is Reigns the modern version of 95-96 WCW Hogan

[C.S.]

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."

 

I'm with you. Miz is one of their top guys in every way. He has more heat than "favorite sons" like Sheamus and Orton, who aren't over a lick and don't move the needle. He's fantastic in talk show appearances and a great representative for the company in general. He has absolutely shined in every role they've put him in (except his babyface turn, which - like many from that era (Alberto, etc.) - was badly botched. I blame creative, not Miz, for that. IMO, Miz should've turned babyface after his Mania main event victory over Cena and feuded with the loathesome "jock-ass" Alex Riley, who was miscast as a babyface. But that ship has sailed, and Miz should definitely remain a heel now.

[funkdoc]

i have something to add re: the recent argument between goc and JvK on babyfaces getting booed...

 

i think this is one of those areas where the modern internet has changed everything for good. it's damn near impossible to be a pure babyface or heel anymore, because it's easier for the minority opinion to make itself known thanks to social media.

 

football writer mike tanier had this to say about the recent allegations of peyton manning using HGH:

 

 

What will this do to Peyton Manning's legacy?

The answer: Whatever you want it to.

There's no such thing as an objective "legacy" in sports anymore. We each keep a little legacy in our hearts, a private head-canon of the players we choose to admire or despise.

You can hate Tiger Woods, LeBron James, Alex Rodriguez, Manning or [Tom] Brady all you want. You can find reasons to hate Derek Jeter, Phil Mickelson or Drew Brees if you try. You can love Lance Armstrong for his charitable efforts or something. And no matter how extreme your opinions, you will find kindred souls out there on some blog or Twitter feed.

Major League Baseball has a Hall of Fame and a separate Hall of Indignation full of players a big percentage of baseball fans believe belong in the Hall of Fame. The NCAA record book is a Swiss cheese of retcons, like a comic book universe: Did the Fab Five ever really happen, or was that a dream sequence?

What's official according to the record books does not matter when it comes to "legacies," and there is no "mainstream opinion" in my business, where the arguments themselves are the commodity.

Chances are, how you feel about Manning after the report is no different from how you felt about Manning before it. The same went for Tom Brady and deflated footballs. If even the whisper of past use of a banned substance erodes your respect for a player you once liked, that's your prerogative. But sports fandom has probably been a rough road for you, and it will never get any better.

I think of athletes the way I think of movie or rock stars. Some are great humans, some are disgusting, some are haunted by demons, some succumb easily to temptation, and most, like you and I, are some combination of all four. Unless they cure a disease or commit a heinous crime, their "legacy" consists of what they accomplished on the field/court/ice/track/etc.

But that's just my definition of "legacy." Yours is just as valid. And no twist or turn in the Manning story is likely to change it.

on my own facebook feed, i see this every day with browns fans *still* arguing over johnny manziel. no matter how many times he gets drunk and acts a fool in public, plenty of people still bust out the "he's only a kid!" defense. he's a classic heel, but in an era where people will overlook your flaws and band together with others who feel the same way.

this is why i think, unlike in 1998, the entire concept of "faces" and "heels" is genuinely on the wane. seeing how people react to the big stories of the day now, i think the future of the business will lie in creating characters who draw equally strong but different reactions from different segments of the fanbase.

[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.

 

In what way are Ambrose and Wyatt better than Reigns?

 

 

Ambrose and Wyatt get a consistent reaction from the crowd. When we start talking about who has had the better matches, that is when it starts to get dicey. From a reaction standpoint:

 

Ambrose is better than Reigns because Ambrose is over in promos, during his entrance, and in the ring.

 

Wyatt is better than Reigns because he is over in promos, during his entrance, and signature spots in the ring. His mileage on bell-to-bell investment from the crowd depends on who is working with and what I feel is the anticipation from the crowd of a run-in from The Wyatt Family. Perhaps I am being too generous with the second point on Wyatt, but I feel that he is one of the only guys on the roster that you can pretty much guarantee some bullshit finish is coming to the matches he is in.

 

Wyatt and Ambrose may be spotty in the ring at times, but their reactions are consistent. It also doesn't help Reigns that he is soon going to be a 3 time champion without beating Lesnar, Taker, or anyone with some real credibility left.

[Dylan Waco]

Modern version of pre-turn Hogan is HHH. Yes he gets cheers Hogan didn't get, but HHH is also one of 2 or 3 guys in promotion featured as a true star. Other than that I think the similarities are fairly obvious.

 

Excluding live reactions in certain cities, Reigns is closer to 98 Jericho or Eddie in that he was part of a fresh, hot act, got over huge, and was targeted for political assassination because the real big stars are only supposed to be old guy, part timers, and the guy running the company.

[Loss]

I've really come to think a wacky babyface Wyatt Family has enormous potential. Maybe they'll feud with Balor Club.

[Death From Above]

Happy go lucky Mick Foley and Bray Wyatt have to do a Special Christmas Greeting. This is my main demand.

[goc]

A little more evidence against the idea that "100% of the audience has rejected Roman"

 

Speaking to SI.com’s Extra Mustard, ESPN’s Jonathan Coachman said that the most-watched ESPN “Off The Top Rope” segment was the one with Roman Reigns, which aired on December 15. Here is what Coachman had to say on Roman Reigns:

“We always tweet out the interviews after we’re done on SportsCenter, and the most watched interview so far–and it hasn’t been close–has been Roman Reigns. This is a good dude who is starting to find out what fits him. I think you’re going to see the negativity surrounding him switch and turn, and he’ll turn into one of the biggest stars in the world.”

[jcmmnx]

"Starting to find out what fits him" shouldn't be describing a two time WrestleMania main eventer. It'll be extremely difficult for him to overcome the obstacles booking has placed in front of him.

[goodhelmet]

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?

 

Great summary!!!

[The Chief]

"Starting to find out what fits him" shouldn't be describing a two time WrestleMania main eventer.

 

That's a great point. We're over two years into this singles push now. At what point do they have to accept that it's not going to work and try something else?

[Death From Above]

If they weren't so heavy on injuries I could see it, but aren't they sort of in a corner now? Who else that is healthy could have been built up to Wrestlemania beyond maybe Ambrose (who doesn't really have the look they want)?

 

I'm sure they could do it with Bray Wyatt but I think it's clear the reactions to that would be mixed.

 

Part of the problem is they've got into a very WCW-ish habit where the heels are great at teaming up and helping each other but the faces tend to operate as loners so there's only one or two of them with a focus at a time. That's only compounded with Cena and Bryan out.

[Strummer]

In an interview with Jim Ross, Sean Waltman claimed Reigns beating up Hunter at the end of TLC was not planned and Hunter had to fight hard for it to happen

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

I need one of those in beer mug style.

[Judy Bagwell]

hes closer to 96 Rocky Maivia or Dean Douglas in 95

[Jimmy Redman]

I will say, he's already coming off better by leaning into the hate and doing the Tweener Diesel thing, rather than them trying to ignore it completely. Acting like he was the biggest babyface on earth came off as tonedeaf and delusional.

[RCS1988]

Fans don't know how to react to people. I haven't been watching the product in the last few weeks because of the new job, but I catch up reading results and checking out the weekend events.

[supersonic]

Awful comparison as Reigns can work and is far more over than 20 years ago.

[flyonthewall2983]

hes closer to 96 Rocky Maivia or Dean Douglas in 95

 

Way closer. The WCW audience wasn't booing Hogan for lack of charisma or an awkward push. They (at least in the south where WCW was still heavily based) were booing the face of the WWF all those years the Crocketts and WCW until they signed him was the alternative to.