goodhelmet Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 Ok, I was going to respond to a post in another thread about Christian not being world championship material. In this day and age where CM Punk is getting 400+ day World Title runs and Daniel Bryan is headlining Summerslam, how can you look at a guy and say he isn't World Champion material? The fact of the matter is that World Title material is anyone who the company chooses to be champion and can get over with the crowd regardless of promo ability or physique. So, what exactly is world champion matial to you? Is it based on physique, size, wrestling skills, promo ability? Don't just say the IT factor or I'll have new moderator Childs ban you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 To me, the issue with Christian is that he hasn't been properly built to the role where Punk and Bryan were. That said, Christian WAS built much better for it in 2011 and then they blew that, which again is part of the problem. THAT said, a lot of people seem to argue it on other lines. They're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 Charisma, presence and look are the first things you look for when you want somebody to be the defacto face of the company. Christian has a horrible look - he seriously looks creepy, and not in a good way, and is also pretty weedy. He'd be best off playing a sleazy heel if he wasn't so established as a respected veteran. He has some charisma but never enough to get the biggest pops in the building, and some of it seems forced. His presence isn't great; if he walked into a room he wouldn't demand attention, faces wouldn't turn. He just looks like a regular guy. Other factors to consider are if the person stands out, has a well developed personality, connects with the audience and of course how good they are in the ring. To take your examples of CM Punk and Daniel Bryan: - Punk is great on the mic, and got himself over with some brilliant promos at the time when his future was in the balance. He connects with the crowd massively, and also had a unique look and persona in the context of WWE. He has been built up slowly into a top guy, has put a lot of work in himself, and is now established as a top guy. He certainly wasn't 'championship material' when they first threw the belt on him in 2007 or whenever, which is another argument to stop handing out title reigns left right and center. Punk has a very cool look with the tattoos etc, and a clearly defined style. He is instantly recognizable, something which can't be said for Christian. - Daniel Bryan stands out initially by being truly outstanding in the ring, something that helped Chris Benoit get into a position where the crowd would buy him as a champion. Christian was never on that level in the ring. DB has also added to that catchphrases, a slightly cartoonish personality, a developed character - and in the process has got insanely over all of his own accord, something Christian never did. Now I wouldn't really be happy with Daniel Bryan carrying my company for a long time either, especially when you have guys like Brock Lesnar who look like they could kayfabe destroy him in about five seconds. Too much of a mismatch. But in this particular era and what the WWE goes for nowadays, Bryan is an excellent placeholder for a few months - the fans love him, there is a sense he deserves it, and he is totally inoffensive and will represent the company in a very positive way. I suppose The Rock in 2000 is the prime example of 'championship material' in a mainstream US wrestling context: fantastic look, brilliant on the mic, effectively got himself over, is able to ad lib, looks totally comfortable in front of the cameras or in front of the press, is a decent in ring worker, can play a range of feuds and emotions from comedy to brawling, is absurdly popular with the crowd. Ric Flair in 1989 is another one. Obviously things are different if you start talking about 'championship material' in relation to New Japan, or 90s AJPW, or 70s NWA or even a modern US Indy. But in mainstream US wrestling, I would say look, presence, charisma, believability, connection with the crowd and in ring ability are the things you want to look for. A lot of it is truly indefinable though - some people just don't seem plausible as top level stars for whatever reason, and other have that intangible quality that immediately sets them apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted August 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 5554811[/url]'] To me, the issue with Christian is that he hasn't been properly built to the role where Punk and Bryan were. That said, Christian WAS built much better for it in 2011 and then they blew that, which again is part of the problem. THAT said, a lot of people seem to argue it on other lines. They're wrong. I don't think Bryan has been built properly though. He was in a tag team role for a year and boom... #1 contender. I agree Christian was there in 2011 but as we have seen with Mark Henry, a guy can be repackaged and voila, championship material. Christians look has zero to do with if he is championship material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 In the specific context of Christian vs the smaller dudes of the world, the problem with Christian isn't that he's small or doesn't have the right 'look'. It's that he doesn't have the right 'look' nor does he have the special level of overness and charisma that he'd need to overcome it. Punk and Bryan do. Christian doesn't. Not to the level of being a serious world champion level guy. Bryan is the most over guy in the company. It's pretty clear to see the difference between him and Christian as far as potential to be on top in 2013 goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 5554811[/url]'] To me, the issue with Christian is that he hasn't been properly built to the role where Punk and Bryan were. That said, Christian WAS built much better for it in 2011 and then they blew that, which again is part of the problem. THAT said, a lot of people seem to argue it on other lines. They're wrong. I don't think Bryan has been built properly though. He was in a tag team role for a year and