened with regards to Cena was illogical, when it clearly wasn't as WWE covered all its bases with regards to him getting a no.1 contender shot after losing to Ambrose. Essentially, him becoming no.1 contender was the Authority's doing.


Agreed on the last paragraph. I also thought a clean finish in the HiaC match would've been the best way to go as Bray Wyatt could have merely waited one more night to feud with a very over Ambrose.

Pretty sure nothing much would have changed with regards to Seth, who was clearly stepping into a feud with Orton anyways(A feud which can eventually be tied in with Reigns vs HHH to end the Authority storyline once and for all at or around Mania31), whilst Ambrose would be even more over after finally getting a deserved pay off in a feud which he was always literally 'second best'.

Thus, Bray Wyatt would be going after a very hot Dean Ambrose in an exciting new programme. But, the way it has unfolded means that Bray came in an 'unwelcome' manner, and now the feud starts with negativity and bitterness rather than anticipation of it being good, which isn't anything to be happy about,lMO.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Stalk? Are you sure you don't mean stock? Not being a dick just curious if there's a term I don't know hidden in there


Anyway to the main point, I think the problem is that a DQ finish seems to happen every...single...week. On Raw for instance, Cena was about to win and Kane interfered. Okay whatever. Last night, like 4 people interfered for Rollins! Yet Ambrose still looked like the better wrestler? What about last week on Raw what happened in the main event? Probably a dirty finish. How about at Night Of Champions? Anybody remember that Cena/Lesnar match's ending? O yea...dirty finish

I personally don't have a problem with them if there's a point. And not to start a feud. To be fair, even then I'll make a pass for it. When Seth interfered I was okay with it, knowing that Lesnar would be gone meant Cena needed something for his character to do...seems fair to me. But for Dean/Seth who have been feuding on and off for 5 months, to end their Hell In A Cell match dirty...just rubs me the wrong way.

It felt like a cop out, we don't want either guy to lose so how about we make it so Dean is basically having a 1 v 5 match...yea thanks WWE. Kane was to be expected, Mercury and Noble...okay I guess they're Rollins' bitches now too, but also Bray Wyatt? And it's not even like he sided with the Authority..he's just targeting Dean. If a few weeks ago we saw some hinting towards this, it'd be different. It just seems like WWE had no idea what to do with: the match, Dean and Bray so they put together a crappy finish like this.

But I'm not trying to complain here xD just trying to explain why I was upset with it. Also add to that, Cena won his rematch and Ziggler dominated Cesaro in a 2 of 3 falls match and my results looked like crap.

But this is what you are missing.

It was a HIAC match, so there are no "dirty" finishes. Anything goes, so therefore, if someone interferes, it isn't cheating, because it is allowed within the parameters of the match.

The matches on Raw you are talking about aren't NO-DQ, No-Holds-Barred etc. In a straight match, you want a straight finish. But in a match where anything goes (and you can use the Cell and weapons) then interference should be accepted.

Yes, the hologram was hokey, but if every match finished clean, it would be boring.

If Bray hadn't cost Ambrose the match, then why would Ambrose care about feuding with Bray? Bray took a victory from him, so now he must pay. That is Wrestling 101, and you still don't get that.

As a footnote, too much is made of victories. This is not a sporting event, they are entertainers. Your favourites should come from who is best on the mike, or performs best in the ring, not just if they win and who they win against.

According to the IWC, guys like Cena, Orton etc MUST do the job, every single time, to any guy who has come up from NXT over the last five years, or the NXT guy is being BURIED! I hate that term. Burying someone is not giving them momentum going forward (like how WWE buried Sandow after he wo MITB) not because of one win or loss. If a new guy is "buried" after one victory, then he was never going to make it as a superstar to begin with, because he doesn't have the tools to remain popular long-term.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Never said that WWE doesn't/shouldn't ignore plot-holes. I was merely responding to a post saying that what happened with regards to Cena was illogical, when it clearly wasn't as WWE covered all its bases with regards to him getting a no.1 contender shot after losing to Ambrose. Essentially, him becoming no.1 contender was the Authority's doing.


