Royal Rumble Thoughts (Spoilers)

First topic message reminder :

One of the best title matches ever.

One of the worst Rumble matches ever.

Honestly that was horrificly booked.

My only criticism, really, is having Bryan in the Rumble at all, and Ziggler at 30. Ziggler should have been #1 and Bryan should have been somewhere else

If Reigns had been in before Bryan he wouldnt have got the reaction he did. WWE did him no favours at all last night.

The rumble match was bad but it wasn't because Reigns won, it was because of how entrants were ordered and that not many stories were developed/furthered. You had all the suprise entrants come in quite early on in the Rumble, I feel they should've spread them around to keep the crowd interested. Guys like Ziggler and Barrett should have been in the Rumble much earlier and given at least 20 mins. Also, agree with Samo, the E did no favours to Reigns at all. The Rock didn't seem to pleased either from his facial expressions.

The triple threat match however was fantastic and made Lesnar look like an absolute beast after everything he went through during the match. The finish to the match with him turning the curb storm into an F5 looked awesome.

Wasn't the point of having Kane and BS in the last 4 for the Rock moment? Probably reading too much into that one. 2 established Authority stooges beating on a face iirc

I too like Reigns. Maybe it wasn't booked well, but the two seven foot guys with about 20 years of RR experience between them not being easy to topple is hardly rocket science, a match where you have to throw someone over the top rope should favour the 440 pounder. As for Bryan, probably not in the physical shape to fight Lesnar (who by all accounts, goes hard) yet, and was really just popping by to say hello.

I do think Ziggler should have came in at number 10 though and did 25/30 minutes, he's a guy you can really develop in matches like that and bounce little stories off, Bryan had to be number 30, I'd have had him earn his number 30 spot on RAW last week instead of losing to Bray Wyatt, I don't think Bryan should have been in the final two though, if the WWE wanted fans to cheer for Reigns the eliminating Bryan to win the Rumble wouldn't have been the answer.

Also, I'm not really sure hiding under the ring really suits Rusev's character,  some might feel thats nit picking but I just felt it didn't seem to fit what we've come to expect from him, personally, I'd have thought it would suit Bray Wyatt more, if Reigns thought he had won then the lights went out and the music started and Bray reappeared it would have cast serious doubt on whether Reigns would leave as the winner

Bryan or Ziggler should have been #1. Bryan should have been in the title match. Lots of rest time, would have added intrigue and if the fans booed a Lesnar win then it wouldnt matter, not that I think they would have booed it in anything other than a heel way rather than a Poopie-on-it way. The fans would probably have accepted Bryan not being in the Rumble then too.

It was very naive booking

Samo wrote:Jeez people like their hyperboles. This was far from the worst Rumble match. And people need to stop it with the Daniel Bryan nonsense. I like Bryan as much as anyone, but jesus christ get over it. Reigns biggest problem? Hes not Daniel Bryan. I dont agree its because we're having a star forced on us. The same thing happened last year.

I like Reigns, and he's being built up classically, with a Rumble win etc. Damned if you do damned if you dont.

Tripke threat match was excellent.

I don't think Reigns winning is or has been percieved to be the biggest problem here, while a lot of people (myself included) wouldn't have went with Reigns I'm not overly against it either but it was the manor in which he got his big moment that I found problematic, when Show and Kane eliminated Dean Ambrose you could have rung the bell there and then, it was a complete anti-climax

I also disagree with the premiss that Roman Reigns biggest problem is he's not Daniel Bryan, thats disingenuous, if you go back to May when the Shield split up, only 8 months ago, you look at the three guy since then, I'd say that Reigns hasn't progressed as much as either of the other two although he might fit into the specific type of character Vince wants to mould as his top guy for the next few years which is his perogative.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Bryan or Ziggler should have been #1. Bryan should have been in the title match. Lots of rest time, would have added intrigue and if the fans booed a Lesnar win then it wouldnt matter, not that I think they would have booed it in anything other than a heel way rather than a Poopie-on-it way. The fans would probably have accepted Bryan not being in the Rumble then too.

It was very naive booking

I think number one can be a bit cliché at times, has Ziggler not already done that? The reason I used the numbers I did was because thats the numbets they were, felt in the context of it they'd both have been better switching.

It'd be a brave man to put someone whos been out so long in such a physical match as that Triple Threat

Kay Fabe wrote:Reigns hasn't progressed as much as either of the other two

Be fair he was out injured for 4 months. And if you can show me a Rumble match that didnt have a predictable ending by the final four I'll be surprised. Closest I can think of is 07 when it came down to HBK and Undertaker.

And if you put Reigns, already contentious, in the final two with Ambrose then the whole place was gonna go mental for indy boy.

The best way to get pushed in the WWE is to lose matches. If the fans think the WWE aren't pushing you then they go all out for you. Ziggler, Ambrose, Bryan, Punk. Perceived to be being held back so immediately the fans go for them.

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Bryan or Ziggler should have been #1. Bryan should have been in the title match. Lots of rest time, would have added intrigue and if the fans booed a Lesnar win then it wouldnt matter, not that I think they would have booed it in anything other than a heel way rather than a Poopie-on-it way. The fans would probably have accepted Bryan not being in the Rumble then too.