boom... #1 contender. I agree Christian was there in 2011 but as we have seen with Mark Henry, a guy can be repackaged and voila, championship material. Christians look has zero to do with if he is championship material. Hornswaggle could be built to be championship material. It would take some genius booking but I think it's doable. Wrestling is fiction. You can tell just about any story if you do it well enough. Also, Christian was the best babyface in the company in 2009 and is one of the best babyfaces in the history of the company. He was so good at putting together matches, building on the previous matches, working heat segments and getting the crowd behind him. Jimmy Redman is nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 5554811[/url]'] To me, the issue with Christian is that he hasn't been properly built to the role where Punk and Bryan were. That said, Christian WAS built much better for it in 2011 and then they blew that, which again is part of the problem. THAT said, a lot of people seem to argue it on other lines. They're wrong. I don't think Bryan has been built properly though. He was in a tag team role for a year and boom... #1 contender. I agree Christian was there in 2011 but as we have seen with Mark Henry, a guy can be repackaged and voila, championship material. Christians look has zero to do with if he is championship material. Hornswaggle could be built to be championship material. It would take some genius booking but I think it's doable. Wrestling is fiction. You can tell just about any story if you do it well enough. Also, Christian was the best babyface in the company in 2009 and is one of the best babyfaces in the history of the company. He was so good at putting together matches, building on the previous matches, working heat segments and getting the crowd behind him. Jimmy Redman is nuts. I love Christian as far as work goes. He was a fantastic babyface in 2009, hell he's always a good babyface and always has good matches. That bears little resemblance to actually being over on the level of a WWE main eventer or credible in that specific role. He's the perfect kind of guy to carry ECW for a year or have a run on top of Smackdown. And as far as the OP goes, he's not a ridiculous choice as World Champion, but that is because the WHC is now an upper-midcard belt at best. If we are talking legitimate WWE Champion, top of the company levels guys, especially in comparing him to Punk and Bryan, Christian isn't it. He's a great in-ring worker, a great babyface worker. No shit. But he's not a WWE main eventer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 Christian...is one of the best babyfaces in the history of the company. What ridiculous hyperbole. He is a solid hand, nothing more. His pops have never been on the level of the truly top babyfaces in history of the company. Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, The Rock - you are truly trying to argue that Christian belongs in the category with those guys? Even in terms of in ring work he isn't close to a Rey Mysterio, Eddie Guerrero, Bret Hart or Chris Benoit as great in ring babyfaces. Christians look has zero to do with if he is championship material. Rubbish - look is important whether we like it or not. Not necessarily being good looking, or being well built, or being in amazing shape - but having a recognizable look and a distinct style that sets you apart. That is what separates Christian from a CM Punk or a Chris Jericho. You can get over a bad look by having huge amounts of charisma or a unique connection with the crowd, but I'd argue Christian doesn't have that either. He's simply a solid all round worker who is good on the mic, good in the ring, very versatile etc. He just doesn't have that intangible star quality that sets some people apart. Which is why I don't consider him championship material; he is in good company though, as I don't consider Alberto Del Rio, The Miz or Jack Swagger to be championship material either, yet they have all had the belt. Even the likes of Sheamus and Dolph Ziggler are borderline. It is silly to think that look doesn't matter when we are talking about the main face of a multinational multi-billion-dollar corporation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 I've never seen a week-to-week babyface in WWE better than Christian in 09. I will admit to having missed some of Rey's mid 00s runs. He was putting on a TV performance in ring each and every week like no one, ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 "Christian can't connect with an audience" is a really odd claim presumably made by people with short memories. Christian is a guy who's proven capable of getting huge reactions from the crowd, moreso than the vast majority of guys on the current roster. He's not getting that currently, probably on account of spending the last few years either off TV or suffering through shitty booking. He's a guy who needs to be rehabbed if you want to get the full value of him. And I can see people saying they personally don't like his look or whatever, but when you project that claim onto the masses, it gets slapped down by reality. It's not really a point up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostka Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 5554811[/url]'] To me, the issue with Christian is that he hasn't been properly built to the role where Punk and Bryan were. That said, Christian WAS built much better for it in 2011 and then they blew that, which again is part of the problem. THAT said, a lot of people seem to argue it on other lines. They're wrong. I don't think Bryan has been built properly though. He was in a tag team role for a year and boom... #1 contender. Not quite. He's been nearly undefeated all summer, beating guys like Orton, Ryback, Sheamus, Kane and more clean, ending the Shields undefeated streak, beating Cesaro/Swagger at the same time in a match designed to showcase his resilience, constantly put over as a respected wrestler who should believe in himself, huge props in promos from top guys regularly, etc. I'd say he's been built properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 "Christian can't connect with an