Agreed on the last paragraph. I also thought a clean finish in the HiaC match would've been the best way to go as Bray Wyatt could have merely waited one more night to feud with a very over Ambrose.

Pretty sure nothing much would have changed with regards to Seth, who was clearly stepping into a feud with Orton anyways(A feud which can eventually be tied in with Reigns vs HHH to end the Authority storyline once and for all at or around Mania31), whilst Ambrose would be even more over after finally getting a deserved pay off in a feud which he was always literally 'second best'.

Thus, Bray Wyatt would be going after a very hot Dean Ambrose in an exciting new programme. But, the way it has unfolded means that Bray came in an 'unwelcome' manner, and now the feud starts with negativity and bitterness rather than anticipation of it being good, which isn't anything to be happy about,lMO.

Boy, the IWC have changed.

Once, a new guy is buried if he loses to a Cena or Orton, because Cena or Orton should see the lights to the new guys every time, and if they don't, they are burying them.

Now, people are pissed off because a new guy got beaten in a controversial manner to a guy who debuted the same night. So, you can't even see the lights for another new guy anymore, when being distracted by another new guy.

YOU determine if you invest in a superstar or not. If you are SO ficke to lose interest in a guy for losing in a screwy match one time, then that is not WWE's fault.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Because "we" are stupid.

Pro wrestling isn't a movie or even a regular TV show. There is ALWAYS a next show you have to set up to. You can't just end everything and not give the audience a reason to see what will happen. The best way to get people to tune in, is to leave them with a question. Why did Bray attack Ambrose? Why did Hogan turn on WCW? Why did Big Show come out of the ring and attack Stone Cold? It's pretty simple. It's usually not in their best interest to have a clean, decisive end to a feud. That means you basically have to start from scratch with a new feud instead of just rolling it over.

Also, the IWC has this horrible habit of bitching about things before they see the conclusion. If a guy is on a losing streak, they bitch. "Y IZ THIS GUY GETTIN TEH SHUVUL?" Well, typically a losing streak is a means of giving a character motivation to evolve (heel turn, face turn, more aggressive, find a tag partner, whatever). The IWC in general thinks that what they see is the whole story. It's not. We are always halfway through the WWE's book. We don't know where the story is going. We (should) know that the story is going somewhere further and wonder what will happen; not bitch about what we saw halfway through. Imagine if you used IWC logic on the movie Memento. You'd be confused and pissed 30 minutes in and quit, and you would have missed out on a great movie.

So, instead of bitching about something, instead think "hmm, what might this lead into". Using Rollins/Ambrose as an example, neither guy really "won". Leaving both looking strong going into their next feuds and making the next time they wrestle, which they will, even more important. Had their been a clean finish then it would feel a little redundant.


The last reason I have for the IWC bitching so much is that they're marks. They are the new marks. Marks are people who get really emotionally invested and who you can get to do what you want. Most casual fans have a pretty good understanding of how the business works and aren't blinded by fan hood and the IWC culture to see things how they are. My girlfriend doesn't watch wrestling. When HIAC ended, she said "so they're setting up hillbilly vs crazy guy and probably going to come back to this later". She gets it. The IWC doesn't. The IWC lives in a bubble where WWE works them over and over and over and over again. Biggest proof of that is how much Bryan getting "mishandled" last year actually got him more over.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Because "we" are stupid.

Pro wrestling isn't a movie or even a regular TV show. There is ALWAYS a next show you have to set up to. You can't just end everything and not give the audience a reason to see what will happen. The best way to get people to tune in, is to leave them with a question. Why did Bray attack Ambrose? Why did Hogan turn on WCW? Why did Big Show come out of the ring and attack Stone Cold? It's pretty simple. It's usually not in their best interest to have a clean, decisive end to a feud. That means you basically have to start from scratch with a new feud instead of just rolling it over.

Also, the IWC has this horrible habit of bitching about things before they see the conclusion. If a guy is on a losing streak, they bitch. "Y IZ THIS GUY GETTIN TEH SHUVUL?" Well, typically a losing streak is a means of giving a character motivation to evolve (heel turn, face turn, more aggressive, find a tag partner, whatever). The IWC in general thinks that what they see is the whole story. It's not. We are always halfway through the WWE's book. We don't know where the story is going. We (should) know that the story is going somewhere further and wonder what will happen; not bitch about what we saw halfway through. Imagine if you used IWC logic on the movie Memento. You'd be confused and pissed 30 minutes in and quit, and you would have missed out on a great movie.

