Jump to content

Random Thoughts III.


PowerButchi

Recommended Posts

Whenever Natalya is talked about on TV by commentators or in promos by other wrestlers, there is always a weird mix of on-screen Natalya and off-screen Nattie.

 

In the 2 or 3 times each year they make her part of a story-line, mentions of her being one of the most respected veterans in the locker-room and one of the most successful women in WWE history often come up.

But in the kayfabe story-line world she is pretty bad. Rarely wins big matches, her friends always end up turning on her, and although she gets the sharpshooter on in almost every match she rarely wins.

 

Obviously Nattie Neidhart deserves credit for being with the company so long, always being involved with charity & publicity stuff away from the ring, being a focal point of Total Divas from the start, and is pretty reliable in the ring. But Natalya sucks.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Tell, Don't Show, wins and losses don't matter and all that jazz. How many times are we suddenly told that two wrestlers - especially the women - are "best friends" with no work done to actually show us that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

Tell, Don't Show, wins and losses don't matter and all that jazz. How many times are we suddenly told that two wrestlers - especially the women - are "best friends" with no work done to actually show us that?

Never! The friendship/tag team between Carmella and Dana Brooke has been masterfully built, and I’m thrilled to see how it survives with Money in the Bank on the horizon and both of them having singles goals.

The Natalya thing reminds me of when the commentators would promote a shitehawk like Bob Holly or Shelton Benjamin as the toughest or best athlete on the roster, even though they were always losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've thought over the last 10 years or so, and has just come back to mind due to hearing Owens is gonna be feuding with Andrade for the US title.

I am really not a fan of main event 'level' wrestlers dipping back down to the midcard titles. I think it genuinely makes the World titles look weak, that people are more than happy to slum it at a level beneath what they have attained to.

I will add, I'm not saying Owens is a true reflection of my argument as (One Universal title aside), imo I don't class Owens at that top tier level. But someone like Reigns, Rollins, Bryan etc (regardless of poor decision making in recent times) pissing about with a 'Lower' championship does more to damage their characters/aura than simply having them title-less for a period of time. There are two 'World' championships again so it's not like they're gonna be waiting years for a reign again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mikeymike83 said:

One thing I've thought over the last 10 years or so, and has just come back to mind due to hearing Owens is gonna be feuding with Andrade for the US title.

I am really not a fan of main event 'level' wrestlers dipping back down to the midcard titles. I think it genuinely makes the World titles look weak, that people are more than happy to slum it at a level beneath what they have attained to.

I will add, I'm not saying Owens is a true reflection of my argument as (One Universal title aside), imo I don't class Owens at that top tier level. But someone like Reigns, Rollins, Bryan etc (regardless of poor decision making in recent times) pissing about with a 'Lower' championship does more to damage their characters/aura than simply having them title-less for a period of time. There are two 'World' championships again so it's not like they're gonna be waiting years for a reign again.

Not a fan of this either. It's really a byproduct of a few things - more shows and more frequent shows, talent starting on TV much younger, having longer careers and staying consistently on TV in the same promotion much, much longer and i guess lack of creative booking. There's some quite ridiculously decorated champions of the last 15 years.

I'd rather those guys form a proper tag team and chase the tag titles if they step away from the top title picture. Above being a good example, would have loved The Ultimate Maniacs around for a while on a proper tag run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

It's another thing that isn't helped by their lack of stories or consequences. Even if guys get a story on the way up, they generally drop back down with barely a mention of their motivation. 

It can work. I thought Triple H in 2001 added to the title by dropping back down. Obviously Cena did the same for the US Title. It can tell a good story. Having a dickhead superstar dropping down because he can or a dickhead midcard champ taunting a star into dropping down are good stories. 

The bigger problem than their lack of storytelling is that almost no one is a star anyway. Owens or Strowman dropping into a midcard title feud doesn't feel beneath them. 95% of the roster are interchangeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

It can work. I thought Triple H in 2001 added to the title by dropping back down. Obviously Cena did the same for the US Title.

Agree on Cena, certainly. That's the one main occasion i really enjoyed it and felt it really worked. In that instance it did fit with Cenas character and general message. Triple H though, that's one of the main ones that really irked me at the time. Didn't feel right at all. Especially as he'd been so recently established at the very top, associated with the WWF title and been feuding with its now holder in Austin. It had been very recently presented as though the WWF title meant everything to Triple H, hinted as though it was something he cared about more than Steph and getting it brought out that 'that damn sick, that damn twisted', etc side of him. Settling for the next best thing wasn't something "The Game" did just because he could. Putting the IC title on him at that point in 2001 felt totally out of character and more just for the convenience and novelty of the tag match stipulation with Undertaker and Kane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Nah, Triple H dropping down to the IC title definitely elevated it. So much so that it was a massive deal when Jeff Hardy beat him for it even though the Hardys cheated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The Owens US title thing is another example of wins and losses being utterly meaningless, too. Owens beats Rollins at Mania, Rollins goes straight into a WWE title feud and Owens is going for the secondary belt? Just a complete lack of logic there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

It can work. I thought Triple H in 2001 added to the title by dropping back down. Obviously Cena did the same for the US Title. It can tell a good story. Having a dickhead superstar dropping down because he can or a dickhead midcard champ taunting a star into dropping down are good stories. 

I will agree with the two examples used. They were two that came to mind as decent stories. HHH and Austin on ther two man power trip holding all the gold added to their dominance. And yes, did help elavate Hardy. To a degree. Cena was basically (iirc) him saying he wanted to bring the US belt back up to former glories. Nothing wrong with that either because he genuinely brought career midcarders a chance to shine and look competitive against the all conquering John Cena. Less said about who he eventually dropped it to though.

But again, if you have been a former World champion, why the hell would you want to piss about with a lesser title. The goal should be to get back to the top. Premier League players, during the height of their careers don't think to themselves that a Championship medal would look better than their Premier League medal. If you're ageing, then by all means, drop down a level. Back on wrestling logic, Ric Flair fighting for and winning Intercontinental Championships in his latter stages was fine and made sense. But 30 ish year old Roman Reigns, heading into his peak years, should not be challenging The Miz for a secondary belt. By all means if the story fits have a match/short grudge feud. But the supposed top guys should not lower themselves indefinitely.

I know this 50 50 booking is here for the foreseeable but adding even a hint of some sort of a hierarchy in terms of superstar standings surely helps differentiate between the superstars they desperately need, and those either on the way up or those who are JTTS.

 

*disclaimer... I have no idea of Roman Reigns age. It was a generic number used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...