Hegs Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 After watching the RR last night I started thinking about WCWs failed attempts with Hogan prior to the NWO, right down to returning from injury midmatch to thrash everyone and comparing him to todays Reigns reaction. Granted a difference between stale act and probably what could best be described as indifference but there does seem to be similarities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmmnx Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Was mid 90's face Hogan booked as a geek that couldn't get the job done and was constantly bettered by the heels? Because if he wasn't I don't see the comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet-Left Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Is Lex Luger (1993/1994) a closer comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benbeeach Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 The real tragedy is how much the fans wanted Roman at one point. It would have took a much more measured and tempered approach. But there's an alternate universe where fans are chomping at the bit and ravenous for his first title win and not apathetic towards his third. Damn that Daniel Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 What killed me last night. He got the shit beat out of him and fought his way back into the match. HHH dumps him and that's it? Really? Reigns should have fucking Superman punched him right off the apron at the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 It's not even at one point they've wanted to love Roman but at multiple points. When he crushed Triple H the crowd was 100% with it. When he superman punched Vince McMahon people were 100% with it. They just don't seem to know how to follow up those moments because they have this ass backwards logic about keeping (only certain) heels strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Even when he was booked to get his ass beaten, Stone Cold got over partly because he didn't give a fuck. He was gonna take out heels with Stunners while going down with a valiant fight. They don't even do that with Reigns. In fact Austin is exactly how they should be booking Reigns with lining real heels up against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 If we're fantasy booking Reigns knocking HHH off the apron with a Superman punch, you could have had Owens beat Ambrose for IC the title in the opener, then have Ambrose win by eliminating Reigns with a cheapshot. Reigns-Ambrose for the title in the main event of Mania as genuine next generation showdown. Except that at least half of the crowd would be cheering Ambrose in the feud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 I don't understand why having the IC title means Ambrose can't win the world title in the Rumble. He would get over big time winning the IC title in a brutal match and then beating 29 guys for the world title in the same night. But of course it wasn't gonna happen because he isn't meant to be their big star. But I mean that kinda thing worked fantastically for one William S. Goldberg in WCW. Then you also have WWF precedent with Warrior the IC champ winning the world title as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 And the fact that it's happened so rarely that you can only name two times, both of which were very special, should tell you why wrestling promoters don't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 In this case no you probably don't do it but it shouldn't be the automatic rule for everyone who is in the position to do it. If there is the right guy at the right time, why not? That is all I am suggesting. Again, with the plans being what they are and Ambrose being where he is in the company, no he shouldn't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet-Left Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 In this case no you probably don't do it but it shouldn't be the automatic rule for everyone who is in the position to do it. If there is the right guy at the right time, why not? That is all I am suggesting. Again, with the plans being what they are and Ambrose being where he is in the company, no he shouldn't do it. Okay, I feel like I have to respond to this. I've been mulling it over, and I've come to the conclusion that Ambrose winning would've been really cool. Â It's been drummed into my ears so many times by Michael Cole: "On any given night, anything can happen in the WWE." Â The whole gimmick of the Rumble is that it's the biggest opportunity of the year to catapult yourself to stardom. Why not prove that? Â You could still keep the heat on Reigns/Hunter by having them brawl to the back (leaving Ambrose to pose and point to the sign, and whatever) and you've still got Fastlane to get the belt off of him if he can't handle the top spot (or he won't be as big of a draw as you need); have Trips go ape on him take the title and "injure" him and have Roman Reigns avenge his brother (if we really must see Triple H versus Roman Reigns). Â Let's face it, they've lost so much star-power for Mania that I doubt there's much of a downside. What, would Ambrose/Hunter be so much less of a draw than Reigns/Hunter that Brock's match couldn't make up for it, or that you couldn't paper over it? They're getting a hundred thousands fans in their by hook or by crook. Â Maybe I'm just losing my mind, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 The Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 ^ I mean in terms of overness. Hogan and Luger were being booed by some, but they were still basically over. Listen to the crowds at Summerslam 93 or even Mania X. Or at any WCW show during the Hogan run. Â The only comparable figures I can think of for Reigns in terms of being THOROUGHLY rejected by the fans back when wrestling was good are The Renegade and Erik Watts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 