So, instead of bitching about something, instead think "hmm, what might this lead into". Using Rollins/Ambrose as an example, neither guy really "won". Leaving both looking strong going into their next feuds and making the next time they wrestle, which they will, even more important. Had their been a clean finish then it would feel a little redundant.


The last reason I have for the IWC bitching so much is that they're marks. They are the new marks. Marks are people who get really emotionally invested and who you can get to do what you want. Most casual fans have a pretty good understanding of how the business works and aren't blinded by fan hood and the IWC culture to see things how they are. My girlfriend doesn't watch wrestling. When HIAC ended, she said "so they're setting up hillbilly vs crazy guy and probably going to come back to this later". She gets it. The IWC doesn't. The IWC lives in a bubble where WWE works them over and over and over and over again. Biggest proof of that is how much Bryan getting "mishandled" last year actually got him more over.

this.

Your the biggest mark of all lol thats what funny.
Typical wwe mark

The finish for HIAC made no sense. And it was badly done.
A average match with a shitty finish.
They did this because wwe doesnt see dean as the top guy. They only see reigns as the top guy. WWE hates when fans cheer someone that's the opposite of what wwe whats.

WWE only see reigns as the top guy.
Thats why wwe made the dean/bray feud. Because reigns is coming back.
Even though reigns sucks

Thats why wwe in the toilet now because shitty angles like this.

HIAC ppv sucked

 

[Navi]

The last reason I have for the IWC bitching so much is that they're marks. They are the new marks. Marks are people who get really emotionally invested and who you can get to do what you want. Most casual fans have a pretty good understanding of how the business works and aren't blinded by fan hood and the IWC culture to see things how they are. My girlfriend doesn't watch wrestling. When HIAC ended, she said "so they're setting up hillbilly vs crazy guy and probably going to come back to this later". She gets it. The IWC doesn't. The IWC lives in a bubble where WWE works them over and over and over and over again. Biggest proof of that is how much Bryan getting "mishandled" last year actually got him more over.

We all get it, believe me we all get it. The issue I have is why did they do it, what was the reason for it? Why put Wyatt into the middle of this feud? I could barely understand Cena getting involved, that bullshit didn't hold much water with me, and I've said so on this forum. So the crap with Wyatt, holds even less water.

The only person that I could have understood would be Reigns coming back and wanting a piece of Rollins. But that really wouldn't have made much sense either, as he already got a piece of him, and looks like will again.

Like I said before the problem is that this was one feud you could actually get behind. As a fan you could see the rivalry, hatred and understand why Ambrose wanted Rollins so badly. I'm afraid that Ambrose feuding with Wyatt now, only to at some point down the road realize "Oh I have unfinished business with Rollins and oh yea I hate the guy." doesn't work for me. The WWE in my eyes have drained all the intensity out of this fight, and shame on them for doing so. Ambrose and Rollins really made it believable at times, and to have it end like this showed just how much they didn't care. And when the WWE doesn't care then neither do I.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

We all get it, believe me we all get it. The issue I have is why did they do it, what was the reason for it? Why put Wyatt into the middle of this feud? I could barely understand Cena getting involved, that bullshit didn't hold much water with me, and I've said so on this forum. So the crap with Wyatt, holds even less water.

The only person that I could have understood would be Reigns coming back and wanting a piece of Rollins. But that really wouldn't have made much sense either, as he already got a piece of him, and looks like will again.

Like I said before the problem is that this was one feud you could actually get behind. As a fan you could see the rivalry, hatred and understand why Ambrose wanted Rollins so badly. I'm afraid that Ambrose feuding with Wyatt now, only to at some point down the road realize "Oh I have unfinished business with Rollins and oh yea I hate the guy." doesn't work for me. The WWE in my eyes have drained all the intensity out of this fight, and shame on them for doing so. Ambrose and Rollins really made it believable at times, and to have it end like this showed just how much they didn't care. And when the WWE doesn't care then neither do I.