audience" is a really odd claim presumably made by people with short memories. Christian is a guy who's proven capable of getting huge reactions from the crowd, When has he ever got a pop comparable to Steve Austin in his peak, or The Rock in 2000, or Hogan in the 80s, or even CM Punk at MITB11 or Dolph Ziggler when he cashed in this year? Matt D is arguing this is one of the greatest babyfaces in this history of the company. No fucking way. Point me to an incredible pop he has ever got? Sure he was getting good reactions week on week, but so was somebody like Rikishi and nobody is calling him an amazing babyface. I'm not saying he can't connect with an audience, just not on the level of the truly top guys. He belongs as an upper mid card enhancement talent - over, good in the ring, but without the star power or personality to really break through as a superstar. Point me to an amazing promo this guy has done? Or a massive, defining match that didn't involve loads of others guys and a ton of props? How much merchandise does he shift? Not much from what I can ascertain. He doesn't have the devoted fanbase of a CM Punk certainly. And I can see people saying they personally don't like his look or whatever, but when you project that claim onto the masses, it gets slapped down by reality. WWEs own management reportedly hate his look as well. Not that that really matters, but my argument was that he is indistinguishable; a champion should have a distinct style and look, and Christian doesn't. He doesn't even have a personality to speak of, other than being a normal guy and a bit of a smart arse or whatever. He can't carry a company. Has there even been any proof of him as a draw? I've never seen a week-to-week babyface in WWE better than Christian in 09. I will admit to having missed some of Rey's mid 00s runs. He was putting on a TV performance in ring each and every week like no one, ever. We aren't talking about his in ring performances. Being a great babyface is so much more than that. We are talking about whether he is championship material, which like it or not is far more than putting on really good TV matches every week. That kind of feeds into my argument about the spot he should be in. He is perfect working towards the upper mid card, putting on entertaining matches, getting consistently solid reactions, not really hurt by winning or losing due to his longevity. I just don't think there is any star potential there at all. The 2005 program with Cena was as close as he got. When did this guy become so loved online? People were ambivalent at best towards him for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 He was the Ace for a TV show for a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 He was the semi-ace of a minor television show that had no real major stars on it, and was essentially used as a pseudo development facility. That does not make him one of the best babyfaces in the history of the company, or a guy able to become a major star and carry the main championship for the biggest wrestling federation in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 WWECW had about the same talent pool, relative to what was out there nationally as, oh, let's say early-mid 80s Memphis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 As a personal preference, I'd rather no one ever win a title unless there's a plan to build around them as the top star for an extended period of time, which I would say is six months or more. I guess occasionally depending on circumstance there is value in doing quick title switches, but that should be extremely rare. I'm not a fan of transitional champions in general (of course there are exceptions), and I actively hate the concept of midcard or semi-main world champions enough to not watch when that's the booking direction. As far as the qualities that make a guy championship material, they can vary from wrestler to wrestler, but if a promotion doesn't have the confidence to build around their chosen champion as the unquestioned top star, then I'd rather them make their chosen unquestioned top star the champion. All or nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 Also, I don't think the answer to getting a wrestler over is to put the title on him. I think putting the title on a wrestler should be a response to fan demand. There are always exceptions which I'm sure someone will point out, but in most cases, the most successful champions in history are the ones who fans wanted to see in that top position before they got there. Different wrestlers are over for different reasons. The only common bond is that they find a way to connect with people. So really, I think doing that exceptionally well (moreso than all of a wrestler's peers) is what I consider "championship material". Everything else varies from wrestler to wrestler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 But in mainstream US wrestling, I would say look, presence, charisma, believability, connection with the crowd and in ring ability are the things you want to look for. A lot of it is truly indefinable though - some people just don't seem plausible as top level stars for whatever reason, and other have that intangible quality that immediately sets them apart. Think this bit of this post is interesting and strikes me as being true. I'm going to sidestep Christian for a moment to ask why a guy like Tully Blanchard was never considered to be someone who could be world champ, or why even he was never considered main event level. He was over, had charisma, could work, ticks basically every box. Yet I've never heard anyone argue that he should have been a main event guy or world champ. We can think about people like Roddy Piper too. Again, not heard anyone ever push for him either. With Christian, I'd ask those who categorically say no based on things like look what a guy like Chris Jericho has over him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 With what Loss said, there was a time when there WAS demand for Christian to be the world champion. He's not there anymore, obviously, but neither is Del Rio, Sheamus, Orton, etc etc. RVD is debatable, but let's see how long that lasts before fans stop caring