It was very naive booking

I think number one can be a bit cliché at times, has Ziggler not already done that? The reason I used the numbers I did was because thats the numbets they were, felt in the context of it they'd both have been better switching.

It'd be a brave man to put someone whos been out so long in such a physical match as that Triple Threat

Its cliche'd but its also very easy to explain why someone is out afterwards and gives them time to perform. Ziggler being eliminated wouldnt have been so poorly received if he'd been in from 1. Bryan at least would have been given the chance to entertain the crowd, but not only were they annoyed to see him gone but it also seemed a bit of a slap in the face that he went so quickly.

It would have been brave, but all he had to do was get "re-injured" by Lesnar. A kimura lock would have looked legitimately scary to Bryan fans. It also gives you, with a fatal four way, chance to rest. So Bryan could have gone in and out of the action. Alternatively, they didn't need to use him at all, but I think they wanted buy rates plus something to make Smackdown's move to Thursdays more interesting.

Samo wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:Reigns hasn't progressed as much as either of the other two

Be fair he was out injured for 4 months.  And if you can show me a Rumble match that didnt have a predictable ending by the final four I'll be surprised.  Closest I can think of is 07 when it came down to HBK and Undertaker.

Only Rollins has progressed massively. Ambrose has stalled, and become a bit of a jobber too. Reigns hasnt actually done anything wrong, other than been picked to get pushed. Ambrose has been pushed on us, Rollins has been shoved down our throats, but face pushes and heel pushes seem to be massively different.

I do think in this age there are grey areas in the whole heel/face characters.
For example,everyone is desperate for a John Cena heel turn,but for all intents and purposes he's already a heel,I really liked the way he was determined to 5 knuckle shuffle Rollins last night and did a very heel smirk to the crowd.

I'll tell you what I don't like about current faces,and they're all guilty of it,and it's smiling and joking.
Smiling and joking should be a heel thing to do,like Mayweather does in boxing.
They all think they're Louis CK and love being happy,I think there needs to be more intensity considering it's a combat environment.

Sorry for the wild tangent,doesn't really have much to do with last night.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:And if you put Reigns, already contentious, in the final two with Ambrose then the whole place was gonna go mental for indy boy.

The best way to get pushed in the WWE is to lose matches. If the fans think the WWE aren't pushing you then they go all out for you. Ziggler, Ambrose, Bryan, Punk. Perceived to be being held back so immediately the fans go for them.

Yup. So hipster

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Samo wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:Reigns hasn't progressed as much as either of the other two

Be fair he was out injured for 4 months.  And if you can show me a Rumble match that didnt have a predictable ending by the final four I'll be surprised.  Closest I can think of is 07 when it came down to HBK and Undertaker.

Only Rollins has progressed massively. Ambrose has stalled, and become a bit of a jobber too. Reigns hasnt actually done anything wrong, other than been picked to get pushed. Ambrose has been pushed on us, Rollins has been shoved down our throats, but face pushes and heel pushes seem to be massively different.

I'd disagree with that, Dean Ambrose for me is a far better performer in January 2015 than he was in January 2014 and he has an identifiable character that he's transitioned away from the the traits that originally got him over, the easy thing to do would be to keep him almost identical since it worked, they took it a different path though and I feel he's got better and better, he does lose a lot of matches though granted, thats undeniable, do you feel the loses hurt him? I'm not so sure he's at the point yet were loses hurt him, a bit like Mick Foley in any of his guises in that respect.

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Samo wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:Reigns hasn't progressed as much as either of the other two

Be fair he was out injured for 4 months.  And if you can show me a Rumble match that didnt have a predictable ending by the final four I'll be surprised.  Closest I can think of is 07 when it came down to HBK and Undertaker.

Only Rollins has progressed massively. Ambrose has stalled, and become a bit of a jobber too. Reigns hasnt actually done anything wrong, other than been picked to get pushed. Ambrose has been pushed on us, Rollins has been shoved down our throats, but face pushes and heel pushes seem to be massively different.

I'd disagree with that, Dean Ambrose for me is a far better performer in January 2015 than he was in January 2014 and he has an identifiable character that he's transitioned away from the the traits that originally got him over, the easy thing to do would be to keep him almost identical since it worked, they took it a different path though and I feel he's got better and better, he does lose a lot of matches though granted, thats undeniable, do you feel the loses hurt him? I'm not so sure he's at the point yet were loses hurt him, a bit like Mick Foley in any of his guises in that respect.

People often moan about wins and losses and how important they are, but I don't know how important they are any more. It seemingly isnt about if they actually beat someone, but whether the crowd feel they deserve to. Reigns has won a lot of matches, but that is a criticism of his push now rather than the damn obvious thing to do. Is Ziggler more popular after that Survivor Series match? Not really, people liked him anyway.

Just finished watching the rumble, avoided spoilers all day

The triple threat was superb, best match for the title in years in my opinion. All three guys were booked brilliantly. Rollins proved that he belongs at the top table and Brock and Cena both delivered (as cena always does in big matches...) Far better than the triple threat at mania last year

The undercard was a bit men, but the new age outlaws and the assension but on a solid match. Mizdow was awesome as always. The divas match was suprisngly good.