I agree with right here.

Rollins/ Dean should had a closure with their feud at HIAC. With Dean going over.
It wouldn't of made rollins look weak. Rollins basically dominated the feud anyway.
Dean deserved to win at HIAC.

Wyatt interfering made no sense at all. No build. No nothing. We still dont know why wyatt attacked dean

The only reasons that dean/wyatt are feuding is because reigns is coming back very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if he came back during SS.

WWE only sees reigns as the top guy.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

How are you all not getting it?

Rollins v Seth has to go for years to come... you'll never get a "resolution" in the way you want, as Cena v Orton for the 50th time just showed. They are trying to create the "blood feuds" that will fuel the next 5-6 years in the WWE, the matches that can sell a Payback 2016 or Survivor Series 2018 for the title. Just let it be enough that they were given their shot to end the show, 3 of the top, new talents out there were given their chance. People bitch about it... "Oh well, let's just give em more Cena...or Reigns" which is even worse.

WWE is desperate for Reigns but they have been here before with Nash, they are making sure their bets are hedged, that they have plan B, C and D in place before pulling the trigger cos the fans WILL backlash on Reigns and they know it. So they are trying to create 4 main event stars instead of focusing all on one as they did in 1994.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Think about this.

There are actual sporting teams who don't win the championship for over thirty years or longer.They keep losing -FOR REAL! Yet their fans loyally attend games and follow this team, even though they never win.

Yet wrestling fans turn on a wrestler after they lose ONE match, and this is where wins-losses are predetermined.

So, a real loser sporting team can still have people who stick by them, through thick and thin. Yet with the IWC, Dean Ambrose loses "Oh no, he's finished. It's jobberville for "The Lunatic Fringe" now.

Do you know that Steve Austin lost a match to "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan in ten seconds in WCW? Did it hurt his rep, or stop him from ever becoming a star.

 

[laodaron]

Do you know that Steve Austin lost a match to "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan in ten seconds in WCW? Did it hurt his rep, or stop him from ever becoming a star.

Yes, it did. Well, that among other things, it completely prevented him from being a star in WCW, and if there had been no WWF or ECW at the time, we would mention the name Steve Austin when mentioning other jobbers and midcarders that never got a solid push in the 90s. His tenure in WCW was basically atrocious, the top executives and senior booking/talents thought of him only as a solid in ring worker, he was never supposed to be a big star. Vince McMahon and Paul Heyman were able to help him salvage his career, but if there had only been one big company at the time, the booking decisions used for Steve Austin would have ruined his career.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

That didn't come from the Duggan loss in 10 seconds... that was done to cover an injury and to appease Hogan who wanted Duggan over strong as one of his "buddies".

Steve Austin, like Mick Foley, Dustin Rhodes, Regal or others of that era in WCW did not have this "mythic destiny" to be what they become and it's the worst kind of revisionism to say they did. The one who helped Austin most? Eric Bischoff? Why? Cos he DIDN'T rate him, didn't see the "potential" or if he did didn't feel the investment required would pay off. Heyman did absolutely nothing for Austin... other than give him a mic and as he recently said "keep him waiting till 5am to tape his promos, so he'd be extra pissed off."

That Austin became anything was down to his own force of will, Vince didn't even WANT him... JR deserves an assist for forcing through the signing along with Foley's... but it wasn't destined... it was a guy making the best of what he had and making it work in a way no one thought of. Same for Goldust, Foley and Jericho later on.

None of these guys had a "right" to success... but they earned their own success. Saying "if there was no WCW or ECW" is dumb... there WAS in those days, there was also Japan... if Austin hadn't gone to WWE he'd have gone there and been a star there. There WAS a business that guys could travel around.

Today, someone like Austin would be lost as you say, but then... never... talent rises, but it was never anyones destiny, except maybe a Bret Hart or Rock type, who had literally grown up in and around it.

 

[laodaron]

No, it's called context. Booking in the 90s cannot be compared to today because there were alternatives and there was competition. Today, that does not exist. In the 90s, Austin was told he had to star future. Then, he was able to leave and go to the competition. Jericho was mostly ignored in WCW. He was able to go to the competition. Today, when a wrestler is booked poorly, that pretty much spells the end of their career because there is no alternative.

