is Reigns the modern version of 95-96 WCW Hogan

[Scarlet-Left]

What does it say?

That Roman Reigns' t-shirt sells better than any other active full-time member of the main roster.

[Slasher]

 

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.

 

It's been drummed into my ears so many times by Michael Cole: "On any given night, anything can happen in the WWE."

 

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?

 

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).

 

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.

 

Maybe I'm just losing my mind, though.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely would have liked to see Ambrose win and run with the belt, but if they are hellbent on it being Triple H vs Roman Reigns for the title, the last thing you wanna do is muddy up the waters with yet another convincing challenger even if it only lasts a month. You don't want a guy to connect with the audience on a certain level as a champion and then take it off to put on one of the two guys nobody wanted to see. It would only demoralize them further to do that. My point was that under neutral circumstances and if they didn't have a vision set in stone for Wrestlemania that it would have been something that could have made a guy overnight/pretty quickly if they had him win a LMS match for one belt and then win the Royal Rumble for the top prize all in the same night. I do believe firmly that the whole double duty aspect helped get Daniel Bryan (2014) and Bret Hart (1994) over even more because they went through grueling (as well as Bill Goldberg on Nitro in WCW) challenge to cement their place in history (even if Bret did actually lose his first of two matches). It is a concept that would have worked tremendously well for someone that the WWE would have been comfortable running with for a good length of time. Obviously that wouldn't have been the case with Dean Ambrose.

[SomethingSavage]

Ugh. Yuck.

 

The last thing in the world they should be worried about right now is "muddying up the waters with yet another convincing challenger."

 

At this point, they should be jumping at every opportunity to muddy those waters and saturate the field with every fucking challenger they possibly can. They won't convince people to care until they get some "convincing challengers" on the board and established.

 

This idea of cutting guys off at the knees or coasting from one show to the next isn't a luxury they should be afforded at the moment. It just isn't.

What was suggested here wasn't a bad idea for Ambrose, by any means. A short title reign to spike his momentum and put some buzz around the guy before Mania is hardly a poor decision.

 

Back in '99, Foley was MADE as a main event act in these months leading into Mania. He got there by getting the belt (more than once, but even just once would have done the trick) and then having a major program with The Rock. It was merely a means of killing time until Austin versus Rock could go down on the big stage, but what you're suggesting is that they shouldn't run programs like that - because it might run the risk of "muddying the waters" with other challengers.

 

That suggested scenario could have served as a trial run for Dean. The idea of him winning both belts in a single night could be a big talking point that could catapult him for months. A one-month program with Trips could eat up time until Mania, but it could also elevate Ambrose for the short term - in the sense that Hunter would have his eyes & focus on Ambrose for the month. The bromance with Reigns means that it all still plays into the bigger story arc of Reigns versus Hunter in time for Mania anyway, and so I don't see how it muddies anything to be honest.

 

A one-month reign for Ambrose wouldn't change the reactions for Roman in the slightest. Those fans will still chant for guys who haven't been seen on WWE television in two years if they want.

 

Besides, aren't they just muddying the waters anyway by booking the Fastlane main event the way they did? There's next to no chance of Roman coming out of that looking like an ass-kicker. All signs point to Brock being distracted and Roman pinning his best friend again in order to get the ticket to Mania. That means he only really overcomes ONE of the two obstacles set in front of him, and it comes by way of him beating a guy that's more popular to a lot of fans. That's not exactly presenting him in the best light.

[Laz]

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.

Or, and this may just be a preposterous notion supported primarily by anecdotal evidence, but most people have internet access on these devices that fit in the palms of their hands. They enjoy wrestling and, now and then, look up wrestling news. They see a tweet about some guy they've never heard of signing to WWE, look up some of stuff on YouTube, enjoy it, and get excited when he shows up at one of the biggest shows of the year presented by the biggest company the industry has ever seen.

