Ryback shoots!

[tiger_rick]

One of the things that really pissed me off about Punk burying Ryback on that podcast was he said that they did a spot where Ryback was supposed to gorilla press him through a table and that Ryback missed the table and Punk landed on the concrete floor. Except that if you actually watch a clip of it, Punk lands on the fucking table! It's a ridiculous spot that Punk as banged up as he was at the time shouldn't have even taken.

He only catches the edge of the table. I can see why he's been hurt by it. Agree he shouldn't have been taking it if he was already struggling.

 

I'm a fan of Ryback. Always anjoyed big bastards throwing people around. He's a throwback. He's never had the intensity or believability of Goldberg but he did have some of the qualities that attracted me to Big Bad Bill.

 

He's quite a polorising figure obviously and I think the people suggesting he's shit are fucking spanners but he's not great either. Somewhere in the middle for me.

 

He's had a couple of really fun runs where, unfortunately, they've fallen short of going with him. The Punk thing was poor timing given the long term plan but they rushed the big guy into it. They should have kept him on a path of destruction away from Punk. even after that though, instead of rebuilding him, they just gave up and ruined all of their progress. I can't for the life of me understand their thinking on that one. It still baffles me now.

[Undefeated Steak]

Ryback sums up WWE for me. I've never been sold much on him onscreen but away from the company he's the coolest man going. He looked like a boss in that picture of him wearing the black trunks.

 

While he doesn't have the intensity of Goldberg, as Rick mentioned, he's talented enough to be a character with a lot more depth.

[Nick Soapdish]

I think people are missing the point here some what. It doesnt matter if you are pro or anti Ryback before, or after his "shoot". His whole angle here is he doesnt understand why he should be paid less to win or lose. In simple terms, you get £500 to lose a match or £1000 to win on a result that SOMEONE ELSE DECIDES!

 

His view is he should be paid for the work done, not the result. If you get a plumber in to do a job and he charges £50 an hour. You dont pay him £25 an hour because his work wasn't as good as someone elses. You go to do a job, you do it, you get paid.

 

I can't say I am a massive Ryback fan, however I fully respect him, while under contract, to say what he had to say

[UK Kat Von D]

The problem with the cell match with Punk wasn't just the result but the content as well. Punk gave him so little. And the story seemed to be about how stupid Ryback was. That whole thing will always be shite. And considering how outspoken Punk is, and how much leverage he's had over the years, it's obvious that Punk was fine cutting Ryback's legs off and killing a star before he had the chance to run.

 

That said I'm not sure Ryback as the big blue eyes works with the current audience.

I remember Punk giving him plenty and bumping around for him. The smaller guy should always outsmart the bigger guy, that's what will make it a fairer match. Plus Punk was the veteran while Ryback was early into his first proper run so it makes sense.

 

The match being cut short just as it was really getting going though frustrating. They should have had longer with way more serious shenanigans.

 

A strong showing at the rumble eliminating a fuck load of people would have helped rebuild him. So would beating Henry at Mania. Infact anything would have been better than the finish at Mania. I think he should also have helped Rock win the title. The Shield were banned from ringside, which was stupid. Couldn't Rocky have enlisted Ryback to even the playing field and keep them away from the ring?

[Ambulance Chaser]

Comes across as a right cry arse to me.

[MungoChutney]

In fairness it's not quite as simple as that.  You don't get paid more according to if you win or lose you get paid according to how WWE perceive you as a draw.  For example, Cena dropping the belt to Bryan at SummerSlam; I very much doubt Bryan's take home was more than Cena's.  It's a massively flawed system of course and it would never stand up in the UK, but that's for another thread altogether.

[Yakashi]

I think people are missing the point here some what. It doesnt matter if you are pro or anti Ryback before, or after his "shoot". His whole angle here is he doesnt understand why he should be paid less to win or lose. In simple terms, you get £500 to lose a match or £1000 to win on a result that SOMEONE ELSE DECIDES!

 

His view is he should be paid for the work done, not the result. If you get a plumber in to do a job and he charges £50 an hour. You dont pay him £25 an hour because his work wasn't as good as someone elses. You go to do a job, you do it, you get paid.

 

I can't say I am a massive Ryback fan, however I fully respect him, while under contract, to say what he had to say

That's not what he's really saying though is it, because people don't get paid based on winning or losing. He's saying that the stars get paid more than the midcarders but everyone should be paid the same with the difference being made up by Merch numbers. He lost at Mania but I'd place money on the fact he gets paid more than Kalisto does. To me, he's just bitter. To imply that Adam Rose should get the same downside as John Cena is mental. I'd take him a bit more seriously if he'd done more than make a marginal difference to one buy rate (though I agree with all here that they fucked him) but, as someone who hasn't really achieved anything in six years, it's hard to take his idea seriously.

[MVP RULZ]

Its not as simple though as just paying everyone the same from top to bottom of the card

 

There is a reason why the headliners are the top billing and the jobbers are getting Curtaon Jerk duty its not as random as Ryback makes it sound in that interview

 

Why shouldn't a Cena for instance get paid more then Darren Young, Not one person is going to a show and paying money to watch Darren Young, he isn't bringing in the revenue whereas Cena is the reason half of the audience is at the show and people have actively come to see him perform, pre determined outcome or not. 

