WWE TV 07/22 - 07/28 RAW Reunion! Candice Michelle is back!!!

[SomethingSavage]

5 hours ago, Dale Wolfe said:

Seths biggest problem to me is that it just doesn't seem believable that he'd win any fight ever. His offence is awful for the most part. 

As a cowardly cheating heel, he works. Everyone thinks he's a rat anyway why not embrace it. 

Seth has no character to speak of, nor does he have the skill set to convey any kind of actual character. Steve Austin nailed it when he posed the question, "What is a Seth Rollins?" Nobody knows.

Seth *seems* more acceptable as a ratty, pesky heel. He *seems* like he'd work well in that X-Pac vermin type role.

The problem is that his work simply sucks. He can't work in the ring like a heel, because he wants oh so badly to impress people with his athleticism and fitness. So he's gotta flip and dive and hiss and flex his cardio, brutha. He has to be flashy, and so being a heel never actually plays to his strengths.

Then again, he can't actually work as a character babyface either. Because he lacks the skill set for that as well. In the ring, his size and demeanor make him *seem* suitable for the role. Again though, he doesn't grasp the concept OF WORKING like a babyface.

Rather than show actual vulnerability or understand the importance of garnering sympathy, he'd rather work like a world-beater with his phony, soft offense. Instead of telling stories about struggle and perseverance, he'd rather slap his knee and hiss and do those dives where he gently brushes you with his abnormally hairy wrists.

For fuck's sake y'all, he really just sucks from every angle.

[DMJ]

Just to pile on, I think there's also been backlash against Seth in the IWC, notably in places like r/SquaredCircle, because, for a time, there was a feeling that he was having great matches and had proven to be a top 5 in-ring talent.  

Over time, though, it became clear that this too was an illusion and that he really doesn't have this great resume. In fact, in 2018-19, he had a bunch of straight-up clunkers (most infamously the Ironman Match with Ziggler and the feud with Ambrose). In tags with Ambrose and during his IC title reign, Rollins would routinely get 4+-star reviews by Meltzer, but very few of those matches were truly memorable. Before then, you have some good matches with Cena - but far from Cena's best - and some good stipulation matches with Ambrose featuring the same spots we'd seen a dozen times before. Then you've got the Sheild matches, which were always fun, but its not like any one worker can "claim" those.

As a singles star, his resume is actually pretty thin - especially compared to other top guys. His list of great, memorable singles matches definitely pales in comparison to Cena, Lesnar, Bryan, and AJ. I don't know if its even all that better than Reigns'. 

So, if you add that to him being an ass on Twitter, that time he dated a Nazi, and the fact that his in-ring work can be picked apart with ease, you have all the makings for a backlash against the guy. 

[Boss Rock]

I do think Seth has always been a really good tag wrestler. The teams with Roman and Mox and the Shield trios matches really allowed him to shine because he got to show off his flashy offense in hot tags and tornado settings and hide his inability to carry a singles match.

[FMKK]

41 minutes ago, DMJ said:

Just to pile on, I think there's also been backlash against Seth in the IWC, notably in places like r/SquaredCircle, because, for a time, there was a feeling that he was having great matches and had proven to be a top 5 in-ring talent.  

Over time, though, it became clear that this too was an illusion and that he really doesn't have this great resume. In fact, in 2018-19, he had a bunch of straight-up clunkers (most infamously the Ironman Match with Ziggler and the feud with Ambrose). In tags with Ambrose and during his IC title reign, Rollins would routinely get 4+-star reviews by Meltzer, but very few of those matches were truly memorable. Before then, you have some good matches with Cena - but far from Cena's best - and some good stipulation matches with Ambrose featuring the same spots we'd seen a dozen times before. Then you've got the Sheild matches, which were always fun, but its not like any one worker can "claim" those.

As a singles star, his resume is actually pretty thin - especially compared to other top guys. His list of great, memorable singles matches definitely pales in comparison to Cena, Lesnar, Bryan, and AJ. I don't know if its even all that better than Reigns'. 

So, if you add that to him being an ass on Twitter, that time he dated a Nazi, and the fact that his in-ring work can be picked apart with ease, you have all the makings for a backlash against the guy. 

Reigns has a way way better singles resume than Rollins.

