Monty Brown backstage at Raw?

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Almaida;156380]While we're on the subject, and since you brought it up. I have reason to believe that Brown's lack of overness in the Impact Zone is not evidence that he's not good enough to get over, and the reasons are twofold. First of all, ignoring how "smart" (or notsmart) the TNA crowd may or may not be, it is one tiny, tiny sample of wrestling fans; it's roughly the same 900 people week after week after week seeing the same guys in the same building over and over. They're bound to cool off on guys they see all the time, it's inevitable. Of course, it doesn't help that these are the same people who pop for contrived spots, bust out feeble and cliché duelling chants for a damn Sharkboy vs. Maverick Matt match, are "above" heel heat, and think they're making a statement by booing Jeff Jarrett because he's "bad for business." On top of that, this crowd WAS hugely into Monty at one point, even if he was wrestling an "inferior" style. And then he got squandered and buried; he failed to win the title from Jarrett, turned heel to become a lackey for the same guy, won at least three or four #1 contender's matches and never got a title shot, and then when he was getting over as a face again, he turned heel [i]again[/i] to position himself under Jarrett [i]again.[/i] And then there was the nothing feud with Rhino, which morphed into a nothing three-way feud with another guy they're horribly botching in Samoa Joe. It's no wonder Monty didn't mean much by the end of his run there; he [i]wasn't allowed[/i] to mean much, and that makes all the difference. You say someone's worthless for a long enough period of time and people will start to believe it. This is another reason I hope he does end up with WWE, because he'll get a fresh start. Of course, WWE's another political minefield, and whether Monty gets the chance to reach his potential there is highly questionable as well.[/QUOTE] You make a great point. This is one reason why I think they really need to start doing house shows in major (and semi-major) cities. Get out of Orlando and they'll find the fans are MUCH different. iMPACT is like Jerry Springer's studio audience. You can pretty much predict all their reactions 30 seconds before they occur. [QUOTE=Almaida;156380]Also, I see where you're coming from with Simmons, and I love Simmons, but I don't think he'd be a good fit with Lashley, and here's why. As I said, Lashley's voice in and of itself isn't a problem, but when you pair him up with a guy who sounds like James Earl Jones' long lost brother, it'll only amplify Lashley's lack of baritone. Plus, Simmons is, for lack of a better description, too in-your-face to be in Lashley's corner. Lashley's supposed to be a quiet, soft spoken guy who could kick your ass. Faarooq is... neither quiet not soft spoken. Arn, on the other hand, [i]mastered[/i] the quiet, soft spoken asskicker style of interview, and that's why I picked him. Here was a guy who sounded like your kindly old uncle, but when he cut a promo, it was so super intense that you had no trouble believing he could kill you five times over without batting an eyelash. I'm pretty sure that's what they want Lashley to be, so why not pair him with the best?[/QUOTE] You're right but the problem I see with Arn is outside of promos. I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't think the majority of WWE's fans even recognize Arn Anderson. If he didn't come out with Flair and flash that handsign, people would be like "Who's the old guy?". So you'd have to reacquaint the audience with him and maybe even try to educate them a bit. That wouldn't be hard, mind you. But Ron Simmons came to mind as someone more recent who could do it. But you're right. Ron's voice would make Lashley's sound like a church mouse.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Almaida;156380]While we're on the subject, and since you brought it up. I have reason to believe that Brown's lack of overness in the Impact Zone is not evidence that he's not good enough to get over, and the reasons are twofold. First of all, ignoring how "smart" (or notsmart) the TNA crowd may or may not be, it is one tiny, tiny sample of wrestling fans; it's roughly the same 900 people week after week after week seeing the same guys in the same building over and over. They're bound to cool off on guys they see all the time, it's inevitable. Of course, it doesn't help that these are the same people who pop for contrived spots, bust out feeble and cliché duelling chants for a damn Sharkboy vs. Maverick Matt match, are "above" heel heat, and think they're making a statement by booing Jeff Jarrett because he's "bad for business." On top of that, this crowd WAS hugely into Monty at one point, even if he was wrestling an "inferior" style. And then he got squandered and buried; he failed to win the title from Jarrett, turned heel to become a lackey for the same guy, won at least three or four #1 contender's matches and never got a title shot, and then when he was getting over as a face again, he turned heel [i]again[/i] to position himself under Jarrett [i]again.[/i] And then there was the nothing feud with Rhino, which morphed into a nothing three-way feud with another guy they're horribly botching in Samoa Joe. It's no wonder Monty didn't mean much by the end of his run there; he [i]wasn't allowed[/i] to mean much, and that makes all the difference. You say someone's worthless for a long enough period of time and people will start to believe it. This is another reason I hope he does end up with WWE, because he'll get a fresh start. Of course, WWE's another political minefield, and whether Monty gets the chance to reach his potential there is highly questionable as well.[/QUOTE] You make a great point. This is one reason why I think they really need to start doing house shows in major (and semi-major) cities. Get out of Orlando and they'll find the fans are MUCH different. iMPACT is like Jerry Springer's studio audience. You can pretty much predict all their reactions 30 seconds before they occur. [QUOTE=Almaida;156380]Also, I see where you're coming from with Simmons, and I love Simmons, but I don't think he'd be a good fit with Lashley, and here's why. As I said, Lashley's voice in and of itself isn't a problem, but when you pair him up with a guy who sounds like James Earl Jones' long lost brother, it'll only amplify Lashley's lack of baritone. Plus, Simmons is, for lack of a better description, too in-your-face to be in Lashley's corner. Lashley's supposed to be a quiet, soft spoken guy who could kick your ass. Faarooq is... neither quiet not soft spoken. Arn, on the other hand, [i]mastered[/i] the quiet, soft spoken asskicker style of interview, and that's why I picked him. Here was a guy who sounded like your kindly old uncle, but when he cut a promo, it was so super intense that you had no trouble believing he could kill you five times over without batting an eyelash. I'm pretty sure that's what they want Lashley to be, so why not pair him with the best?[/QUOTE] You're right but the problem I see with Arn is outside of promos. I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't think the majority of WWE's fans even recognize Arn Anderson. If he didn't come out with Flair and flash that handsign, people would be like "Who's the old guy?". So you'd have to reacquaint the audience with him and maybe even try to educate them a bit. That wouldn't be hard, mind you. But Ron Simmons came to mind as someone more recent who could do it. But you're right. Ron's voice would make Lashley's sound like a church mouse.