I think that's a pretty terrible comparison because we don't have records of The Renegade or Erik Watts selling a lot of merchandise or getting big pops on house shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Well from what I've seen, he wasn't as over on taped live shows as Luger in 93-4 or Hogan in 94-5. Fact. Â Unless WWF / WCW were piping in the cheers. Which is possible also. Â Hogan is audibly booed at Mania 8 (1992) and has mixed reactions at some shows in 95. Â Reigns was 100% hated by that Rumble crowd on Sunday to a point that I haven't seen since Erik Watts. If you want to come up with a better analogy because of action figure sales or whatever, go for it. Â Purely from the reaction stand point that I can see and hear on my TV he's closer to Watts than Hogan or Luger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 So one reaction tells the whole story? I guess the crowd wasn't going nuts for him at the end of TLC or when he hit the Superman Punch on Vince and won the title from Sheamus. He gets different reactions at different times in different cities. People seem to want to boil him down to his reaction on one given night to fit whatever their narrative is either "he's over and should be the guy" or "everyone hates him and he sucks" but it's not nearly that cut and dry. Â He's not as over as they want him to be or as over as he should be if he's going to be THE top babyface. But he's not The Renegade, Erik Watts or 'Die Rocky Die' where he's rejected by 100% of the audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 I seem to recall him being hated at other shows too. Â Last Rumble, for example, to the point where even The Rock couldn't save him. This is a year later. He didn't get big pops at the others shows I've seen either. I don't bother with the minor PPVs because life's too short. Â But to me -- someone who only watches the big shows -- it looks like he's been rejected utterly by the audience. Â If it was me, I'd cut my losses with him entirely. Fire him. Let him go out and gain some cred on the indie circuit or in Japan or whatever, and then bring him back when the fans are ready to cheer him. Â OR, turn him heel. As a babyface he is a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 If the solution for getting Reigns over is firing him so he can go get smark cred in New Japan they might as well just give up and sell the company. Â Everyone wants to heap all the blame on WWE and they deserve their fair share but the crowds right now are pretty shitty. There are certain cities they go to where they are getting the reactions of an away team in real sports. The fact that AJ Styles, a guy who had never even been on WWE TV previously, was the most over guy at the Rumble just proves that point. Buying tickets to "hijack" a show to me is one of the dumbest things in current wrestling. Just don't buy a ticket and don't go. Empty seats speak louder than a negative chant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Judging by the reaction to AJ Styles, is it a bad idea? Â They brought in Samoa Joe to a big reaction earlier this year. Bryan was over like rover. Â The fans seem to be saying "Let WWE be the big leagues and the final destination for the world's greatest wrestlers". Â It wouldn't require selling up, just a change in philosophy. Â Vince has come a hell of a long way from not acknowledging the previous histories of workers. They weren't acting as if Styles was an unknown with no past. So there has already been a change in philosophy. Just that he has not yet let go of his vision of using the machine to make stars -- it didn't work in 1990 and it hasn't worked here. Vince was actually out there, himself, he can't literally be deaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet-Left Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 The fact that AJ Styles, a guy who had never even been on WWE TV... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Â The fact that AJ Styles, a guy who had never even been on WWE TV... Great point, you're right. All those people spent the last 14 years desperately awaiting his return after his great match on Metal. Â And as far as what JVK said, I wouldn't completely disregard house show reactions and merchandise sales over the grumblings of TV and PPV crowds. Why would you fire a guy who gets great reactions on house shows (audiences of mostly families) and is in the top 3 of merchandise sales? The WWE audience is not one unified group who all act the same and spend their money the same way. Being hated by the hardcore crowd didn't seem to do much damage to Cena's ability to sell merchandise and tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Punk is another one. Kevin Owens. List goes on and on. Â At this point, the fanbase clearly requires non-WWE experience and the perceived "authenticity" that goes along with that. They don't want factory-made WWE pure breds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet-Left Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Great point, you're right. All those people spent the last 14 years desperately awaiting his return after his great match on Metal.They may have, also, seen his work in "Florida". I'm doubtful, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Punk is another one. Kevin Owens. List goes on and on. Â At this point, the fanbase clearly requires non-WWE experience and the perceived "authenticity" that goes along with that. They don't want factory-made WWE pure breds. SOME of the fanbase. The most vocal part but I'm not even sure if they're a majority. I wouldn't blow up my entire business model to cater to them because I've already got history on my side that shows I can piss them all off and have them hate my top babyface and still make money. You don't fire a guy who is making you money with your CORE audience of families and kids. 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.