Austin's 10 second loss to Duggan fit a much larger narrative that he was not going to be the star of WCW.

 

[Navi]

How are you all not getting it?

Rollins v Seth has to go for years to come... you'll never get a "resolution" in the way you want, as Cena v Orton for the 50th time just showed. They are trying to create the "blood feuds" that will fuel the next 5-6 years in the WWE, the matches that can sell a Payback 2016 or Survivor Series 2018 for the title. Just let it be enough that they were given their shot to end the show, 3 of the top, new talents out there were given their chance. People bitch about it... "Oh well, let's just give em more Cena...or Reigns" which is even worse.

WWE is desperate for Reigns but they have been here before with Nash, they are making sure their bets are hedged, that they have plan B, C and D in place before pulling the trigger cos the fans WILL backlash on Reigns and they know it. So they are trying to create 4 main event stars instead of focusing all on one as they did in 1994.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I do get it, I don't want it though. There is a difference between this feud and an Orton/Cena. This feud had life, it had fuel, feelings, a genuine desire to see someone get their ass kicked, that transcends most other feuds going on today. The one one that comes close is and God I hate to say it, the Bella Twins.

Both feuds are basically like a family being torn apart. In the case of the Shield, these guys fought together like a band of brothers for 2 years, and then one turned his back on the others. The Bella's speak for themselves.

I don't care who won Rollins or Ambrose, but I certainly don't want to see this dragged out so that its selling a SS match in 2018. That's just a bit ridiculous to be still going at it 4 years from now. And do you think the fans are going to stay invested in this feud for 4 years? Many will have dropped off the bandwagon by then.

Rollins and Ambrose could have still continued to butt heads, but like I said before, the WWE has watered this down and taken away the intensity that these two guys managed to create. No one in their right mind is going to put up with another 3 years of this though.

 

[L@RISANO]

I agree with right here.

Rollins/ Dean should had a closure with their feud at HIAC. With Dean going over.
It wouldn't of made rollins look weak. Rollins basically dominated the feud anyway.
Dean deserved to win at HIAC.

Wyatt interfering made no sense at all. No build. No nothing. We still dont know why wyatt attacked dean

The only reasons that dean/wyatt are feuding is because reigns is coming back very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if he came back during SS.

WWE only sees reigns as the top guy.

Actually, the WWE has no one for Wyatt to go after, since Bryan and Reigns are both out, Cena has already done a programme with Wyatt before and even destroyed him a while back as well.

Thus, there was only Ambrose left of the current roster that would suit the kind of push Bray's reset required.
So, it doesn't at all have anything to do with Reigns as much as Bray needed someone to feud who is an over enough babyface.

As I said continuously from around NoC, the thin nature of the Main Event scene continues to bite the WWE and will continue until those injured make their returns(including Roman Reigns).

 

[L@RISANO]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I do get it, I don't want it though. There is a difference between this feud and an Orton/Cena. This feud had life, it had fuel, feelings, a genuine desire to see someone get their ass kicked, that transcends most other feuds going on today. The one one that comes close is and God I hate to say it, the Bella Twins.

Both feuds are basically like a family being torn apart. In the case of the Shield, these guys fought together like a band of brothers for 2 years, and then one turned his back on the others. The Bella's speak for themselves.

I don't care who won Rollins or Ambrose, but I certainly don't want to see this dragged out so that its selling a SS match in 2018. That's just a bit ridiculous to be still going at it 4 years from now. And do you think the fans are going to stay invested in this feud for 4 years? Many will have dropped off the bandwagon by then.

Rollins and Ambrose could have still continued to butt heads, but like I said before, the WWE has watered this down and taken away the intensity that these two guys managed to create. No one in their right mind is going to put up with another 3 years of this though.

Ditto.

Thing is, this situation can be compared with how Reigns' interactions with the other 2 guys has been since the Shield broke up, it has been minimal, and when Reigns finally went after Rollins(Ambrose's time out), it didn't have the kind of momentum it should have had(given Reigns was also backstabbed by Rollins).

