Random thoughts thread v2 *NO NEWS ITEMS*

[CavemanLynn]

Once the Wyatt gimmick dies, what do you do with someone with his physique and look?

 

He wouldn't still get ring time if a higher-up didn't think he was good - they have NXT for that.

Of course he would. WWE has been built on putting people on TV because of peoples appearance. Do you think Adrian Neville or Sami Zayn need any type of seasoning in developmental?

 

Yes, they do. They worked the indie style for years, they can physically do more, so the need for retraining and fine tuning of timing is more important. They're solo acts too, so they need that extra time to solidify their characters before coming under the main-show microscope. Harper has always had a simpler brawling style and a standout look, so he fits more easily with the WWE style. In the Wyatts, he's the 'big brother' directing Rowan. Given time, he'll talk more. Separated from the Wyatt family down the line, he'll probably adopt the trucker gimmick he worked on the indies. He'll be a solid mid card heel with an over catchphrase ("yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah"). Neville and Zayn will have main-roster success, but more is and will be expected of them.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

That wasn't the point I was making, though. Harper gets ring time because his look fits the gimmick. Not because he's talented in the ring. Like Dutch. He's in WWE because his face fit the act they wanted. Not because he's great at what he does (even though he is great at what he does). A lot of times you are put into a position because of convenience, which is obviously the case here. Nobody is under any illusions of what Harper is. He's a raw act. He has good matches with good wrestlers. But he's far from seasoned, and without this gimmick which Bray Wyatt created none of the would be on the current roster. I dont see how you can even argue that. And my point stands with Knox and Gallows. They were better than Harper and had far more upside than him. But they were dumped after they ran out of ideas for them. Gallows especially impressed more than Harper or Rowan ever did. He had a match with the Undertaker which was excellent on Smackdown. Its easy to lose interest in big blokes with beards. There's just no way he's having a trucker gimmick in WWE in the current climate. Thats not the formula. Not with the amount of talent they have in developmental.

Edited November 24, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay

[CavemanLynn]

Neither Knox nor Gallows emerged fully formed. Both required years of main roster time to develop, and they got given the gimmicks to help that development. And when there was no room for them, yes, they were fired. Today, I believe they'd be sent to the Performance Centre and NXT when there was nothing for them, because today that secondary tier is much better established. Harper is a different beast, in that he plays the wide-eyed zombie rather than the sadistic monster. As a character, that makes him scarier to me than a Knox or Gallows, and knowing that he is capable of other things due to his years working on the indies, I believe Harper will fulfil his role well in various forms for a fair few years.

 

I'd rather have a guy who looks and works the gimmick, than another 'WWE Superstar', if that makes sense. I like that he doesn't do a lot. I like the gimmick and I like the style.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

He plays a wide eyed zombie when they need a wide eyed zombie. Just like Gallows played a spastic when they needed one. Gallows was a kid in his early 20s with size and movement when he debuted. Yet they sacked him when he was 27. To me that just sends out the wrong message to someone who would have walked over glass to be a superstar wrestler.

 

I feel like I'm wishing Luke Harper into an early grave here. I'm not. I'm just saying right now, I dont think he's up to much. But as I've said they are putting him in there with some cracking workers and are at least rolling the dice with him and I hope he does great. But I'm looking at Harper realistically. He's 34 and is a gimmick worker. This screams one and done to me. I just cant see him lasting, due to his ag and what they generally look for in a wrestler these days. He's been working since 2001. He's been around forever. The Wyatt gimmick should be around for while now. Once this is finished, he's not going to have the tenure that a Gallows or Knox would have had.

Edited November 24, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay

[King Pitcos]

Austin's right in many cases, though I think he needs to accept a couple of things.

 

-- He believes the quality of matches has gone down, when actually over the last few years or so the in-ring action has measurably improved, especially in 2013. I agree that certain guys need to express their own individuality more, but by and large the actual matches are much better crafted and much more enjoyable to watch.

Arguable. A twenty-minute Cesaro vs Kofi match might have more (and crisper) moves than a two-minute Gangrel vs Godfather match, but it's far more likely to make me skip ahead on VLC player. And I love Kofi Kingston. The wrestling this year, as good as it is in some ways, has given me a proper aversion to watching matches in full. I like the Shield and Usos as well, but if I see either team come out for a match, I just think "oh, fucksake." And if both teams make an entrance for the same match, I just skip half an hour ahead to the finish. They're too long for the characters and issues involved.

 

If the matches were really better nowadays, the wrestlers would be more over than they are.

[Wittie]

At least it's one good thing about Bryan being so over exposed.

