"American Dragon" Bryan Danielson to WWE

[ampulator]

I also have to add, Steve Austin vs. the Rock is way better match than John Cena vs. Randy Orton.

[foolinc]

Mark Henry has good mic skills? I mean, I don't watch Raw, so I'll have to take your word for it, but I've never exactly equated Mark Henry with solid mic skills. Has he improved dramatically, or do we just have very different opinions of the guy?

 

He's no Rock, but during his ECW run he got his point across and was able to get a proper reaction from the fans. I guess what he's really improved is the ability to interact with the fans.

 

IMO he's turn himself into a very nice upper midcarder. The kind of guy who you could use as a gatekeeper to the main event. I wouldn't give him another run with a brand's top title again, but I wouldn't mind giving him a US, IC, or Tag Team title run in the process of trying to make a new star.

 

I also have to add, Steve Austin vs. the Rock is way better match than John Cena vs. Randy Orton.

 

Way to out on a limb there.

[lazorbeak]

Right, but that's the point, don't you see? The fact that there is no chance of it happening ever confirms he has a large fan base. those people who cheer and buy his shirts aren't masochists or vinny mac plants, they are a large section of WWE's product that enjoys H.

 

There's no call for H to job, he has alot of fans. why would vince make him look weak just to satisfy you or I?

 

Me and you don't like triple H (well actually, i think he's a reliable worker, just pushed above his station.) But the majority which isn't us, does. Thus, his M/E spot.

 

Vince has pushed a ton of guys to the M/E level to see them fail, and not kept "pushing" them on the fans. the simple fact is, to alot of people (and to my great chagrin, my two younger brothers are part of this) trips is damn entertaining.

 

I don't get it, and i assume you don't either, but he's over. Vince puts him in those situations because the crowd responds, not because he's MAKING the crowd respond.

 

He's not mentok the mind raker, brainwashing people just by having a TV show. he just knows what people who watch his product like.

 

I accepted long ago im in the minority of his product, not the majority. I take my enjoyment where i can get it. Right now, that's pretty much smackdown and a few select raw mid carders.

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you and I are in the vocal majority about our dislike of raw's main event that the masses share our opinion. Trips has a loud and vocal fan base who enjoys his work, we are just not among them. If tomorrow, that fan base evaporated, Trips would fall out of the main event.

 

Crownsy you are a voice of reason and fresh air during these troubled times.

 

X-Pac was once pushed as strongly as Triple H, and what was the result? X-Pac heat. Change the channel heat. Triple H is a main eventer because he got over, and he got over because he learned what he had to do from some of the best in the business, and then did it.

 

As far as the hoss stuff goes, it's not rocket science, ampulator. It's not as if Vince has some unrequited fetish for muscular men (or is it?), it's that it's easier for a big man to get over. Wrestling has always been close to sports, and in sports, big guys are seen as the toughest, baddest dudes. Because when a 6'4 250 pounder claiming to be 6'7 and 300 pounds is in the ring, you can buy that he is a legit bad-ass and capable of beating anybody in the locker room. On the other hand if the casual fan turns on the TV and Rey Mysterio or Chris Benoit (notice neither ever got second shots at the top) is standing there under six feet tall, a good section of casual fans just won't buy them as champ. Batista looks like a champion, Jamie Noble looks like your runt cousin; it doesn't matter that wrestling is scripted in an environment where overness and looks play such a huge factor.

 

Guys like Hart and Austin weren't huge, but they were still significantly bigger/stronger than the average fan, and while middleweights tend not to have a lot of 'menace' generally Steve Austin could be downright scary when he wanted to be. As far as HBK goes, I think it speaks volumes that the guy's bodyguard was champion well before he got a look at the gold. Shawn has seriously only won the belt 3 times.

 

But since hosses get over so much easier because of their size and credibility, there's a lot less risk in giving them a push and a lot higher a floor; even a hoss that has been beaten by EVERYONE is still considered a threat at any time (Kane), while a guy like Val Venis may have been an upper midcarder once but today wouldn't be taken seriously in a match with The Miz. Sure, Khali's main event run tanked and his matches were awful, but what was really the damage? He's still over, and a guy like Dolph Ziggler gains more from beating him than he'd get from beating some technically sound midcarder.

[ampulator]

I can't say I disagree, but I think big men were more popular because they were easier to see back then, before TV and titatrons. If you aren't in the front rows, it might make it a bit hard to see what's going on down there.

