Wrestling News & Rumours Thread ***NO CHAT***

SureYWouldntYa

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Sheamus came 10th.

Don't these PWI lists usually use success in kayfabe as their criterea rather than workrate or in ring ability? Triple H was the wrestler of the 00's for them

Agent Coulson

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

Don't these PWI lists usually use success in kayfabe as their criterea rather than workrate or in ring ability? Triple H was the wrestler of the 00's for them

To be fair to Sheamus the only thing he didn't win in the decade within the WWE was the IC belt that is a damn impressive 10 years add in King of the Ring, Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank wins he was one of the top performers in the WWE and Sheamus was very solid in the ring he could work with anyone.

RollieFingers

Wrestler of the decade would be between Okada and Tanahashi for me.

beakerjoe

Wyatts gimmick isnt trash in my opinion. Its as much trash as the Undertaker or Kane are trash.

Did the gimmick get over.... kinda. Im not a huge fan of the gimmick myself but its very marmite in the sense some liked it and some hated it. Im somewhere in the middle. I think he could have been booked better and I think the matches werent great for most part.

I did find the vignettes and segments fun, and the entrance is impressive but the storylines could have been better and the matches lacked.

SureYWouldntYa

Agent Coulson wrote: »

To be fair to Sheamus the only thing he didn't win in the decade within the WWE was the IC belt that is a damn impressive 10 years add in King of the Ring, Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank wins he was one of the top performers in the WWE and Sheamus was very solid in the ring he could work with anyone.

Oh definitely, I'm just pointing out the difference between this and for instance a Meltzer list where Sheamus wouldn't be close to 10th

LineOfBeauty

beakerjoe wrote: »

Wyatts gimmick isnt trash in my opinion. Its as much trash as the Undertaker or Kane are trash.

Did the gimmick get over.... kinda. Im not a huge fan of the gimmick myself but its very marmite in the sense some liked it and some hated it. Im somewhere in the middle. I think he could have been booked better and I think the matches werent great for most part.

I did find the vignettes and segments fun, and the entrance is impressive but the storylines could have been better and the matches lacked.

Undertaker and Kane, to a slightly lesser extent, were bona-fide stars in the hottest era in pro wrestling history. They aren't alike.

Itssoeasy

beakerjoe wrote: »

Wyatts gimmick isnt trash in my opinion. Its as much trash as the Undertaker or Kane are trash.

Did the gimmick get over.... kinda. Im not a huge fan of the gimmick myself but its very marmite in the sense some liked it and some hated it. Im somewhere in the middle. I think he could have been booked better and I think the matches werent great for most part.

I did find the vignettes and segments fun, and the entrance is impressive but the storylines could have been better and the matches lacked.

Yeah the gimmick I liked. It was unfortunate that the bell rang and a gimmick can't perform the in ring stuff on it's own.

beakerjoe

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Undertaker and Kane, to a slightly lesser extent, were bona-fide stars in the hottest era in pro wrestling history. They aren't alike.

But the gimmicks are similar. Id suggest WWE storylines and their inability to makes new stars is the problem rather than the gimmick.

The gave Wyatt a push but the execution was poor. I think the gimmick was fine and not trash. I dont think Wyatt himself is to blame

Monokne

I find the "Fiend is all time terrible" takes curious. It's not majorly to my tastes personally, but clearly it is over huge with the audience therefore it is by definition a massive success. Virtually the only means by which WWE stars generate revenue themselves these days is through merch and he has moved a ton of it with the new gimmick.

The Undertaker is the all time most successful gimmick performer in the business. He plays a walking dead man who's been buried alive, burnt in a coffin, died and ascended to heaven, oh and he killed his parents by setting them on fire and also thought he killed his brother but actually LOL no he was alive all along.

Is The Fiend silly? Of course. But he's over. If you don't happen to like it, cool, but it's very much fit for purpose.

Riddle101

As I mentioned before. The uniqueness of The Fiend is what stands out for me. There aren't many wrestlers in WWE who have characters that really stand out or set them apart from others. A lot of them are just playing themselves, but The Fiend is like a breath of fresh air to me. We don't have monster characters like Undertaker and Kane anymore, or dark characters like Mankind. The Fiend kind've fills that void.