[King Pitcos]

I like Harper as well. He's good enough to have a decent match with someone really good, and more importantly, his stuff is different from everyone else's. I'll take a gimmick worker over ten generic superstars these days, even if they end up being short-lived. Boogeyman, Santino, Harper, Harper's shit mate, Viscera, Doink, they should all be on Raw for a minute or two each every week instead of giving Jack Swagger ten to fifteen.

[Fatty Facesitter]

Austin's right in many cases, though I think he needs to accept a couple of things.

 

-- He believes the quality of matches has gone down, when actually over the last few years or so the in-ring action has measurably improved, especially in 2013. I agree that certain guys need to express their own individuality more, but by and large the actual matches are much better crafted and much more enjoyable to watch.

Arguable. A twenty-minute Cesaro vs Kofi match might have more (and crisper) moves than a two-minute Gangrel vs Godfather match, but it's far more likely to make me skip ahead on VLC player. And I love Kofi Kingston. The wrestling this year, as good as it is in some ways, has given me a proper aversion to watching matches in full. I like the Shield and Usos as well, but if I see either team come out for a match, I just think "oh, fucksake." And if both teams make an entrance for the same match, I just skip half an hour ahead to the finish. They're too long for the characters and issues involved.

 

If the matches were really better nowadays, the wrestlers would be more over than they are.

 

I'm with you on Cesaro and Kofi, but when it comes to the top tier-upper tier commodities like Cena, Punk, Bryan and Ziggler for instance, it's noticeably more enjoyable. At least to me, but it's horses for courses.

 

Guess it comes down to personal preference in terms of the mechanics of the actual match. Regarding your last line on the point, that's where I think the individuality needs to come out more. Once you've cracked that, i.e giving each character more of their own traits and individual quirks as Butternut Squash pointed out, then you've got an opportunity to build on what's already a solid base in terms of the in-ring stuff they are putting out.

[garynysmon]

-- I know he dislikes the Hollywood aspect, but I think it's an absolute necessity. They don't always get it right in creative, but it's something you should absolutely strive for if you want to try and rub shoulders with the Hollywood types. It's what makes WWE the WWE and not some bog-standard promotion running out of a tiny building. It's about glitz, glamour and doing stuff with a flourish and a polish which lets you know "this is proper wrestling" and this is where the big boys play (no pun intended).

 

But let's look back at the late 80's, for argument's sake. The product back then gave the impression of being "proper wrestling" and 'where the big boys play' but still didn't come across as anywhere near as stage managed as it does today. There's a way of doing it without being quite so polished and having everyone tow the party line of both heels and faces wearing cancer pink ribbons (a noble a cause as that is).

 

No matter how hard the WWE tries, it won't be Hollywood.

Edited November 24, 2013 by garynysmon

[Wittie]

The Hollywood 'connection' is purely because Vince wants to be seen as being in "show business" and not in the rasslin' business, even though he is. He longs for bigger things and yet he's never had any such success in these ventures.

[Sphinx]

I like Harper as well. He's good enough to have a decent match with someone really good, and more importantly, his stuff is different from everyone else's. I'll take a gimmick worker over ten generic superstars these days, even if they end up being short-lived. Boogeyman, Santino, Harper, Harper's shit mate, Viscera, Doink, they should all be on Raw for a minute or two each every week instead of giving Jack Swagger ten to fifteen.

 

I'm with you on that, definitely. They're technically good matches but I'm desensitised to them. There's not enough variety on the shows.

[Wittie]

Variety is the spice of life, WWE seem to think formula is the key, sadly.

[CavemanLynn]

I like Harper as well. He's good enough to have a decent match with someone really good, and more importantly, his stuff is different from everyone else's. I'll take a gimmick worker over ten generic superstars these days, even if they end up being short-lived. Boogeyman, Santino, Harper, Harper's shit mate, Viscera, Doink, they should all be on Raw for a minute or two each every week instead of giving Jack Swagger ten to fifteen.

 

I'm with you on that, definitely. They're technically good matches but I'm desensitised to them. There's not enough variety on the shows.

 

Definitely. Rattle them off. Especially at Smackdown tapings, when there's enough dead time for them to send out mini-Mantaur and Hornswoggle for a Model Village Streetfight.

[Wittie]

Hey, mini-Mantaur is epic.

[fraserbee]

Variety is the spice of life, WWE seem to think formula is the key, sadly.

I think this is the key, and is what Austin dislikes about today's product. Yes, there have been some excellent matches on TV over the last few years, but they do feel (to me at least) to lack a raw, spontaneous, and real feel. I know wrestling isn't real, but I want to watch it and forget. I would like to believe that two guys didn't like each other and were both trying everything the can do to win, rather than working together to put on the best match possible. To me, it's not meant to look slick.