Rollins is a bit like Ziggler to me in that he looked and acted like a guy who smarks are supposed to like so they decided to get behind him as if he was some great worker. But once the bloom was off the rose with Ziggler, he's basically had go away heat for five years. Rollins may end up in similar territory, although slightly different because he actually did get the big push that Dolph never did.

[DMJ]

1 hour ago, FMKK said:

Reigns has a way way better singles resume than Rollins.

I would agree - but I'm not sure that everyone would agree. 

I went to my own database to double-check and this rang true by my own ratings.

Going back to 2014 or so, Reigns had matches against Bryan, Sheamus, AJ Styles, Lesnar (WM31), and Strowman that I really liked and put in the category of Potential MOTY/Worth Watching. On top of that, he had some multi-mans that I put into that same category (4-stars on my scale, which only goes to 5 and I only do half-stars, no quarters - for reference, a 4.5 or 5-star match would be Gargano/Almas, Bret Hart/Austin at WM13, Flair/Steamboat, all time classics, etc.).

Looking at my database, Rollins' only 4-star singles matches are against Roman Reigns, occurred in 2014/15 against Ambrose - when that feud was red hot and seemed very fresh- or were multi-mans (which often included Reigns). 

So, yeah, the "super worker" tag just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny if you look at the resume.*

 

* Sidenote - Whereas, no matter how much people hate it, Cena or a Charlotte Flair have considerable claims to being WWE GOATs in their respective divisions.

[FMKK]

Reigns has also had way more good TV performances against the likes of Cesaro, Samoa Joe, Jason Jordan and even Miz than I can think of Rollins ever mustering. There's definitely something to the idea that he's seen by smark crowds as a great worker because he has a particular look and resume whereas some of those same people would never think the same thing about Reigns again mainly because of his look and his background.

[Matt D]

5 minutes ago, FMKK said:

Reigns has also had way more good TV performances against the likes of Cesaro, Samoa Joe, Jason Jordan and even Miz than I can think of Rollins ever mustering. There's definitely something to the idea that he's seen by smark crowds as a great worker because he has a particular look and resume whereas some of those same people would never think the same thing about Reigns again mainly because of his look and his background.

The in-ring arguments that I've seen or heard from others for Rollins relative to Reigns tend to be moveset, workrate, and push.

"Reigns only has three moves." 

That sort of thing.

[FMKK]

6 minutes ago, Matt D said:

The in-ring arguments that I've seen or heard from others for Rollins relative to Reigns tend to be moveset, workrate, and push.

"Reigns only has three moves." 

That sort of thing.

That feels like such a ten years out of date criticism or any worker. Rollins does more moves but for moves like that superplex into falcon arrow he does for a two count, he basically demands that his opponent doesn't sell the moves so that he can get to the next one. To me, that's just a load of wasted motion.

I'd also say that I've never seen a selling performance from Rollins that's as engaging as the best Reigns ones e.g. vs Lesnar at Mania 31, vs Strowman at Payback 2017.

 

(I'm not saying that the moves thing is your argument at all, I just think Reigns kinda smokes him)

[KawadaSmile]

It's funny you guys mention those TV matches against Jason Jordan, Cesaro and Miz and then address those "limited moveset" criticisms, because Roman was busting out some pretty cool shit in those very matches.

I mean, dude was even doing some nifty La Casitas against Cesaro, using Single Leg Crabs against JJ (which played into the story of the match) and some power moves against Miz. Wish he would do that dope BT Bomb more often, though.

[Matt D]

I should have added the word "only."

It's very frustrating to try to get someone to make a coherent, detailed argument AGAINST Roman. 

[Boss Rock]

Reigns was always the better singles worker of the three and was always in the discussion for best in the WWE even if I would stop short of calling him THE best.

[NintendoLogic]

What was Roman's last great straight wrestling match without a bunch of bells and whistles?

Honestly, he and Rollins can both fuck off to Hollywood for all I care. They're damaged beyond repair in WWE.

[El-P]

8 minutes ago, NintendoLogic said:

What was Roman's last great straight wrestling match without a bunch of bells and whistles?

Never cared for Roman Reigns in single. The overuse of that stupid-ass Superman Punch being a reason why. I always found him dull and unengaging. The only time he showed me something that wasn't "work like a top guy when actually no one in the crowd sees you as one" or "sell way too much when you're not very good at it but you're positioned as John Cena" was at that Mania working around the remains of Taker, I thought he did a pretty damn good job at it. But apart from that, I always found Reigns overrated as fuck all. He's also been in position to work super agented main events for ever now in the most cushioned environment in the business. I honestly don't think he would look half as good as Moxley does if he was thrown into something like the G1.

