The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Actually, this isn't exactly true. Austin's breakout moment (at KOTR) came as a result of the other Vince (Russo) letting him 'do his own thing' (because he didn't have a decent promo scripted for him). That made big Vince livid...until he saw the reaction. Source: Pro Wrestling Insiders DVD (Russo & Ferrara w/Wade Keller) & The Stone Cold Truth. Sure, VKM might've let him create the character but it didn't catch fire until that moment.<p> </p><p> But I think Swagger needs (among other things) a new finisher. The Gutwrench (and powerbombs in particular) doesn't fit his size or character. You give powerbombs to big workers who are limited in their skillset and ability (Batista, anyone?). Yes, someone's going to cite the Undertaker but The Last Ride fit that character (American Badass) far moreso than the finisher he had gotten over previously (plus they needed something different from the old character.). Swagger needs something more technically oriented that he can perform on people his size or larger (since he's likely to face someone like Taker or Trips or Batista or even Khali at some point). Gutwrench, the way he does it, is boring looking. Maybe turn it into a facebuster (instead of dropping the opponent forward after the gutwrench, he falls backward) or adding a sitout to it (but then it'd still be a powerbomb)? Or just a submission finish like a crossface chickenwing. But in a promotion with people with overly simplistic finishers (powerbombs, big boots, etc), making him seem particularly special with a more technically oriented (but low impact) finisher seems one way to make him stand out (in a positive light).</p><p> </p><p> EDIT: chris, for those people who remember the 'edgy' salad days, today's product can't be regarded as anything <em><strong>but</strong></em> 'PG'. How 'the world' views things doesn't come into play when most people make entertainment value decisions. Why haven't you played WoW full time over the last five and a half years? 'The world' is, so why aren't you? If you don't have an iPhone, why not? 'The world' loves it so it must be good.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> /nod, I agree with everything you said, but you might have missunderstood my meaning in what I was trying to say. I'll try again, and hopefully I come accross the right way.</p><p> </p><p> I find it more in forums such as these, that people automatically figure this or that doesn't work (gimmick wise in this example) for WWE (or whomever it might be) because it doesn't fit the product. </p><p> </p><p> My point is that if we didn't play this game, and have knowledge of the "PG" thing, would we even notice? I can't think of a time when they didn't have some characters that were a bit more, although alot of them are just cookie cutter gimmicks of things we've seen over and over.</p><p> </p><p> Without that influence, where would we be coming from (the "inside" knowledge) as far as what we thought? </p><p> </p><p> I'm not criticizing someone's personal opinion though, we can't help but to have one, especially with the influences on this particular subject that we deal with on regular basis.</p>

[Linsolv]

It s pity about Tarver. When it started I thought he would be awesome, he has a good gimmick and look but when you don't live up to your nickname, it's hard to look good.

 

I blame the booking. If he'd come out in that tag match in week 1 and knocked Heath Slater out cold in one hit? I'd guess people would be eating out of his hand. Instead, they decided to job him out for 5 weeks, while they promoted some retarded-looking "rock star" who looks like he just finished smoking a joint as he came out to the music. (Note: I'm not against rock star types. John Morrison? I'm there. But Slater, at least to me, doesn't have Morrison's looks, and that's really what makes the character)

[fatallylost]

I blame the booking. If he'd come out in that tag match in week 1 and knocked Heath Slater out cold in one hit? I'd guess people would be eating out of his hand. Instead, they decided to job him out for 5 weeks, while they promoted some retarded-looking "rock star" who looks like he just finished smoking a joint as he came out to the music. (Note: I'm not against rock star types. John Morrison? I'm there. But Slater, at least to me, doesn't have Morrison's looks, and that's really what makes the character)

 

I agree, in part. I like Slater, but, it just looks like he's trying too hard to do... something. I don't even know what.

 

Although, Tarver, never cared. I was there for Shamrock, Blackman, all the way until Big Show boxer month. If I wanted to see a boxer/MMA fight, guess what I'd watch?

 

I can see Slater possibly, Gabriel, and maybe one or two of the other guys connecting, depending on how the next 2 months go. But, I just can't see someone like Tarver, or Sheffield getting over anytime soon with those gimmicks. At least Otunga has the A lister thing, and Danielson needs no explanation. Young maybe, I'm not a fan of his look, just cause something about him looks very off putting to me.

 

But, we shall see.