Had anyone else from the Authority vs Shield storyline interefered at HiaC, there wouldn't be as much backlash as there has been.
Until now, the only reason I have heard from Bray is that him and Ambrose are 'similar'. Surely, that could have waited till the next night on RAW(given they only got a 5min segment subsequently on RAW anyway).

 

[L@RISANO]

Boy, the IWC have changed.

Once, a new guy is buried if he loses to a Cena or Orton, because Cena or Orton should see the lights to the new guys every time, and if they don't, they are burying them.

Now, people are pissed off because a new guy got beaten in a controversial manner to a guy who debuted the same night. So, you can't even see the lights for another new guy anymore, when being distracted by another new guy.

YOU determine if you invest in a superstar or not. If you are SO ficke to lose interest in a guy for losing in a screwy match one time, then that is not WWE's fault.

Aren't we all a part of the IWC??

People are pissed off because they had to sit through 5 months of a blood feud throwing up repeated screwy finishes with the hero unable to get his hands on the villain in that time. The hero then feuds with the "top" hero for a chance of getting his hands on the foe within the confines of the Hell in a Cell.
But alas, even within the enclosure, someone random attacks him and we have another screwy finish with the reason thus far basically being 'just because'...


So basically, people were disappointed in how the apparent 'ending' of the Ambrose v Rollins feud was done.
I, for one, am looking forward to the Wyatt-Ambrose feud but the ending of the other feud means this one starts under the microscope for quite a few people when it really shouldn't have. It was only a matter of delaying it for one night after all...

 

[Navi]

Ditto.

Thing is, this situation can be compared with how Reigns' interactions with the other 2 guys has been since the Shield broke up, it has been minimal, and when Reigns finally went after Rollins(Ambrose's time out), it didn't have the kind of momentum it should have had(given Reigns was also backstabbed by Rollins).

Had anyone else from the Authority vs Shield storyline interefered at HiaC, there wouldn't be as much backlash as there has been.
Until now, the only reason I have heard from Bray is that him and Ambrose are 'similar'. Surely, that could have waited till the next night on RAW(given they only got a 5min segment subsequently on RAW anyway).

I don't think it can be compared. After the Rollins heel turn, if you remember, Reigns and Ambrose did a promo where Ambrose said he was going after Rollins, and Reigns said he was coming after HHH and Oeton. That's basically what happened.

When Ambrose went off to film that movie, Reigns stepped in to keep that part of the feud pertinent and it didn't have the same feel, because of the feelings that had been created between Ambrose and Rollins. It sort of felt to me like Ambrose is out, Rollins is still running off at the mouth, who better to shut him up than Roman Reigns. I think if was Cole that said something along the lines of, Seth Rollins forgot about Roman Reigns and here he comes to remind him he's still around.

This whole storyline revolved around the Shield and the Authority right from day one. When the Shield turned face that's who they went after, both as a group when they broke up. No one else should have been involved but with Reigns going out with an injury, I have the feeling that the WWE didn't have any back up plan whatsoever, and are flying by the seat of their pants right now.

I still have no idea why Bray Wyatt is involved, unless it's the fact that the WWE are still trying to get him over. This is now the fourth person to try and if Ambrose fails, then he can join Cena, Bryan and Jericho on the list. And if he does fail, I see nothing for Wyatt continuing the way he is going. The fans love his entrance, but he is subpar int he ring, great on the mic, but that won't cut it in todays WWE.

 

[L@RISANO]

I don't think it can be compared. After the Rollins heel turn, if you remember, Reigns and Ambrose did a promo where Ambrose said he was going after Rollins, and Reigns said he was coming after HHH and Oeton. That's basically what happened.

When Ambrose went off to film that movie, Reigns stepped in to keep that part of the feud pertinent and it didn't have the same feel, because of the feelings that had been created between Ambrose and Rollins. It sort of felt to me like Ambrose is out, Rollins is still running off at the mouth, who better to shut him up than Roman Reigns. I think if was Cole that said something along the lines of, Seth Rollins forgot about Roman Reigns and here he comes to remind him he's still around.