 

But in the area of TV and large screens, some big men are just... too big, or too ugly. Seriously, Khali is a bit too big, and he's not exactly the most handsome guy.

 

I think Shawn Michaels got his push because he's a good-looking guy. Let's face it, he is. And he's athletic. Big guys aren't as useful as they once were, because WWE doesn't protect their weaknesses.

 

Plus, having TOO many big man devalues each one. My preference would be too have a few different big men that fits different roles. Big show should be the biggest of big men in WWE. Kane should be the fastest big man. Undertaker should be the one that's the mostly technically sound big man. Have as few as possible, and have them as THE BIG MEN to beat.

[The Two]

While I admit I've seen very little of Danielson's work, I think his biggest problem in WWE will be that he doesn't have "The Look". Size plays a part, but way more important than that is the simple fact that he just looks like "Generic Jobber in the Red Trunks". He doesn't in any way stand out to look at him. Sure, he may be great in the ring, but you have to make people care first and that could be difficult. He risks becoming the new Lance Storm.

[Hive]

They need a stable of menacing big men.

[dvdWarrior]

They could use that "generic jobber" look to their advantage to start with: Have him just standing in the ring as they return from commercial, like a jobber standing in front of an oncoming Kozlov, as his superstar opponent made his usual elaborate entrance - Carlito or The Miz or someone, someone with some charisma to sell the thing down the road - only to have him showcase his skills and defeat them in impressive fashion.

 

Could be a pretty good storyline.

 

If they'd do it.

[ampulator]

Like within Chris Benoit? or Bret Hart? Sure. They could do that. I doubt it, though.

[Hive]

They could use that "generic jobber" look to their advantage to start with: Have him just standing in the ring as they return from commercial, like a jobber standing in front of an oncoming Kozlov, as his superstar opponent made his usual elaborate entrance - Carlito or The Miz or someone, someone with some charisma to sell the thing down the road - only to have him showcase his skills and defeat them in impressive fashion.

 

Could be a pretty good storyline.

 

If they'd do it.

 

1-2-3 Kid part deux?

 

Could work, perhaps, if he defeats someone everyone really hates. Only problem is: does the WWE even use jobbers at all these days?

[djthefunkchris]

As long as WWE has giants to be beaten, Danielson has a chance to get over.

 

It's about bigger then life stars. The reason Vince said he likes big guys so much, is because they can make the smaller guys look so good. It's a matter of perspective... If Rey Mysterio (going extreme with small) beats up on Big Show, it's a much bigger deal then if he beats up on William Regal, Hardy, Or CM Punk.

 

On the same line, it's more impressive to see someone like HHH or Cena body slam Big Show (Ala: Hogan slamming Andre), then for them to body slam Mysterio or Noble.

 

It's a matter of perspective... The fans generally decide by their reactions.. Did the wrestler pull it off? (Did they make the fans believe they were capable of winning). Or Did they get the opposing reaction (The fans didn't respond, didn't care, and didn't believe the match).

 

Of course someone more popular is going to take off... but a good example of how people can get a reaction is looking at the Miz vs. Eugene match, and the reaction Miz got.

 

Other's that don't "Fit" what people want to believe is the "Fit" for WWE, are easily explained as well. People that cannot give great promo's, but are pushed anyways... These people have a certain charisma, or "Flashiness" about them that the crowd reacts greatly too... Evan Bourne in my opinion sucks on the mic, however the crowd reacts... Does he have enought to pull off a "Huge" win, like Mysterio? Time will tell, but they definately put him in a position where if they need him to, he could at the least, be a transitional champion.

 

Of course big guys win belts... If they don't have the Prop the smaller guys want, why would they want to fight them? Why would the crowd care who wins (almost ecstaticly at times)?

 

I always think to myself when watching WWE... "Get to the wrestling all ready!" my wife always says, almost everytime "Ok... enough of this, back it up or get off the stage!" However, it works for WWE. I doubt that will ever change.

[dvdWarrior]

Only problem is: does the WWE even use jobbers at all these days?

 

On WWECW most weeks either Kozlov or Big Zeke Jackson pile up the Asian Sensation Somgaya Donno or one of his friends. I kid, (Somgaya Donno was a joke character I created for an e-fed years ago - I thought it was funny then, and I haven't matured much since then.)

 

Sometimes they use jobbers, but it'd prolly have to be ECW or Superstars for that idea to work.

