WHY NOT DOLPH????

[Mustang Sally]

....I don't think he's the best in-ring guy on the roster, nor do I see him as being the most charismatic on the roster.

It's really that simple. One of the problems is that many of Dolph's fans seem to feel he's being treated by his bosses as a failure unless he's contending for the world title.....i.e., the 'intense hatred' the guys at the top are said feel for him ....which I highly doubt exists. Triple H and the McMahons know who Dolph is and what he's capable of; heaven knows they've been watching him long enough.

Fact is, he was given a couple tries at main event level and while it's difficult to describe exactly what it was that caused him to miss the mark, he was missing it. While he's a highly enthusiastic performer, he just doesn't feature as a championship-level talent.

He belongs with WWE, for sure......but in a midcard role....maybe with an occasional minor title reign.

It's still a good life.

 

[TDFG]

Is Dolph the man I want as the World Champ, no, I agree with what others have said, the guy oversells to the point were I actually want to see him get his ass kick by his opponent.

He's a US/IC Champ/Upper Card material at best.

 

[kadroan]

I just dont get it. Dolph is the best in ring performer right now. He's more charismatic than any superstar on the roster. He also gets some of the loudest pops at live events. Why does the WWE not believe in him. I thought after Survivor Series that he was going to get the big push and yet just like before i was like a big tease. I mean am I the only person who thinks he could be the top guy if given the right sustainable push. Nothing against Rollins but too me Dolph is much better in ring and on the mic.

He can't stay healthy. It's great to see he stop bad mouthing people like Orton on the radio.

I think he just got to continue to make the most of his opportunities. If he crossover to mainstream with Comedy Central, that can help his chances, WWE loves publicity.

 

[Aquaman6686]

He can't stay healthy. It's great to see he stop bad mouthing people like Orton on the radio.

I think he just got to continue to make the most of his opportunities. If he crossover to mainstream with Comedy Central, that can help his chances, WWE loves publicity.

He "can't stay healthy"? Seriously? He missed one month out of a 7 year career in his ONLY injury. Randy Orton has missed a total of about a year due to injury, John Cena missed more than that, and Batista was injured for about a third of his time employed by WWE. You're just blatantly and completely wrong.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

For months there has been talk of Dolph marking time and working out his notice/contract and his booking right now really shows that to be the case.

They're not burying him, but they seemed to be setting him up for a leaving angle with Rusev where Lana either turns on him or Rusev gets the "last laugh" in costing Ziggler his WWE career. Rusev's injury may affect it but I doubt anyone can not see that coming.

Why?

WWE KNOWS they dropped the ball on Ziggler, but also he has never been the model employee either... he has always spoken out of school, spent more time focusing on his comedy at times than his WWE career and had a rep for being slightly unsafe at times/overselling to the point that it became dangerous. Then he got 2 concussions in a year... At this point that alone takes him out of any meaningful WWE push cos one more they HAVE to medically "retire him", just like they did Corey Graves and Christian.

Also, while not HIS fault, his brother was also part of the Bill DeMott controversy, him not being able to "control" his brother probably also negatively impacted him, to the point of when he said he didn't intend to renew, they didn't fight.

That being said, that he IS being used reasonably well shows WWE is learning, they have botched several of these contract rundowns in recent years and they have led to acrimonious exits and even potential lawsuits in the cases of Punk, ADR and Rey... Here it seems to be a case of "He's going, let's make sure this one is smooth and makes US look good for a change..."

As for Nick Nemeth, he rolls right into GFW as their "coup" once the shows are underway and into New Japan as well... The Japanese will love him.

 

[Blade]

He's not good enough on any level to be a main eventer. But he's horrendously overrated by his fans just because he can hit a decent Superkick. He's had his shot, and he just never got over enough. Or, in the case of his second World Title run, he got a major concussion. The guy has a history of getting concussions. It doesn't help that his selling looks very dangerous at times. WWE doesn't want another Daniel Bryan on their hands; they can't push a guy who's going to end up with serious health problems sooner or later.

He's an upper midcarder, nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. The dude is living his dream, probably making good money, and WWE always have something for him to do. And right now, Reigns and Ambrose are so much better, and so much more over, than Ziggler. Plus, Lesnar is coming back. The main event doesn't need Ziggler in the slightest. Not that he's good enough, but, y'know.

He's never going to be a top guy. Stop dwelling on it, and just enjoy his work if you're such a fan.

 

[Aquaman6686]

And right now, Reigns and Ambrose are so much better, and so much more over, than Ziggler. Plus, Lesnar is coming back. The main event doesn't need Ziggler in the slightest. Not that he's good enough, but, y'know.

