Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Winning streaks - good or bad?


flyonthewall2983

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, sek69 said:

Daniel Bryan?

Getting squashed in 18 seconds by Sheamus was the spark that got fans rallying behind him to the point they nearly rioted that he didn't win a Rumble he wasn't even in. 

Yeah but from the time he was squashed to the rumble he had a 20 month winning streak. After the squash he turned babyface and paired with Kane and they had a year long reign as tag champs that ended in the following spring. Then he beat Cena at Summerslam. Then traded wins with Orton in the fall. Then he won his feud the Wyatt family in the winter. I truly think Daniel Bryan from May of 2012 until April of 2014 was the best booked babyface in WWE of the last 20 years, even if it may have been entirely on accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 minutes ago, Log said:

True, but when you look back on a streak, people tend to (right or wrong) judge it by the ending.  People think of Goldberg's streak and they think cattle prod.  

Hum... I don't think so. I believe when you think Goldy, you think "Spear/Jackhammer/Who's next". If they thought "cattle prod", he probably wouldn't be a star for WWE in the late 2010's.

It's usually a bad thing to judge anything by the ending anyway. Everything usually ends bad. Love stories, life, pro-wrestling winning streak...

14 minutes ago, Rocco said:

I was curious so I looked on Cagematch.  Starting with SS 96 where he loses to Bret, Austin was never pinned on TV and only once on PPV where he lost to Undertaker the month after WM13.  Any losses he had on TV were DQs, he lost at the Final Four PPV but that was getting thrown over the top rope and of course famously to Bret at WM13 where he passed out.  

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not surprised. I thought about the loss on PPV to Taker after WM13 and that was the only one I could remember.

Also, the *loss* to Bret hart at Mania did not made him a huge babyface : the angle, the promos leading to it, the great match itself and the way it was worked (with the masterful job of Bret Hart all along the way) did. Sure, the fact he lost actually helped, for many reasons, and it was the right booking move at the time, but it's not just the loss which mattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have positive memories of Goldberg and I agree that he’s remembered fo sly for tearing through guys. But, when I think of the streak itself, I don’t think of it positively because of the end. 
 

Don’t think endings matter? Ask a Game of Thrones fan. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log brings up a good point about Game of Thrones.

I don't think this is limited to streaks in wrestling. Is there a universally praised ending to anything in entertainment? We all spend our time fantasy booking how things go and, unless it supersedes our expectations or meets them, they always pale in comparison in our eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Log said:

Don’t think endings matter? Ask a Game of Thrones fan. Lol. 

It's two completely different things though. A winning streak in pro-wrestling is not a story with a beginning and an end that has to be satisfactory in and out of itself, it's an angle to get someone over, the end leading to something else for everyone involved. Unless you kill off the character because he leaves the territory, there's no "end" to that character's story, it's not at all like a TV show having to conclude its entire arc. If pro-wrestling TV had actual seasons, it would be different, but the neverending flow makes things pretty different.

As far as Game of Thrones goes, well, to me it was always pretty bad like I said before, poorly written with reliance on swerves and rapes and torture, it's basically Vince Russo level of stupidity at times, with entire arcs leading nowhere (hey, remember Arya getting all those super cool powers ? Sure paid off...) and gratuitous misogyny at every corner. So really, the ending kinda cracked me up. I mean, Dani goes batshit insane now that Al Snow (or whatever his name was) won't kiss her Auntie anymore after he already fuck the hell out of her and goes straight Nazi on everyone... Yeah, kinda funny to me honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, joeg said:

A question for this thread, has anybody ever gotten over as a legit main event babyface without a big winning streak? If somebody can come up with an example I would love to hear it.

This actually came up on reddit, but one (the only?) answer is Mick Foley.

I'd consider him a legit main event babyface for a stretch and his most famous matches were all losses - except the time he won the World Championship. But, yeah, mostly lost to Taker, mostly lost to Austin, mostly lost to The Rock, mostly lost to Triple H. Was still probably a top 2-3 babyface in the company at his peak that main evented multiple PPVs. I don't remember him ever getting "hot" and winning a bunch of matches in a row. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory winning streaks should be a positive, it's always a sure fire way to get a guy over but it always boil down to execution. Best exam I have is Samoa Joe's streak in TNA. His run during that time was perfection and only to have it end just to capitalize on the buzz of signing Kurt Angle was underwhelming. It should've ended later on in the year but not at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Dreamer also became a main eventer based mainly on losses, although he won plenty too.

The examples of Austin and Bryan are interesting because while they both won a lot (I think we all agree that's important for a babyface in almost all circumstances if they want to be pushed as a top guy), they didn't have "winning streaks" as a gimmick. Sometimes I think that's more effective if you're trying to let the babyface maintain a certain underdog status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DMJ said:

This actually came up on reddit, but one (the only?) answer is Mick Foley.