 

Never know though.

 

[Hyde Hill]

Smackdown used jobbers as well till quite recently. Kozlov again being the prime example.

[foolinc]

How about this as an idea for Danielson's debut. It's a bit of a risk, but it could work really well.

 

I would debut him on Superstars as a free agent against Santino (since he would sell and he's overness is more or less unshakable at this point). He'd come down to the ring with music to the ring first, beat Santino easily, and leave to no music. Why no music you ask? Because while the crowd will see his Titantron and music, the TV audience will not. I want him to come off as just your normal jobber to the TV auidence, but I want the crowd to be reacting to him like he's a new Superstar.

 

On RAW, I want Santino commenting to the guest host in a segment that he wants another shot at "That son-a-ma-gun," but the host says that he can't do that because Danielson isn't on the roster. I'd also tell the host to mention how sick Danielson's finisher looked or something like that to send a message to the audience that he's a actually someone to look out for.

 

The following Superstars, I would replay a video of Danielson recking Santino with an announcer saying that Danielson signed an agreement in principal with WWE, but it has not been finalized because there is a disagreement on which brand should get the rights to his services. The announcer would add that since Superstars is a place where you can expect everything that Danielson IS allowed to wrestle anyone on any brand on Superstars and will do so next week.

 

That Smackdown I'd have a quick segment where Tiffany interrupts Teddy and the two have a somewhat civil argument about Danielson. Tiffany mentions the New Superstar Initiative and Teddy says he is still on probation and need to get Vince off his back.

 

After that I would put Danielson against Santino again and then guys like Noble, Borne, Funaki, and other guys that have experience working with him and that will sell for him, while on the other three brands he could be touring the brands and interacting with the roster (teasing possible feuds and alliances). Which would take as long as they think they need.

 

In the end he'd pick either SD! or ECW depending on where the roster are at on the moment. Personally I wouldn't want him on RAW since it's a black hole for midcarders and kayfabe I don't know if anyone would like having a new boss each week.

 

 

Of course the safest debut for him is on ECW as Regal's protege. It's more or less true which is always nice for hardcore fans and the workers themselves and would give him a good amount of TV time. The only reason I thought of the FA storyline was to get him into matches with Noble and Bourne without actually putting him on RAW.

[Remianen]

but then that may also be because fans now are conditioned to "High spot high spot high spot gotta do a crazy move now now now!" mentality.

 

Bingo!

 

Look at the champs right now. Rey and kingston are small, punk is not huge by any stretch neither is orton. Christian is an smaller guy and so is jericho. the only big champion is bigshow and he that is his gimmick. Right now i don't think size is a huge deal any more.

 

Rey and Kingston are champions only because they're catering to a certain group of people. that's the only reason why they have the belts.

 

Yeah, that.

 

Also, the only titles that have any meaning are Orton's and Punk's. The rest of the titles are nothing more then props. I mean think what the IC title was back in the 1980's and then think about it now. Think about what the US Title used to mean in WCW (not sure if it is considered the same US Title from the NWA if it is then think about how great it was in the old NWA). The IC, US, and ECW belts are basically equal to the WCW TV title after Hacksaw pulled it out of the trash bin. In other words they mean nothing. I would also say that they are on the same level as that joke TNA Legends championship.

 

This is also a great explanation. The IC title was at its pinnacle when Savage held it. Since then, it hasn't quite reached that level of status/prestige again. I wouldn't say they're exactly worthless but honestly, I don't think they add much of anything to any program they're involved with. I mean, aren't your midcard titles supposed to elevate the people holding them? I can see the possible wisdom of having a worker of Jericho's stature holding the tag titles (you can't 'future endeavor' Chris Jericho and he can give a rub to pretty much anyone he works with) but he's supposed to be chasing the top title, given his stature.

 

*face palm* Vince McMahon likes to use the "Monster of the Week" formula. If he liked hosses so much he would have gave more of them titles for an extended period of time.

 

er, no. Vince lets people hold onto titles if they make him money while holding them. While a hoss holding a title is good initially, they don't tend to make money with the title (exceptions being that Lesnar kid and maybe, MAYBE, Diesel/Kevin Nash). I wouldn't consider Taker a hoss but he is a pretty big dude. He's also always been a money maker for Vince. So why isn't he on that list you have? Could it be because Taker, like few others before or after him, doesn't need a title to draw money?