Completely false. Roman Reigns is still despised by the vast majority of fans, and Dean Ambrose isn't a third as over as Dolph Ziggler. Ziggler could also outwrestle the two of them combined in his sleep. Although that's not saying much, since Reigns couldn't wrestle his way out of a wet paper bag, and Dean Ambrose is mediocre on his best night.

 

[Navi]

Completely false. Roman Reigns is still despised by the vast majority of fans, and Dean Ambrose isn't a third as over as Dolph Ziggler. Ziggler could also outwrestle the two of them combined in his sleep. Although that's not saying much, since Reigns couldn't wrestle his way out of a wet paper bag, and Dean Ambrose is mediocre on his best night.

Are you being quite serious here, do we watch the same product? Ambrose is clearly far more over than Ziggler is. Ziggler gets a good pop, but holy shit they went nuts when Ambrose showed up last night.

I know you don't like Ambrose and Reigns, but you can't deny the responses they get.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Are you being quite serious here, do we watch the same product? Ambrose is clearly far more over than Ziggler is. Ziggler gets a good pop, but holy shit they went nuts when Ambrose showed up last night.

I know you don't like Ambrose and Reigns, but you can't deny the responses they get.

Texas is a more pro-Ambrose crowd, I'll give you that. But most of the cities in the Eastern half of the country are far more pro-Ziggler, and in most cities in general, Ziggler is clearly the #2 babyface in the company behind Daniel Bryan. But I will agree that his pops are gradually getting smaller, because the fans won't continue to go nuts for a guy who is booked as a nobody who can't win.

 

[Bernkastel]

Texas is a more pro-Ambrose crowd, I'll give you that. But most of the cities in the Eastern half of the country are far more pro-Ziggler, and in most cities in general, Ziggler is clearly the #2 babyface in the company behind Daniel Bryan. But I will agree that his pops are gradually getting smaller, because the fans won't continue to go nuts for a guy who is booked as a nobody who can't win.

Yeah, this is not true at all. Randy Orton is the #1 babyface, since Cena technically gets mixed reactions, with Roman Reigns at #2. As it's already been explained, judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction ultimately means very little because it's subjective. It's all about marketing and drawing consistently as a headliner. Dolph doesn't move merch and he doesn't draw as a headliner. Daniel draws as a headliner, but not as much as Roman Reigns. He moves merch, but not as much as Cena.

Your views on Ziggler are as 100% subjective as anyone else.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Yeah, this is not true at all. Randy Orton is the #1 babyface, since Cena technically gets mixed reactions, with Roman Reigns at #2. As it's already been explained, judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction ultimately means very little because it's subjective. It's all about marketing and drawing consistently as a headliner. Dolph doesn't move merch and he doesn't draw as a headliner. Daniel draws as a headliner, but not as much as Roman Reigns. He moves merch, but not as much as Cena.

Your views on Ziggler are as 100% subjective as anyone else.

"Randy Orton is the #1 babyface, since Cena technically gets mixed reactions, with Roman Reigns at #2. As it's already been explained, judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction ultimately means very little because it's subjective."

First of all, contradict yourself much? If judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction means very little, then why do Cena's mixed reactions displace him as the #1 babyface?

Secondly, check your facts. Roman Reigns failed as a headliner on the live event circuit. His shows drew considerably smaller numbers than the opposing tour, to the point where they had to move him to the midcard and have John Cena headline in order to boost numbers back up. Dolph Ziggler on the other hand was never given the opportunity to headline consistently. He got about a month headlining live events before they switched the tours up, so they barely tested the water with him as a headlining attraction.

In terms of crowd reaction (overall, since it will vary by city), Dolph Ziggler is VASTLY more popular than Roman Reigns. In most cities he's also more popular than Dean Ambrose, although not by as much. The only babyfaces on the roster whose reactions rival or surpass Ziggler's consistently are Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton.

 

[Navi]

"Randy Orton is the #1 babyface, since Cena technically gets mixed reactions, with Roman Reigns at #2. As it's already been explained, judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction ultimately means very little because it's subjective."

First of all, contradict yourself much? If judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction means very little, then why do Cena's mixed reactions displace him as the #1 babyface?

Secondly, check your facts. Roman Reigns failed as a headliner on the live event circuit. His shows drew considerably smaller numbers than the opposing tour, to the point where they had to move him to the midcard and have John Cena headline in order to boost numbers back up. Dolph Ziggler on the other hand was never given the opportunity to headline consistently. He got about a month headlining live events before they switched the tours up, so they barely tested the water with him as a headlining attraction.

In terms of crowd reaction (overall, since it will vary by city), Dolph Ziggler is VASTLY more popular than Roman Reigns. In most cities he's also more popular than Dean Ambrose, although not by as much. The only babyfaces on the roster whose reactions rival or surpass Ziggler's consistently are Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton.

