Your opinion on Roman Reigns

[Migs]

8 hours ago, joeg said:

I feel like he still could be the top babyface, however it would require a dramatic heel turn (Michaels throwing Jannety through the window level heel turn) followed by a long run as the top heel. After a year or two as the top heel, fans will start cheering him because its just cool to cheer the bad guy then they can turn him babyface again but with the fans behind him. Problem is though that none of the babyfaces other than Daniel Bryan are really that popular. So its hard to run a memorable angle where he turns heel and fucks over a babyface because none of the babyfaces are all that memorable. 

If he turned on the Shield and then dominated Rollins and Ambrose, he'd probably get heat. Like, just dominated the main events and didn't give the heat back. Sacrifice Ambrose and Rollins (who they seem to feel are upper mid-carders at best anyway) and let the crowd boo Roman.

More and more, I feel like the comparison to Cena isn't the best with Roman - he's more like Orton. Initial excitement, but proficient in the ring, some strong moments, but otherwise steady and just sort of there a lot of the time. Unlike Cena, neither Orton nor Reigns have proved to really be a draw in a traditional sense, but they work as front men of a brand that's pulling in people on its strength rather than on more traditional drawing cards. And both have moved merch without being the juggernaut that Cena is (Roman sells plenty, but there aren't crowds of children dressed like him from head to toe, and he has basically no iconic merch).

[AstroBoy]

I think Reigns is very good and, in the right context, could be a big star.  Really though I think that the overreacting on both sides to either tear him down or defend him is making any meaningful discourse really hard.  The guy deserves better.  But we are in an era where Reigns simply not getting booed out of the arena at SummerSlam was considered a brilliant success.  

[joeg]

12 hours ago, Migs said:

If he turned on the Shield and then dominated Rollins and Ambrose, he'd probably get heat. Like, just dominated the main events and didn't give the heat back. Sacrifice Ambrose and Rollins (who they seem to feel are upper mid-carders at best anyway) and let the crowd boo Roman.

More and more, I feel like the comparison to Cena isn't the best with Roman - he's more like Orton. Initial excitement, but proficient in the ring, some strong moments, but otherwise steady and just sort of there a lot of the time. Unlike Cena, neither Orton nor Reigns have proved to really be a draw in a traditional sense, but they work as front men of a brand that's pulling in people on its strength rather than on more traditional drawing cards. And both have moved merch without being the juggernaut that Cena is (Roman sells plenty, but there aren't crowds of children dressed like him from head to toe, and he has basically no iconic merch).

No, I don't think turning on Rollins or Ambrose would get heat because nobody gives a shit about Rollins or Ambrose anymore because they've both been presented as just another guy for so long. 

I do think the comparison to Orton is fair. However I found Orton to be must watch as The Legend Killer and must watch while in Legacy. I don't think I've ever considered anything from Reigns as must watch. 

[SomethingSavage]

He's the perfect poster boy for this "white noise wrestling" era, where everyone delivers these scripted monologues but never really say a thing. And the matches are great, but the results have never meant any less.

At times, yeah. I feel like he's underrated by a section of the fan base. But he does himself no favors with the goofy fist gesture and his overreliance on that sort of stuff. 2018 has not been kind to him. The series with Brock was abysmal, sub-zero stars level shit at times. Ideally, the return of the Braun rivalry would light a spark under his ass and get back to what they were doing together before.

He's been downright awesome in matches in the past, but I also feel like fans often overcorrect and overcompensate for the hate he gets by pretending he's this all-time fantastic worker. The reality is safely somewhere in the middle, but you've got this game of tug-of-war from both sides. No, he's not a miracle worker. But no. He's not a shitty performer either.

The guy is passable when left to his own devices, and he can be guided to occasional great stuff whenever he's not fisting the air every 10 seconds like some kind of nervous tick.

I don't think he's any better than a guy like Cody Rhodes, who has caught a metric ton of hate since leaving WWE - but has actually proven himself to be equally adept at the main event style WWE favors from a guy like Roman. Cody versus Omega both times, Cody's ROH title win over Daniels, and Cody's NWA title win over Aldis all stack up and compare favorably around the same level as some of Roman's main events.

Roman has more quality in terms of standout performances, but his sheer output is also massive. Guys like Cody or even lesser discussed guys like Jay Lethal - who catches some negativity for little things here and there, despite being fairly awesome in numerous big match situations - tend to deliver at or near the same level when placed in comparable positions.

He's alright. There's nothing compelling about his character or his in-ring work, really. He's just sort of there. They've had moments where they could've made him, and it would've felt like it meant something. Now, I'm not so sure they ever will. And I'm not so sure anyone would care the same way if they did anyhow.

To be fair, I don't know that he could carry off some of the character stuff even *IF* they wrote better stories or angles for the guy. I realize everyone wants to fantasy book him to be this automatic, trend-setting heel if he were just given the chance. But I'm not convinced.