 

Wrestling fans like to go to wrestling events. Even the dark days of 1995 had good attendance for the big shows, despite how lousy the product was. You go hoping it will be a fun experience and try to enjoy yourself. I get the distaste for the self-congratulatory audiences that seem to exist only to kiss their own taints, but AJ getting a pop when he was one of the biggest stars for a company with 1/3 the WWE audience in size, a company that ran for years a few towns away, is not that.

 

re: Roman

You can absolutely get him over with everybody. Make him a rounded character that isn't afraid of a fight, which is the direction they started taking him last year. He got huge pops at WM just for standing back up after BROCK SMASH and for ending the awful Sheamus run. Why couldn't he have stayed on the stretcher so his return was a bigger deal? Why couldn't he have actually fought back when he was eliminated because he was screwed? Why is he being handed title shots that the on-air villains, who every fan over 8/9 years old know actually run the show, say he doesn't deserve?

 

Every issue that we can bring up can be solved by decent booking/writing. Every single one of them. Vince would rather have a direct-to-video Steven Seagal movie with no suspense than a Die Hard because he likes unbeatable übermensch instead of legitimate struggle, completely ignoring that the majority of people want the latter.

[Loss]

The reason people "hate watch" WWE is that deep down, everyone believes in WWE's potential to be great because all of the pieces are there for it to be. And there could literally be an overnight change in mentality, so you don't want to remove yourself too much in case things turn around in an instant. In many cases, it's actually more of a form of tough love watching than hate watching. There's no one who actively wants WWE to not be any good.

[NotJayTabb]

 

http://shop.wwe.com/Roman-Reigns/roman-reigns,default,sc.html

 

This Reigns stuff doesn't look very kiddie either.

I'm not sure where I said he was only over with kids though. He's popular with women and believe it not even some grown men. Everything I ever read about merchandise sales says that his stuff sells. And that he's either the most over or 2nd most over guy on house shows (outside of the UK)

 

From my personal experience, I went to 2 house shows in the UK last year headlined by Reigns, and he was over as fuck in both of them. Biggest pop on both shows.

 

I know British crowds have a reputation for being "smarky", with Brit reaction to Cena being a key reason why, but I think we're more likely to accept a guy like Reigns than Cena. There's something very un-British about Cena that I think puts people off, something a bit too flawless.

[thebrainfollower]

I am not sure about that Loss. People not in WWE basically make a profit or a name on how bad WWE is by complaining about it. Then again those same people would have as much to say about a great product.

 

I think we're really looking at this too much. Vince has lost it. He no longer has any idea what to do week in and week out to get a babyface over. It's been coming since Austin and Rock left and it's gotten worse with time. At the same time he's absolutely stubborn about who and what HE wants and doesn't care what anyone, even his own son in law who's his heir, really thinks. That's your basic problem.

 

The booking of the Rumble undid all the good they did the night after TLC. JVK is right, the idea of Reigns being the next big thing is done. The best they can hope for is that he becomes the next placeholder champion until Vince drops dead and the rebuilding can begin. But I'm not sure WWE survives Vince so we may really be watching the beginning of the end.

 

As far as WWE failing, I don't want to see that. But I'd like Vince to have a real moment, and have no idea if he ever will, where his ego subsides and he's forced to see what he's really become. His King Lear moment if you will.

[Grimmas]

The reason people "hate watch" WWE is that deep down, everyone believes in WWE's potential to be great because all of the pieces are there for it to be. And there could literally be an overnight change in mentality, so you don't want to remove yourself too much in case things turn around in an instant. In many cases, it's actually more of a form of tough love watching than hate watching. There's no one who actively wants WWE to not be any good.

That's exactly how \i feel

[Migs]

 

That suggested scenario could have served as a trial run for Dean. The idea of him winning both belts in a single night could be a big talking point that could catapult him for months. A one-month program with Trips could eat up time until Mania, but it could also elevate Ambrose for the short term - in the sense that Hunter would have his eyes & focus on Ambrose for the month. The bromance with Reigns means that it all still plays into the bigger story arc of Reigns versus Hunter in time for Mania anyway, and so I don't see how it muddies anything to be honest.