This whole storyline revolved around the Shield and the Authority right from day one. When the Shield turned face that's who they went after, both as a group when they broke up. No one else should have been involved but with Reigns going out with an injury, I have the feeling that the WWE didn't have any back up plan whatsoever, and are flying by the seat of their pants right now.

I still have no idea why Bray Wyatt is involved, unless it's the fact that the WWE are still trying to get him over. This is now the fourth person to try and if Ambrose fails, then he can join Cena, Bryan and Jericho on the list. And if he does fail, I see nothing for Wyatt continuing the way he is going. The fans love his entrance, but he is subpar int he ring, great on the mic, but that won't cut it in todays WWE.

I do understand the part of why Reigns and Ambrose went in the directions they did after the break-up, but the way the WWE made it all play out, it was as though Reigns was never really backstabbed by Rollins as Reigns was seperated from the other 2(don't know how that was supposed to help his momentum,tbh).

In much the same way, we will now have Ambrose focused on Wyatt and completely forgetting about Rollins(with the way it looked on RAW), and perhaps he will randomly take back up the Seth feud again at some point, and judging by WWE Track record in recent times, it probably will be done at the wrong time(as there will definitely be moments that the feud can actually be picked up and regain lost momentum)


As for Bray Wyatt, indeed it is the last chance saloon with him, but I never really thought the WWE explored the possibilities available with him and his family, and even more bizarrely is that he is now seemingly alone which will expose his flaws even more.
Ideally, Bray Wyatt's 'false prophet/cult leader' character struck me as a Manager type more than anything. Jack-Hammer once threw up a scenario where Harper and Rowan could be set free(as they have been) and go out and spread Bray's msg, whilst new 'followers' would be recruited...eventually Harper and Rowan would return at an opportune time, maybe with more recruits of their own and the Wyatt family story could go in such a direction.

I, for one, look forward to seeing how this Ambrose-Wyatt rivalry plays out. Cena-Wyatt was very interesting until Bryan's injury sort of made them pull the plug on it....Y2J-Wyatt was meh,lMO.
This feud will be important going forward for both guys in terms of their future Main Event chances.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

We all get it, believe me we all get it. The issue I have is why did they do it, what was the reason for it? Why put Wyatt into the middle of this feud? I could barely understand Cena getting involved, that bullshit didn't hold much water with me, and I've said so on this forum. So the crap with Wyatt, holds even less water.

The only person that I could have understood would be Reigns coming back and wanting a piece of Rollins. But that really wouldn't have made much sense either, as he already got a piece of him, and looks like will again.

Like I said before the problem is that this was one feud you could actually get behind. As a fan you could see the rivalry, hatred and understand why Ambrose wanted Rollins so badly. I'm afraid that Ambrose feuding with Wyatt now, only to at some point down the road realize "Oh I have unfinished business with Rollins and oh yea I hate the guy." doesn't work for me. The WWE in my eyes have drained all the intensity out of this fight, and shame on them for doing so. Ambrose and Rollins really made it believable at times, and to have it end like this showed just how much they didn't care. And when the WWE doesn't care then neither do I.

Your first paragraph is exactly why they did it. You don't THINK there is a reason for Wyatt interfering. So you tune in to find out. Like I said in my post, you are complaining because you think you know all the answers now. You don't. You shouldn't. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to watch.

WWE hasn't drained the intensity out of the feud. This chapter of the feud is over. With a ready made platform when another catalyst causes it to show back up. There will be a catalyst, a reason for them to feud again, not just "oh yea...". Again, stop assuming you know the whole story. You don't, and never will.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Aren't we all a part of the IWC??

People are pissed off because they had to sit through 5 months of a blood feud throwing up repeated screwy finishes with the hero unable to get his hands on the villain in that time. The hero then feuds with the "top" hero for a chance of getting his hands on the foe within the confines of the Hell in a Cell.
But alas, even within the enclosure, someone random attacks him and we have another screwy finish with the reason thus far basically being 'just because'...


So basically, people were disappointed in how the apparent 'ending' of the Ambrose v Rollins feud was done.
I, for one, am looking forward to the Wyatt-Ambrose feud but the ending of the other feud means this one starts under the microscope for quite a few people when it really shouldn't have. It was only a matter of delaying it for one night after all...