 

Vince does like hosses. But he likes hosses because he can throw them in with his cash cows and make milk money. The problem has always been becoming one of those cash cows. That's a feat that's rarely accomplished (as WWE is painfully finding out in the years after losing their top two).

 

The problem seems to be that most people on this forum don't seem to get that the WWE's product isn't what they personally want it to be, and think that's some sort of leg to stand on to insult the booking. it isn't.

 

Let's be clear. I don't give a flip what WWE's product is. I will (and have) give away free tickets that I get to their biggest events rather than bother attending. I'm more likely to jump on a flight to Japan to attend a NOAH/NJPW/NEO/Ibuki show than I am to get on the subway and attend a WWE one at MSG. Sure, I watch on occasion and they do some good things at times, but so does Desperate Housewives and Lost. I'm not a blind hater. There's more that I dislike about their creative choices than I like. So I choose not to support them.

 

Wrestling's about money. Yes, in a perfect world, we would have some sort of WWE/ROH Hybrid that is similar to the "perfect" product that some people play in TEW that allows anyone who is talented at in ring and out of ring to flourish, but thats not what the real world responds to.

 

Everything is about money so why's wrestling any different? The real world is full of people drowning in debt with mortgages that they can't afford and retirements in question due to things "outside of their control".....or is it? True talent is rarely rewarded in reality so again, why should wrestling be any different?

 

Now, whether one personally likes the product, that's another story. But to act like the WWE is out of it's mind for pushing the product it is? ludicrous in a money making buissness.

 

Your entire argument falls apart when it comes to 'money making businesses'. Tell me something, how much money was there in search before Google? How much money was there in online video before YouTube? How 'bout 'social networking' prior to MySpace (and later Facebook and Twitter)? Was there an obvious need for a graphical interface for the PC? Nope. But what happened when Microsoft bought DOS for a song and stole Macintosh's main UI elements? How'd that turn out? Apple was widely panned by 'the media' for spending so much money on developing a product "no one" was interested in. What was that product? The iPod. What did that product do? Create a niche, produce products to feed and grow that niche (see: iTunes), and then create products built largely on that original product for that niche and get a major partner to fund it (see: iPhone). Sure, prior to the iPod, there were portable CD players (clunky and unwieldy by comparison) and Sony (and I, since I own one) took a bath on their foray into it with the Minidisc player. Money is made by finding a need (real or perceived) and filling it. As the #1 company in an industry, it's easy to do that (ask Microsoft, who parlayed their position in software to, at one time, the #1 console gaming platform and still no worse than #2 today).

 

Seriously, since WWE became the undisputed #1 wrestling promotion in the world, how many companies have been born and risen to financial heights that make WWE look like small potatoes in comparison? In fact, since WWE became the undisputed #1, their market has SHRUNK not grown. Not hard to be a big fish in a small pond when you're not even trying (or rather, trying but consistently failing) to grow the pond at all.

 

That's my primary beef with WWE. They're not even trying to grow the market. They could put ROH out of business tomorrow if they chose to do so, and create such a complete monopoly over wrestling in general (not just wrestling as far as the 'casual fan' is concerned) that the Justice Department would be looking at them. And before you even say it, what happened when the Justice Department looked at Microsoft? MS made some useless, empty concessions and kept on truckin'. Justice looked at Google...and backed off. What happens to a business dependent on the casual fan when the economy takes a dip? Well, go look at WWE's stock price and tell me. And that's the thing. WWE could very well have such a wide swath of the market that they'd make themselves almost recession proof. Most of the time, the entertainment segment is immune to negative economic factors. Want proof? Ask the videogame industry. Ask the MPAA. What are their numbers looking like?

 

I despise wasted potential on the corporate level. It's why I dumped my WWE stock after only having it for a month. But that was back when it was trading in the 20s. A company with such coverage could devote a single brand to wiping out ROH and TNA and largely accomplish that (aside from the lingering ill will that exists for the name). They could broaden their fanbase and make the company bulletproof, financially. That would also likely jack up the company's stock value since investors tend to look favorably on companies who control their own destiny. But they don't, because it's easier to rest on your laurels and be fat and happy unless something forces you out of that (which WCW did but no one has since). Hell, as bloated as Microsoft is, one thing you cannot say is that they're fat & happy to simply control the OS market. They can't even cross-promote like they used to. Did The Rock have to carry The Mummy Returns? Did Stone Cold have to carry Nash Bridges? Did Cena have to carry The Marine and 12 Rounds? Notice the difference in the fortunes? Why can't 'the casual fan' turn even those bad movies into blockbusters?