Where is the evidence of his great mic work? The best he's ever been on the mic came WAYYY back in 2014, when he was still a member of the Shield. And the interview basically just consisted of Roman making bedroom eyes at Renee and doing the "baby girl" routine.

In that moment, Roman felt like a star in the making. Like a diamond to be mined. There was an air of ultra cool, killer charisma about him for a split second. It seemed natural and organic to a degree.

But ever since? Ugh. The nursery rhymes, the shooty shoot promos, and everything in between has been mostly awful. No better or worse than Randy Orton, for sure. And what I mean by that is - he can deliver the lines, but there's no life behind his eyes. There's zero conviction, zero character investment, and zero flavor to anything he says.

Not only does the scripted dialogue suck, but his delivery of said material comes in a way that is entirely uninteresting and uninspired. He's just another guy saying the same shit as everyone else, in the same way anyone else on the roster could say it.

Kevin Nash, at his age today, could pull off a better, more convincing "cool guy" promo than anything Roman Reigns could bust out. I'm absolutely convinced of that. Whatever spark Roman had for "baby girl" back in 2014 has been long gone & in hiding for a long, long time.

I think he's capable of meaning more, being more, and doing more. Sure. But they seem comfortable with where they have him & what they have him doing.

I don't know about his popularity. I don't think anyone outside the wrestling bubble knows him or would recognize him though. I'll stand by that. I *do* see the people of Wal-Mart sporting some of his big dog shirts whenever I run in to refill my fuel card once a week. So at least there's that?

[Loss]

Part of that is just that WWE has never really been a place for great, naturally-delivered promos at any point in their history. They had Jimmy Hart for a decade and he never had a single great promo, which is mind-boggling. They also didn't really let Nash loose until his last six months or so with the company in 1995-1996, which is funny because he was more of a draw for them in those months than he was as champion. There are exceptions in all-time great promo guys like Randy Savage, Jake Roberts, and Roddy Piper. But most of the time, you have Bret Hart doing canned lines about "preparing yourself to be excellently executed!"

[Wahoos Leg]

I think he's mastered the WWE main event style (whether you like it or not). An excellent wrestler whose efforts to connect with the crowd are hindered by the WWE promo writing style. I also agree with Dylan, that he is possibly the worst booked top guy for a major promotion, at least in modern times.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I think he's pretty great, especially when it comes to doing things like having very good TV matches (like his IC run earlier this year).  Of course his booking is horrible.  His promos can be very bad at times, sometimes due to content and sometimes due to poor performance on his part.

There was definitely a built-in immediate resentment toward him from a portion of the fanbase from the moment The Shield debuted thanks to Meltzer, et al, further compounded by things like Punk's AOW interview that the same portion of fans took as gospel ("gotta keep Roman strong" or whatever the meme was), as well as your standard WWE ineptitude when it came to pushing him.  If they had actually pushed him as strong as people pretended he was being pushed, he may have gotten over years ago.  The main case of this being the WM XXXI decision to put the belt on Rollins.

[Kadaveri]

The funny thing about that Punk interview is he wasn't actually saying what 90% of fans think he was. His point was how ludicrous it was that he was being told to make Roman Reigns look strong when Punk was being booked to beat Roman in a 1 vs. 3 handicap match. He even says he said if you want Roman looking strong why not just have him win, but still was told you need to beat 3 guys at once but make Roman look strong.

Actually summed up Roman's booking a lot better than the more popular narrative. Roman's the guy who loses constantly, but gets booked to lose "in a strong way" so WWE acts like it won't hurt him, even though it clearly does.

[LibSuperstar]

5 hours ago, Kadaveri said:

The funny thing about that Punk interview is he wasn't actually saying what 90% of fans think he was. His point was how ludicrous it was that he was being told to make Roman Reigns look strong when Punk was being booked to beat Roman in a 1 vs. 3 handicap match. He even says he said if you want Roman looking strong why not just have him win, but still was told you need to beat 3 guys at once but make Roman look strong.

Actually summed up Roman's booking a lot better than the more popular narrative. Roman's the guy who loses constantly, but gets booked to lose "in a strong way" so WWE acts like it won't hurt him, even though it clearly does.

Forgot where (either Twitter or another forum) but someone made a similar point. And it makes a lot of sense.

[Loss]

Wrestling shouldn't have handicap matches unless it's a squash to get over a Strowman type. Otherwise, they're stupid.

[Strummer]

Was it ever reported *why* Punk went over in that match?  I guess because he was set to feud with .Hunter and they wanted him strong as possible?  But then this was the time period where he was being phased out of main events,  he had been feuding with the Axel and Ryback types before this

[SomethingSavage]

Because everything with them is 50/50? Bryan lost to the Wyatt family in a handicap match that same night, so naturally Punk needed to win in his - ya know, to balance out the forces in the universe or some shit.