I'd consider him a legit main event babyface for a stretch and his most famous matches were all losses - except the time he won the World Championship. But, yeah, mostly lost to Taker, mostly lost to Austin, mostly lost to The Rock, mostly lost to Triple H. Was still probably a top 2-3 babyface in the company at his peak that main evented multiple PPVs. I don't remember him ever getting "hot" and winning a bunch of matches in a row. 

Great answer. Yeah he lost almost as much as he won during his run on top, and he absolutely lost more than won when facing the top guys. I think having so many losses against top guys didn't hurt him in that era though for a couple of reasons. Very few of Foley's losses were clean as there were very few clean finishes in Attitude Era main events. The title changed hands so frequently during those years that he was always in the mix or a month away from being back in the mix. And he's Mick Foley, all he needed was one good promo or good little back stage skit to get hot again after a loss. 

 

9 hours ago, Migs said:

Tommy Dreamer also became a main eventer based mainly on losses, although he won plenty too.

The examples of Austin and Bryan are interesting because while they both won a lot (I think we all agree that's important for a babyface in almost all circumstances if they want to be pushed as a top guy), they didn't have "winning streaks" as a gimmick. Sometimes I think that's more effective if you're trying to let the babyface maintain a certain underdog status.

 

Ok I said "legit main event babyface" as much as I love Tommy Dreamer, I don't know if he qualifies.  

As for Austin and Bryan, to me its like the Gonzaga Bulldogs. They have spent the past several years as a top 5 team beating the shit out of every team they play. But come tournament time, every year they are still looked at as the underdogs regardless of their seed or record. People like winners. They like winners who win consistently. They like winners who weren't supposed to win. They especially like it when winners who aren't supposed to win, win consistently. I think that's the formula for building a rabid fan base in sports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, who was the biggest star in ECW from about 97 ? RVD. And RVD had since year-long TV champ stint that he actually never lost because he ended up injured. Total win streak for RVD too. 

Dreamer indeed is like the guy who did not need to win. Kinda like Sandman was at one time the biggest heel in the company (then babyface) while pretty much always losing. Very much in the Mick Foley mode indeed. The characters, the promos, the angles and the matches were more important than the wins in their cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, NintendoLogic said:

ECW never made money, so you can't really call their guys legit main event babyfaces.

So, Sting was never a legit main event babyface before 97 ? Come on now... What matters is the inner context of the promotion and are people getting over there. WWE is making more money than ever now, that doesn't mean they got anyone over a a legit main event babyface. Actually they haven't, for years and years and years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Blehschmidt said:

If we are talking ECW, then Tommy Dreamer was definitely the main event babyface, and while he got wins over lackeys, he never brought it home in the big one, yet that crowd loved him.

Not really. He wasn't the top babyface until like 2000/2001. After Taz, RVD, Sabu, Mike Awesome, Sandman, Shane Douglas, Terry Funk etc had all left. Yeah in the dying days he was the top babyface with Corino, Rhino and Justin Credible as the top heels, but I don't know if you really can count being the top babyface in the last 8 months of ECW being a legit main event babyface or just being the last guy off a sinking ship.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreamer was more the sentimental favorite than the top babyface. I don't think he ever would have gotten as popular had he actually been positioned as a threat to win the title rather than as a lovable loser. 

6 hours ago, El-P said:

Come on, Raven vs Tommy Dreamer was the main feud of the promotion for like one year and a half at its creative peak.

Raven vs Sandman was a far more interesting feud even if it didn't have the satisfying conclusion. And even in the Raven vs Dreamer feud, Dreamer was like the 4th biggest draw behind Terry Funk, Mick Foley and Raven, which is kind of my point as why he wasn't THE top babyface. He was A key player for them, he wasn't THE key player for them. The show would have gone on without him. It didn't go on for much longer without the other babyfaces ECW lost in 99-00. 

13 minutes ago, SirEdger said:

Dreamer was the heart and soul of ECW. Of course, he was their top babyface, there's no doubt in my mind.