In any case, I think Rotunda plays the role very well. He's a good character performer who can cut a decent promo. His wrestling ability isn't all there but I would say he's probably hindered by the character much like Undertaker in the early 90's. And I do think he's over with the fans. When he was feuding with Seth Rollins WWE got a good bit of backlash after Hell in a Cell. The fans were calling for The Fiend to win the title.

leggo

Yeah no for me saying The Fiend is terrible or ‘the worst’ anything is a hot take aiming to be a hot take. As stated, it’s totally fair to dislike it, you’re allowed have your tastes. But some of the stuff here and online in general is way over the top. He’s not bad in the ring, but they’ve tried to go experimental with his matches (with the red lights, making him invincible through no-selling but also having him getring beaten up regularly) and maybe over-reached or didn’t find the sweet spot that makes sense for the character. His promo delivery and acting has been among the best WWE has seen in the modern era, and that’s just factual.

But, for me, the only criticism I’d see as fair and balanced is that, like the original Bray Wyatt character, it’s a bit over-ambitious with them trying new stuff before working hard to establish the rules of the character and getting everyone on-side. For example, with Taker and Kane, we knew it’d be okay if the lights went out and they showed up in the ring, or if mid-match after taking a beating they just sat up and acted like nothing had happened. They established those rules well so when they happened, fans not only accepted but anticipated them. With The Fiend you can’t really list a bunch of rules that have been followed consistently beyond ‘looks bad ass’ so it’s hard for fans to get on-board fully. And when they went with something consistently for a while - the lights went out and he showed up and destroyed whoever was in the ring - it got huge reactions. So that’s proof of concept, they just didn’t follow through on that concept for the sake of MORE experimentation. Also them pulling out of having him as champion last minute before Mania hurt him by showing lack of commitment to how unbeatable he is, there’s no two ways about it. So now you’ve got a character who we’ve seen a lot of but don’t really understand so it’s hard to fully get behind. That’s not really on him, he’s done as well as he could with what he’s been given. And there are genius elements to that character: how stuff like the kids TV show element is a response to people saying he needed to dumb down his promos, characters like Huskus being a reflection of his insecurities and perceived weaknesses etc. That kinda depth is stuff you don’t get in WWE, to the point I don’t think WWE knew what to do with it.

LineOfBeauty

Monokne wrote: »

I find the "Fiend is all time terrible" takes curious. It's not majorly to my tastes personally, but clearly it is over huge with the audience therefore it is by definition a massive success. Virtually the only means by which WWE stars generate revenue themselves these days is through merch and he has moved a ton of it with the new gimmick.

The Undertaker is the all time most successful gimmick performer in the business. He plays a walking dead man who's been buried alive, burnt in a coffin, died and ascended to heaven, oh and he killed his parents by setting them on fire and also thought he killed his brother but actually LOL no he was alive all along.

Is The Fiend silly? Of course. But he's over. If you don't happen to like it, cool, but it's very much fit for purpose.

Did it get over? He plays to crickets, like almost complete silence. He is categorically not a draw, that's beyond dispute. A core hard-core group of WWE fans liked the character, not enough though to follow through on their "stop watching WWE" threat and not even nearly enough of them for Vince to back the guy to go to Mania as champion. There's been periods (usually singular quarters) where an unsusal wrestler has popped up in the highest merch sales, usually a wrestler with a small but dedicated fanbase so I'm not going crazy just yet over that. Your definition of over and my definition of over are very different I think.

Sure it's silly but he had crossover appeal, regular people know who he is. Just because his gimmick worked (and was reworked several times) doesn't mean that in 2020 stuff like The Fiend would ever fly in the mainstream. Think about it, FOX sports, you promote Smackdown during football matches, maybe you get some interested casual viewer, they see Wyatt do his hokey schtik, do you really think they are sticking around? Of course not, they laugh and they turn it off. Ratings reflect that's what happened. It's a goofball playing a goofball character.

Itssoeasy

Scott Steiner collapsed backstage at an impact taping last night and he's in hospital but seeing what tommy dreamer tweeted he's okay.

beakerjoe

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Did it get over? He plays to crickets, like almost complete silence. He is categorically not a draw, that's beyond dispute. A core hard-core group of WWE fans liked the character, not enough though to follow through on their "stop watching WWE" threat and not even nearly enough of them for Vince to back the guy to go to Mania as champion. There's been periods (usually singular quarters) where an unsusal wrestler has popped up in the highest merch sales, usually a wrestler with a small but dedicated fanbase so I'm not going crazy just yet over that. Your definition of over and my definition of over are very different I think.

Sure it's silly but he had crossover appeal, regular people know who he is. Just because his gimmick worked (and was reworked several times) doesn't mean that in 2020 stuff like The Fiend would ever fly in the mainstream. Think about it, FOX sports, you promote Smackdown during football matches, maybe you get some interested casual viewer, they see Wyatt do his hokey schtik, do you really think they are sticking around? Of course not, they laugh and they turn it off. Ratings reflect that's what happened. It's a goofball playing a goofball character.