 

 

 

Considering Jericho's night at Vengeance in 2001 has been a talking point about him for close to 15 years now, yeah, absolutely agree that giving Ambrose a big night would be huge for him.

[Migs]

 

The reason people "hate watch" WWE is that deep down, everyone believes in WWE's potential to be great because all of the pieces are there for it to be. And there could literally be an overnight change in mentality, so you don't want to remove yourself too much in case things turn around in an instant. In many cases, it's actually more of a form of tough love watching than hate watching. There's no one who actively wants WWE to not be any good.

That's exactly how \i feel

 

 

And people believe in that potential because they have had some amazing couple month stretches at times over the last 5 years - Summer of Punk, Bryan's ascension - such that if Vince and the fans lined up for an extended period of time, there's a lot of fun that could be had in watching the product.

[jcmmnx]

The talent roster by summer could be one of the very best in company history if the people currently out hurt are back, and 6-8 of the top NXT talents like Balor, Zayn, Joe, Bayley, Asuka, Jordan and Gable, are on the main roster with AJ and Nakamura.

[Strummer]

I don't feel like most people have faced the truth yet that unless you have a positive difference maker like The Rock or John Cena around, business is going to be the same no matter who is on top from the full-time crew. WWE isn't going to go out of business if they put AJ Styles or Heath Slater on top, nor am I sure there's going to be a huge difference in Network subs or house show business between them and someone like Roman Reigns. They've succeeded in making almost everyone interchangeable. Reigns just has teacher's pet status, which makes people mad because they want WWE to be a meritocracy based on match quality. At one time going that route would have been a path to extinction. Now, I don't think it makes a difference either way.

 

I think in the past it was definitely about match quality but now just about more who is the most over. People were mad that Bryan wasn't being pushed on top because he was the most over with the crowds. Ambrose is still more over than Reigns right now. Ziggler probably isn't anymore but in the last year he was for sure

[Loss]

It does make me wonder -- what would WWE look like at this point if they booked for the pop first and foremost?

[Bierschwale]

They don't want factory-made WWE pure breds.

 

Bray Wyatt's babyface reactions say otherwise.

[Jimmy Redman]

There's sort of a Catch-22 with a certain amount of fans when it comes to booking Reigns.

 

If they present him as dominant on TV and he wins all the time, it looks like they're pushing him too hard.

If they present him as an underdog on TV and The Authority screws him all the time, it looks like they're pushing him too hard.

 

Because we've been taught that when WWE really want to push a guy as the top face, they book them to be in conflict with Authority. In cases where it makes sense (Austin, Bryan) it works. In cases where it makes no apparent sense (Reigns, whenever they do it with Cena) it just looks like they're trying too hard to recreate Austin. So it comes off like a push, instead of a story.

[Laz]

The evil authority figure hating the top babyface worked for Steve Austin because he was a beer-swilling foul mouthed redneck who wouldn't play by the rules. It made sense that a professional like Vince McMahon wouldn't want that guy as champion and do everything in his power to get him away from the title. It kinda worked for John Cena. Sure, he was a happy company man, but he was starting to become bigger than the company. That's not good for corporate morale, so a lesson must be taught.

 

It definitely worked for CM Punk. Here's this tattooed wise-ass that is every bit as good as he says he is (and he says it all the time), so good he openly ripped the company a new one and knew he'd get away with it, even taking the title and going home because he could. It worked for Daniel Bryan since he didn't look like a champion, embodied everything that HHH wished he did himself (a case of "your favorite wrestler's favorite wrestler"), but the world is image conscious and this hippie looking fellow who won't back down is about to do the impossible so the company needs to stop him.

 

BROCK made sense. He literally has no cares in the world beyond making money and kicking ass. That kind of beast can't be trusted on any tier, especially when he's already proven he can kick the boss's ass a couple times over, so stack the odds.

 

So...why do they hate Roman? Because he wasn't Seth Rollins (who they ended up not being too high on anyway)? Because he's a nice guy?

