Sphinx Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was talking to a mate the other day about Punk vs. Taker. We both said that you'd know 100% that Taker was winning with no doubt in your mind. Punk will seem like a step down and for me, despite Taker only working with the elite, it won't do Punk many favours as he'll be the weak link after the matches from the past four years. I think either Taker vs. Brock this year or Taker to have a year off and then have Taker vs. Cena with him retiring at 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Murtz Posted October 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 Punk Rock has got to still be on the cards, especially after the picture Rock put on his twitter with him working out wearing a CM Punk top. Â I really hope this doesn't go down the line of Goldberg at Summerslam 2003, where it would have been perfect for him to win the title but they decided to give us another twist. Then, when he did end up winning the title, it was at a forgetful Unforgiven PPV a month later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 In all fairness it is a Hell In A Cell. Ryback could lose and still be over if they played it right. If Punk was to do something like handcuff Ryback to the cage and belt him in the head for ten minutes with a lead pipe then Punk could win while still keeping Ryback hot. Â I think people are placing too much worth on his undefeated streak. Thats not why he is over, a lot of new guys get small streaks when they debut and it doesn't make a difference. Just look at guys like Brodus Clay. He went undefeated for a while and no one actually cared about that. People care about the wrestler and the gimmick. Ryback's is that he is a brutal monster who could rip your head off and beat multiple people by himself. If he can still do that, he will be over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 You are absolutely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Edit: Must try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You are absolutely wrong. Â If thats directed at me then would you explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ryback's undefeatedness is his entire gimmick. He comes out, gets fed, murders people two on one, or three on one and leaves. The entirity of his act is "who can stop this man" right now. Brodus isn't the same at all, because his act was about the entrance the fun. Ryback is about how he keeps destroying everyone. He has an aura because of that. The second he loses (and getting pummelled to death by Punk is just really, really bad, because it leaves the image of the man broken.) Ryback's a terminator. Being an unstoppable monster only matters if you're, you know, unstoppable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think people are placing too much worth on his undefeated streak. Thats not why he is over, a lot of new guys get small streaks when they debut and it doesn't make a difference. Just look at guys like Brodus Clay. He went undefeated for a while and no one actually cared about that. People care about the wrestler and the gimmick. Ryback's is that he is a brutal monster who could rip your head off and beat multiple people by himself. If he can still do that, he will be over  The fans believe in Undertaker's undefeated streak because it's been rammed down their throats for the last ten years. No-one cared about Brodus Clay's undefeated streak because the focus was more on his dance routine at the start of his matches more than his streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was saying that the streak doesn't make the man, the man makes the streak. (Yes I know I stole that line but its true.) What about Crimson in TNA? It didn't work for him because he is shit, it works for Ryback because people want to get behind him. He is good at his role. Just like the Undertaker and Goldberg pulled off their roles well. Â And I wasn't saying punk should batter him, but cheat in an over the top way. Â Its defiantly better than some convoluted rematch and confusing story line. If Punk pulls out every trick in the book and throws the kitchen sink at him, it won't be the end of Ryback. A strong angle on Raw the next night would put it all better while Punk picks up a load of heat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 Just because Crimson was terrible doesn't make your point. People are still behind Ryback because of the streak. It's the entirety of his momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 22, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 What about Crimson in TNA? It didn't work for him because he is shit, it works for Ryback because people want to get behind him. You just contradicted your own point and strengthened the argument against yours. Crimson is far, far, far better than Ryback in the ring. That isn't even an argument. Crimson is capable have having half decent to OK matches (and has actually had some pretty good matches when in there with the right person). Which Ryback hasn't shown. But Crimson doesn't have the presence of Ryback, he didn't have the road agents planning out the matches like Ryback and, the most important thing, TNA didn't protect him like WWE has Ryback. If WWE doesn't continue to protect Ryback, he will be fucked. He'll be Crimson. So the likes Crimson and Brodus Clay (especially Brodus) are irrelevant to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What about Crimson in TNA? It didn't work for him because he is shit, it works for Ryback because people want to get behind him. You just contradicted your own point and strengthened the argument against yours. Crimson is far, far, far better than Ryback in the ring. That isn't even an argument. Crimson is capable have having half decent to OK matches (and has actually had some pretty good matches when in there with the right person). Which Ryback hasn't shown. But Crimson doesn't have the presence of Ryback, he didn't have the road agents planning out the matches like Ryback and, the most important thing, TNA didn't protect him like WWE has Ryback. If WWE doesn't continue to protect Ryback, he will be fucked. He'll be Crimson. So the likes Crimson and Brodus Clay (especially Brodus) are irrelevant to this discussion. Â No that doesnt prove anything at all. Ryback has a much greater presence and intensity, that is his gimmick. It isn't hanging all on his streak. Samoa Joe has been booked like absolute shit at times over the last few years but he will always be over because he is good at what he does. Â Ryback is the reason fans have invested in him when other people have not gotten that. If they take away the streak (which they will have to at some point before the rumble anyway) and continue to protect him he will be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 22, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 Samoa Joe has been booked like absolute shit at times over the last few years but he will always be over because he is good at what he does. Samoa Joe is perhaps the worst example you could use while trying to justify not protecting someone from their glaring weaknesses. If someone had a crystal ball told me now Ryback's career will turn out like Samoa Joe's, I'd want them to send him straight to developmental now and find a way of avoiding that. Samoa Joe's career fell off a cliff after a run where people thought he was TNA's biggest star. He's TNA's version of Hacksaw Duggan now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Samoa Joe has been booked like absolute shit at times over the last few years but he will always be over because he is good at what he does. Samoa Joe is perhaps the worst example you could use while trying to justify not protecting someone from their glaring weaknesses. If someone had a crystal ball told me now Ryback's career will turn out like Samoa Joe's, I'd want them to send him straight to developmental now and find a way of avoiding that. Samoa Joe's career fell off a cliff after a run where people thought he was TNA's biggest star. He's TNA's version of Hacksaw Duggan now. Â When did I ever say Ryback shouldn't be protected from his weaknesses? I stated that because its a Hell In A Cell matcha a loss will be as protected as they come. Can you not understand how someone could possible lose in a gimmick match like HIAC against a cheating heel and retain momentum? The people love Ryback because of how well he plays his character (because he is good at it.) Â No one ever said Ryback's career would resemble Joe's. While what you said is true it has nothing to do with what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 22, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2012 No one ever said Ryback's career would resemble Joe's. While what you said is true it has nothing to do with what I said You gave the example that Joe remains over because he's good at what he does. How is that relevant to any of this discussion? Ryback is completely different to Samoa Joe. Ryback is a gimmick wrestler. His character is that he is unstoppable. Joe could always have a career as a midcard worker making people look good. Ryback can't. He's an undefeated muscle head. Him losing a match in a Hell in a Cell match is completely against everything to protect a rookie monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.