The Official UKFF RAW Thread...

[air_raid]

3 minutes ago, Kfogg1991 said:

Do you know what dude honestly, as a face roman is laughable and really reminds me of John cena when he walked into one night stand against rvd.

Except that was the reaction that they were expecting and wanted to Cena at One Night Stand.

[Yakashi]

The trouble with turning Roman heel is that the fans will pop like crazy and then start cheering him every week if he’s actually a good heel. 99% of the time, fans make it impossible for there to be a good heel and face dynamic in the big matches. They even cheer the fucking Miz. Joe is a tremendous heel but can’t get the right reaction. Nakamura has been great but he doesn’t get heel responses. 

We would be counting on the fact that everything would be fixed if he went heel and then went back babyface and it would all work out. I’m not convinced. The fans in the TV arenas are shit.

[BomberPat]

I don't buy the "Roman Reigns is a secret heel"/"Reigns is getting reactions, and that's the main thing" argument. He's not presented as a heel, he's not booked as a heel, he doesn't wrestle as a heel. He's a face that people boo.

The problem, in a lot of ways, is with the nature of the live shows - decent tickets to a WWE show are prohibitively expensive. So people buying tickets to watch WWE TV and PPVs are the people who can afford, or justify, the cost of a ticket - which means it's far more likely to skew towards the "hardcore" than "casual" fan. It's what we see at RAW after Wrestlemania, just on a lesser scale, throughout the year. The reactions of fans at televised shows aren't indicative of the fanbase as a whole - and we don't really see the reaction of a wider fanbase that just tune in to watch the show on TV every week, attend house shows, buy Roman Reigns merch, and so on, because they're not as vocal and they don't have a platform.

Still doesn't help the fact that their top babyface is getting loudly and publicly booed, mind.

The thing with turning Reigns heel is that they're left with exactly the same problems as if they had turned Cena heel - who works against him? You don't turn your top babyface heel unless you have a hotter babyface ready to take their spot, otherwise you end up with the same problems they had with heel Austin having to work programmes with guys who weren't drawing money. It's been McMahonism 101 forever to build the product around one top babyface, and it's very rare they break from that model - the problems almost always present themselves in the transition period from one face to or another, or when one face takes a step back (through injury, other projects, or whatever) and someone needs to fill their boots. There's no Rock to Reigns' Austin, no Savage to Hogan, no one waiting in the wings to be the star that Reigns arguably has failed to be - the only possible options are Rollins and Strowman, and I don't know how much evidence there is for either one of them setting the box office on fire, nor do I see there being much, if any, appetite to see them feud with a heel Roman Reigns.

[FourtyTwo]

5 hours ago, BomberPat said:

The thing with turning Reigns heel is that they're left with exactly the same problems as if they had turned Cena heel - who works against him? You don't turn your top babyface heel unless you have a hotter babyface ready to take their spot, otherwise you end up with the same problems they had with heel Austin having to work programmes with guys who weren't drawing money. It's been McMahonism 101 forever to build the product around one top babyface, and it's very rare they break from that model - the problems almost always present themselves in the transition period from one face to or another, or when one face takes a step back (through injury, other projects, or whatever) and someone needs to fill their boots. There's no Rock to Reigns' Austin, no Savage to Hogan, no one waiting in the wings to be the star that Reigns arguably has failed to be - the only possible options are Rollins and Strowman, and I don't know how much evidence there is for either one of them setting the box office on fire, nor do I see there being much, if any, appetite to see them feud with a heel Roman Reigns.

It's not as if Reigns is hot as a face though - he's barely lukewarm at the moment, and even a feud with Jinder Mahal didn't elicit any kind of positive reaction.

 

To me, there are probably ways to get Reigns over as a face, but they would all require a long term booking plan.  Possibly the easiest (and partially proven when they started to move in that direction earlier in the year), is that you could reunite the Shield as a full on group (heel or face), move him back to what made him popular in the first place, and then, when they split again, learn lessons from how they messed it up this time.

 

It's also probably a bit of a vicious circle.  Austin made it as a face in large part due to the fact he had a heel at the same level as him to play off in Vince, and without that top level heel being there (and being presented right), it's hard to build up a face that people want to see win.  Even Bryan had it back when he got his run at the top, playing off HHH etc "keeping him down".  What has Reigns actually been presented with?  A tug of war over a belt that made him and Lesnar look equally pathetic, and in Lesnar overall a part timer that has a promo man do the majority of the pre-match work for him.

[BomberPat]

I think the wider problem is that WWE have booked themselves as the heels for so long. First it was Vince McMahon, but we've had the better part of two decades of evil bosses, and during that time, had guys like Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, even "shoot" promos from the likes of Joey Styles, where the most babyface thing you can do is not be what WWE want.

When guys like Bryan and Punk get over by standing up to what WWE expect from their talent, and the narrative encourages the viewer to side with them on it, and when, in Bryan's case, the fans siding with him change WWE's plans, why would the audience ever again choose to get behind someone as obviously hand-picked for success as Roman Reigns?

Unless something fundamentally changes in how WWE is booked, or the fans are sufficiently re-educated over a prolonged period of time, there's always going to be a vocal portion of the audience that refuses to get behind whoever WWE is telling them to.