[cm funk]

It's hard to take JVK seriously when he admittedly doesn't watch WWE and only checks out the big shows like Rumble, Mania etc. So he would have missed all those RAWs and PPVs where Reigns got strong babyface reactions. The Rumble crowds are some of the smarkiest, most hardcore of any WWE show of any given year. They booed the shit out of Rey Mysterio when he came in #30 two years ago because he wasn't Daniel Bryan. They turned on Roman Reigns and the Rumble match last year because Bryan got tossed/didn't win. These reactions do not indicate him being "100% rejected". As others in this thread have noted, and from what I've read, he gets some of the best babyface reactions on house shows. He's over with women, kids and a lot of guys. It's just when you put him in front of the uber smart fans they reject him because he's the company guy and their favorites aren't getting the push that feel they deserve

 

As others have said, it's really down to bad booking and the feeling he's being forced on the fans, and it's not unique to Roman Reigns. Also, there's a lot of tv and ppv crowds that just aren't very vocal for anyone, which is a much bigger problem than just Roman Reigns

 

As far as merch, I don't know how well his merch sells, but when you watch WWE tv shows you see a lot of it in the crowds. I do know that that August '15 list (you should always source your material btw) isn't going to be very representative because they ran 3 huge sold out nights at Barclays Center in Brooklyn (NXT, SummerSlam, RAW) and did a whole week of events in the city for SummerSlam. Most of their merch for the month was probably sold that week in NYC. Barclays is their new homebase in NYC and that brings out the most hardcore smart fans. That's why you had Balor so high on that list, and Jushin Liger who came in for one opening match at the NXT show. Also Roman was cooled down at that point, working a never ending midcard feud with Bray Wyatt. I don't think that that month of all months is indicative of their general merch trends.

 

I'm not the biggest Roman Reigns fan either, but I like the guy well enough, and I think it's important to be fair and not intellectually dishonest

[Migs]

The evil authority figure hating the top babyface worked for Steve Austin because he was a beer-swilling foul mouthed redneck who wouldn't play by the rules. It made sense that a professional like Vince McMahon wouldn't want that guy as champion and do everything in his power to get him away from the title. It kinda worked for John Cena. Sure, he was a happy company man, but he was starting to become bigger than the company. That's not good for corporate morale, so a lesson must be taught.

 

It definitely worked for CM Punk. Here's this tattooed wise-ass that is every bit as good as he says he is (and he says it all the time), so good he openly ripped the company a new one and knew he'd get away with it, even taking the title and going home because he could. It worked for Daniel Bryan since he didn't look like a champion, embodied everything that HHH wished he did himself (a case of "your favorite wrestler's favorite wrestler"), but the world is image conscious and this hippie looking fellow who won't back down is about to do the impossible so the company needs to stop him.

 

BROCK made sense. He literally has no cares in the world beyond making money and kicking ass. That kind of beast can't be trusted on any tier, especially when he's already proven he can kick the boss's ass a couple times over, so stack the odds.

 

So...why do they hate Roman? Because he wasn't Seth Rollins (who they ended up not being too high on anyway)? Because he's a nice guy?

 

I think this hits at a larger problem - what is Roman Reigns' character? Who is he as a person? I mostly watch the PPVs, so maybe I've missed some development there, but he just seems like a big dude who does a few high impact moves. I'm not sure what emotional resonance he has, whereas the guys described above worked, to varying degrees, because people felt something for them.

[Laz]

The one time they've tried expanding his gimmick beyond "ass kicker of few words" (which is part of why he got so over) it ended in loud and barely contested jeers. "Roman Reigns: Father of the Year" and "Roman Reigns: Swell Guy" don't work.

[The Chief]

 

The evil authority figure hating the top babyface worked for Steve Austin because he was a beer-swilling foul mouthed redneck who wouldn't play by the rules. It made sense that a professional like Vince McMahon wouldn't want that guy as champion and do everything in his power to get him away from the title. It kinda worked for John Cena. Sure, he was a happy company man, but he was starting to become bigger than the company. That's not good for corporate morale, so a lesson must be taught.