 

That, in a (very big) nutshell, is why I dislike WWE. There's nothing stopping them from drawing more fans over more diverse interest/income ranges. Nothing, but their own desire (or lack thereof).

[ampulator]

Remianen, even though you and I disagree on many things, what you just said pretty much said what I was thinking. I can't say it better myself.

[foolinc]

Why would WWE ever want to destroy TNA and ROH? Monopolies are bad for ALL industries, wrestling included. WWE wants to always be the top dog, not the only dog. It also affect the price of stock because stocks are based on perception. Without someone to compare to people are going to believe that the company can't reach new heights. And if they think the company has peaked, they are going to sell. Plus the economic recession doesn't seem to help matters either. Vince McMahon has never really been an innovator in the true sense either. He's true skill is being able to improve anything and everything from promos to gimmicks to events (Starcade gets outclassed by Wrestlemania).

 

And trying to compare WWE to freaking Microsoft is an absolute joke. The companies are too different in size to compare. Plus I don't think Congress would be as kind to a company that wasn't running like 80% of all computers (probably more to be honest).

[Candyman]

They could put ROH out of business tomorrow if they chose to do so,

 

A company with such coverage could devote a single brand to wiping out ROH and TNA and largely accomplish that (aside from the lingering ill will that exists for the name).

 

Uh, that's not true...at all. There's literally nothing the WWE could do to "put ROH out of business tomorrow" no matter how much they'd like to do so. I don't think I need to explain that there's nothing they could do with what they have now that would have any significant (or insignificant) effect on ROH - TNA is proof of that. WWE is TNA, only much better, and TNA is still doing fine. There are always going to be enough people out there that want alternative for alternative's sake that companies like ROH and TNA will succeed.

 

Sure, they could just buy ROH and TNA directly. That's going to take a hell of an offer, though, and they'd end up hemorrhaging money by paying all these wrestlers that they're not even using. And if they release them from their contracts, another wrestling company will simply pop up. That would happen anyway, actually.

 

Could they be doing better than they are now? Sure. That's true for the vast majority of businesses.. But there's no way they could dominate the industry anything close to the extent that you suggested. It's impossible to have a monopoly in the wrestling industry.

[I Rule Me]

Uh, that's not true...at all. There's literally nothing the WWE could do to "put ROH out of business tomorrow" no matter how much they'd like to do so. I don't think I need to explain that there's nothing they could do with what they have now that would have any significant (or insignificant) effect on ROH - TNA is proof of that. WWE is TNA, only much better, and TNA is still doing fine. There are always going to be enough people out there that want alternative for alternative's sake that companies like ROH and TNA will succeed.

 

Sure, they could just buy ROH and TNA directly. That's going to take a hell of an offer, though, and they'd end up hemorrhaging money by paying all these wrestlers that they're not even using. And if they release them from their contracts, another wrestling company will simply pop up. That would happen anyway, actually.

 

Could they be doing better than they are now? Sure. That's true for the vast majority of businesses.. But there's no way they could dominate the industry anything close to the extent that you suggested. It's impossible to have a monopoly in the wrestling industry.

 

and there's a big difference between boycotting a WWE with no competition and boycotting Microsoft with no competition. If Microsoft were the only company making OS's, and you boycott them, you wouldn't be able to buy a computer as there'd be no alternatives. Whereas if WWE is the only game in town and loses your interest, you can watch something else. They're not even close to being the same.

 

And in fact WWE not catering to your interests, but to the interests of others, makes for good business. What would you be watching if there were no puro, or indy scene to offer the product you like? Nothing, that's what? WWE can't appeal to everyone for the same reason RoH, TNA, and NJPW can't appeal to everyone. Because everyone is different. So WWE appeals to the most amount of people, and that's why they're on top.

 

So in fact, WWE not monopolizing the business has done more for it than if there were no other companies at all and WWE sat alone in an industry. It's not in anyone's best interest to run the rest of the game out of town. Which is what Walmart has done, and helped add to local unemployment by pushing companies out of business. And the only thing worse than monopolies are unregulated monopolies.

 

Monopolies are good for business, bad for the masses. People should always have a choice. And would you be for a monopoly if the company in question was a Chinese company that made faulty toys covered with lead paint?