Now for the rumble...
Worst rumble ever? Not by a long shot (if you think that you need to take off your Daniel Bryan tinted glasses)

The Good: Bubba Ray, a massive push in the match for Bray, Rusev being treated as a big deal, Bryan being eliminated cheaply by a major heel (what's that it annoyed you? Well it did its job then), Zigglers pop, a tease at Cody vs Goldust, Mizdow breaking away from Miz starting to happen, a number in the teens winning it again, Rock shocking us all

The Bad: The continued push of Kane and Big Show, Ziggler/Ambrose doing nothing of note, Adam Rose being a thing, too many rubbishy entries (the aforementioned rose, Kofi, Titus, Tyson), that weird stretch when no major faces entered (after Bryan's elomiantion), reigns not being booked dominant

The Ugly: The Fans, The internet Fans, The Smarks (noticing a trend?), the end was badly booked but not that badly booked

Tl:Dr Basically the rumble wasn't great but certainly wasn't the worst, for example last years, 2013 (cena obvious win), the 40 man rumble, 1996 ,1995, the first one in 88, the one which was just McMahon vs Austin (1999?)

Seriously Bryan was never going to win and it would have been the wrong choice if he had. Is reigns the right pick? Probably not but let's give him a chance rather than just being smarks like the crowd was last night

Also let's say that WWEs plan is to have Rollins cash in at mania, how do the 'fans' feel about that...

Anyone else notice the sign that said "2004, never forget".

I laughed maybe more than I should've.

By problem with Reigns winning is a simple one

I'll admit to not being his biggest fan, but I'm willing to see past that. My issue is that i already know hes going to beat Lesnar (that is of course vince throws millions at him to keep him under contract), fair play hes won the rumble and then beat the beast, but the fact is hes only going to be a transitional champion to get the belt on Rollins when he cashes in on Raw the night after Mania....or even worse for reigns at Mania itself

Yeah itll lead to a feud that could run through the summer culminating at Summerslam, but im not a big fan of cheap title reigns and all this Superstar of the year, rumble winner, beating lesnar stuff will prove to be for complete amd utter jack

Feel for Reigns. Could set him back years or worse ruin his career. Luger 2.0.

You know "Hipster" WWE fans are just going to boo him all around the country now.

Bray & Rusev were pushed well Gregers it's just that they & Ambrose/Ziggler got tossed out like they were jobbers which essentially sharted on everything they did like they were irrelevant

By ruin I mean not reach the potential he should

I think that that's was people's major bug bear of the rumble. Not that Reigns won. But more of how the "Favourites" were just tossed aside and out the ring as if their participation was just a mere filler. I'm more disappointed in the fact that the likes of Neville, Zayn, Breeze, Corbin etc weren't even given at least one spot.

Fernando wrote:You know "Hipster" WWE fans are just going to boo him all around the country now.

It's nothing to do with being 'hipster'. He's not ready, not even close. He has very few moves, very green on the mic and his ring physocolgy needs a lot more work. People just don't want to see someone handpicked with very little background in the business ahead of others cos they look good. But even after all that, he's getting very few cheers from any section of the crowd, not just the smarks/hipsters/whatever. He just doesn't connect or hasn't yet. That could be WWEs or his own fault or a mixture of both, but they should be clever enough to know that he wasn't going to be a popular choice as winner of the Rumble - in fact they must have hence the use of The Rock.

On a seperate issue, the title match was brilliant. Lesnar is absolutley fantastic in his role. He is a pure joy to watch at work. Rollins and Cena were also excellent with the former playing a heel better than anyone from the last few years. I was almost certain Cena was winning but glad that he didn't - although I think Reigns would go over Cena easier than he will Lesnar - he'll have to go heel now if they continue with their rumoured main event.

Wasn't he the hottest member of the Shield post break up. Granted a long term injury.

But the WWE take notice and suddenly he's hand picked and the crowd all hate him. Hipsters a decent word

Adam D wrote:You wouldnt see booking like this on TNA 8)

Nobody see's this booking in TNA...nobody watches TNA

In my view, Rollins should be leaving Wrestlemania as the Champion. Lesnar beats Reigns after a gruelling match and Rollins picks up the pieces and has the huge WM celebration.

You start April with your #1 heel champion there with his security and the authority running things. Then you have Reigns go after Rollins and get him the babyface reactions that way.

GSC wrote:Wasn't he the hottest member of the Shield post break up. Granted a long term injury.

But the WWE take notice and suddenly he's hand picked and the crowd all hate him. Hipsters a decent word

I don't find that incongruous. In The Shield, Reigns was protected. As part of a trio his weaknesses in the ring and on the mic actually became strengths and he fulfilled the role of enforcer with few words very well, mostly with his look.

But, post break-up, those weaknesses become painful to watch. And if anything WWE isn't even masking them, but shining a spotlight on them with the promos they've given him and the way he's been booked.

He's not developed as a solo performer. He's not ready for the #1 spot. And I think fans can see that and respond to it. They are cheering the likes of Rollins, Ambrose, Bryant, Ziggler and Lesnar whether they are heel or face, because they are good workers and deliver. So, I don't agree that it is fickle fans, just fans wanting the best entertainers that they pay to see to be at the top of the food chain. From a customer perspective I think it's hard to see wrong in that.