Did Bray Wyatt do something personal to you.

Agent Coulson

All of Bray Wyatt's gimmicks have been great till the moment he steps in the ring and cannot work.

leggo

Agent Coulson wrote: »

All of Bray Wyatt's gimmicks have been great till the moment he steps in the ring and cannot work.

That’s just a categorically untrue statement. If you’d have stopped at “I don’t enjoy him in the ring” then fair enough, but why do people have to take their point to such extremes that it goes from becoming objectively fair to farcically wrong?

Itssoeasy

Agent Coulson wrote: »

All of Bray Wyatt's gimmicks have been great till the moment he steps in the ring and cannot work.

its the gimmick that's both a blessing and a curse imo. The undertaker said it in his interview with Austin about matching his ring work with the character. He had to learn how to work again and not do what he could do in the ring.

HanFiredFirst

Agent Coulson wrote: »

All of Bray Wyatt's gimmicks have been great till the moment he steps in the ring and cannot work.

Leggo has spoken and you are wrong!

leggo

HanFiredFirst wrote: »

Leggo has spoken and you are wrong!

:rolleyes:

I don’t know you but if you have issues with me can you speak about it with a counsellor and let the rest of us have a discussion about Bray Wyatt...

J. Marston

He obviously can wrestle but he isn't entertaining. I'm struggling to think of a really good singles match he's had. I think there was a good bit with him and Roman in the chamber a few years back.

Him and Bryan last year was nothing more than decent, in my opinion, but The Fiend love-in was at its peak around then so I think people overrate it.

Ali Bomaye

Bray Wyatt is terrible, a total spoofer.

Agent Coulson

CM Punks film Girl on the Third Floor was added to Netflix yesterday and has been getting great reviews. (It's a horror)

beakerjoe

J. Marston wrote: »

He obviously can wrestle but he isn't entertaining. I'm struggling to think of a really good singles match he's had. I think there was a good bit with him and Roman in the chamber a few years back.

Him and Bryan last year was nothing more than decent, in my opinion, but The Fiend love-in was at its peak around then so I think people overrate it.

I really dont think hes as bad as everyone says he is. Hes no Shaen Michaels in the ring and hes No Rock on the mic, but I feel he does the best with whats given to him and immerses himself in his gimmicks.

Hes personally not my cup of tea, but hes not change the channel bad either. Hes driven, hes hard working and hes at the very least interesting.

WWE cuts his legs from under him when its the last thing he needs.

Putting over Cena at WM30 killed his momentum.

Having The Rock squash him at Mania didnt help.

When he was turning face and getting great reactions they changed direction

Losing to Goldberg made his latest run seem stupid after going over so many others.

Monokne

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Did it get over? He plays to crickets, like almost complete silence. He is categorically not a draw, that's beyond dispute. A core hard-core group of WWE fans liked the character, not enough though to follow through on their "stop watching WWE" threat and not even nearly enough of them for Vince to back the guy to go to Mania as champion. There's been periods (usually singular quarters) where an unsusal wrestler has popped up in the highest merch sales, usually a wrestler with a small but dedicated fanbase so I'm not going crazy just yet over that. Your definition of over and my definition of over are very different I think.

Sure it's silly but he had crossover appeal, regular people know who he is. Just because his gimmick worked (and was reworked several times) doesn't mean that in 2020 stuff like The Fiend would ever fly in the mainstream. Think about it, FOX sports, you promote Smackdown during football matches, maybe you get some interested casual viewer, they see Wyatt do his hokey schtik, do you really think they are sticking around? Of course not, they laugh and they turn it off. Ratings reflect that's what happened. It's a goofball playing a goofball character.

You are arguing into the dark at points no-one has made. For clarity:

No-one in WWE is a draw. No-one is a ticket seller. Literally not one person moves substantial tickets when added to a lineup.

My definition of over is that the crowd react to him.

What does the mainstream have to do with literally anything? What point are you making here? Do you think the casual viewer sees Undertaker or Braun Strowman and sticks around?



In terms of the debate around Bray's work, I think he is talented & can be carried to a real good match when in there with someone who can create more of the movement. He's athletic and fast for his size, plus his stuff is pretty tight. However, I never look forward to his matches because they are almost all ruined by the booking. One reflects on his world title matches at Mania & Extreme Rules with Randy Orton - the lighting effects on the ring, the brawl in the Wyatt compouned, or the stupid lighting in the current run, allied to the whole thing where he's a serial killer who can't die so he kicks out of 8000 finishes is just death.

To be honest though, you're just going to dismiss all that because you don't appear to have an interest in an objective discussion. All the good things he does (reaction, merch sales) don't matter. If you don't want to debate in good faith I don't really get the point to be honest.

