Ryback

[PSF]

I've been a fan of Ryback/Sheffiedl since he was on NXT and I when I heard all the rumours about him coming back it got me excited...then "here comes the pain". Lesnar returns and I was worried about him now being lost in the shuffle, especially with Tensai about too. But the more I think about it, the more this could work.

 

WWE need to play their cards right and slowly build to a Ryback/Lesnar fued in my book. Have both men completely dominant over the next few months, both undefeated, both unstopable until the Irresistible Force Meets the Immovable Object! If Lesnar is only staying around for a year, then have him put Ryback over and push his arse to the moon.

 

This is something I'd personally like to see, but how does everyone see Ryback panning out?

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Its the era where everyone loses to everyone else. I cant see him doing the undefeated thing when he starts working with real wrestlers. I remember when Goldberg turned up and Triple H said "unlike WCW, we want everyone to be a star. We cant kill a 100 guys to get him over". I like Ryback and as far as Goldberg rip offs go, he's a very good one. But the difference between Lesnar's debut and his (not the mention Lesnar's background, friends in high places and large downside guarentee in 2002) is massive. Lesnar was groomed to be a huge star. Ryback is just there on Smackdown squashing skinny blokes.

[PW-AJ]

Just to throw an idea out there - if Ryback was given a constant push from now until Wrestlemania 29, possibly remaining undefeated - would there be money in a streak vs streak match with Undertaker?

 

TNA have shown with Samoa Joe, and to a lesser extent Crimson, that long streaks can still be done without 'killing everyone'.

[LaGoosh]

I like him. I don't think he's the new Goldberg. He needs to be a mix of Goldberg and Ken Shamrock. He looks like a crazy fucker, he should act like one at all times. I'm interested to see if they keep him strong or just forget about pushing him a few months from now.

 

Back and forth wins between him and The Miz or whatever is definitely NOT the way to go. At this point it's hard to see how he'll turn out. He needs better entrance music though and to stop doing that weird thing with his arms when he wins.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

Its the era where everyone loses to everyone else. I cant see him doing the undefeated thing when he starts working with real wrestlers. I remember when Goldberg turned up and Triple H said "unlike WCW, we want everyone to be a star. We cant kill a 100 guys to get him over". I like Ryback and as far as Goldberg rip offs go, he's a very good one. But the difference between Lesnar's debut and his (not the mention Lesnar's background, friends in high places and large downside guarentee in 2002) is massive. Lesnar was groomed to be a huge star. Ryback is just there on Smackdown squashing skinny blokes.

 

Although I freely admit that this is Triple H and therefore his opinion is worth 100 times mine, I do remember thinking at the time that that was a stupid opinion to hold.

 

People paid to see Goldberg destroy people week in week out. Surely they could of given him jobbers / low end / midcard / tag team guys to destroy week after week. Heck, they only really needed to do it for a few months really to get over the fact he was this wrecking ball.

 

Heck if you look here (http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/bios/wwe-alumni-2000s/_2003/) even JUST on the RAW roster I've seen about 35 expendable guys he could mowed down every other week.

 

Ultimately WCW made him into a star who made them a lot of money. WWE dropped the ball massively with him in my opinion. In regards to Goldberg it was WCW 1 - WWE 0.

[LaGoosh]

Also, by no-one winning more than say 3 matches in a row like most guys in WWE now that they trade pins back and forth you get to the point now where no one is really over and no one can get anyone else over.

[Magnum]

Although I freely admit that this is Triple H and therefore his opinion is worth 100 times mine, I do remember thinking at the time that that was a stupid opinion to hold.

 

People paid to see Goldberg destroy people week in week out. Surely they could of given him jobbers / low end / midcard / tag team guys to destroy week after week. Heck, they only really needed to do it for a few months really to get over the fact he was this wrecking ball.

 

Heck if you look here (http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/bios/wwe-alumni-2000s/_2003/) even JUST on the RAW roster I've seen about 35 expendable guys he could mowed down every other week.

 

Ultimately WCW made him into a star who made them a lot of money. WWE dropped the ball massively with him in my opinion. In regards to Goldberg it was WCW 1 - WWE 0.

 

Aye, but look where WCW ended up when they actually ended the streak. The problem with Goldberg is they created a monster who seemed to start to believe his own hype and didn't want to lose to anybody, ever. The size of WCW's roster at that time meant they did have a lot expendable jobbers to feed Goldberg in building his aura, but the problem came when he started mixing it with the main eventers. You can argue all day over whether it was right for Nash to end the streak when he did, but it had to end sometime - it was great as a side attraction on Nitro (even the main attraction for a while), but you can't expect to keep selling PPVs where everybody knows for certain how the main event turns out because one of the participants never loses.

 

I don't think Goldberg's aura was ever the same after the streak ended, but they had made the streak so inextricable from that aura that they really painted themselves into a corner.

 

Also, by no-one winning more than say 3 matches in a row like most guys in WWE now that they trade pins back and forth you get to the point now where no one is really over and no one can get anyone else over.