Unless you do Reigns vs Rollins at Fast Lane. If Rollins wins he is added to the title match. Rollins wins. Reigns wins at mania. Post match Lesnar destroys him. Rollins with a cash in?

It really is not as complicated as some of you are making it out to be.
 
I thought the Rumble match itself was very poor. I couldn't believe how low key the opening stages were, with one rubbish person after another. Bryan was booked like a midcarder, he might as well have been Heath Slater the way he was presented. He didn't get any kind of chance to shine, and his elimination made him look weak. The reaction to Reigns was so predictable; WWE's ignorance to that was frightening, but the booking didn't help him either. Even the subtle things; the way the latter stages of the match were dominated by big men, the brief use of wrestlers like Ziggler and Kingston who could have changed the pace a little bit, the ease with which Kane and The Big Show, two lifetime role-players (albeit very able ones) eliminated one bright young prospect after another.
 
WWE's biggest problem for the past eighteen months has been trying to work out how to book around the fact that Daniel Bryan is the most popular wrestler of his generation. That is spectacularly stupid of them. Never before has a promotion so heavily resisted giving its audience what they want. Roman Reigns never had a chance because he is not Daniel Bryan. Just like Lex Luger never had a chance because he was not Bret Hart. Just like Rocky Maivia never had a chance as a smiling babyface in 1997, because he was not Steve Austin. Reigns, Luger and Maivia were not untalented (Maivia turned out to be one of the greatest in history), but they were not who the fans wanted in that role at that time.
 
If you blame the internet or hipsters or "smart" fans, you show an ignorance of wrestling history; anybody who thinks that fans always just ate up what they were given is not aware of the facts. Maybe they didn't always rebel as vocally as the Philadelphia crowd on Sunday night, but that's largely because very few wrestling promotions have ever been so obviously out of touch with their audience.
 
Ironically, the answer might be right under their nose. Not only was the triple threat an outstanding match, but in Brock Lesnar WWE has a wrestler who is being presented perfectly, who is playing his role incredibly well, and whose act the fans are eating up as a result. How they could book Lesnar so brilliantly and everybody else so incorrectly is bizarre, but he is the only alternative to Bryan if WWE wants a top babyface with fan reactions that synchronise with the on-screen narrative.

I dont mind Big Show and Kane dominating as they did, it puts them over to make their eliminations by Reigns look better, but folk are choosing to ignore that for some reason. I cant disagree that Bryan and Ziggler could have been used better though.

I cant remember who brought it up, but I thought it was a pretty good point - its that no one knows HOW Bryan has healed. It just seems a case of 'Yeah the Dr did this and Im fine all of a sudden'. For all anyone knows Bryan is a ticking time bomb. I dont blame WWE for delaying his return to the title picture just yet, no least until they figure out the deal with his health.

If Brock is going to be a babyface (based on reactions), then why not turn Reigns heel? Capitalize on his reaction, have him cut promos about how the fans need to get over the fact he isnt Daniel Bryan. Hell, bring the Rock back as a heel to do the talking for him, he can turn a crowd on a dime and be a full heel in an hour.

GSC wrote:Wasn't he the hottest member of the Shield post break up. Granted a long term injury.

But the WWE take notice and suddenly he's hand picked and the crowd all hate him. Hipsters a decent word

Not in my opinion he wasn't and im really not sure in who elses opinion, there will be a lot who backed him but I'd imagine there would be as many dissenting voices, right from the get go, way back in 2012 I felt the whole Shield thing was done to get an in for Reigns, he had the look and the athetlicism that woukd give Vince a boner, I never had a problem with that, it was last year though when they had to hold back the Shield break up because Reigns wasn't connecting to the crowd on his own, I don't think much has changed in that department in the year since if the crowd don't believe in you then you'll struggle and no matter how good Vince's vision could turn out to be for Reigns I think he needs to do it in his own time.

crippledtart wrote:
 
WWE's biggest problem for the past eighteen months has been trying to work out how to book around the fact that Daniel Bryan is the most popular wrestler of his generation. That is spectacularly stupid of them. Never before has a promotion so heavily resisted giving its audience what they want. Roman Reigns never had a chance because he is not Daniel Bryan. Just like Lex Luger never had a chance because he was not Bret Hart. Just like Rocky Maivia never had a chance as a smiling babyface in 1997, because he was not Steve Austin. Reigns, Luger and Maivia were not untalented (Maivia turned out to be one of the greatest in history), but they were not who the fans wanted in that role at that time.
 

I think that is quite perfectly put. Not going to Mania with your most over babyface in your headline match is just madness IMO.

One of the things that particularly irks me (and I'm not even on the roster) is the names that Vince deliberately left out in his Network podcast interview with Stone Cold when he was talking about grasping the brass ring. We've seen Ziggler putting it all on the line in a ladder match, or DB back from surgery and giving it all. And they both get the reactions that kind of commitment deserves. Or, how over Cesaro was coming off Mania last year, and apparently he can't connect with the fans.