[MrOnu]

People have pointed out Swagger goofy smile and I agree he has to work on that (even though it doesn't bother me), much like Randy Orton had literaly two different facial expressions in his arsenal. Shaemus needs to work on that too, he lacks a mean expression, something menacing to show when the camera closes up on his face. It might seems like minor details to some fans, but I believe these are the minor things that really enhance a character.

[Linsolv]

Young maybe, I'm not a fan of his look, just cause something about him looks very off putting to me.

 

As a character, I can't stand him. Yet, ironically, I maintain a certain level of interest in his segments, only because he's in a program with CM Punk, who is absolute money.

[fatallylost]

As a character, I can't stand him. Yet, ironically, I maintain a certain level of interest in his segments, only because he's in a program with CM Punk, who is absolute money.

 

I'll agree with that. I know what the gimmick was in FCW, so, it seemed Punk was the complete opposite. But, it seems to have stalled some. But, I'm still hooked for the payoff to that.

[Self]

<p>I was excited for Michael Tarver in the beginning, mainly because I had a similar character in my diary game. Raul Hughes with his deadly LEFT HOOK! Every week he knocked someone out, so the move got over with my readers, so the guy got over as a powerful fighter. It worked. The gimmick works. If Michael Tarver had been knocking people out on a weekly basis, he'd be seen as a threat. He hasn't, so what good is he? First on my cut list.</p><p> </p><p>

I love Skip Sheffield by the way. Him and Otunga were the <em>only </em>guys who showed any shred of charisma in their video packages. The gimmick will probably never make him world champion, but it's fun midcard fluff. Yup yup yup, what it do?</p><p> </p><p>

There's a poll on WWE.com about whether Daniel Bryan has what it takes to be a superstar. When I last checked, a whopping 88% said "No. He doesn't have the right look" which is kinda sad. I wonder if people are choosing that because they find his look hard to cheer for, or if they simply assume WWE will never be pushed.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I love Skip Sheffield by the way. Him and Otunga were the <em>only </em>guys who showed any shred of charisma in their video packages. The gimmick will probably never make him world champion, but it's fun midcard fluff. Yup yup yup, what it do?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, he's got a catchphrase, which is more than half the battle. Put that on t-shirts and look out! What it do, indeed. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Incidentally, Skip Sheffield's gimmick is what I think the 'E should've done with Chuck Palumbo. Skip is basically Chuck, a few inches shorter (at least when I look at him, he is).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There's a poll on WWE.com about whether Daniel Bryan has what it takes to be a superstar. When I last checked, a whopping 88% said "No. He doesn't have the right look" which is kinda sad. I wonder if people are choosing that because they find his look hard to cheer for, or if they simply assume WWE will never be pushed.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The former. I don't have a very high opinion of WWE's fanbase (and their relative collective intelligence), so take that with a lick of salt. Danielson doesn't look like a star until he gets between the ropes. Seriously, him and Punk could do some business (they already have). Give them 20 minutes and no script and.....WWE fans would boo them out of the building (just like they did Finlay-Regal at the Bash). I bet if he did two cycles of Dianabol, their opinions would change. <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> On the other hand, he can probably drag their more limited workers (which, let's be honest, is almost half the roster) to a watchable match.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<p>Sorry but Finlay vs Regal was a boring match, did it have some good mat wrestling etc, yep. Did it have any storyline going in, not really as they where both heels in Booker's court and Regal replaced Lashley the breakup happened later on. A good technical match isn't automatically a good entertaining match, not that it can't be. Angle vs Wolf for instance was entertaining and technical at the same time.</p><p> </p><p>

But if "professional wrestling fans" wanted pure technical wrestling without story and entertainment they would watch Olympic wrestling. That's one of the reasons UFC is doing well is because they are building fake animosity between the opponents but presenting it as legit because they have legit fights.</p>

[Self]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sorry but Finlay vs Regal was a boring match, did it have some good mat wrestling etc, yep. Did it have any storyline going in, not really as they where both heels in Booker's court and Regal replaced Lashley the breakup happened later on. A good technical match isn't automatically a good entertaining match, not that it can't be. Angle vs Wolf for instance was entertaining and technical at the same time.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think WWE fans would have enjoyed the technical side of Wolfe/Angle as much as TNA fans did. I think WWE have conditioned their fans over the years to think of the ground game as inconsequential, with the exception of a few signature submissions (STF, Walls of Jericho etc). TNA fans still have a smarky respect for 'workrate'.</p><p> </p><p> There was one spot Daniel Bryan did the other week, where he bent his opponent's arm back further and further and further... I saw him do it on a DG-USA show; Big Pop. Desmond Wolfe did it against Angle; Decent Pop. Bryan did it on NXT; Silence. Part of it is their opponents, but product is a big part of it too. Daniel Bryan's submission style will take a lot of work to get over with the WWE crowd.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

I agree Self but entirely pinning the silence during Regal vs Finley on the audience isn't totally right either. Christian vs Swagger on WWECW for example ,their first or second match up, while not being so mat wrestling heavy as Regal vs Finley it had a good amount of chain and mat wrestling and got a good pop from the crowd. Regal vs Finley is a very obvious example though but its a pretty flawed one.

