WWE Talk October 5 to October 11

[Slasher]

I am tired of the chatter about Rock/Brock. I realize Summerslam 2002 was so long ago but they really shouldn't revisit that pairing considering Brock has only gained a reputation as Death Incarnate while the Rock has been trending the other way. There is no reason Brock should want to face him and vice versa. Spread your wealth out in multiple "big time" matches rather than contain all your stars in one.

[Coffey]

The worst part about having the part-time guys is that WWE seems to only pit them against one another. So we're never going to get any new guy getting a rub from an old guy. It's always old guy Vs. old guy where the winner doesn't matter and the next night on RAW both of them aren't wrestling on the show. Rock, Taker, Triple H, Brock, etc.

 

I didn't want to see Triple H Vs. Brock or Brock Vs. The Undertaker. Let alone three fucking times each. Same as I don't care to see Rock Vs. Brock anymore or Rock Vs. Triple H or Taker against any of them either. It's a waste of time.

[Slasher]

It makes the whole self-inflicted dependency on old stars even worse because in one breath they say there is no one on the roster that is a big enough star to face any of them and in the next, they won't even try to get those guys over to get in position. It only ensures the same old shit continues to the end of time.

[Loss]

And then he ends up facing people like Bo Dallas and Kofi Kingston.

[Jesse Ewiak]

Here's the thing.

 

I think the over reliance on part timers is a problem. But, part timers on big shows have had their place in wrestling forever. By modern wrestling standards, Andre was a 'part-timer.' Bill Watts was a 'part-timer.' The Sheik and Abby were 'part-timers', at least if you were just an average fan watching one territory. But, guys like that, along with the NWA/AWA champ were all important to drawing the houses for _big_ shows. In all reality, only during the Attitude Era, the WWE/WWF was the first promotion not to depend on "part-timers" for big shows, because all the old stars were over on the other channel.

 

The problem isn't that the part timers are on Wrestlemania. The problem is the booking of full time guys the other 364 days of the year. Brock vs. Rock doesn't have to affect Seth Rollins vs. Roman Reigns if the latter two guys are built well the rest of the year.

[Slasher]

Here's the thing.

 

I think the over reliance on part timers is a problem. But, part timers on big shows have had their place in wrestling forever. By modern wrestling standards, Andre was a 'part-timer.' Bill Watts was a 'part-timer.' The Sheik and Abby were 'part-timers', at least if you were just an average fan watching one territory. But, guys like that, along with the NWA/AWA champ were all important to drawing the houses for _big_ shows. In all reality, only during the Attitude Era, the WWE/WWF was the first promotion not to depend on "part-timers" for big shows, because all the old stars were over on the other channel.

 

The problem isn't that the part timers are on Wrestlemania. The problem is the booking of full time guys the other 364 days of the year. Brock vs. Rock doesn't have to affect Seth Rollins vs. Roman Reigns if the latter two guys are built well the rest of the year.

There is a major difference between booking part timers back in the day and how they are booked today. Back then, the part timers usually wrestled the full timers in programs to keep things moving and ushering in the next wave of stars who then became part timers when their careers winded down. It was a good method, circle of life and all that shit. Today? We had Brock fighting Triple H and The Undertaker when those guys were already scaled back/nearly retired. Why? Because it pops numbers? That would never be a good excuse. It is the kind of excuse that helped put WCW out of business among other reasons. Why do anyone want to see Brock vs Rock? We already had the uber athlete vs the movie star (kind of) in 2002. We really need it again 13 years later? It is just an annoying attitude that serves no one well for it. In theory one could try to argue that Brock would carry over the momentum from a Rock program to his next program but the thing is...the Rock really does not have any rub left to give a guy like Brock, and Brock is the guy who should be giving rubs to people instead of it being the other way around. Brock was lucky though to have the Taker match at Mania turn out the way it did because it actually helped wipe clean the stain of the Triple H program the year before. But now the game should have changed for him. Now is the time you put two or three upper midcarders/low main eventers in front of Brock, win or lose, and try to get them in good position when Brock finally decides to leave again. It isn't like he cares whether he wins or not, so take advantage of it.

[Jmare007]

So Rusev just got engaged with Lana.

 

Ru Ru's wedding on RAW is gonna be filled with fuckery

[DMJ]

Just cuz I was the one who brought up Brock/Rock, let me clarify that I was only listing that match as an alternative to Rock/HHH, which is what I've heard is the plan. If one would argue that HHH/Rock is better than Rock/Brock, I'm all ears. Hell, if you think both options are *equally* bad, I'd listen to the argument…but, to me, if these two are the sole options, Brock/Rock is the better alternative.

 

After writing the OP and considering that Vince really only views a handful of guys as being worthy of matches against any of these part-timers, my vote would really be Rock/Reigns or Rock/Orton (in that order). Also, if people are bothered by Brock/Rock talk, I'll go out there and say that nothing annoys me more than when people suggest Kevin Owens or Cesaro in those positions as if there is really any chance in hell that in 2015-16 they would even be in consideration.

[Slasher]

Rock/Reigns would be good but I think it might be too early to turn Reigns heel (we all know everyone will pick Rock for this match to root for) and I don't think a babyface vs babyface match would really work for this pairing. So if they do this, they are going to have to turn Reigns like... really soon, so he can pick up steam heading into the showdown. And considering the WWE seems to still obviously favor Reigns as their next ace, I don't know if it will happen. The less said about Orton, the better. I also absolutely agree Owens and Cesaro ain't happening. Vince doesn't see them as stars...at all. It is quite a leap to think he would use up one of the handful of Rock's last batch of matches on either guy. I do think Rock vs HHH or even Rock vs Brock are the likeliest outcomes but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.

 

Also for the record, I wasn't singling you out for the chatter. You are not the first to mention it. I have seen the speculation dating back a year or two that talks about the possibility and I never got it.