I'm sorry but where did you get the information that Reigns was removed as a headliner from the Live tour? I've never seen him headline, it's always either been Cena or Bryan. Since Bryan's injury resurfaced it's been Rollins taking over that spot. When they come to Toronto, Reigns since the Shield broke up, never headlined once, his match was always in the middle of the show.

Before I asked I did have a look around, and don't see anything anywhere to support your claim.

 

[Aquaman6686]

I'm sorry but where did you get the information that Reigns was removed as a headliner from the Live tour? I've never seen him headline, it's always either been Cena or Bryan. Since Bryan's injury resurfaced it's been Rollins taking over that spot. When they come to Toronto, Reigns since the Shield broke up, never headlined once, his match was always in the middle of the show.

Before I asked I did have a look around, and don't see anything anywhere to support your claim.

Roman Reigns was headlining numerous house shows before and after WrestleMania to test the waters with him as a main eventer. Roman Reigns vs. Big Show in a Street Fight headlined live events for a month, but the attendances were terrible and they moved the Cena/Rusev US Championship matches to the headlining spot. There was a live event in Atlantic City not too long ago where Reigns headlined and it drew a terrible crowd (I didn't go because AC is way too far to drive for a house show, but I had several friends who attended and told me there were maybe a thousand people there, tops).

 

[Navi]

Roman Reigns was headlining numerous house shows before and after WrestleMania to test the waters with him as a main eventer. Roman Reigns vs. Big Show in a Street Fight headlined live events for a month, but the attendances were terrible and they moved the Cena/Rusev US Championship matches to the headlining spot. There was a live event in Atlantic City not too long ago where Reigns headlined and it drew a terrible crowd (I didn't go because AC is way too far to drive for a house show, but I had several friends who attended and told me there were maybe a thousand people there, tops).

I guess it must be different in the US. They only come to Toronto about 3 times a year and it's almost always a sell out. We get them so infrequently, it's a joy to have to actually show up. I'm sure Zack Ryder could headline and they would get a good crowd. Well maybe.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Ask for a source, he repeats the same thing with slightly more detail and follows it up with hearsay from his "friends." The same guy who said that he was watching Wrestlemania with 12 people and NONE of them knew who Rhonda Rousey were.

Ziggler is not as popular as Reigns and he's definitely not as popular as Ambrose. He's not the 2nd most over babyface on the roster, he's 5th at best. He's not the best in ring worker, he's middle of the pack at best.

Quit being a fucking tool.

 

[Bernkastel]

First of all, contradict yourself much? If judging wrestlers based on crowd reaction means very little, then why do Cena's mixed reactions displace him as the #1 babyface?

Because in some feuds Cena is not booked 100% like a face. He's supposed to get mixed reactions. Where as Randy Orton and Bryan aren't. Regins, if you've noticed [which I'm sure you haven't] seldom gets mixed reactions anymore.

Secondly, check your facts. Roman Reigns failed as a headliner on the live event circuit. His shows drew considerably smaller numbers than the opposing tour, to the point where they had to move him to the midcard and have John Cena headline in order to boost numbers back up.

False. Accordingly to Bleacher Report [who are meticulous with their analysis's] Reigns headlined 30 house shows in 2014 drawing 120,000 fans for a total average. This is more than Bryan, who only headlined 10 shows that year for obvious reasons that don't excuse the fact that Reigns was the more popular baby face.

Dolph Ziggler on the other hand was never given the opportunity to headline consistently. He got about a month headlining live events before they switched the tours up, so they barely tested the water with him as a headlining attraction.

Because he never proved himself to be a draw while they were testing the water with him. Otherwise he would have remained a consistent headliner.

In terms of crowd reaction (overall, since it will vary by city), Dolph Ziggler is VASTLY more popular than Roman Reigns.

100% subjective statement. Fans have been going ape shit for Reigns for weeks now.

In most cities he's also more popular than Dean Ambrose, although not by as much. The only babyfaces on the roster whose reactions rival or surpass Ziggler's consistently are Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton.

Another subjective statement.

Dolph Ziggler isn't a draw and he isn't marketable. He's a midcarder who will probably never sniff the world title again.

 

[MCMG]

I like Dolph but he is ultimately a mid-carder. He is pretty good and is definitely entertaining. Indeed, he is overrated by many and underrated by some. The reality is he simply isn't as good in the ring as his fans think he is. Sure he has consistently good matches but he doesn't have many matches of top quality. The one with Del Rio was great. He had some fun matches with Punk, Edge, Bryan and Orton but none of those matches are of the highest quality.

The general consensus would be that Dolph is "better" in the ring than, say, Roman Reigns but look at what Reigns has done. His match with Bryan was phenomenal. Same again with Brock and the countless great matches in The Shield. He even had the match of the night with Big Show. He "stole the show" four PPV's in a row.