[tiger_rick]

In fairness it's not quite as simple as that.  You don't get paid more according to if you win or lose you get paid according to how WWE perceive you as a draw.  For example, Cena dropping the belt to Bryan at SummerSlam; I very much doubt Bryan's take home was more than Cena's.  It's a massively flawed system of course and it would never stand up in the UK, but that's for another thread altogether.

Why wouldn't it stand up in the UK? Is everyone on a TV show paid the same? Is everyone in a football team paid the same? Obviously not.

 

I think Ryback makes some good points about the company's perception of you affecting your ability to earn money doing the same job as some other people. If you throw in the WWE Network and the lack of PPV, they clearly need to update their pay to have a higher downside and incentives that fit the current model. However, they'll always pay the stars more and they should. In fact, given the opportunties to earn money elsewhere once you're a star, they have to.

[MungoChutney]

I don't think it would stand up because in any leaked contracts I've seen there's never a very clear definition of how they'll work out how much you get paid. Can you imagine Jonathan Ross agreeing to let the head of programming just come up with a figure depending on how he feels about Ross at that particular time? It comes back to the whole independent contractor thing that if properly challenged appears to have loads of holes in it. I've never heard of anything like it within entertainment over here. Or sport for that matter.

[tiger_rick]

I don't think it would stand up because in any leaked contracts I've seen there's never a very clear definition of how they'll work out how much you get paid. Can you imagine Jonathan Ross agreeing to let the head of programming just come up with a figure depending on how he feels about Ross at that particular time? It comes back to the whole independent contractor thing that if properly challenged appears to have loads of holes in it. I've never heard of anything like it within entertainment over here. Or sport for that matter.

Traditionally, they've had a downside guarantee and they pay bonuses for merch sales, shows worked and PPV revenue. Plus royalties. The position on the card affects your ability to maximise those bonuses but they're written incentives, it's not just made up.

[Carbomb]

A big part of the problem is also WWE management being very arbitrary about whom they push, in accordance with or in complete defiance of the reactions wrestlers get (and before anyone says "it's about money, not reactions", the latter is considered an established indicator that you can expect the former). Looking at Ryback's run, the reactions he was getting should have made him a prime candidate for a push, but management had a plan they were just not going to change.

 

Thing is, in most other industries, because the results of someone's work can be quantified and assessed, it would be difficult for management to overlook or keep down a worker who was demonstrably doing well; they could even find themselves on the end of legal action from said worker. However, because reactions aren't quantifiable, and, just as importantly, it's near-impossible to quantify the extra numbers of tickets/PPV buys a wrestler draws without extensive market research that WWE just wouldn't be prepared to do, the only real indicator of popularity and therefore how well a wrestler is doing is merch sales. Also, the nature of wrestling is such that it's difficult for a wrestler, after years of doing jobber/midcarder duty, to act as a worker in a regular industry and say: "OK, now give me a chance to prove myself, and see how I'll do" as most reps are established in the first year or two, barring the odd exception.

 

EDIT: After looking over all this rambling I guess the best way to say it is that Ryback's got nothing he can point to to say "hey, I was doing well", and have management listen to him; also, he's got no way to hold them to their own purported standards and get them to push him.

[MungoChutney]

 

I don't think it would stand up because in any leaked contracts I've seen there's never a very clear definition of how they'll work out how much you get paid. Can you imagine Jonathan Ross agreeing to let the head of programming just come up with a figure depending on how he feels about Ross at that particular time? It comes back to the whole independent contractor thing that if properly challenged appears to have loads of holes in it. I've never heard of anything like it within entertainment over here. Or sport for that matter.

Traditionally, they've had a downside guarantee and they pay bonuses for merch sales, shows worked and PPV revenue. Plus royalties. The position on the card affects your ability to maximise those bonuses but they're written incentives, it's not just made up.

 

 

I understand most of that but does it really come down to actual position on the card?  I always thought it was more down to how much influence Vince felt a performer had on the buy rate or draw - thus placing a lot of weight on how Vince perceives you.  Even with that, I still don't think it can be simplified as winner earns more than loser, which is how Ryback's piece comes across.  On the whole I do agree with him but I think it's a wider issue than is actually being discussed.

[tiger_rick]

A big part of the problem is also WWE management being very arbitrary about whom they push, in accordance with or in complete defiance of the reactions wrestlers get (and before anyone says "it's about money, not reactions", the latter is considered an established indicator that you can expect the former). Looking at Ryback's run, the reactions he was getting should have made him a prime candidate for a push, but management had a plan they were just not going to change.

The alternative view is that they do listen but they see the reactions of 300 shows a year and we only see the third that are televised. I've no interest in making this about smart fans but from all reports there's clearly a difference in the types of audience that attend non-televised shows. Sometimes I'm sure there'll be guys who the smarter crowds for Raw & PPV cheer for but the rest of the audience doesn't care for. The opposite happens with Roman Reigns from all accounts and probably has for years with Cena. You don't know what you don't know. They do know so they have to trust their judgement.

 

Merch will always be a good indicator. As long as everyone has shit on the amrket, as Ian would say.

[Briefcase]

Got a lot of time for Ryback. My misses is a big fan (she will be devastated to hear this if he goes lol) and he spent a few good minutes talking to her at Axxess on Mania weekend when usually you only get seconds with the Superstars. 

 

I know that doesn't mean anything as far as his in-ring performances or shoot goes but he seemed a naturally good guy so that's good enough for me.