So, I think the fans see through the making of a WWE superstar and treat your fans like they are idiots and you kind of deserve the backlash you get.

Samo wrote:I dont mind Big Show and Kane dominating as they did, it puts them over to make their eliminations by Reigns look better, but folk are choosing to ignore that for some reason.  I cant disagree that Bryan and Ziggler could have been used better though.

Maybe that's the problem, maybe you should mind, who genuinely thinks the next top Superstar of the WWE needs to overcome Kane and the Big Show to get to the top? It's 2015, I'd argue against this in 2005 but 2015 is utterly ridiculous, thats a big reason the fans craped on it, Roman Reigns is 6"3, built like a Greak God and has been booked strongly throughout his WWE career, he doesn't need to overcome what is supposed to be insurmountable odds to get over, thats the WWE's fault for not understanding this, I want Reigns to get over as a genuine Maon Event talent, same as I want Rollins, Bray Wyatt and Ambrose to make that progression too (Rollins is already there now IMO) but I want it to feel organic, it feels like Reigns has been set up to fail which I'm sure isn't the case but thats the overriding feeling I got from that ending, even when he was in rong with Rock, no-one was watching Reigns, all eyes were on Rock, even in the back after the show during the interview, Reigns had nothing to say, it was down to Rock

crippledtart wrote:It really is not as complicated as some of you are making it out to be.
 
I thought the Rumble match itself was very poor. I couldn't believe how low key the opening stages were, with one rubbish person after another. Bryan was booked like a midcarder, he might as well have been Heath Slater the way he was presented. He didn't get any kind of chance to shine, and his elimination made him look weak. The reaction to Reigns was so predictable; WWE's ignorance to that was frightening, but the booking didn't help him either. Even the subtle things; the way the latter stages of the match were dominated by big men, the brief use of wrestlers like Ziggler and Kingston who could have changed the pace a little bit, the ease with which Kane and The Big Show, two lifetime role-players (albeit very able ones) eliminated one bright young prospect after another.
 
WWE's biggest problem for the past eighteen months has been trying to work out how to book around the fact that Daniel Bryan is the most popular wrestler of his generation. That is spectacularly stupid of them. Never before has a promotion so heavily resisted giving its audience what they want. Roman Reigns never had a chance because he is not Daniel Bryan. Just like Lex Luger never had a chance because he was not Bret Hart. Just like Rocky Maivia never had a chance as a smiling babyface in 1997, because he was not Steve Austin. Reigns, Luger and Maivia were not untalented (Maivia turned out to be one of the greatest in history), but they were not who the fans wanted in that role at that time.
 
If you blame the internet or hipsters or "smart" fans, you show an ignorance of wrestling history; anybody who thinks that fans always just ate up what they were given is not aware of the facts. Maybe they didn't always rebel as vocally as the Philadelphia crowd on Sunday night, but that's largely because very few wrestling promotions have ever been so obviously out of touch with their audience.
 
Ironically, the answer might be right under their nose. Not only was the triple threat an outstanding match, but in Brock Lesnar WWE has a wrestler who is being presented perfectly, who is playing his role incredibly well, and whose act the fans are eating up as a result. How they could book Lesnar so brilliantly and everybody else so incorrectly is bizarre, but he is the only alternative to Bryan if WWE wants a top babyface with fan reactions that synchronise with the on-screen narrative.

crippledtart wrote:It really is not as complicated as some of you are making it out to be.
 
I thought the Rumble match itself was very poor. I couldn't believe how low key the opening stages were, with one rubbish person after another. Bryan was booked like a midcarder, he might as well have been Heath Slater the way he was presented. He didn't get any kind of chance to shine, and his elimination made him look weak. The reaction to Reigns was so predictable; WWE's ignorance to that was frightening, but the booking didn't help him either. Even the subtle things; the way the latter stages of the match were dominated by big men, the brief use of wrestlers like Ziggler and Kingston who could have changed the pace a little bit, the ease with which Kane and The Big Show, two lifetime role-players (albeit very able ones) eliminated one bright young prospect after another.
 
WWE's biggest problem for the past eighteen months has been trying to work out how to book around the fact that Daniel Bryan is the most popular wrestler of his generation. That is spectacularly stupid of them. Never before has a promotion so heavily resisted giving its audience what they want. Roman Reigns never had a chance because he is not Daniel Bryan. Just like Lex Luger never had a chance because he was not Bret Hart. Just like Rocky Maivia never had a chance as a smiling babyface in 1997, because he was not Steve Austin. Reigns, Luger and Maivia were not untalented (Maivia turned out to be one of the greatest in history), but they were not who the fans wanted in that role at that time.
 
If you blame the internet or hipsters or "smart" fans, you show an ignorance of wrestling history; anybody who thinks that fans always just ate up what they were given is not aware of the facts. Maybe they didn't always rebel as vocally as the Philadelphia crowd on Sunday night, but that's largely because very few wrestling promotions have ever been so obviously out of touch with their audience.
 
Ironically, the answer might be right under their nose. Not only was the triple threat an outstanding match, but in Brock Lesnar WWE has a wrestler who is being presented perfectly, who is playing his role incredibly well, and whose act the fans are eating up as a result. How they could book Lesnar so brilliantly and everybody else so incorrectly is bizarre, but he is the only alternative to Bryan if WWE wants a top babyface with fan reactions that synchronise with the on-screen narrative.

