Random Thoughts III.

[Devon Malcolm]

The problem with Jinder Mahal's run is that he's shit.

If he was actually interesting in the ring or on the mic, then he could have really done something with the zero-to-hero rise. But he's not. He's a total dullard with nothing to offer.

I'm sure he sold a load more merch in India though, so mission accomplished for the 'E.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Devon Malcolm
don't hinder typos

[Weezenal]

44 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

I'm sure he sold a load more merch in India though, so mission accomplished for the 'E.

I think they thought he was a bit rubbish in India too though. 

[Lenin]

8 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

The problem isn't the guy. It's their approach. Their attitude is that the belt will make the guy and it's never really worked. 

It's a very good point and such a basic part of wrestling that it's still surprising that they get it wrong so often.

The way the company is structured with dozens of writers, producers, agents all reporting to Vince is one thing. 

Not making the "hot" guy (Ooo-err) Champ and capitalising on them in this day and age is crazy.

One question - Has the belt made anyone? There's always exceptions to the rule but I cannot think of one that couldn't be argued down.

[LaGoosh]

1 hour ago, Weezenal said:

I think they thought he was a bit rubbish in India too though. 

Yeah I thought because he wasn't born in India and because his family background wasn't part of the main Indian ethnic group (?) or something that the Indian audience had no interest. Unlike Khali who they bloody loved.

[Devon Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Weezenal said:

I think they thought he was a bit rubbish in India too though. 

Not everyone though, which is significant in a country of over a billion people.

[Tommy!]

1 hour ago, Suplex Sinner said:

 

One question - Has the belt made anyone? There's always exceptions to the rule but I cannot think of one that couldn't be argued down.

The man makes the belt every time, and people only become the level to make a belt mean something if they have skill, charisma and good promotion and story behind them. It's often overlooked how important the right person being in the opposite corner is too in my opinion.

[Cannibal Man]

Mad what Jinder did to himself to get that title. Man ended up with actual dogs tits and his head is longer

[King Pitcos]

4 hours ago, Suplex Sinner said:

One question - Has the belt made anyone? There's always exceptions to the rule but I cannot think of one that couldn't be argued down.

JBL for sure. He got three years at or near the top of the card as a singles wrestler, and that’s off the strength of how well he grew into the role of WWE champion.

To a lesser extent, Triple H. As good as he is, in that era, he was not on Rock and Austin’s level. But beating them in title matches put him up there. Like JBL, he didn’t really get into the groove until he’d already been champion for a few months.

I’d even say Daniel Bryan, a little bit. He spent his first couple of years showing little to no personality, and it was only when he won the belt and started sniding to keep it that things really began to click into place for him.

The title alone can’t make someone, but for some wrestlers it absolutely elevates them and plays a huge part in them raising their game. Certain characters really need it to thrive.

[unfitfinlay]

5 hours ago, Suplex Sinner said:

One question - Has the belt made anyone? There's always exceptions to the rule but I cannot think of one that couldn't be argued down.

The first one who comes to mind is The Rock. He's obviously a special talent but he was still firmly in the midcard until just before they put the title on him at Deadly Games. He just wasn't quite on the same level as Undertaker, Kane and Austin.

You could argue, I suppose, that it wasn't just the title that made him a megastar. It was the way the company presented him while he was Champion. Even though he had more help to win the title than anyone else in history, they never really booked him like an undeserving Champion or acted like he didn't deserve the spot. Not like, say, Seth Rollins when he was the Authority's Champion/sulky teenage son.

You could also make an argument for Lesnar too. He was still really green when he first won the title but grew into the role. His Hell In a Cell match with Undertaker was probably the moment that really solidified him as a Main Eventer, even though he was already Champion. Again, though, that's a lot more down to how the company presented him than just them giving him the title alone.

[HarmonicGenerator]

9 hours ago, unfitfinlay said:

You could argue, I suppose, that it wasn't just the title that made him a megastar. It was the way the company presented him while he was Champion.

That’s the key element to me. It doesn’t matter if you have the title if they don’t act like you’re the champion. If you have the belt but are booked like a loser, you’ll come across as a loser, Rey. Similarly you’ve got to elevate your own game if you’ve got the belt. JBL, for all I hated him as champion, did that; Jinder didn’t. 

I guess in a way, people can be booked like they’re the champion even when they don’t have the belt and it doesn’t necessarily matter if they have the title or not. If you’re always the focus of the show or the main event, champion or not, you’re the star. Whether your star and your champion are the same person or not is maybe the real issue - why have a John Cena on your roster but make someone like Sheamus the champion? The answer should be “so you can have two John Cenas”, but if having the title by itself could have that end result we’d have seen it happen way more than it does. Should the most strongly booked person on a show always be the champion? 