[MightyDavidson]

Remianen they do do shows out of Orlando, they're just working with other indies to promote them. For example they've done a whole bunch of joint shows with Hermie Sadler's UWF [I've seen reviews of them online a few times]. So while they do not have the house show presence that WWE has yet, the joint shows are getting TNA's name out there. It's a slow process to be sure, but in my opinion better then going to fast and burning out quickly like ECW did. Your mileage may vary. Also, let's give the IMPACT fans some credit, they're nowhere near as lowbrow as audience members on Jerry Springer. Of course, Larry the Cable Guy is more highbrow then Jerry Springer so that's not saying much. :D ;)

[MightyDavidson]

Remianen they do do shows out of Orlando, they're just working with other indies to promote them. For example they've done a whole bunch of joint shows with Hermie Sadler's UWF [I've seen reviews of them online a few times]. So while they do not have the house show presence that WWE has yet, the joint shows are getting TNA's name out there. It's a slow process to be sure, but in my opinion better then going to fast and burning out quickly like ECW did. Your mileage may vary. Also, let's give the IMPACT fans some credit, they're nowhere near as lowbrow as audience members on Jerry Springer. Of course, Larry the Cable Guy is more highbrow then Jerry Springer so that's not saying much. :D ;)

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=MightyDavidson;156464]Remianen they do do shows out of Orlando, they're just working with other indies to promote them. For example they've done a whole bunch of joint shows with Hermie Sadler's UWF [I've seen reviews of them online a few times]. So while they do not have the house show presence that WWE has yet, the joint shows are getting TNA's name out there. It's a slow process to be sure, but in my opinion better then going to fast and burning out quickly like ECW did. Your mileage may vary. Also, let's give the IMPACT fans some credit, they're nowhere near as lowbrow as audience members on Jerry Springer. Of course, Larry the Cable Guy is more highbrow then Jerry Springer so that's not saying much. :D ;)[/QUOTE] Well, I'd disagree that having joint shows with someone else's promotion name displayed would be the preferred way of doing things. When I say 'house show', I mean shows they advertise on iMPACT (like WWE does with their house shows) and run as TNA events (no one else's name even appearing on ads or the arena). That may well have been what occurred but I'm pretty sure they didn't advertise it as widely as they could have (or, in my view, SHOULD have). And I didn't mean TNA's audience is lowbrow. I meant that they're predictable. The Jerry Springer reference was chosen as a similar type of audience predictability. Steve and the security staff know exactly which segments or spots they're going to have to get involved in and these are usually discussed in production meetings. Even outside of the scripted portions, you can predict the audience's reactions with an eerily high success rate.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=MightyDavidson;156464]Remianen they do do shows out of Orlando, they're just working with other indies to promote them. For example they've done a whole bunch of joint shows with Hermie Sadler's UWF [I've seen reviews of them online a few times]. So while they do not have the house show presence that WWE has yet, the joint shows are getting TNA's name out there. It's a slow process to be sure, but in my opinion better then going to fast and burning out quickly like ECW did. Your mileage may vary. Also, let's give the IMPACT fans some credit, they're nowhere near as lowbrow as audience members on Jerry Springer. Of course, Larry the Cable Guy is more highbrow then Jerry Springer so that's not saying much. :D ;)[/QUOTE] Well, I'd disagree that having joint shows with someone else's promotion name displayed would be the preferred way of doing things. When I say 'house show', I mean shows they advertise on iMPACT (like WWE does with their house shows) and run as TNA events (no one else's name even appearing on ads or the arena). That may well have been what occurred but I'm pretty sure they didn't advertise it as widely as they could have (or, in my view, SHOULD have). And I didn't mean TNA's audience is lowbrow. I meant that they're predictable. The Jerry Springer reference was chosen as a similar type of audience predictability. Steve and the security staff know exactly which segments or spots they're going to have to get involved in and these are usually discussed in production meetings. Even outside of the scripted portions, you can predict the audience's reactions with an eerily high success rate.