Booking someone to lose but still look strong is such a stupid hang up in wrestling anyway. I mean, yeah. Every so often, you'll get the rare case where it's an attainable, realistic goal to put someone over and still protect the loser. But it's the exception rather than the rule. And them constantly chasing it as if it's something that can be done in every match on every card for 10+ hours of TV a week is just ridiculous.

The majority of the time, you need losers to just lose. That's how winners, ya know, win. If you get so hung up on keeping the loser strong, then what did he really lose? And as a result, what did the winner even win? The answer is nothing. Which is why nothing matters with their goofy approach about 90% of the time.

You can't have winners without losers. If the loser is automatically perceived to be right back at the same level as the winner, then what's the point of having these matches in the first place? If nobody advances, why bother? Their booking is a hamster wheel, where everyone is constantly moving for the sake of motion - but no one goes anywhere either way. Win or lose.

The compulsion to keep losers strong effectively keeps the winners looking weak at the exact same time. And so you're left with a bunch of interchangeable pieces, but none of it adds up or amounts to shit.

[Loss]

More TV content is part of it, but part of it is also that the role of the "great workers" used to be to put over the people with big personalities/star quality. They were kept strong in other matches against lower-ranked guys, so they could do meaningful jobs to higher-ranked guys. That formula died without being replaced with anything equally effective, really.

[Strummer]

yeah there are no Arn Anderson or Curt Hennig types who were kept strong in the undercard but always lost to the personality larger than life driven top stars.

I think the last time they really had those types were Jericho and Benoit in 2000.  Although I guess Christian pulled off that role in the modern sense

and I guess Bryan was in that role from 2011-2013

[Mad Dog]

I find cardboard to be more interesting. I think the Orton comparison is a good one. Nowhere near over enough to justify holding the entire product hostage for his sake. My one defense of him is he might not be so bad if they would just end this endless Lesnar shit. But as it stands if Reigns and Lesnar disappeared tomorrow, I think the product would be a lot better. 

[paul sosnowski]

I agree with the Orton comparison but for a different reason.  Reigns hasn't been around as long, but I have already seen him do everything!!!   What more can he possibly do to impress anyone???

[Loss]

Interesting thing about Reigns. He's 33 now. By the time he hits his late 30s, they'll probably be looking for someone new in that role. Chances are that person is just getting started now. They started the Reigns transition in 2014, but it took four years to actually complete, which wasn't expected. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that whoever the next The Guy is starts getting groomed for that role within the next year.

[El-P]

Adam Cole says hello. He's the next Triple H. Since Triple H will probably be the Boss by the time the Reigns lunacy is done...

[C.S.]

2 hours ago, El-P said:

Adam Cole says hello. He's the next Triple H. Since Triple H will probably be the Boss by the time the Reigns lunacy is done...

God no. All of this stuff about him being "the next Shawn Michaels" is pure delusional lunacy. Even if you're not a Shawn fan (and many here are not), Cole doesn't have a fraction of the charisma or in-ring skill.

[El-P]

I said the next Triple H.

(FWIW, I've only seen Cole maybe once or twice and enjoyed him a whole lot each time)

[C.S.]

2 hours ago, El-P said:

I said the next Triple H.

(FWIW, I've only seen Cole maybe once or twice and enjoyed him a whole lot each time)

No, I know what you said, but I've seen the "next Shawn Michaels" talking point a lot.

[Loss]

How many guys have been labeled that now? Chris Jericho, Jeff Hardy, probably dozens of others that have been forgotten about ...

[Coffey]

When Shawn Michaels himself was in The Rockers no one thought he was one day going to be the first Shawn Michaels: main eventer either.

Wrestling isn't about how good you are. It's about who you're friends with. Especially in WWE nowadays. Politics will always matter more than talent. Adam Cole seems to be a Triple H guy. Regardless of what you think of him as a performer, that's worth a lot in WWE land.

[SomethingSavage]

Unless you're friends with John Cena.

Seems like you're almost better off being some bum off the street than his best bud. They bury & burn the bodies of Cena's friends for some reason.

[C.S.]

3 hours ago, Coffey said:

When Shawn Michaels himself was in The Rockers no one thought he was one day going to be the first Shawn Michaels: main eventer either.

Wrestling isn't about how good you are. It's about who you're friends with. Especially in WWE nowadays. Politics will always matter more than talent. Adam Cole seems to be a Triple H guy. Regardless of what you think of him as a performer, that's worth a lot in WWE land.

A lot of people in NXT are "Triple H guys" though. That can only take someone so far. Not everyone can be on top.

2 hours ago, SomethingSavage said:

Unless you're friends with John Cena.

Seems like you're almost better off being some bum off the street than his best bud. They bury & burn the bodies of Cena's friends for some reason.

Who has been Cena's friend besides Zack Ryder?

Nikki Bella seems to have done well being "Cena's friend." (She worked hard too, don't get me wrong, but her association with Cena didn't exactly get her "burned and buried.")