"Delaying it for one night". But, if they did that, if they did what you said, then you would accuse them of being "too predictable".

When the WWE do something shocking or an unexpected run-in, that people didn't see coming, fans get pissed off because they were "played" and they didn't ask for it. But when WWE give the fans what they want, when they want, they are accused of being too "predictable". They can't win.

This is why I was against the whole carry-on with the fans, demanding that Bryan main-event and win the belt at WM. It made the WM main-event SO predictable, because the WWE was held hostage by the fans, who demanded that their chosen one win the belt that night, or they would take their bat and ball and go home. Waa! Waa!

Also, if Bray attacked Dean the next night on Raw, it wouldn't have meant as much. There is something called "creating heat". Dean Ambrose has much more reason to go after Bray for costing him his biggest match of his career so far, than if he was just randomly attacked on Raw the next night. And then you would be complaining as well, because you would still say that Bray has no reason to attack Ambrose, (even though Bray explained why, and you refuse to listen).

This is why fans are better staying in their seats, and leaving writing wrestling shows and running wrestling companies to other people. Because the fans only THINK that they could do a better job.

 

[L@RISANO]

"Delaying it for one night". But, if they did that, if they did what you said, then you would accuse them of being "too predictable".

When the WWE do something shocking or an unexpected run-in, that people didn't see coming, fans get pissed off because they were "played" and they didn't ask for it. But when WWE give the fans what they want, when they want, they are accused of being too "predictable". They can't win.

This is why I was against the whole carry-on with the fans, demanding that Bryan main-event and win the belt at WM. It made the WM main-event SO predictable, because the WWE was held hostage by the fans, who demanded that their chosen one win the belt that night, or they would take their bat and ball and go home. Waa! Waa!

Also, if Bray attacked Dean the next night on Raw, it wouldn't have meant as much. There is something called "creating heat". Dean Ambrose has much more reason to go after Bray for costing him his biggest match of his career so far, than if he was just randomly attacked on Raw the next night. And then you would be complaining as well, because you would still say that Bray has no reason to attack Ambrose, (even though Bray explained why, and you refuse to listen).

This is why fans are better staying in their seats, and leaving writing wrestling shows and running wrestling companies to other people. Because the fans only THINK that they could do a better job.

Any business is successful as long as they can offer what their customers want, so saying that fans of today should sit and accept what is thrown at them without criticizing anything is wrong on many levels.

As for the DB paragraph, I'll say this, I am not and wasn't a huge DB fan and couldn't care less if he ended up facing Sheamus as planned(according to dirt sheets), however, I totally understood why things were done as they were, and it actually resulted in one of the best "Feel-Good" moments possible when he overcame HHH, Orton and Batista all in one night, and got a stadium full of people to cheer after the shock of the Streak being broken earlier in the night(a moment which could have derailed most subsequent Main Events, but one which the strength of the YES! Movement largely handled perfectly).




Seth Rollins vs Dean Ambrose was the hottest feud going in the WWE for the past few months, and the majority of WWE fans expected that it would be blown off/stretched at HiaC.
Indeed, the feud was ended, but by way of Bray Wyatt interefering.


Now, the problem in this, is that many fans wanted some sort of 'closure' to what will obviously be a virtual first-round to the Dean vs Seth feud for years to come(because as long as they make it as nailed-on Main Eventers, they will obviously meet again), however, this one had a Fresh back-story by way of Seth Rollins back-stabbing the Shield at their highest point(after they clean-sweeped Evolution at Payback) and sided with the enemy, thus people wanted to see Dean get his hands on Seth, and given he basically continuously was booked as an obvious second-best for the entire feud, I think many wanted Dean to get the payoff.


Thus, the Bray feud has actually not started with 'heat' as you called it...it has started with a reaction of 'meh', in that people were bummed out by the 'ending' to a long revenge feud with a random intereference in the Main Event of the HiaC PPV.
Now change his interference to Monday Night, with ppl getting a proper 'closure' to the Seth-Dean feud, and the Bray-Dean feud would start with people much more receptive to it than what has actually occurred.