I literally lol'd at this. "The heart and soul of ECW" is exactly what Joey Styles started calling Tommy Dreamer on air in late 99 when the ship was starting to go down. Which is exactly my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock is a good example. He lost more than he won from 96 to mid 98 or so. Then he started winning more than he lost but still lost way more than any top guy should.  At the same time, none of the main event finishes in the Attitude Era were clean so losses didn't really hurt him and he never lost to anybody that wasn't a top guy. And none of his losses were ever clean. And like Mick Foley he was always a promo away from being right back in the main event after a month working with Val Venis or Billy Gunn or the Hollys. Attitude Era is weird as the top 5 guys all traded wins and none of the finishes were clean and the title changed hands every month. Those three things devalued wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a Kayfabe Commentaries DVD Kevin Sullivan lays out his plans for Goldberg after he took over in 2000.  He wanted to build Sid into a monster that made Goldberg again when he beat Sid.  Then 2 years down the road have Goldberg lose to a heel who would then be banned from TV because it was way too dangerous to have the guy on TV.  Would have to wait for PPV to see whoever that was because to beat Goldberg you had to be a real monster. 

Seemed like a decent enough plan to me, but WCW wanted things done faster and went back to the team of Bischoff and Vince Russo.

I think that a lot of the time the ending to those kind of deals ends up sucking because it wasn't really thought out from the beginning.  The success of the streak takes enough people by surprise and they roll with it, hoping to just ride the wave.  Then one day somebody says, "You know what, we should end the streak."  And they come up with a good enough plan for it for the other guys in the room and it's over.  Whereas if you started the thing with a goal in mind and kept your eye on when the right time to accomplish that goal was (maybe the DDP match for Goldie?  Can't see the company getting behind a 38+ year old guy with that kind of deal though.  They'd be saying no due to the chance of injury/retirement/whatever.)  you might have some kind of chance at ending the thing properly because you would book the middle portion as if there was an end somewhere and have some kind of story attached.  As it was, I'd say most streaks like that are just reactive and not overly planned.

If you want to know what I mean go to the Daniel Bryan promo right after the RR where he says he should have been in the Rumble.  Steph and HHH come out to ask him if he thinks that's what the fans really want to see and the entire arena at once screams "YES! YES! YES!"  Are you seriously going to tell me that wasn't a litmus test?  And that without it he would have had the run he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dawho5 said:

If you want to know what I mean go to the Daniel Bryan promo right after the RR where he says he should have been in the Rumble.  Steph and HHH come out to ask him if he thinks that's what the fans really want to see and the entire arena at once screams "YES! YES! YES!"  Are you seriously going to tell me that wasn't a litmus test?  And that without it he would have had the run he did?

I would argue the reaction the Rumble got for him not winning it was even more of a litmus test. That promo was the start of WWE trying to rewrite history to make it seem like it was the plan all along and not something the fans forced their hand on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really look at Bryans ascension as happening 2 years before that, when he was working CM Punk in the spring of 2012 after getting squashed by Sheamus. After getting squashed at Wrestlemania he goes straight to working heel vs the champ and top guy. He develops the Yes Chant as a way to be annoying as fuck. When Bryan got over huge was after his babyface turn when he was teaming with Kane in that odd ball sort of team. It was really his first opportunity to show his personality in backstage skits and the Yes Chant caught on as a thing in fall of 2012.

From the time he lost his feud with CM Punk in Spring/Summer of 2012 to the time he and Kane dropped the tag belts to The Sheild at Extreme Rules in May 2013, Bryan didn't lose on TV or PPV! Now that might have been an accident or it might have been planned. The only three people who didn't do jobs in that time were Bryan, Rollins, and Roman Reigns. That might be just be coincidence. Then Bryan went over Cena. Then he traded wins with Orton. Then he went over the Wyatts. A lot of things happened in the 18 months before the 2014 Royal Rumble to get Bryan over that it just doesn't seem like pure coincidence that he was the hottest going headed into the 2014 Rumble. It does seem like blind stupidity to put that much energy into getting somebody over and not have him win the Rumble though. Who knows though maybe that was the plan originally but everything changed with CM Punk walking out and Batista coming back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always kinda wondered who would have won the 2014 rumble had Batista not come back

there's been a debate if Bryan really won the .Bray feud as well. He lost to the Wyatts at TLC 2013 and lost to Bray at Rumble 2014 in the blow off. He and Punk won the tag at Survivor Series 13 but I'm pretty sure we were supposed to think Bray ultimately won that feud. (Bray was being built up for Cena at WM 30)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2021 at 9:29 PM, Rocco said:

I was curious so I looked on Cagematch.  Starting with SS 96 where he loses to Bret, Austin was never pinned on TV and only once on PPV where he lost to Undertaker the month after WM13.  Any losses he had on TV were DQs, he lost at the Final Four PPV but that was getting thrown over the top rope and of course famously to Bret at WM13 where he passed out.  

Also Survivor Series 1996 was the first time Austin was ever pinned on WWF TV. All his previous losses were by DQ and he lost a strap match to Savio Vega with the four corner rule thing, not by being pinned.

I remember watching 1996-97 a few years ago and noticing Austin was way more protected from the start than I'd thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...