You'll be unsurprised I don't agree with this.

Most importantly to me is the fact you cannot book Bryan in the main event at Mania right now. His arm wouldnt lift a pen for a few months and has been maybe cured, in a way no one understands, that has happened before and only lasted a few days, and should not be trusted yet as fit enough to lead the company into Mania. In December they will have known their Rumble winner. And they didn't know if Bryan would be fit.

Your own history is also mildly irrelevant because the reaction to heels in this day and age is so different. Rollins and Lesnar are both heels, have generally been presented as heels their whole run (Rollins solo run). Yet the crowd cheer them. And we both know why. Its because they are being presented perfectly. As heels. I would agree Lesnar could now be presented as a face, but he definitely couldnt have been before. You cant have a face champ who doesnt turn up for various PPVs. The Rock wasnt on Raw that much as champ and got slated. Rollins is liked, but you cannot turn him face right now. Not down to anything else but his skill as a heel.

There were, for me, five choices at most to win the Rumble. Reigns, Ambrose, Ziggler and then Orton surprise or Rollins entering after the trip threat.

You know my choice was Ziggler; he would be main event with a Rumble win and has had the story to build him up as the continuous underdog he keeps pulling out the win against the Authority's wishes. They'd hate him as champ.

Ambrose; very over, not sure hes quite ready either but a Rumble win again would have given him the momentum. He's been a high profile jobber (being unfair, really) but they've chosen him to be beaten by Rollins and Wyatt. For me, Ambrose as a face should not be main eventing until Rollins is champ. The story tells itself.

Orton; Main event quality undoubted. Little stale? Maybe. Does he need another title run? I don't think the crowd want it really. But he could be cashed in on by Rollins and the story would have been brilliant. He could lose the "rematch" at the next PPV. Lesnar v Orton would also be quality and a draw to casuals too. But with Lesnar the draw in that match I think most would agree the best move would be to get the eyes on someone of less profile and the rub to that guy too.

Rollins; some huge intrigue with a double chance. Gives Lesnar the chance to be more of a face in the way he has slightly evolved in the recent weeks. Rollins has been a star since he went solo, wonderful work and the real Superstar of the Year. But should a heel be a made man from beating Lesnar?

Reigns; Ahhhh Roman Reigns. The man who was popular, until people found out the WWE had noticed it and presented him in a way to be popular anyway, so then they dont like it. Is it just that he isnt Bryan? Nope, cos neither is Ziggler or Ambrose. Does that make them more popular? Nope, but certainly with the vocal section of the adult crowd. Reigns has a multitude of strengths, but of course you dont let them be known as a smark. Instead the hyperbole comes in. And if a few people say it then people jump on like sharks. And then it becomes a lie thats a fact. He will not be overexposed by that main event. He'll be exposed. Like he should be.

WWE has a main event scene now with Ambrose, Rollins, Bryan, Reigns, Lesnar, Cena, Orton all currently available for a slot and a shot at holding the title. Face heavy, especially if you throw Ziggler in on the outside. Wyatt is another outside shot too, maybe a heel Sheamus. Its a good thing. Personally, I think Bryan needs a run again, probably from Summerslam onwards. Its very hard to know how to book everyone in that group, but a good problem.

It is nicely written. My biggest problem with the concept of holding back Bryan because he may not be fit enough is that I think you can run with him up to the week before the event. And if he's not good to go he can cut a promo where he passes on his shot at the title. Would that upset the crowd, yes. Can you win them round by Bryan raising their hand and chanting "yes, yes, yes", I think you can.

It would require some late booking. But its all possible. You could have even had Reigns and DB as the last 2 in the Rumble. A face-face final 2 would work if booked and worked correctly and could again have helped Reigns get over, with him as backup if DB had to pull out.

I think the truth is that whatever % of fully fit DB is WWE see him as an upper mid-carder rather than their face of the company.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

crippledtart wrote:It really is not as complicated as some of you are making it out to be.
 
I thought the Rumble match itself was very poor. I couldn't believe how low key the opening stages were, with one rubbish person after another. Bryan was booked like a midcarder, he might as well have been Heath Slater the way he was presented. He didn't get any kind of chance to shine, and his elimination made him look weak. The reaction to Reigns was so predictable; WWE's ignorance to that was frightening, but the booking didn't help him either. Even the subtle things; the way the latter stages of the match were dominated by big men, the brief use of wrestlers like Ziggler and Kingston who could have changed the pace a little bit, the ease with which Kane and The Big Show, two lifetime role-players (albeit very able ones) eliminated one bright young prospect after another.
 
WWE's biggest problem for the past eighteen months has been trying to work out how to book around the fact that Daniel Bryan is the most popular wrestler of his generation. That is spectacularly stupid of them. Never before has a promotion so heavily resisted giving its audience what they want. Roman Reigns never had a chance because he is not Daniel Bryan. Just like Lex Luger never had a chance because he was not Bret Hart. Just like Rocky Maivia never had a chance as a smiling babyface in 1997, because he was not Steve Austin. Reigns, Luger and Maivia were not untalented (Maivia turned out to be one of the greatest in history), but they were not who the fans wanted in that role at that time.
 