I honestly have no opinion on Seth Rollins' work, I don't even remember when I actually watched a full match (apart from that Mania quasi-squash).

[FMKK]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

Never cared for Roman Reigns in single. The overuse of that stupid-ass Superman Punch being a reason why. I always found him dull and unengaging. The only time he showed me something that wasn't "work like a top guy when actually no one in the crowd sees you as one" or "sell way too much when you're not very good at it but you're positioned as John Cena" was at that Mania working around the remains of Taker, I thought he did a pretty damn good job at it. But apart from that, I always found Reigns overrated as fuck all. He's also been in position to work super agented main events for ever now in the most cushioned environment in the business. I honestly don't think he would look half as good as Moxley does if he was thrown into something like the G1.

I honestly have no opinion on Seth Rollins' work, I don't even remember when I actually watched a full match (apart from that Mania quasi-squash).

I think it was the wrong move to have him working as a babyface who fought from underneath when they made their first attempt at giving him the big push. The vocal segment of the audience had already tired of Cena being that character so trying to force it again instead of just making him an ass-kicker who did short, explosive matches was a mistake. But Vince just has this formula for top faces that he isn't willing to break. Having said that, I actually thin Reigns has had some really strong selling performances that would have gotten over huge in another era with crowds more receptive to him - a problem that in my opinion is mostly not of his making.

He's been a part of way too many excellent matches for me to think he's anything less than great tbh.

[SAMS]

5 hours ago, DMJ said:

Going back to 2014 or so, Reigns had matches against Bryan, Sheamus, AJ Styles, Lesnar (WM31), and Strowman that I really liked and put in the category of Potential MOTY/Worth Watching. On top of that, he had some multi-mans that I put into that same category

Looking at my database, Rollins' only 4-star singles matches are against Roman Reigns, occurred in 2014/15 against Ambrose - when that feud was red hot and seemed very fresh- or were multi-mans (which often included Reigns). 

I'm basically in the same boat here. 

I would point to all these matches as roughly being in 4 star territory and a general plus to anybody's overall body of work:

Fastlane 2015 v Bryan

Mania 31 v Brock

October 2015 RAW v Cesaro

TLC 2015 v Sheamus

Fastlane 2016 v Brock & Ambrose

Payback 2016 v Styles

Extreme Rules 2016 v Styles

Payback 2017 v Strowman

GBOF 2017 v Strowman 

SummerSlam 2017 v Brock, Strowman & Joe

December 2017 RAW v Cesaro

December 2017 RAW vs Joe

Whereas Seth has a match on RAW from June 2013 vs Daniel Bryan. A match that I would bet would be more in Bryan's favour than Rollins'. That's it as far as my recollection. 

In general if we stretch this out to generally good matches that aren't quite MOTN/MOTY candidates, Roman still blows Rollins out of the water. 

7 hours ago, Boss Rock said:

I do think Seth has always been a really good tag wrestler. The teams with Roman and Mox and the Shield trios matches really allowed him to shine because he got to show off his flashy offense in hot tags and tornado settings and hide his inability to carry a singles match.

This is a perfect summation of my opinions on Rollins during his WWE run. The Shield tags are great, and honestly, a large part of the credit can be assigned to Rollins as he was allowed to shine by doing stuff that he excelled at while being hidden within a tag setting so that his shortcomings were not highlighted. 

3 hours ago, El-P said:

Never cared for Roman Reigns in single. The overuse of that stupid-ass Superman Punch being a reason why. I always found him dull and unengaging. The only time he showed me something that wasn't "work like a top guy when actually no one in the crowd sees you as one" or "sell way too much when you're not very good at it but you're positioned as John Cena" was at that Mania working around the remains of Taker, I thought he did a pretty damn good job at it. But apart from that, I always found Reigns overrated as fuck all. He's also been in position to work super agented main events for ever now in the most cushioned environment in the business. I honestly don't think he would look half as good as Moxley does if he was thrown into something like the G1.

I don't agree. Apart from Daniel Bryan, Cesaro and maybe Big E, there isn't a guy who I want to see in a G1 setting more than Roman. I'll admit to being shocked (in a good way) by Moxley's general performances since his departure. During his WWE run he demonstrated very little of what he's been pulling out over the last few months. Roman has already proved that he's capable of bringing it in ring, and in my opinion this is in spite of the overarching WWE setup, not because of it. 

