Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 Reigns may still go on to be a big star, but WWE can do so much better with him. He shouldn't be getting booed out the building - it was only last year where fans were cheering him on to win it. That doesn't mean anything. They cheered him last year because he wasn't Batista and wasn't going to win. The same types were cheering Rusev this year because he wasn't Roman Reigns and wasn't going to win. That sort are going to give the "I'm not going to like who you tell me to like! I'm going to my room!" reaction near enough every time. WWE can only push three kinds of babyface without them getting upset: 1) Ones who come from the indies, 2) Ones who have been "buried" by Cena/Vince/HHH, and 3) Ones who come from the indies and have been "buried." Nah, you've forgotten that if they'd just make him a heel and let these people feel like they turned him babyface (again presumably) then everything will be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 why the fuck are Kane and Big Show, in 2015, eliminating the likes of Wyatt, one of the most promising young guys in years. Why are they anywhere near the top of the card these days? Because, with a thin top roster, WWE thinks attitude era stars Big Show and Kane are super-effective. It's basically the same psychological mistake as your booking -- the idea (assuming they weren't just trolling) was to get the heels hot to make the babyface comeback hotter. Kane and Show are already allies, so it made sense that they'd be the two teaming up to dominate. It's traditional booking in front of a crowd and social media audience who didn't want it. The reason for Bryan going out at the halfway mark was either "lol cry nerds" or it was because they thought the stinging ringpieces caused by his elimination would have died down by the end, and people would be well into seeing the hero overcome Kane and Big Show by then. The former makes more sense, because the latter requires them to not have paid any attention to anything ever. Wyatt in particular wasn't hurt by the Rumble match, though. I'd say it raised his stock after he's done little of note for months. Apart from the nostalgia surprises, Bray was pretty much the only one in there who had a strong, memorable showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam South Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I just wonder if the cheers for Reigns at last year's Rumble were as much a by-product of the fans in attendance so vociferously not wanting Batista to win, as much as it was them wanting Reigns to win. RR was just the lesser of two evils. Let's face it, it's only because Daniel Bryan wasn't in the match that they were behind Roman (Edit- Instead). To my mind at least, this proves Bryan is still more over- largely due to the fact that RR is a bit one-dimensional. Heck I reckon even Dean Ambrose would've been a more popular choice to win. Or Bray Wyatt, given his showing. I realise neither of these would've been likely, but there was an easy out for the WWE in this one: Granted, it would be a retread but, especially given how much they've mentioned it recently, they could have redone the Luger/Hart finish with Bryan and Reigns, having had them clear the ring of Kane and Big Show, keeping the Authority involved. Number one contender then decided at the next PPV, or they could go the whole hog and have the three matches as per WMX. Or is that too obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 And your argument of Bryan (and I'm assuming you're applying this logic as to why Punk was over too) only being over cause they're from the indies is bullshit. They were both on the roster for years before they became top guys. And when Bryan comes out and does his Yes chant the full place goes wild, kids, women, the lot, not just the sweaties in their nWo t-shirts. There's also a load of guys over on the roster that have come through the WWE system, Wyatt, Ambrose, Rollins, Rusev, Ziggler. Amongst the people I know who still watch wrestling Bryan is generally the favourite and I doubt anyone of them have even heard of ROH let alone the American Dragon. If these arenas full of people that are turning up to boo Reigns are all indie-geeks then why aren't the indies raking it in from these tens of thousands of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Going by last night, Brock Lesnar? That's true -- well, kind of. He's technically still the cool heel, isn't he? I've realised what the simple common factor is with him and the usual darling types, though... There's a type of fan that can only like a babyface if they can convince themselves that doing so is being anti-WWE. Lesnar has that from the fucking off and the lawsuits and the UFC. Ziggler has it from being "buried." Most of them have it from working the indies. Essentially, Roman Reigns needs something about him that fifteen year olds can convince themselves means they're saying "fuck you, Vince" by cheering him and buying his merchandise. Or he doesn't, if he can draw Cena-level money from other demographics. That's a massive if, though. tiger_rick's right that the loophole to get around it is the Rock/early Cena type deal, where they might accept a babyface outside of that criteria if it was a heel who they "forced" WWE to turn face. Has anyone since Batista/Cena made it to