If you blame the internet or hipsters or "smart" fans, you show an ignorance of wrestling history; anybody who thinks that fans always just ate up what they were given is not aware of the facts. Maybe they didn't always rebel as vocally as the Philadelphia crowd on Sunday night, but that's largely because very few wrestling promotions have ever been so obviously out of touch with their audience.
 
Ironically, the answer might be right under their nose. Not only was the triple threat an outstanding match, but in Brock Lesnar WWE has a wrestler who is being presented perfectly, who is playing his role incredibly well, and whose act the fans are eating up as a result. How they could book Lesnar so brilliantly and everybody else so incorrectly is bizarre, but he is the only alternative to Bryan if WWE wants a top babyface with fan reactions that synchronise with the on-screen narrative.

You'll be unsurprised I don't agree with this.

Most importantly to me is the fact you cannot book Bryan in the main event at Mania right now. His arm wouldnt lift a pen for a few months and has been maybe cured, in a way no one understands, that has happened before and only lasted a few days, and should not be trusted yet as fit enough to lead the company into Mania. In December they will have known their Rumble winner. And they didn't know if Bryan would be fit.

Your own history is also mildly irrelevant because the reaction to heels in this day and age is so different. Rollins and Lesnar are both heels, have generally been presented as heels their whole run (Rollins solo run). Yet the crowd cheer them. And we both know why. Its because they are being presented perfectly. As heels. I would agree Lesnar could now be presented as a face, but he definitely couldnt have been before. You cant have a face champ who doesnt turn up for various PPVs. The Rock wasnt on Raw that much as champ and got slated. Rollins is liked, but you cannot turn him face right now. Not down to anything else but his skill as a heel.

There were, for me, five choices at most to win the Rumble. Reigns, Ambrose, Ziggler and then Orton surprise or Rollins entering after the trip threat.

You know my choice was Ziggler; he would be main event with a Rumble win and has had the story to build him up as the continuous underdog he keeps pulling out the win against the Authority's wishes. They'd hate him as champ.

Ambrose; very over, not sure hes quite ready either but a Rumble win again would have given him the momentum. He's been a high profile jobber (being unfair, really) but they've chosen him to be beaten by Rollins and Wyatt. For me, Ambrose as a face should not be main eventing until Rollins is champ. The story tells itself.

Orton; Main event quality undoubted. Little stale? Maybe. Does he need another title run? I don't think the crowd want it really. But he could be cashed in on by Rollins and the story would have been brilliant. He could lose the "rematch" at the next PPV. Lesnar v Orton would also be quality and a draw to casuals too. But with Lesnar the draw in that match I think most would agree the best move would be to get the eyes on someone of less profile and the rub to that guy too.

Rollins; some huge intrigue with a double chance. Gives Lesnar the chance to be more of a face in the way he has slightly evolved in the recent weeks. Rollins has been a star since he went solo, wonderful work and the real Superstar of the Year. But should a heel be a made man from beating Lesnar?

Reigns; Ahhhh Roman Reigns. The man who was popular, until people found out the WWE had noticed it and presented him in a way to be popular anyway, so then they dont like it. Is it just that he isnt Bryan? Nope, cos neither is Ziggler or Ambrose. Does that make them more popular? Nope, but certainly with the vocal section of the adult crowd. Reigns has a multitude of strengths, but of course you dont let them be known as a smark. Instead the hyperbole comes in. And if a few people say it then people jump on like sharks. And then it becomes a lie thats a fact. He will not be overexposed by that main event. He'll be exposed. Like he should be.

WWE has a main event scene now with Ambrose, Rollins, Bryan, Reigns, Lesnar, Cena, Orton all currently available for a slot and a shot at holding the title. Face heavy, especially if you throw Ziggler in on the outside. Wyatt is another outside shot too, maybe a heel Sheamus. Its a good thing. Personally, I think Bryan needs a run again, probably from Summerslam onwards. Its very hard to know how to book everyone in that group, but a good problem.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Chris!

Reigns is being presented in the way he should be. No matter how the crowd react, he will get the exposure at Mania. Most probably as the loser in a cash in. Which is looking like a really good way to get him sympathy/ over as a face and to crank Rollins up to a uber-heel.

The only part I disagree with is that I have no faith in WWE in actually booking the list of those potential top faces or heels. They seem to only be able to concentrate on characters once they are in the main event scene, which is why Reigns will find a way to work. But what WWE wont have learned is that you shouldnt wait until they are in the main event to make characters over.

We all know, that they will never learn.

If there is one thing that I do like about TNA, is that they do build the mid card much, much better than WWE. Just a shame not many watch!

crippledtart wrote:
I thought the Rumble match itself was very poor. I couldn't believe how low key the opening stages were, with one rubbish person after another. Bryan was booked like a midcarder, he might as well have been Heath Slater the way he was presented. He didn't get any kind of chance to shine, and his elimination made him look weak. The reaction to Reigns was so predictable; WWE's ignorance to that was frightening, but the booking didn't help him either. Even the subtle things; the way the latter stages of the match were dominated by big men, the brief use of wrestlers like Ziggler and Kingston who could have changed the pace a little bit, the ease with which Kane and The Big Show, two lifetime role-players (albeit very able ones) eliminated one bright young prospect after another.
.