[Linsolv]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There was one spot Daniel Bryan did the other week, where he bent his opponent's arm back further and further and further... I saw him do it on a DG-USA show; Big Pop. Desmond Wolfe did it against Angle; Decent Pop. Bryan did it on NXT; Silence. Part of it is their opponents, but product is a big part of it too. Daniel Bryan's submission style will take a lot of work to get over with the WWE crowd.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, but the NXT crowd looks like they are all on an oxycodone drip all the time.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Linsolv" data-cite="Linsolv" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, but the NXT crowd looks like they are all on an oxycodone drip all the time.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Which is the same crowd as the Smackdown crowd fyi.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sorry but Finlay vs Regal was a boring match, did it have some good mat wrestling etc, yep. Did it have any storyline going in, not really as they where both heels in Booker's court and Regal replaced Lashley the breakup happened later on. A good technical match isn't automatically a good entertaining match, not that it can't be. Angle vs Wolf for instance was entertaining and technical at the same time.<p> </p><p> But if "professional wrestling fans" wanted pure technical wrestling without story and entertainment they would watch Olympic wrestling. That's one of the reasons UFC is doing well is because they are building fake animosity between the opponents but presenting it as legit because they have legit fights.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree Self but entirely pinning the silence during Regal vs Finley on the audience isn't totally right either. Christian vs Swagger on WWECW for example ,their first or second match up, while not being so mat wrestling heavy as Regal vs Finley it had a good amount of chain and mat wrestling and got a good pop from the crowd. Regal vs Finley is a very obvious example though but its a pretty flawed one.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Whatever, Hyde. I'm not going to argue with you, it's pointless. If you truly believe that WWE's fans appreciate a well worked technical match, I don't know what to tell you. And you might want to watch that match again. The fans weren't silent. They were chanting 'BOOOORING' throughout. I'm a professional wrestling fan and I don't prefer to watch Olympic wrestling because I DO like the stories that occur between matches (when booked correctly, which seems rare in this hemisphere). I don't know whether you need to be handed a script to be shown Finlay-Regal was playing out an age old scenario: sometimes people on the same side, don't like each other. Even Shakespeare has taken that up on multiple occasions. It led to the dissolution of the Court, which is another common literary axiom (evil tends to consume itself). It was subtle, such that I didn't notice the progression until after the whole court imploded. I enjoyed that match, partially because it was so atypical of what the E usually puts on.</p><p> </p><p> I guess that means I'm not a "professional wrestling fan". Or maybe I am because I can enjoy more than one style of work and don't need someone to hold up a sign beforehand telling me exactly who I'm supposed to like or dislike and why. You think the match was boring. Fair enough. I think it was a beautifully put together and worked match in the classic catch wrestling style. Agree to disagree and all that. I was commenting on the crowd's reaction to said match proving that they're really not open to styles that don't fit the E's typical format. Bryan Danielson's credentials speak for themselves but WWE's audience doesn't think he has star potential (which makes them differ from pretty much every other audience he's performed in front of, worldwide). As I said, a couple cycles of Dianabol descendants (or HGH or norbo) and they'd probably change their tune.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<p>Look I agree on the point that that type of wrestling match is rarely presented and under appreciated by the WWE wrestling fans etc and I liked the implosion of the court but that implosion was barely happening before they had that match so at the time it was full on heel vs full on heel and they got it instead of Lashley vs Finley which did have storyline going in. I am just saying that not 100 percent can be blamed on the style of the match resulting in the boring chants. Its a good example just not a perfect one and I think that given time and reason etc that style can be enjoyed by WWE fans.</p><p> </p><p>

Fully agree on the E fans being more into look then skill though on a base level.</p>

[TommyDreamerFan]

<p>The grandest irony of Jericho losing his belt to the MITB winner? His character invented the concept in the first place.</p><p> </p><p>

