|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 15:46:27 GMT -5
Could you imagine how bad it would have hurt Austin if he just kept losing to Bret Hart handily week in and week out? When did he beat Bret? Never. The key to what I said was handily. At Survivor Series 96, Austin looked like an even match for Bret and only lost because of a mistake. That's fine. At WrestleMania, they had a classic and did the amazing double turn in the situation where a loss helped Austin more than a win. At IYH: Revenge of the Taker, they had another even match, with Austin winning via DQ. In none of those matches did Austin look like he didn't belong. In none of those matches was he beaten handily. Even the night he got pinned, it was kind of a fluke. Never did Austin tap out or lose handily the way that guys like Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, Rusev, Kevin Owens, Cesaro, Dean Ambrose and others do.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 16:11:39 GMT -5
If you really think any of Cena vs Owens matches were easy wins, you probably don't have the best perspective on what an easy win is.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 16:21:13 GMT -5
If you really think any of Cena vs Owens matches were easy wins, you probably don't have the best perspective on what an easy win is. Yea, they weren't easy but they weren't anything like the Austin/Hart series. Owens won the first match and then, even though it wasn't easy, Cena won the next two in clear cut fashion. Owens' first win looks like a complete fluke. If you can't see how these things are different, then you probably don't have the best perspective on pro wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 16:25:32 GMT -5
If you really think any of Cena vs Owens matches were easy wins, you probably don't have the best perspective on what an easy win is. Yea, they weren't easy but they weren't anything like the Austin/Hart series. Owens won the first match and then, even though it wasn't easy, Cena won the next two in clear cut fashion. Owens' first win looks like a complete fluke. Kevin Owens' win over John Cena looked nothing like a fluke. He beat him as "handily" as Cena won the rematches. He got a much stronger televised win over Cena than Austin ever did over Bret. The thing that most displays a lack of perspective on pro wrestling -- or any kind of narrative, really -- is getting upset that the good guy wins in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Sept 17, 2015 16:26:06 GMT -5
Owens jobbing to Cena has been a serious detriment to his career. Now he's randomly fighting Ryback for the IC title...as soon as he came out of the Cena feud 1-3 he went to being "just another guy"
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 16:36:17 GMT -5
Yea, they weren't easy but they weren't anything like the Austin/Hart series. Owens won the first match and then, even though it wasn't easy, Cena won the next two in clear cut fashion. Owens' first win looks like a complete fluke. Kevin Owens' win over John Cena looked nothing like a fluke. He beat him as "handily" as Cena won the rematches. He got a much stronger televised win over Cena than Austin ever did over Bret. The thing that most displays a lack of perspective on pro wrestling -- or any kind of narrative, really -- is getting upset that the good guy wins in the end. I agree that Owens did get a stronger televised win over Cena than Austin did over Bret. That's not up for debate. What I'm saying is that after one night, where he beat Cena, he went out and lost clear cut the next two times. Austin never lost clear cut to Bret. It was either with him making a tiny mistake or him passing out in an I Quit match. Every single time that Austin faced Bret, he came off looking better than Owens did against Cena. And the "I'm gonna make fun of 'smark' fans because their favorite heel doesn't win" thing is exactly where I expected you to take this. You've been doing this for so long that you've really run out of fresh material. The heel doesn't always have to lose. There are times where the good guy can lose. I'm not one of those people who thinks the heels always has to win, I would however like it if the heels got to look better in the process. I'm just using Cena as an example, though I don't fully blame him as it is creative's fault. Look at Rusev. Dominant all year. Beats Cena at Fastlane. Fine. Loses to Cena at Mania. Fine. Loses the rematch in a fashion where he doesn't get pinned. Still fine. Then, he has to go out and lose an "I Quit" match of all things, so he can look like a chump in a pitiful match. Contrary to what yourself and some others said, simply being in the ring with Cena and losing time after time after time to him didn't help Rusev at all and hurt him dearly as he is no longer really taken seriously. Things like that are incredibly harmful to the development of a potential stars. As J12 pointed out, it's a terrible process. New star debuts, makes impact, loses to established star, is now midcard fodder with no direction. The thing that most displays a lack of perspective on how to talk to people, is trying to bunch everyone with a different opinion into one group of people with no knowledge. That's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 16:37:14 GMT -5
Owens jobbing to Cena has been a serious detriment to his career. Now he's randomly fighting Ryback for the IC title...as soon as he came out of the Cena feud 1-3 he went to being "just another guy" No he didn't. He beat Cena clean. So what if he lost to him a month later. So what if he tapped out to him after. He was a made man from even being allowed to grace the ring with such a mega star.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 16:38:55 GMT -5
Kevin Owens and Rusev both came out looking worse after their feud with John Cena then they did going in.