That was merely an example but I don't think Dolph is the very best in the ring. Entertaining, certainly, but not the best. I would personally rank Bryan, Rollins, Cena, Orton, Cesaro and Sheamus all ahead of him. Hell, I'm not so sure Wyatt, Reigns or Ambrose aren't better too.

He definitely has charisma. His promos can be fun and I definitely think he should be allowed to talk more. Indeed, he has been given the chance over the last year or so and it was about time.

Dolph is great but he is not Shawn Michales. He is not Ric Flair. He is simply Dolph Ziggler and he has found his place on the roster. There are guys who are far superior and there are guys who are worse. Simple.

 

[Aquaman6686]

His match with Bryan was phenomenal. Same again with Brock and the countless great matches in The Shield.

I can sometimes understand why people enjoy things I don't, but not Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns. That match was bad. Really, really, REALLY bad. That match rivals Lesnar vs. Goldberg in how unbelievably awful it was. That was one of the worst closing matches in WrestleMania history.

 

[MCMG]

I can sometimes understand why people enjoy things I don't, but not Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns. That match was bad. Really, really, REALLY bad. That match rivals Lesnar vs. Goldberg in how unbelievably awful it was. That was one of the worst closing matches in WrestleMania history.

You think Dolph Ziggler is one of the best in-ring performers in the company; I'm not quite sure your opinion on top quality wrestling is worth listening to. Roman and Brock told a wonderful story.

I'll reiterate. I like Dolph and I find him entertaining. He isn't, however, as good as many perceive him to be.

 

[Aquaman6686]

You think Dolph Ziggler is one of the best in-ring performers in the company; I'm not quite sure your opinion on top quality wrestling is worth listening to. Roman and Brock told a wonderful story.

I'll reiterate. I like Dolph and I find him entertaining. He isn't, however, as good as many perceive him to be.

What "story"? Brock Lesnar did a bunch of suplexes and Roman Reigns smiled like a moron. Wow. Great story. If anything it was even WORSE than Goldberg/Lesnar, at least that match was mercifully brief in comparison.

 

[K Web V3]

im not a reigns fan, but to say his match with brock wasnt a good match is foolish. That match was a win for all involved. Reigns was made to look strong by laughing off the beating he was taking via brock. Brock stayed looking strong as he wasnt the one being pinned, so his value was protected. Then you have Rollins cashing in, giving the show its "Wrestlemania Moment"

As for Dolph.....he is what he is. I doubt we will ever see him consistently in the main event scene. Hes a good performer(although he does tend to oversell a little too often) but his mic work is still lackluster. id much rather watch a ziggler match as opposd to a big show match, but promo wise.....eh

 

[Kidpolean]

What "story"? Brock Lesnar did a bunch of suplexes and Roman Reigns smiled like a moron. Wow. Great story. If anything it was even WORSE than Goldberg/Lesnar, at least that match was mercifully brief in comparison.

How long have you been watching wrestling? That opinion is ridiculous! Are you one of those guys that likes Indy style matches where the wrestlers just do 2000 high impact moves with 200 near falls in one match only for it to end with their actual finisher that is not nearly as impactful as the 1000 other moves their opponent has already kicked out of?

 

[Headman]

What "story"? Brock Lesnar did a bunch of suplexes and Roman Reigns smiled like a moron. Wow. Great story. If anything it was even WORSE than Goldberg/Lesnar, at least that match was mercifully brief in comparison.

Well the story is Brock gave Reigns everything he had and Reigns kept coming. Brock had been built up as this guy who can put people down at will and yet here's Roman Reigns smiling and saying "Please sir, may I have another?". Brock left that match still looking like a bad ass. Reigns left looking like a fighter and Rollins came out looking like a sneaky SOB. It was perfect. The story with Goldberg/Lesnar was "Ok, let's get through this and get the hell out of here.". It was in no way shape or form better than the Brock/Reigns match.

 

[K Web V3]

as lovely as the reigns v lesnar discussion is, wasnt this supposed to be a thread about dolph ziggler??

Dolph has hit his peak imo. He will never be a top guy, and he knows this. No matter how much the fans love him, he will never be on top. I like dolph, i just dont like him as a top tier main eventer

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

He is not good on the mic, he acts weird when he comes down the ramp, his hair looks like ramen noodle, his merchandise and branding sucks (why does he have a bedazzled sleeveless leather jacket with a hood?), he flops around like a fish out of water, his name is stupid, he was most over as a heel because he had AJ and Vickie drawing heat, the zig-zag is a lame finisher, he doesn't look tough.

I could go on.

I don't get how people see him as a main event player who can be on the screen as RAW rolls to credits.