Monokne

beakerjoe wrote: »

I really dont think hes as bad as everyone says he is. Hes no Shaen Michaels in the ring and hes No Rock on the mic, but I feel he does the best with whats given to him and immerses himself in his gimmicks.

Hes personally not my cup of tea, but hes not change the channel bad either. Hes driven, hes hard working and hes at the very least interesting.

WWE cuts his legs from under him when its the last thing he needs.

Putting over Cena at WM30 killed his momentum.

Having The Rock squash him at Mania didnt help.

When he was turning face and getting great reactions they changed direction

Losing to Goldberg made his latest run seem stupid after going over so many others.

Beakerjoe coming with the measured, well thought out take.

This will never fly around here.

beakerjoe

Ali Bomaye wrote: »

Bray Wyatt is terrible, a total spoofer.

I can't help but read this in Eamon Dunphys voice.

'He never deew a dime bill'

ThePott

Agent Coulson wrote: »

CM Punks film Girl on the Third Floor was added to Netflix yesterday and has been getting great reviews. (It's a horror)

I watched it a few months ago, I quite enjoyed it. It's fairly basic story wise but basically think of it like a low budget version of The Shining with some elements of Splatter horror. I thought Punk was pretty good in it personally, his character is pretty unlikable and Punk has always been good at playing the jerk so there you go.

Worth a watch if you like low budget horror in my book.

LineOfBeauty

Monokne wrote: »

You are arguing into the dark at points no-one has made. For clarity:

No-one in WWE is a draw. No-one is a ticket seller. Literally not one person moves substantial tickets when added to a lineup.

My definition of over is that the crowd react to him.

What does the mainstream have to do with literally anything? What point are you making here? Do you think the casual viewer sees Undertaker or Braun Strowman and sticks around?



In terms of the debate around Bray's work, I think he is talented & can be carried to a real good match when in there with someone who can create more of the movement. He's athletic and fast for his size, plus his stuff is pretty tight. However, I never look forward to his matches because they are almost all ruined by the booking. One reflects on his world title matches at Mania & Extreme Rules with Randy Orton - the lighting effects on the ring, the brawl in the Wyatt compouned, or the stupid lighting in the current run, allied to the whole thing where he's a serial killer who can't die so he kicks out of 8000 finishes is just death.

To be honest though, you're just going to dismiss all that because you don't appear to have an interest in an objective discussion. All the good things he does (reaction, merch sales) don't matter. If you don't want to debate in good faith I don't really get the point to be honest.

But that's not true. Nobody is a draw? They advertised John Cena for Smsckdown and they do their best rating in ages (maybe the best since the 1st or 2nd episode on FOX). Why? Cos Cena is a star and is over.

But again people do hang around for Undertaker because on shows they promote him in advance for the ratings tend to be higher and his segments always score strongest. That's a star and that's what being actually over is.

My TV must be on mute because I don't hear these monster pops for Wyatt, in fact I'd say generally he plays to apathy. His match against Bryan at Royal Rumble was like eerily silent for a big time World Title match and it's that way because the champion isn't over.

His work is trash. So many of the worst matches of the last 5 years in a major league company involve this guy. At best he's a dull, uninspiring wrestler who should never go more ths than 10 minutes, at worst he's stinking the place out.

Bounty Hunter

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But that's not true. Nobody is a draw? They advertised John Cena for Smsckdown and they do their best rating in ages (maybe the best since the 1st or 2nd episode on FOX). Why? Cos Cena is a star and is over.

But again people do hang around for Undertaker because on shows they promote him in advance for the ratings tend to be higher and his segments always score strongest. That's a star and that's what being actually over is.

Does the fact that the only two people you pick out as being needle movers are people who are not usually active wrestlers (on average 1 match a year) not support the argument that nobody from the current roster (Maybe Brock is) really is a draw on their own anymore?

If they were then We wouldn't need Goldberg, Cena & Taker all returning for Mania.

Personally I really enjoy Wyatt's character but do believe pushing into the main event was a mistake. I like that they actually were getting behind one of their current crop of guys and trying to make a new star akin to Taker but in modern day I think a Fiend type character works much better in the midcard providing variety to a show while the more serious characters / workers are at the top of the card.

Sirsok

The vignettes at the start were terribly produced but then I understood that was part of it. Muscleman Dance video was the pits.

Fiend got introduced, seemed interesting, debut v Finn went very well.

Hell in a cell happened and that just destroyed most interest in him, the gimmicks like the cartoon hammer, fighting in the red light and eventually the custom title, completely ruined him.

Lost interest in him after that