[Yakashi]

25 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I think the wider problem is that WWE have booked themselves as the heels for so long. First it was Vince McMahon, but we've had the better part of two decades of evil bosses, and during that time, had guys like Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, even "shoot" promos from the likes of Joey Styles, where the most babyface thing you can do is not be what WWE want.

When guys like Bryan and Punk get over by standing up to what WWE expect from their talent, and the narrative encourages the viewer to side with them on it, and when, in Bryan's case, the fans siding with him change WWE's plans, why would the audience ever again choose to get behind someone as obviously hand-picked for success as Roman Reigns?

Unless something fundamentally changes in how WWE is booked, or the fans are sufficiently re-educated over a prolonged period of time, there's always going to be a vocal portion of the audience that refuses to get behind whoever WWE is telling them to.

You say the audience gets behind these people, but if you read Bryan’s book, business absolutely tanked with him on top. The trouble has always been that they eventually push the moves and flips guys that the TV fans want, then business tanks because the majority of fans don’t actually want to pay anything to see them, so they go back to Cena (and business goes back up a bit) and have the “we were right all along” self fulfilling prophecy scenario. 

Its actually the perfect time now (because nothing matters anymore after the mental TV rights money) to start trying some new guys though. Give Rusev a go. Try Balor. Bring up Adam Coles group and make a genuine killer heel faction like the shield. I don’t think anything will make a difference. But they can try. 

[HarmonicGenerator]

2 hours ago, FourtyTwo said:

To me, there are probably ways to get Reigns over as a face, but they would all require a long term booking plan.  Possibly the easiest (and partially proven when they started to move in that direction earlier in the year), is that you could reunite the Shield as a full on group (heel or face), move him back to what made him popular in the first place, and then, when they split again, learn lessons from how they messed it up this time.

For years, all I wanted was a Shield reunion. It was such a disappointment when it happened, albeit due to injuries and factors out of their control, I’d really rather not have them try again. Not for a good long while. And certainly not with the end game of rehabilitating Roman. If all three would benefit from it, and they have some decent enemies to go against instead of “oh shit, quick, put Miz and the Bar together, er, who else we got, ah New Day”, then maybe. But in the short term I’d prefer they give Seth another go on top. It might work with him this time!

[The King of Old School]

Maybe this thing with Brock refusing to fight anyone because everybody is beneath him is leading to a one on one match with Braun at Summerslam? After all, the MITB is a guaranteed contract that Brock can't get out of surely?

I'm giving them too much credit aren't I? Of course Roman will still end up getting the match.

Reigns/Lashley though, I like that Lashley got to say what everyone is thinking, but unfortunately it's still Lashley and nobody cares.

[tiger_rick]

I haven't seen it, not even the highlights but i read a review and it seems they had Reigns pretend Lashley left the first time to persue MMA and was a failure. Isn't his record actually decent? Why not use that as a selling point for the guy is he's won like 15(?) legit fights? Just find this company utterly baffling.

[D@mm]

I think it will end up being Lesnar Vs Strowman Vs Reigns Vs Lashley at Summerslam.

[FourtyTwo]

42 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

I haven't seen it, not even the highlights but i read a review and it seems they had Reigns pretend Lashley left the first time to persue MMA and was a failure. Isn't his record actually decent? Why not use that as a selling point for the guy is he's won like 15(?) legit fights? Just find this company utterly baffling.

Better MMA record than Lesnar's 5 - 3 (1 NC), albeit that doesn't say anything for the differing quality of their various opponents.

[Bukamania]

WOW That Lashley/Roman segment was pretty good. Good stuff especially from Lashley.

[Supremo]

The Roman/Lashley promo was absolute garbage. Two babyfaces scripted to come across like a pair of bitchy dickheads. Tonally, I don't think they've ever been worse at writing for supposed good guys. Getting snide, pseudo-shooty pot shots at each other doesn't make me root for either one of them. It also doesn't help that Roman has the saddest, most defeated looking face these days, whereas Lashley has those weird, dead eyes and creepy, awkward manner of speaking as if his mouth is working independently to the rest of his body. It's the same problem with Sasha and Bayley. I've honestly no clue who I'm supposed to be rooting for. This main roster is a complete mess.

[ColinBollocks]

1 hour ago, tiger_rick said:

I haven't seen it, not even the highlights but i read a review and it seems they had Reigns pretend Lashley left the first time to persue MMA and was a failure. Isn't his record actually decent? Why not use that as a selling point for the guy is he's won like 15(?) legit fights? Just find this company utterly baffling.

Completely agree with this. My initial thought was the exact same. Aye, no doubt Lashley's record is shady, with him fighting anywhere and anyone that's a bit loose with their drug testing, but a casual fan will look at his wiki and see he's not lost a real fight in over 6 years, which they should totally do something with.

Of course, not that it really matters because Lashley just isn't very entertaining. A big reason his MMA career could never gain any traction was because he's a bit boring.

[boytoy]

21 hours ago, Yakashi said:

If you read Bryan’s book, business absolutely tanked with him on top. 

Not going to read the book but interested in what he refers to here. It's a bit odd given that Bryan only won the title at WM30 and then made one or two defenses against Kane before getting injured making his period as the top guy a few months? Even if you take Bryan's run from the start of that year before the Rumble business couldn't have tanked as it was WM season. Is this in reference to one of his earlier title runs? It would be a stretch to argue that he was on top during this period, certainly nothing compared to the momentum he would have a few years later.