Edited April 24, 2020 by HarmonicGenerator

[Lenin]

1 hour ago, King Pitcos said:

JBL for sure. He got three years at or near the top of the card as a singles wrestler, and that’s off the strength of how well he grew into the role of WWE champion.

That's a great shout actually and I had totally forgotten about him. 

The one that immediately sprung to mind (but is a relatively weak example) was Jeff Hardy. I know he was over and shifting a decent amount of merchandise but when he won the WWE Title it sold him to me.

Up until he got the belt I'd never really taken him seriously as a star. I know the belt hot potatoed at the time too but it solidified him as a star for me and gave him loads of credibility as a player in the main event scene. The triple threat with Edge/HHH was great as was the ladder match with CM Punk. His performance went up a notch. However he had a great starting point hence I accept it isn't necessarily the best example.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Suplex Sinner
Spelling

[GeronimoJacksBeard]

1 hour ago, unfitfinlay said:

The first one who comes to mind is The Rock.

Get the fuck outta here! He's the complete opposite. That was not - "let's put the belt on him and he might get over" it was "this guy is so over, we could put the belt on him!"

[tiger_rick]

Agree, Rock is a terrible example. He was a guy they pulled the trigger on at exactly the right time. It was obvious in early 98 that he was fucking incredible and by the time they turned him, people were desperate to cheer him. That cage match at Breakdown is his real breakout match as a babyface and he's wrestling Kane and Taker, and getting wins (and losses, 50/50 all the way) as they put him on that level. Then just when it could have got to the stage where Austin was in his way, they flipped him.

I get the point being made because he'd never been a main eventer before Survivor Series but it's all perfectly timed.

Rock is the last guy who the IC title really made. That feud with Triple H and the match at SummerSlam really showed where he was at. Again, they got it off him at the right time. Mad to think he lost that match. Trips won to a huge reaction. A month later, Rock's a red hot face. Two months after, he's the heel World champ. Trips does fuck all for a year, by and large, until he becomes lukewarm champ. 

Agree completely with the King that the belt made Tripper. It took time, Foley and Steph too but he got there.

[unfitfinlay]

10 hours ago, GeronimoJacksBeard said:

Get the fuck outta here! He's the complete opposite. That was not - "let's put the belt on him and he might get over" it was "this guy is so over, we could put the belt on him!"

 

5 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

Agree, Rock is a terrible example. He was a guy they pulled the trigger on at exactly the right time. It was obvious in early 98 that he was fucking incredible and by the time they turned him, people were desperate to cheer him. That cage match at Breakdown is his real breakout match as a babyface and he's wrestling Kane and Taker, and getting wins (and losses, 50/50 all the way) as they put him on that level. Then just when it could have got to the stage where Austin was in his way, they flipped him.

 

I never said they didn't.

All I'm saying is that he wasn't an established Main Eventer until he was the Champion. It was putting the title on him - and their subsequent presentation of him - that got him to that next level. Sure, he beat Undertaker - in a handicap match - but he'd still spent much of the previous year feuding with Hunter and getting battered about by Shamrock. In fact,his whole faux-babyface run started because he was willing to fight Undertaker and Kane, even though he was completely over-matched against them.

He, Shamrock and Foley were quite clearly positioned on the exact same level around that time. It was pretty much the story of their feud/Alliance.

He went from being "not big enough a star" to be on the cover of New York Magazine at that time (They wanted Austin, Vince wanted Rock, they ended up going with 'Taker and Vince as a compromise) to being fucking everywhere. He went from being clearly behind Austin, Kane and Undertaker to very much on their level. Pre-Survivor Series, you knew he wasn't getting a clean win over any of those three. As great as it was, there is a reason, in kayfabe terms, why the McMahon's spent months orchestrating a massive elaborate scam to help him steal the title, rather than just giving him a title shot.

I'd also add that, while the timing was perfect, it was also necessary, because Undertaker, Austin and Kane were getting stale in the title picture and there was nobody else. It was nowhere near a "Jindering", like, but then I'm not sure anything quite compares to that. A symptom of WWE not really having a midcard anymore I suppose.

13 hours ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

That’s the key element to me. It doesn’t matter if you have the title if they don’t act like you’re the champion. If you have the belt but are booked like a loser, you’ll come across as a loser, Rey. Similarly you’ve got to elevate your own game if you’ve got the belt. JBL, for all I hated him as champion, did that; Jinder didn’t. 

That's true. If you compare Rock's first title run to, say, Kurt Angle's, it's night and day in how they were presented and how they came across.

I'd say the quality of opposition is also a big factor. Rick mentioned Bret earlier but, when he'd won the title, all the proper stars had left. I remember WWF Magazine trying to spin his defenses against Skinner, Kamala and Virgil as proof that he was a fighting Champion, but it just made him look small time. It didn't help that he'd been defending the Intercontinental Title against those exact same guys as well.

[Fox Piss]

Who would people say controlled and got the most out of The Ultimate Warrior through in ring work?