Period. This is not debatable.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 16:51:50 GMT -5
The heel doesn't always have to lose. There are times where the good guy can lose. Yes, there are -- when it sets up the heel to go and face the bigger good guy. Kevin Owens, or Rusev in the spring, winning the feud with John Cena would have made perfect sense if it set up Kevin Owens or Rusev to face WWE champion Roman Reigns at the next PPV. But the pre-WrestleMania boo-hooing aborted the Roman Reigns plan and kept John Cena as the #1 good guy. Thus it was John Cena challenging WWE champion Seth Rollins at the next PPV after the Cena-Owens rubber match. But a bit of perspective would show that the problem isn't losing to the established star, it's that there is nothing for people to do unless they are facing the established star. If the good guy winning was the problem, then Million Dollar Man, Andre, Macho Man, Mr Perfect, Rick Rude, Dude Love, Triple H, Undertaker, JBL etc all got "buried" by the main babyface of their eras too. With perspective, it's easy to see that after you have your run with the top guy, you then move down the card and someone else rotates in to face Hogan/Austin/Cena. WWE's failing isn't having the babyface win, it's that they never have anything for the bad guy to do after he has his run with the babyface.
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Sept 17, 2015 16:59:39 GMT -5
Owens jobbing to Cena has been a serious detriment to his career. Now he's randomly fighting Ryback for the IC title...as soon as he came out of the Cena feud 1-3 he went to being "just another guy" Ryback has excelled the IC title to heights it hasn't seen in years. Seriously go back and tell me the last time an IC champ was also main eventing? Or getting reactions/chants like he does. Owens vs Ryback is a great fued. And though Owens should be just be US champ right now and still have all that momentum , I can't really say he's gotten to the "another guy" point. Maybe if he does a clean job on Sunday though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:01:12 GMT -5
The heel doesn't always have to lose. There are times where the good guy can lose. Yes, there are -- when it sets up the heel to go and face the bigger good guy. Kevin Owens, or Rusev in the spring, winning the feud with John Cena would have made perfect sense if it set up Kevin Owens or Rusev to face WWE champion Roman Reigns at the next PPV. But the pre-WrestleMania boo-hooing aborted the Roman Reigns plan and kept John Cena as the #1 good guy. Thus it was John Cena challenging WWE champion Seth Rollins at the next PPV after the Cena-Owens rubber match. But a bit of perspective would show that the problem isn't losing to the established star, it's that there is nothing for people to do unless they are facing the established star. If the good guy winning was the problem, then Million Dollar Man, Andre, Macho Man, Mr Perfect, Rick Rude, Dude Love, Triple H, Undertaker, JBL etc all got "buried" by the main babyface of their eras too. With perspective, it's easy to see that after you have your run with the top guy, you then move down the card and someone else rotates in to face Hogan/Austin/Cena. WWE's failing isn't having the babyface win, it's that they never have anything for the bad guy to do after he has his run with the babyface. Exactly. What the hell could Owens or Rusev do after they moved away from their respective feuds with John? Seth is champ, and a heel so we're not getting a heel vs. heel program. There's no other choice but to stick them on the mid card. Basically part of the problem is that John Cena is the only mega star on the roster who wrestles full time. Anyone who is put in a program with him is going to immediately move down the card when they're done.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 17:01:14 GMT -5
The heel doesn't always have to lose. There are times where the good guy can lose. Yes, there are -- when it sets up the heel to go and face the bigger good guy. Kevin Owens, or Rusev in the spring, winning the feud with John Cena would have made perfect sense if it set up Kevin Owens or Rusev to face WWE champion Roman Reigns at the next PPV. But the pre-WrestleMania boo-hooing aborted the Roman Reigns plan and kept John Cena as the #1 good guy. Thus it was John Cena challenging WWE champion Seth Rollins at the next PPV after the Cena-Owens rubber match. But a bit of perspective would show that the problem isn't losing to the established star, it's that there is nothing for people to do unless they are facing the established star. If the good guy winning was the problem, then Million Dollar Man, Andre, Macho Man, Mr Perfect, Rick Rude, Dude Love, Triple H, Undertaker, JBL etc all got "buried" by the main babyface of their eras too. With perspective, it's easy to see that after you have your run with the top guy, you then move down the card and someone else rotates in to face Hogan/Austin/Cena. WWE's failing isn't having the babyface