about him too. In this company, the only guys that fits the criteria is Cena, Punk and Bryan... and with TV being what it is, you can't have the belt on them all the time or you risk burnout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 In this company, the only guys that fits the criteria is Cena, Punk and Bryan... and with TV being what it is, you can't have the belt on them all the time or you risk burnout. It would help if they only had one belt, and practiced longer title reigns. Switching belts all the time is not exciting anymore, it simply devalues the belts. And because they do it so often, especially with this briefcase rubbish, it has become predictable, and surely the whole point of doing regular title switches it to keep things unpredictable? People like to tune it to a longer story, with a credible champion who can establish himself. It does look like they are going that way with the WWE Championship, with only three champions in about two years, but the other belt still gets passed around like a bag of sweets at a kids party. Most people think they should toss that belt anyway, it effectively means nothing and just results in meaningless, unmemorable title reigns. I would argue that Randy Orton fits the criteria, as he is very over still with casual fans and kids. If we're including part timers Brock Lesnar is there, and RVD is certainly credible providing he is booked right. So that is six guys, who could easily rotate the belt for a while. The point is you should have compelling feuds on the undercard that elevate guys, there should be a natural build that goes beyond this lazy pattern of debut-massive push-massive depush and cycles round and round, usually with a title reign at some vague stage in between often courtesy of Money In The Bank. The title doesn't make the wrestler, the wrestler has to make himself to be considered for the title. I can't remember the last debutant(s) to be introduced in an interesting way. Don't argue The Wyatt Family either - the vignettes were alright, but when it came down to it they just did random, meaningless attacks and corny poses, stuff we saw with The Shield only months earlier. What happened to proper feuds, storylines, character development? WWE haven't made a proper new star in years now, arguable since the Cena/Orton/Batista triumvirate emerged. CM Punk almost made himself, but you can just about give them credit. Daniel Bryan? Not a superstar yet, we'll see if he can maintain his overness. With Christian, I'd ask those who categorically say no based on things like look what a guy like Chris Jericho has over him. Well Jericho has: - A better look, or at least had when he came in with the long hair. Christian always looked a bit weird and out of proportion - Jericho is a much, much better promo, and had the advantage of coming up with a bunch of catchphrases the fans love - Jericho was a better in ring worker for my money - Jericho debuted like a star, whereas Christian hung around the midcard for years - Jericho just has 'it', that intangible quality that sets him apart as a star. I'm not sure Christian does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 I don't think Bryan has been built properly though. He was in a tag team role for a year and boom... #1 contender. And while he was in that tag team role, he was consistently getting some of the loudest cheers, and was tearing things up on a weekly basis with the Shield, Orton, and Cesaro amongst others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 5, 2013 Report Share Posted August 5, 2013 I just struggle with the idea that the titles have to change more often due to the amount of television, because during the Monday Night Wars, Hulk Hogan had a 16-month run with the title, other than a quick back-and-forth switch with Luger that in hindsight was probably a bad decision. He wrestled on television maybe a half dozen times a year, and even less than that in singles matches. I think it could be done now, but I think it requires re-thinking how storylines are developed, how wrestlers are pushed and how television is formatted. Fans wanting to see something happen before it actually happens isn't completely lost, but that emotion isn't really the same. If the purpose of the more frequent title changes is to keep things interesting, then I have to ask the question: Has it kept things interesting? To my point, who says the title has to be defended on every pay-per-view? I know they run more than WCW did in 1996-1997, but if they build up two to three feuds people care about, they can headline PPVs in "off" months. Tag matches can also headline PPVs. So much copying of what WCW did wrong, so little copying of what WCW did right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted August 6, 2013 Report Share Posted August 6, 2013 Loss, I agree that the fans can be re-trained to accept that less is more but with the amount of tv we get, it is harder to keep interest as it is, and that is with the frequent title changes. Punk did tremendously well in his year reign... Cena and HHH, on the other hand, did not. So it is difficult to imagine in this current climate that it would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 6, 2013 Report Share Posted August 6, 2013 He was the Ace for a TV show for a year. At the conclusion of which the show in question was cancelled for low ratings. I'm not necessarily laying all the blame at his door, but it's also worth noting that Smackdown ratings went down in 2011 when he was on top, and ratings and houses went up when they moved to Henry. The evidence suggests that the fan base does not see him as a top guy. I will say again, I love Christian for his work and he was great as WWECW ace in terms of work. But having great babyfaces matches on top of the C show or B show and not positively affecting business in any way does not make him main event material. It makes him a guy who has great babyfaces matches. And I love great babyfaces matches as much as the next guy, but they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 6, 2013 Report Share Posted August 6, 2013 Regal makes an interesting Bill Dundee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.