I'm with you that the Superman Punch is trash, overused, and ends up becoming a crutch of sorts, but it smacks of a poor attempt by backstage to present him as a comic book character in a way they believe kids see comic book characters. The excessive use of the move could be Roman's doing, but I'll go out on a limb and presume he's not the driving force. Moxley had that stupid Rebound Lariat move and we haven't seen that in at all since he left...

[Dale Wolfe]

Superman punch used sparingly could be great for a character. Every other match? No

 

I mean come on 

[Zoo Enthusiast]

8 hours ago, FMKK said:

Reigns has also had way more good TV performances against the likes of Cesaro, Samoa Joe, Jason Jordan and even Miz than I can think of Rollins ever mustering. There's definitely something to the idea that he's seen by smark crowds as a great worker because he has a particular look and resume whereas some of those same people would never think the same thing about Reigns again mainly because of his look and his background.

I think one of the matches that made me go “holy shit, Roman rules” was one on Raw vs Elias.  For a while there he was having excellent matches every week. It almost felt like watching Bret Hart to a degree.

I’ve pretty much always thought Seth sucks outside of that brief period where I thought he was good with the IC in the spring/summer of ‘18.  He actively drives me away from watching WWE when he is a top guy.

[C.S.]

7 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Honestly, he and Rollins can both fuck off to Hollywood for all I care. They're damaged beyond repair in WWE.

 at the notion of Rollins ever becoming a top Hollywood star.

[SomethingSavage]

Rollins is athletic and fast, so he has "fooled" a certain portion of the audience into presuming he's a good in-ring performer. Like it or not, there's still a sizable section of the "smart" audience who adhere to the same work-rate beliefs and values today they they did way back in 2002.

And I still see it everywhere. Even here. Seth is always one fast-paced match away from everyone fantasy booking him into another title run.

It doesn't matter how ill-conceived or poorly staged their performances are. Guys like Seth and Dolph are athletic and quick, so some people will still view them as exciting workers who are out there having these bangers - no matter how hard they truly suck as actual workers, characters, and storytellers.

I actually believe part of that is due to the huge dearth of buzz and excitement in WWE. Anytime there's even a slight glimpse of crowd response or even a small spark of excitement in a match, fans will latch onto it and proclaim it to be the next big thing. It's not.

It's just that there's this famine in WWE where nothing is suspenseful and nobody is resonating, so folks catch themselves biting & believing fifty eleven near falls in a Seth Rollins match must make him pretty good.

He's not. You're just ravenous & looking for anything to get over. But Seth is not the place to look 

[El-P]

1 hour ago, SomethingSavage said:

Rollins is athletic and fast, so he has "fooled" a certain portion of the audience into presuming he's a good in-ring performer. Like it or not, there's still a sizable section of the "smart" audience who adhere to the same work-rate beliefs and values today they they did way back in 2002.

This is way overstated. This is acting like there was no criticism of spot-workers previous to the 00's, the DVDVR sets and the post-Benoit workrate guilt (yes, it happened). There was plenty of criticism of spotfests for the sake of spotfests already. Hell, guys like Eddie Carpentier and Antonino Rocca were probably considered like spot-monkeys in their days. The thing is, back then (the 80's and 90's I mean, since this is were our conversation is focusing about "smart fans"), wrestling was also marred by a shitload of guys who would do nothing or do spots but really, really poorly. But that never made anyone who would tons of cool shit a great worker, even back then. No one ever confused the Eliminators with the MX, although as crazy spot-artists, they could be fun (with the sloppiness that went with the time too).

This isn't the case today though, as pro-wrestlers are much better athletes and especially acrobats than they ever were before. So of course it gets even harder to simply discredit someone who's doing incredible stuff as a simple spot-monkey, because let's say 90% of pro-wrestlers today that aren't great and some not even good are just that, spot monkeys. Very seldom you'd see a guy who just suck at doing anything or spend his time lying down or lumbering around. Basically, most pro-wrestlers today do a lot of "movez" and have a high workrate anyway. Hell, Cody vs Dustin was a total high workrate match, really.

