El-P Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I'm still frustrated about not getting that Reigns vs Rusev match at SS. He's good. He can have really good matches. He's certainly not a super worker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I guess my main problem is he's clearly got it in him to be a super heel, but the company has such a hard on about making him the new John Cena it takes me out of his matches to a degree. And let's not kid ourselves here, when they started with the Shield he was not very good. Didn't they start the barf inducing zoom in on strikes in part to cover for him? I give him all the credit in th world for improving, but he went from bad to pretty decent and suddenly folks are giving him Wrestler of the Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy James Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Roman Reigns is not a super-worker but "decent enough but bad at selling" is an absurd evaluation of him, especially the bit about the selling. He's like #5 in the company at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 If a guy who has had some of the best matches in WWE over the past 2 years is only "pretty decent" I hate to think what that means for the rest of the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy James Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I think Dave's evaluation on his selling is based on him getting bad reactions in FIP segments, which is fair in a sense, but like, at this point it's pretty clear that his reactions are about external politics and not really his workrate, right? Rusev's probably my favorite seller in the company (which is why I want a Roman/Rusev blood brawl so badly) and I'm not sure if even he could draw sympathy in Roman's spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Dave is usually a hard marker for WWE workers over a certain height and weight limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMKK Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I think Dave's evaluation on his selling is based on him getting bad reactions in FIP segments, which is fair in a sense, but like, at this point it's pretty clear that his reactions are about external politics and not really his workrate, right? Rusev's probably my favorite seller in the company (which is why I want a Roman/Rusev blood brawl so badly) and I'm not sure if even he could draw sympathy in Roman's spot. If Dave's judgement was based on not eliciting the right crowd reaction, he should be calling out Rollins, Owens etc. for being dreadful heels because they get face pops from most of the audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I don't remember the "he's not very good" talking point going around when Reigns was in the Shield. Quite a few people, myself included, thought he was the best of the group. And for a while he was probably one of the most over guys in the company. Remember those crowd reactions when he would be the last man standing against a group of opponents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 What is really funny about Dave saying Roman is "decent enough" is that he's the guy who gives out star ratings for all his big matches and consistently rates his matches in the 4 star range. His opinion of Roman as a worker would seem to not really line up with his opinion of Roman's matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMKK Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I would like to see a chart of all the 3.5 star plus ratings Dave has given to each top WWE guy since The Shield debuted. Roman would be right up there for well rated matches I reckon. I'm too lazy/busy to make such a list right now but I may do it before the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microstatistics Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 So are we really going to keep acting like Roman is some kind of super worker now? I mean, yes he's improved from when he was just the big scary dude in the Shield, but I feel like a lot of this Reigns love is a kneejerk reaction to fans continuing to boo him. So are we really going to keep acting like Roman is some kind of super worker now? Yes. It's the Contrarian-to-stupid-contrarian-meta-mainstream-WWE-fans-&-Evil-Meltzer-japaneseshit-workrate-culture attitude. That's the way now. Be in on it. #lolmovez. The praise might sound like over-compensation but it's just about giving him the credit he deserves and is never going to get from mainstream fans. The extent of the praise is appropriate too. No one is pretending he is suddenly Jun Akiyama or Negro Casas and is an absolute master of pro wrestling. Just acknowledging he is a good/very good worker based on recent performances/matches. And honestly, apart from AJ Styles and maybe some of the women, I can't think of anyone on the main roster who is better than him. Also the assessment that he is bad at selling is nuts. His selling is his biggest strength to me. As to El-P's contrarian point, I actually agree with it to a certain extent. I feel people like Big Show and Mark Henry get way too much praise on this site, sometimes as a response to their mainstream perception. Roman is different though, IMO. His case is more about people blindly hating him rather than genuinely thinking he is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonFB Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I think it's been clear for quite some time now that Roman is better than his Shield counterparts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Roman Reigns is a convenient scapegoat on which people project everything they don't like about WWE, a role formerly filled by John Cena. At this point I just think, Jeez, yes, Daniel Bryan should have won the 2015 Royal Rumble, but is that really worth a nearly two-year temper tantrum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 As for Mark Henry, I'd love to see someone actually argue AGAINST him. No one does. People just pull out the contrarian card while his supporters show their work. I don't have the time for day for anyone that would do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 As for Mark Henry, I'd love to see someone actually argue AGAINST him. No one does. Depend what you call AGAINST. Mark Henry's praises have been ridiculous at times. I remember the infamous OH MY GOD THIS IS SUCH A GREAT MATCH on Raw a few years ago against CM Punk. I remember watching it. It was like a good little TV match in which Henry was *good*. But the idea that Mark Henry was all of a sudden a superworker, yes, is pretty overstated. I still have nightmares (well, not really) of his match with Taker at Mania a few years back. And like I've stated before, I liked Mark Henry back in 1998 when he joined the Nation, way before he got good. So, it's not like waited for he became the new darling of post-Benoit workrate guilt crowd to enjoy that big load. Like I said in the G1 thread, I've always loved big working guys and legit feat of strenght. So, always enjoyed Mark Henry. Dunno why this post was so long winded though. Ah, the Big Show ? Yeah. Awful for most of