win, it's that they never have anything for the bad guy to do after he has his run with the babyface. I've mentioned in this very thread that I agree that creative needs to find something for the bad guy to do after he loses to the babyface. I'm also, again, not one of those fans who just throws terms like "buried" around. With perspective, you would see that my issue isn't with the babyface winning, as I've stated before. The issue is that the heels who lose to the mega stars, come off looking like chumps. Take Bray Wyatt. Even if creative had good plans for him after he lost to Cena, he looked so ungodly bad throughout that feud that he has never recovered. He lost on the big stage and lost the rubber match. That's okay if he looked good in the process. Instead, even in the match that he won, he & both Wyatt Family members got destroyed by Cena in the Steel Cage and it took a small child singing for him to win. A cage match is the kind of match where he could win without much interference and look good while also protecting Cena, who wouldn't get pinned. Even if the WWE came up with good plans for Bray after that, he was pretty dead in the water. However, creative not having those plans made it 10x worse. Still, the point is that it's not about me being "upset at the good guy winning." I get that. I'm not an idiot. There are ways to do it and not make the heel look like a complete joke. That is why Ted Dibiase, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude, Triple H, Undertaker, etc. all stayed relevant, along with creative having plans for them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:03:06 GMT -5
Ryback is garbage and a garbage champion. Especially a second-tier championship, like the Intercontinental Championship.
Hopefully Owens takes the strap this Sunday and leads to the slow demise of "the big guy".
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:05:35 GMT -5
Ryback is garbage and a garbage champion. Especially a second-tier championship, like the Intercontinental Championship. Hopefully Owens takes the strap this Sunday and leads to the slow demise of "the big guy". To say he's just "garbage" really isn't true. He's proven before that he can wrestle good matches and has been the best IC Champion WWE have had in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 17:07:09 GMT -5
Yes, there are -- when it sets up the heel to go and face the bigger good guy. Kevin Owens, or Rusev in the spring, winning the feud with John Cena would have made perfect sense if it set up Kevin Owens or Rusev to face WWE champion Roman Reigns at the next PPV. But the pre-WrestleMania boo-hooing aborted the Roman Reigns plan and kept John Cena as the #1 good guy. Thus it was John Cena challenging WWE champion Seth Rollins at the next PPV after the Cena-Owens rubber match. But a bit of perspective would show that the problem isn't losing to the established star, it's that there is nothing for people to do unless they are facing the established star. If the good guy winning was the problem, then Million Dollar Man, Andre, Macho Man, Mr Perfect, Rick Rude, Dude Love, Triple H, Undertaker, JBL etc all got "buried" by the main babyface of their eras too. With perspective, it's easy to see that after you have your run with the top guy, you then move down the card and someone else rotates in to face Hogan/Austin/Cena. WWE's failing isn't having the babyface win, it's that they never have anything for the bad guy to do after he has his run with the babyface. Exactly. What the hell could Owens or Rusev do after they moved away from their respective feuds with John? Seth is champ, and a heel so we're not getting a heel vs. heel program. There's no other choice but to stick them on the mid card. Basically part of the problem is that John Cena is the only mega star on the roster who wrestles full time. Anyone who is put in a program with him is going to immediately move down the card when they're done. The problem again, is not that Cena beat them. Look at Rusev and Bray. They both came out of the feud with Cena looking like absolute crap. To the point where, even if there was another megastar for them to face, they would look out of place against them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:17:17 GMT -5
Ryback is garbage and a garbage champion. Especially a second-tier championship, like the Intercontinental Championship. Hopefully Owens takes the strap this Sunday and leads to the slow demise of "the big guy". To say he's just "garbage" really isn't true. He's proven before that he can wrestle good matches and has been the best IC Champion WWE have had in a long time. No, he's definitely garbage. His mic work is unbearable, he's STILL sloppy and extremely stiff in the ring (not in a strong style way, either). The guy just isn't good. As far as good IC champions? Ziggler, Harper, Barrett. All better champions. Hell, even Bryan's two weeks were far better than anything Ryback has done as champion.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 17:23:01 GMT -5