You'd think they'd touch upon this but... NOOO <.<</p>

[tristram]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TommyDreamerFan" data-cite="TommyDreamerFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The grandest irony of Jericho losing his belt to the MITB winner? His character invented the concept in the first place.<p> </p><p> You'd think they'd touch upon this but... NOOO <.<</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Good point, there's a lot of times when you could build stories off previous events, or interesting facts, but it seems to get lost in the shuffle. I get the feeling wrestling promoters want to scramble the truth of history, kind of like Shawn Michaels being dubbed "Mr Wrestlemania", when his record was like 6-10. I guess if they were being realistic about it, he probably wouldn't get that title.</p>

[TommyDreamerFan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="tristram" data-cite="tristram" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Good point, there's a lot of times when you could build stories off previous events, or interesting facts, but it seems to get lost in the shuffle. I get the feeling wrestling promoters want to scramble the truth of history, kind of like Shawn Michaels being dubbed "Mr Wrestlemania", when his record was like 6-10. I guess if they were being realistic about it, he probably wouldn't get that title.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Or like when Test one immunity for a year... a year came and went, no follow up.</p><p> </p><p> Sloppy writing. Plain and simple.</p>

[The Final Countdown]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TommyDreamerFan" data-cite="TommyDreamerFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The grandest irony of Jericho losing his belt to the MITB winner? His character invented the concept in the first place.<p> </p><p> You'd think they'd touch upon this but... NOOO <.<</p></div></blockquote><p> They DID mention that Edge was the first one to cash it in, so that's something. But yeah, would've been neat if they had mentioned that it was Jericho's idea in the first place.</p>

[ampulator]

On the WWE fans not liking a technical match... they certainly don't like "Pure" matches. That's sure enough. But because of WWE's lack of intense wrestling right now, the punch-kicky stuff they did with Austin and the Rock doesn't work so well because... it's so powder-puff. Even when Big Show punches someone nowadays, it looks weak. Unfornately, in-ring-skill-wise, WWE has caught themselves in corner. They could use workers with more psychology and/or technicality, because the punch-kicky stuff they are allowing is boring and weak-looking, but on the other hand, their fans aren't trained to see much psychology or technicality. What you get is fans cheering or booing when a wrestler comes out, but being a silent during a match.

[Stennick]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="tristram" data-cite="tristram" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> Shawn Michaels being dubbed "Mr Wrestlemania", when his record was like 6-10. I guess if they were being realistic about it, he probably wouldn't get that title.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He was Mr. Wrestlemania for "stealing the show" at Mania. Nearly every year he was involved in Wrestlemania he had the best match on the card so they were playing up the fact that nobody had more "classic" matches at Mania than Shawn Michaels. True or not it had nothing to do with his record thats what they had Taker for. It was the Most Dominant Wrestlemania worker against the greatest wrestlemania performer</p>

[ampulator]

I agree. There's a reason why he's the "Show Stopper", the "Main Event", the "Icon". <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[Hyde Hill]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>On the WWE fans not liking a technical match... they certainly don't like "Pure" matches. That's sure enough. But because of WWE's lack of intense wrestling right now, the punch-kicky stuff they did with Austin and the Rock doesn't work so well because... it's so powder-puff. Even when Big Show punches someone nowadays, it looks weak. Unfornately, in-ring-skill-wise, WWE has caught themselves in corner. They could use workers with more psychology and/or technicality, because the punch-kicky stuff they are allowing is boring and weak-looking, but on the other hand, their fans aren't trained to see much psychology or technicality. What you get is fans cheering or booing when a wrestler comes out, but being a silent during a match.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As I said it also depends on the level and the presentation Swagger vs Christian had some chain and mat wrestling and the fans really responded.</p>

[ampulator]

I think fans respond well to a "Modern" technical style. Chain Wrestling is more exciting than mat wrestling, if you ask me. Standing, both guys try to shift and move around. On the ground, though, it's mostly grunting and pushing, until some somehow gets the advantage.

[fatallylost]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>He was Mr. Wrestlemania for "stealing the show" at Mania. Nearly every year he was involved in Wrestlemania he had the best match on the card so they were playing up the fact that nobody had more "classic" matches at Mania than Shawn Michaels. True or not it had nothing to do with his record thats what they had Taker for. It was the Most Dominant Wrestlemania worker against the greatest wrestlemania performer</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Not to mention he was PWI match of the year for the majority of the 2000's, quite a few of those being Wrestlemania matches.</p>