 

It definitely worked for CM Punk. Here's this tattooed wise-ass that is every bit as good as he says he is (and he says it all the time), so good he openly ripped the company a new one and knew he'd get away with it, even taking the title and going home because he could. It worked for Daniel Bryan since he didn't look like a champion, embodied everything that HHH wished he did himself (a case of "your favorite wrestler's favorite wrestler"), but the world is image conscious and this hippie looking fellow who won't back down is about to do the impossible so the company needs to stop him.

 

BROCK made sense. He literally has no cares in the world beyond making money and kicking ass. That kind of beast can't be trusted on any tier, especially when he's already proven he can kick the boss's ass a couple times over, so stack the odds.

 

So...why do they hate Roman? Because he wasn't Seth Rollins (who they ended up not being too high on anyway)? Because he's a nice guy?

 

I think this hits at a larger problem - what is Roman Reigns' character? Who is he as a person? I mostly watch the PPVs, so maybe I've missed some development there, but he just seems like a big dude who does a few high impact moves. I'm not sure what emotional resonance he has, whereas the guys described above worked, to varying degrees, because people felt something for them.

 

 

Well when he was with the Shield it was pretty much heavy-duty clean-up hitter who gets his point across in one sentence when needed. If he has to do more than just speak to you, then you're dead. He was an action hero with an aura of mystique. Not surprisingly, that got over.

 

With the big main event push they've made it all about believing in yourself, never give up, I can, I will, making the family proud and all of that hokey crap. It's a shame the company has such a narrow view of what a top babyface has to be because their success rate is far greater when they have deviated from the norm as opposed to plugging guys into roles that don't fit them.

[fakeplastictrees]

Question: Could they pull off a turn with Reigns that keeps him babyface with the casual fans, but a heel for the smart fans? Like Bret Hart with domestic versus international audiences? Could it work?

 

I don't know how you'd do it, but they've got to address it at some point. The Rumble crowd, loudly and clearly, pronounced their allegiance to the Authority (they popped for Vince, and they cheered Hunter even after he took out Ambrose and Ziggler).

 

This would require WWE to turn Ziggler heel and have Roman go over him constantly. The problem is that Roman is currently working and in some cases going over people who are better than him. The crowd is going to shit on Reigns when he is getting the better of Wyatt, Cesaro, Rollins, Ambrose, Owens, etc. Anyone who can work* who is currently in the mid-card doing absolutely dick should be turned heel. I mentioned Ziggler, but this also includes Mark Henry, Goldust, and in reality- that's it. Everyone else is either super cold that no segment of the audience really gives a fuck about and thus Reigns going up against them will not change the dynamic (i.e. Stardust) or is over enough that. Reigns needs to put the boots to guys who WE KNOW can work, but who the main fans are just worried about character alliance and the heel/face dynamic.I believe this will shift the paradigm. Unfortunately for this to work, WWE would have to essentially build its entire roster around the sole purpose of getting Roman over and the meta aspects of this entire angle would spread throughout the presentation of the company from top-to-bottom.

 

Can you imagine the meeting where 5 guys are pulled in and essentially told they are all turning heel for the simple fact that over the course of a 6-8 month period they are going to be used to get Reigns over? YES! Something that drastic will need to be done all the while Reigns stays as FAR away from Styles, Owens, Cesaro, Taker etc.

 

 

*mileage varies on Ziggler

 

 

Re: The crowd

 

WWE has worked itself into believing that the crowd is always just trying to get itself over and be contrarian when that isn't always the case. Yes, there are instances where people are clearly chanting something to appear to be counter-culture and start a revolution from the seats. What people don't realize is that John Cena represents the staleness of WWE and that WWE refusing to allow someone else to run with the ball for a substantial amount of time, metaphysically embodies the staleness.WWE's hard headiness has brought the company to the point where Cena is approaching 40 and there is no one to take over the kingdom. Its 3 minutes till doomsday and WWE is playing catch-up thinking that the fans opinion doesn't matter because the Cena paradigm shows otherwise. The problem with that is that happens once in a blue moon. Hogan in the early 90's, Cena in the late 2000's, and who else really? WWE is hoping that it can happen with Reigns, because if it does then the money will be fine and the product will be fine post-Cena.