At the same time, by sheer pendulum effect, some guys who aren't doing much, or are doing less, or whose execution is not that great, are de facto overrated simply because of the fallacious "lol movez" arguments. I'm not gonna name names here, but how many time have I heard about this guy or that guys being "great at his role" when in fact he was a mediocre goof who simply had a decent gimmick or decent charisma or was doing some easy but efficient stuff.

Doing less doesn't automatically means you're great (see : Corbin, Baron). Doing more doesn't mean you're not great (see : Omega, Kenny).

Seth Rollins seems to be in the old "spot monkey" category, and it's not helped by the fact he never had any discernable character ever. He's Blitzkrieg. He's doing cool moves and some people love him for that, despite the fact 99% of pro-wrestlers today do cool moves, but he's also pushed at the top of the N#1 company in the world, which helps the perception a whole lot. Remember Blitzkrieg ? He was a total spot-monkey who was on fire for a few months on Nitro and Thunder in the cruiserweight division in 1999. And some of us panned him back them for being a "lol movez" guy too (we didn't use that term, of course), whereas Rey Mysterio, who was doing even more moves and executed them better, was rightly seen as a great worker, because he had a lot more than a repertoire of moves.

I think the "spot worker" designation should come back. Anyway, I'm just ranting.   

[NintendoLogic]

I basically agree with all the criticisms of Dolph and Seth's work, but you can't ignore the elephant in the room. Cody Rhodes and Jon Moxley have both shown that it's impossible to fairly judge someone based on their work in WWE.

[El-P]

3 minutes ago, NintendoLogic said:

I basically agree with all the criticisms of Dolph and Seth's work, but you can't ignore the elephant in the room. Cody Rhodes and Jon Moxley (add in : KENTA) have both shown that it's impossible to fairly judge someone based on their work in WWE.

Yeah, that too.

[Migs]

On 7/24/2019 at 5:19 PM, KawadaSmile said:

• Orton/Kofi
• Seth/Lesnar
• Charlotte/Trish
• Bayley/Ember
• Shane/KO
• Finn/Bray
• Becky/Nattie

There are probably 4 more matches to be announced. It isn't the most appealing of cards, but that's usually when WWE deliver things the most.

It is exceptionally sad that WWE's "best" shows are when expectations are low. WWE: Don't Get Your Hopes Up!

[Migs]

On 7/29/2019 at 8:30 AM, SomethingSavage said:

Seth has no character to speak of, nor does he have the skill set to convey any kind of actual character. Steve Austin nailed it when he posed the question, "What is a Seth Rollins?" Nobody knows.

Seth *seems* more acceptable as a ratty, pesky heel. He *seems* like he'd work well in that X-Pac vermin type role.

The problem is that his work simply sucks. He can't work in the ring like a heel, because he wants oh so badly to impress people with his athleticism and fitness. So he's gotta flip and dive and hiss and flex his cardio, brutha. He has to be flashy, and so being a heel never actually plays to his strengths.

Then again, he can't actually work as a character babyface either. Because he lacks the skill set for that as well. In the ring, his size and demeanor make him *seem* suitable for the role. Again though, he doesn't grasp the concept OF WORKING like a babyface.

 Rather than show actual vulnerability or understand the importance of garnering sympathy, he'd rather work like a world-beater with his phony, soft offense. Instead of telling stories about struggle and perseverance, he'd rather slap his knee and hiss and do those dives where he gently brushes you with his abnormally hairy wrists.

 For fuck's sake y'all, he really just sucks from every angle.

Dead on.

Seth is the ultimate stereotype of an ROH worker. 

[Al]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

This is way overstated. This is acting like there was no criticism of spot-workers previous to the 00's, the DVDVR sets and the post-Benoit workrate guilt (yes, it happened). There was plenty of criticism of spotfests for the sake of spotfests already. Hell, guys like Eddie Carpentier and Antonino Rocca were probably considered like spot-monkeys in their days. The thing is, back then (the 80's and 90's I mean, since this is were our conversation is focusing about "smart fans"), wrestling was also marred by a shitload of guys who would do nothing or do spots but really, really poorly. But that never made anyone who would tons of cool shit a great worker, even back then. No one ever confused the Eliminators with the MX, although as crazy spot-artists, they could be fun (with the sloppiness that went with the time too).

The Antonino Rocca mention is interesting because he absolutely was a spot monkey. Vince Sr. would tag him with Miguel Perez and newspapers noted that Perez would work 50 minutes of a 60 minute match.