Even if the WWE came up with good plans for Bray after that, he was pretty dead in the water. Bray Wyatt was dead in the water the day he decided that talking in intriguing riddles was more important than building feuds and matches. None of his wins or losses have meant much of anything, and the cult leader gimmick was pretty much defanged when Daniel Bryan did the "lol jk" pseudo-turn before we'd ever seen a genuine new recruit to the family. Do you seriously feel like Ted DiBiase took Hogan or Warrior to the limit more than Owens did Cena? Anybody who came away from the Cena vs Owens feud thinking that Owens was presented like a complete joke in any of it is almost certainly just upset at the good guy winning, because all three of those matches played out like they were equals who could have gone either way. There has very rarely ever been a time in WWE history where the losing heel was such an epic genuine threat to the megastar babyface in the feud (especially without having a monster gimmick). The only times I can think of were Triple H in the feuds with Austin and Rock, though there are certainly some I've forgotten. But even Edge and CM Punk when they were heels never really seemed like they had JC's number in a straight up battle the way KO did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:25:00 GMT -5
Even if the WWE came up with good plans for Bray after that, he was pretty dead in the water. Bray Wyatt was dead in the water the day he decided that talking in intriguing riddles was more important than building feuds and matches. None of his wins or losses have meant much of anything, and the cult leader gimmick was pretty much defanged when Daniel Bryan did the "lol jk" pseudo-turn before we'd ever seen a genuine new recruit to the family. Do you seriously feel like Ted DiBiase took Hogan or Warrior to the limit more than Owens did Cena? Anybody who came away from the Cena vs Owens feud thinking that Owens was presented like a complete joke in any of it is almost certainly just upset at the good guy winning, because all three of those matches played out like they were equals who could have gone either way. There has very rarely ever been a time in WWE history where the losing heel was such an epic genuine threat to the megastar babyface in the feud (especially without having a monster gimmick). The only times I can think of were Triple H in the feuds with Austin and Rock, though there are certainly some I've forgotten. But even Edge and CM Punk when they were heels never really seemed like they had JC's number in a straight up battle the way KO did. Really not true at all. I'm a big John Cena fan, he's my second favourite wrestler ever. And even I will admit that Owens looked like a complete joke coming out of that feud.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:28:08 GMT -5
Bray Wyatt was dead in the water the day he decided that talking in intriguing riddles was more important than building feuds and matches. None of his wins or losses have meant much of anything, and the cult leader gimmick was pretty much defanged when Daniel Bryan did the "lol jk" pseudo-turn before we'd ever seen a genuine new recruit to the family. Do you seriously feel like Ted DiBiase took Hogan or Warrior to the limit more than Owens did Cena? Anybody who came away from the Cena vs Owens feud thinking that Owens was presented like a complete joke in any of it is almost certainly just upset at the good guy winning, because all three of those matches played out like they were equals who could have gone either way. There has very rarely ever been a time in WWE history where the losing heel was such an epic genuine threat to the megastar babyface in the feud (especially without having a monster gimmick). The only times I can think of were Triple H in the feuds with Austin and Rock, though there are certainly some I've forgotten. But even Edge and CM Punk when they were heels never really seemed like they had JC's number in a straight up battle the way KO did. Really not true at all. I'm a big John Cena fan, he's my second favourite wrestler ever. And even I will admit that Owens looked like a complete joke coming out of that feud. I thought Cena was your favorite? Then who's number 1?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 18:08:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 17:28:22 GMT -5
To say he's just "garbage" really isn't true. He's proven before that he can wrestle good matches and has been the best IC Champion WWE have had in a long time. No, he's definitely garbage. His mic work is unbearable, he's STILL sloppy and extremely stiff in the ring (not in a strong style way, either). The guy just isn't good. As far as good IC champions? Ziggler, Harper, Barrett. All better champions. Hell, even Bryan's two weeks were far better than anything Ryback has done as champion. Barrett's reign was a total joke. He lost matches every other week. Harper was nothing more than a transitional champion.
|
|