 

The reason why its not going to work long term with Reigns as it did with Cena is because people were actually protected during Ruthless Aggression and no one is protected during the Reality Era. Cena had a chance to establish himself against a lot of guys from The Attitude Era as well who had tons of credibility. Jericho, Taker, HBK, Mysterio, Hardy. Reigns doesn't have the opportunity as most of the major players from the Attitude Era are not seen as his peers (like they were with Cena), but instead as WWE Legends and the majority from the Ruthless Aggression Era (Lashley, Kennedy, MVP, Benjamin, Carlito, etc.) are completely irrelevant now.

 

 

It does make me wonder -- what would WWE look like at this point if they booked for the pop first and foremost?

 

What do you mean? Do you mean that WWE creates a character only for the character to pop the crowd? The depth and complexity of the character completely going to shit as long a the pop is obtained? Or are you wondering what would happen if WWE just paid attention to who was actually getting a good reaction and put everyone else on Main Event/Superstars to do whatever they want? Mizdow would have bumped his way into a world title match against Daniel Bryan at WM, while Sheamus, Barrett, The Ascension, Stardust, Kane, and Big Show would be pulling Main Event/Superstars duty, and of course Ziggler would be the champion with Wyatt, Cesaro, Ambrose, and Owens are top guys chasing the belt.

[goc]

 

Question: Could they pull off a turn with Reigns that keeps him babyface with the casual fans, but a heel for the smart fans? Like Bret Hart with domestic versus international audiences? Could it work?

 

I don't know how you'd do it, but they've got to address it at some point. The Rumble crowd, loudly and clearly, pronounced their allegiance to the Authority (they popped for Vince, and they cheered Hunter even after he took out Ambrose and Ziggler).

This would require WWE to turn Ziggler heel and have Roman go over him constantly. The problem is that Roman is currently working and in some cases going over people who are better than him. The crowd is going to shit on Reigns when he is getting the better of Wyatt, Cesaro, Rollins, Ambrose, Owens, etc.

 

In what way are Ambrose and Wyatt better than Reigns?

 

Or are you wondering what would happen if WWE just paid attention to who was actually getting a good reaction and put everyone else on Main Event/Superstars to do whatever they want? Mizdow would have bumped his way into a world title match against Daniel Bryan at WM

If you were arguing that they should ignore the crowd, you convinced me.

[DMJ]

I think the post above would've made more sense if, instead of that reading "Mizdow," it just read Miz.

 

The Miz is one of the few guys that gets legitimate heat anywhere on the card. Sure, Sandow is an entertaining performer, but let's not forget, that whole run wouldn't have been seen as anything special if it wasn't for the fact that the fans (smark, mark, the average "IWCers," kids, adults, and everyone in between) genuinely despise The Miz and will probably never make him a babyface (which you can't say about an Owens, Wyatt, or Rollins).

 

I can come off as a bit of a homer for the guy as I'm a Clevelander, but honestly, I'd love to see the case for The Miz not being a better all-around heel worthy of a top position over a Sheamus or Del Rio, who don't elicit half the response Miz does regularly and that the company constantly has to "rebuild."

[Goodear]

It does make me wonder -- what would WWE look like at this point if they booked for the pop first and foremost?

 

Considering the way people pop for part timers, it would be like Wrestlemania all the time. Which would suck.

[Laz]

Theoretically, you can book for the pop and do a good job since pops are a sign that fans enjoy key story notes/spots. Ideally, the pop comes from their satisfaction with the product and its direction, their favorite hero winning the title or a heel deciding to do good, but it seems most of the pops now are cheap since they're coming from humorous one-liners and returning stars that exemplify how poor the current product is.

 

So they do book for pops. They're just booking for cheap ones instead of aiming for legitimate connection.