Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
Sign in to follow this  
flyonthewall2983

Winning streaks - good or bad?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El-P said:

Everything usually ends bad. Love stories, life, pro-wrestling winning streak...

Twenty year old me wants that on his tombstone

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about someone like Rock who got over as a main event babyface while losing a lot? Even when he was the biggest thing in wrestling in 2000, he was still doing quite a few jobs

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×