I don't disagree with this though. It was bizarre how they booked their most over talents. Wyatt and Rusev were booked very well, but Bryan and Ziggler in particular seemed to be a middle finger to the fans. Ambrose did ok, then got flopped by some old men. The easy option was Reigns and Ambrose work together to eliminate the old men. as they square off and fight Rusev slips in and eliminates Ambrose. Reigns hits Rusev with a spear then the old men return to beat down on Reigns. In comes The Rock, helps Reigns clear the ring, then Rusev gets back up to fight and Reigns wins.

1) Lesnar has in every way been booked as a face. I dont know whether this is intentional or just the way WWE books it these days but he has very little/no heel traits whatsoever. He's a face in all but name and the only thing that keeps him heel is Paul Heyman.

2) Rollins is booed any time he isn't in his home town or isn't up against Cena or Reigns. He got heel reactions when up against Ziggler, Ambrose and Reigns (pre-injury). The crowd went crazy when he was rko'd by Orton! He's a heel, acts as such and is treated as such by the majority of fans.

The main reason that crowds don't boo heels any more is due to booking. Fans haven't changed, 'heels' have.  If you want someone booed you make them do things people don't want to associate with, i.e. acting a coward, sneak attacks, selfishness etc. Very few heels protray these traits any more, hence the reactions (or lack thereof).

It's always a double edged sword isn't it. The WWE are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They give a new up and comer (who by no means is a bad choice) a big win and chance to main event at Wrestlemania, and the crowd cr@p all over it. Everyone needs to get over this whole Daniel Bryan love-in. Roman Reigns has worked as hard as anyone over the past 2 years to go from a green as hell nobody to a guy with bags of charisma. He deserves his chance. I for one totally understand the booking a the end of the Rumble. He eliminated all of the top heels, finishing with Rusev, and looked strong in doing so. I don't get what all the fuss is about to be honest.

liverbnz wrote:1) Lesnar has in every way been booked as a face. I dont know whether this is intentional or just the way WWE books it these days but he has very little/no heel traits whatsoever. He's a face in all but name and the only thing that keeps him heel is Paul Heyman.

2) Rollins is booed any time he isn't in his home town or isn't up against Cena or Reigns. He got heel reactions when up against Ziggler, Ambrose and Reigns (pre-injury). The crowd went crazy when he was rko'd by Orton! He's a heel, acts as such and is treated as such by the majority of fans.

The main reason that crowds don't boo heels any more is due to booking. Fans haven't changed, 'heels' have.  If you want someone booed you make them do things people don't want to associate with, i.e. acting a coward, sneak attacks, selfishness etc. Very few heels protray these traits any more, hence the reactions (or lack thereof).

Disagree hugely on 1

No probs with that Dolph

I just watched the rumble and the triple threat was one of the best title matches I've seen in wwe.

A couple of points though:

1. Why does corporate Kane wear suit trousers to the ring? Fair enough if it's impromptu but not when he is due to appear in a match!

2. Lesnar is an animal. But his suplexes/ snap mates etc are just weird. He doesn't get any height on them and they look like they are genuinely hurting the wrestlers. It looks like he isn't performing the moves correctly.

Really don't understand people having a go at the crowd for being into Daniel Bryan.. Surely they can't all be smarks?

I honestly think Reigns has potential but is nowhere near a wrestlemania main event yet. Vince and HHH should've realised the crowd would Poopie all over him the way match was booked and agree with the comments above that the use of Bryan Ziggler and Ambrose was pretty much a middle finger to the Internet crowd.

I hope for Reigns sake they rescue this before mania otherwise the crowd are just going to Poopie on it all over again

Dolph

Just out of interest, if you are a booker, what traits do you want to see in you heels to get the crowds to hate on them?

(I asked this in my previous post above but must have deleted somehow! )

Adam D wrote:

2. Lesnar is an animal. But his suplexes/ snap mates etc are just weird. He doesn't get any height on them and they look like they are genuinely hurting the wrestlers. It looks like he isn't performing the moves correctly.

I thought the same, and I know that in his early days he had a reputation for being a bit snug but I suppose you could put that down to being a bit green. Anyway Wade Keller asked Austin on a podcast over xmas what the 'boys' thought of working with Lesnar. Austin said everyone that he spoke to loved working with him because he really looked after you in the ring. Everything he does, he executes perfrectly as he knows what he's doing.

He also said that a lot of people in the back are in agreement with CM Punk over Ryback for what it's worth.

Adam D wrote:

2. Lesnar is an animal. But his suplexes/ snap mates etc are just weird. He doesn't get any height on them and they look like they are genuinely hurting the wrestlers. It looks like he isn't performing the moves correctly.

I think that adds to the image of Lesnar being a beast. It just looks like he is toying with them. Seeing Lesnar pick up and through a guy the size of Cena is an incredible visual spectacle. And the way he just deadlifted Rollins into a German was amazing. And its definitely as safe as a normal suplex or the guys wouldnt work with him.