the main event as a babyface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 Hard to complain about Reigns's push when he's already getting them that sweet, sweet mainstream pub: http://time.com/3682093/cancel-wwe-network-royal-rumble/?utm_source=newselk&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Steak Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Has anyone since Batista/Cena made it to the main event as a babyface? I've been saying this all along. It's much simpler to propel somebody into the main event as a heel and then turn them (or let the fans think they're turning them). What about Daniel Bryan? I can't remember if he was heel or face when he stepped up to the top level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grecian Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Going by last night, Brock Lesnar? That's true -- well, kind of. He's technically still the cool heel, isn't he? I've realised what the simple common factor is with him and the usual darling types, though... There's a type of fan that can only like a babyface if they can convince themselves that doing so is being anti-WWE. Lesnar has that from the fucking off and the lawsuits and the UFC. Ziggler has it from being "buried." Most of them have it from working the indies. Essentially, Roman Reigns needs something about him that fifteen year olds can convince themselves means they're saying "fuck you, Vince" by cheering him and buying his merchandise. Or he doesn't, if he can draw Cena-level money from other demographics. That's a massive if, though. tiger_rick's right that the loophole to get around it is the Rock/early Cena type deal, where they might accept a babyface outside of that criteria if it was a heel who they "forced" WWE to turn face. Has anyone since Batista/Cena made it to the main event as a babyface? Jeff Hardy is the only one I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 Has anyone since Batista/Cena made it to the main event as a babyface? I've been saying this all along. It's much simpler to propel somebody into the main event as a heel and then turn them (or let the fans think they're turning them). What about Daniel Bryan? I can't remember if he was heel or face when he stepped up to the top level. Hard to tell with Bryan. I'd say he was a face when he finally cracked it but he'd had a heel run with the title before that. Though opening WM and losing in seconds isn't main event. Edit: Jeff Hardy is a good shout, Grecian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 And your argument of Bryan (and I'm assuming you're applying this logic as to why Punk was over too) only being over cause they're from the indies is bullshit. They were both on the roster for years before they became top guys. Yes, but the people crying about Cena and Reigns on Twitter would have had the likes of Bryan and Punk main-eventing WrestleMania in iron man matches against Shelton Benjamin the first year they were there. It took those wrestlers a few years to catch on enough with the wider audience (for Bryan, it very specifically took him happening upon a catchphrase), and even then, it was sporadic. They're the kind of wrestler that gets very popular with the people who are already buying tickets year-in year-out, but seldom draw new fans. They're for the "I hate WWE now" audience. In a fun twist of his fanbase's opinion of Cena, the only thing Punk was ever much cop at was merchandise sales. He meant little or nothing as far as ratings, PPV, tickets. When Punk left, Bryan in the #2 spot got nowhere near him for merch. In regards to your question about why indie feds aren't drawing better from that type of fan, the reality is that a good portion of those fans would rather spend money to hate WWE on camera than spend money to like an indie fed in the local sports hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Show and Kane casually strolling over to the ropes to be eliminated was the highlight of the Rumble for me. The Rumble was complete rubbish and deserved to be shit on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 Part of the problem just now is that there's a lack of big name credible heels for them to go against. Lesnar wrestles about 4 matches a year, Triple H is half that, Rollins is undoubtedly a star in the making but not big enough himself to make anyone else, Orton will be back as a face and his last heel run was his stalest yet. I thought Batista had signed a couple year contract but that's been a hefty amount of it he's gone already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Hit wrong button. IGNORE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted January 26, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 26, 2015 All this talk about the cunty Philly crowd being at fault here is way off base. Reigns has been getting lukewarm reactions everywhere since he came back from injury because he's been telling fairytales and feuding with Big Show. That reaction was always going to happen and the cynical ploy to have Rocky endorse him at the end just made it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Steak Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 What now, though? Do you keep Reigns face and build him to go clean over Lesnar at Wrestlemania? Or do you add Rollins to the match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.