his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy James Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 It's kind of funny that Daniel Bryan was so incredibly over that he indirectly ruined the careers of Sheamus and Roman Reigns. Like, obviously that's not like his "fault", but still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMKK Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 It's kind of funny that Daniel Bryan was so incredibly over that he indirectly ruined the careers of Sheamus and Roman Reigns. Like, obviously that's not like his "fault", but still That one neck injury really fucked up two to three years of booking. If he had been able to hold it together until Brock squashed him at Summerslam 2014, would any of this shit ever happen? I know the shitty booking patterns that piss off the audience would still be in place, but the whole Bryan situation just made it all so much more visceral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I'm not entirely convinced that the fans would have cooled off even if Lesnar had squashed him at Summerslam 2014. I do think the way wwe books now half so catering to smart fans is they are terrified of another Bryan situation. Those few months in early 2014 and early 2015 might have changed wwe history forever. Of course if he had just won the '14 Rumble then none of this probably happens at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 As for Mark Henry, I'd love to see someone actually argue AGAINST him. No one does. Depend what you call AGAINST. Mark Henry's praises have been ridiculous at times. I remember the infamous OH MY GOD THIS IS SUCH A GREAT MATCH on Raw a few years ago against CM Punk. I remember watching it. It was like a good little TV match in which Henry was *good*. But the idea that Mark Henry was all of a sudden a superworker, yes, is pretty overstated. I still have nightmares (well, not really) of his match with Taker at Mania a few years back. And like I've stated before, I liked Mark Henry back in 1998 when he joined the Nation, way before he got good. So, it's not like waited for he became the new darling of post-Benoit workrate guilt crowd to enjoy that big load. Like I said in the G1 thread, I've always loved big working guys and legit feat of strenght. So, always enjoyed Mark Henry. Dunno why this post was so long winded though. Ah, the Big Show ? Yeah. Awful for most of his career. Thank you for your anecdotal generalities that don't actually mention any aspect of his work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Roman Reigns is a convenient scapegoat on which people project everything they don't like about WWE, a role formerly filled by John Cena. At this point I just think, Jeez, yes, Daniel Bryan should have won the 2015 Royal Rumble, but is that really worth a nearly two-year temper tantrum? I feel that's overstating things a bit. It's not that people were having a temper tantrum over that one Rumble, it's that it represented the company taking what it knew the fans wanted to see and giving them a giant middle finger. So in turn the fans did the same thing to Roman knowing he means as much to the company (well, Vince at least) as Bryan did to them. It's petty, yes, but considering the company's history it couldn't have happened to more deserving folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Roman Reigns is a convenient scapegoat on which people project everything they don't like about WWE, a role formerly filled by John Cena. At this point I just think, Jeez, yes, Daniel Bryan should have won the 2015 Royal Rumble, but is that really worth a nearly two-year temper tantrum? I feel that's overstating things a bit. It's not that people were having a temper tantrum over that one Rumble, it's that it represented the company taking what it knew the fans wanted to see and giving them a giant middle finger. So in turn the fans did the same thing to Roman knowing he means as much to the company (well, Vince at least) as Bryan did to them. It's petty, yes, but considering the company's history it couldn't have happened to more deserving folks. Not giving the company any money would have been a much clearer message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Roman Reigns is a convenient scapegoat on which people project everything they don't like about WWE, a role formerly filled by John Cena. At this point I just think, Jeez, yes, Daniel Bryan should have won the 2015 Royal Rumble, but is that really worth a nearly two-year temper tantrum? I feel that's overstating things a bit. It's not that people were having a temper tantrum over that one Rumble, it's that it represented the company taking what it knew the fans wanted to see and giving them a giant middle finger. So in turn the fans did the same thing to Roman knowing he means as much to the company (well, Vince at least) as Bryan did to them. It's petty, yes, but considering the company's history it couldn't have happened to more deserving folks. Not giving the company any money would have been a much clearer message. You could say the same thing to NFL fans IRT fleecing the public for taxpayer funded stadiums and covering up and/or overlooking players' criminal activities, but every Sunday's going to have 16 packed stadiums. In an ideal world, the proper response to poor booking would be for them to face empty arenas (and for a lot of houseshows, they pretty much are) but the truth of the matter is that WWE is the only game in town for 3/ths of the country so if you are a wrestling fan it's them or nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Every time I see someone try and justify giving money to a company they supposedly hate so much it never fails to be full of shit while also littered with "well yea but other people have done it look at ratings/house show attendance!" Glad to see some things never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted August 31, 2016 Report Share Posted August 31, 2016 It's not so much a justification as much as an acknowledgement that there's far less people who share the same level of concern than there are people who would rather not support a large business that frequently takes a dump on their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2016 Roman Reigns is a convenient scapegoat on which people project everything they don't like about WWE, a role formerly filled by John Cena. At this point I just think, Jeez, yes, Daniel Bryan should have won the 2015 Royal Rumble, but is that really worth a nearly two-year temper tantrum? I feel that's overstating things a bit. It's not that people were having a temper tantrum over that one Rumble, it's that it represented the company taking what it knew the fans wanted to see and giving them a giant middle finger. So in turn the fans did the same thing to Roman knowing he means as much to the company (well, Vince at least) as Bryan did to them. It's petty, yes, but considering the company's history it couldn't have happened to more deserving folks. Why does Vince get cheered when he shows up? Why not take it out on him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.