 

This is the other side of the coin. I hate the back-and-forth trading of wins that's stalled about a half-dozen major pushes in the last several years. But I think there has to be a happy medium between a good, strong push (i.e Triple H in 99/2000, Lesnar in 2002) and having somebody on the roster who never loses.

[simonworden]

One problem today, more than ever in WWE and especially WCW is roster size in my opinion. Although WWE's roster cannot be called small it is smaller than it has been especially for main show guys who matter. WCW back in 97-98 had a massive roster. Including a lot of stagnant midcarders (some WCWs fault some the wrestlers themselves) who had perhaps had a good run in the late 80's early 90's in NWA/WCW or WWF and could be squashed but people knew who was being squashed. Where as if Ryback kills all the mid carders and up and coming talents then they become worthless in my opinion.

 

The Lesnar comparison is an odd one for me two as I dont see it. Firstly Ryback has already had plenty of TV time as Skip Sheffield so most know who he is, Lesnar came straight in with his gimmick and no undercard forgotten run first. Secondly he is only squashing jobbers right now where as Lesnars first and lowest level feud was with the Hardys, then RVD then the lofty heights of Rock Hogan and Taker. Lesnar did a hell of a lot more in the time frame we have already had Ryback than Ryback has.

[Foale]

I'd like to see an Umaga-type run for Ryback. Mutilate people for months on end until finally getting bested by a top star in a high profile (ideally World title) match. Providing Ryback gets enough offense in that match it could solidify him as a major player.

[LEGIT]

I've no seen him yet, but a quick google search shows he certainly looks the part...

 

 

He's like Goldberg with Blade Runner inspired RVD gear. Looks cool to me.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

You can argue all day over whether it was right for Nash to end the streak when he did, but it had to end sometime

It was probably not the wisest move to end it the week before they sold out the Georgia Dome without Hogan or Flair advertised. In fact, you could probably pick any time in 1999 and it would have been a far better time than ending the streak the week before Goldberg went to the arena he sold out on his own.

 

People seemed to forget how big Goldberg was in 1998. He was on the cover of the TV Guide, he was a regular of Leno, he was getting offered movie roles, Mark McGuire rubbed his bat on him for luck before his record breaking home run, he was on LOVE BOAT. He could have been the saviour of WCW. He was neck and neck with Austin for a while there in 1998. He was the Jewish former American Football player who made it huge on the highest rated show on the Turner Network. You couldnt make that up. But they chopped his legs off. Once Goldberg died off, that was it for WCW. You cant catch lightening in a bottle twice. He was never the same after that.

[Fox Piss]

We all know who is Ryback's Nash.

 

[JohnnyChimpo]

Its the era where everyone loses to everyone else. I cant see him doing the undefeated thing when he starts working with real wrestlers. I remember when Goldberg turned up and Triple H said "unlike WCW, we want everyone to be a star. We cant kill a 100 guys to get him over". I like Ryback and as far as Goldberg rip offs go, he's a very good one. But the difference between Lesnar's debut and his (not the mention Lesnar's background, friends in high places and large downside guarentee in 2002) is massive. Lesnar was groomed to be a huge star. Ryback is just there on Smackdown squashing skinny blokes.

 

Although I freely admit that this is Triple H and therefore his opinion is worth 100 times mine, I do remember thinking at the time that that was a stupid opinion to hold.

 

People paid to see Goldberg destroy people week in week out. Surely they could of given him jobbers / low end / midcard / tag team guys to destroy week after week. Heck, they only really needed to do it for a few months really to get over the fact he was this wrecking ball.

 

Heck if you look here (http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/bios/wwe-alumni-2000s/_2003/) even JUST on the RAW roster I've seen about 35 expendable guys he could mowed down every other week.

 

Ultimately WCW made him into a star who made them a lot of money. WWE dropped the ball massively with him in my opinion. In regards to Goldberg it was WCW 1 - WWE 0.

How would you have booked Goldberg, andrew?

 

Personally, I don

[DegenerateStar]

I don't think WWE will ever give a star the "monster push" again and I blame this purely on Lesnar exiting his contract early to pursue an unsuccessful NFL career in 2005, then turning up in NJPW and subsequently UFC as a bankable star.

 

WWE has tried since Lesnar to find the next monster and they've failed, each and every time. Although Ryback's much better in comparison to the likes of Nathan Jones, Bobby Lashley, Snitskey, et al., they have a completely different mentality for investing in their new stars. And although Ryback seems more than capable in the next couple of years in becoming a dominant force, I can't see them investing in the character immediately while running the risk that the gimmick might not get over, or that it could get over and he'd end up leaving.

 

I do, however, see that their mentality in booking newer talent is gradually beginning to change. They are sourcing better, more established talent and they are bringing them up to the main roster quicker.

 

In terms of Goldberg's success in WCW, I think it was a complete fluke. They could've lumbered him with a horrible gimmick (as they did with so many other capable wrestlers at the time), and he did hate pretty much everythiing about the character he was portraying, but it just worked.

[King Pitcos]

Excellent post from Chimpo there.