[Trashbear]

[QUOTE=Almaida;156380]Calling him self-centered is just a tad over-dramatic, don't you think? Every star in the history of everything made it that far by getting themselves over, so you can't exactly fault Monty for a flaw --if you want to call it that-- in the system. That's a fallacy. Furthermore, from what I could see, Monty was not a stupid man; it doesn't make sense to say he was only interested in getting himself over and not the angles, because both have a lot to do with each other. Angles generally only work well when the people involved are over, and good angles often help people get over. I'm not saying he was some sort of genius savior or anything, but I think you're being too hard on the guy and exaggerating the potential effects of his alleged selfishness. I somehow don't think management or talent was alienated by Monty Brown trying to be the star they so sorely need. But I want to back up a bit. I also appreciate good wrestling, though my definition of it is somewhat different than TNA's, which is a different thread entirely. But here's the thing, TNA is already full of what they believe are good wrestlers (and for argument's sake, I'll pretend I have the same view of "good" as them). If you have 40ish good wrestlers who've been doing their thing for a couple of years and reached a plateau as far as popularity, and you have one guy who can break through and be a huge star, why would you force the potential star to be just like everyone else? Why would you homogenize everything like that? People always complain about WWE making everyone wrestle the same match, but TNA really isn't any better in terms of expectations. Monty was something different, he was someone who wouldn't do a million flips a night and go at a breakneck speed, but he was a guy who had a genuine larger-than-life aura and real marketability. That's something that can neither be taught nor manufactured. It's that rare something that someone either has or they don't. Monty has it, and he has it in spades. THAT's the type of guy you build into a star and put on top to bring the people in, and then when they're already there, if they want to go gaga over Chris Sabin's latest "innovative~!" moves, let them. But if you make him another face in the crowd, you're squandering the most useful characteristic a wrestler can have, and it's something you can't just teach your latest project to have. It's true that at the end of the day, what your boss says goes, but Monty shouldn't be blamed for how his TNA stint went any more than a Brent Albright or a Psicosis should be blamed for not doing well in WWE. TNA tried to force Monty into being something he wasn't, and the result was that it just didn't work. You can't force a square block into a round hole, and you can't force a star to be like every other midcarder. While we're on the subject, and since you brought it up. I have reason to believe that Brown's lack of overness in the Impact Zone is not evidence that he's not good enough to get over, and the reasons are twofold. First of all, ignoring how "smart" (or notsmart) the TNA crowd may or may not be, it is one tiny, tiny sample of wrestling fans; it's roughly the same 900 people week after week after week seeing the same guys in the same building over and over. They're bound to cool off on guys they see all the time, it's inevitable. Of course, it doesn't help that these are the same people who pop for contrived spots, bust out feeble and cliché duelling chants for a damn Sharkboy vs. Maverick Matt match, are "above" heel heat, and think they're making a statement by booing Jeff Jarrett because he's "bad for business." On top of that, this crowd WAS hugely into Monty at one point, even if he was wrestling an "inferior" style. And then he got squandered and buried; he failed to win the title from Jarrett, turned heel to become a lackey for the same guy, won at least three or four #1 contender's matches and never got a title shot, and then when he was getting over as a face again, he turned heel [i]again[/i] to position himself under Jarrett [i]again.[/i] And then there was the nothing feud with Rhino, which morphed into a nothing three-way feud with another guy they're horribly botching in Samoa Joe. It's no wonder Monty didn't mean much by the end of his run there; he [i]wasn't allowed[/i] to mean much, and that makes all the difference. You say someone's worthless for a long enough period of time and people will start to believe it. This is another reason I hope he does end up with WWE, because he'll get a fresh start. Of course, WWE's another political minefield, and whether Monty gets the chance to reach his potential there is highly questionable as well. [/QUOTE] I must say, I do have to agree with your point about Monty's overness with the TNA audience not being representative of what the general population might think of him. I think TNA is actually hurt by the fans in the Impact Zone, which is made up of smart marks and southern rasslin' fans. No one can deny that a good portion of smart marks are ridiculously pretentious and are so concerned with "the business" and less concerned with having fun that they really can't be considered a good barometer for gauging how popular a wrestler actually is. They tend to base their opinions on workrate and less on entertainment, so by looking at the situation I guess I can give Monty Brown a free pass on not being so over. The initial buzz seemed to have a lot to do with his great look and his reputation as legitimate athlete (Pro Bowl NFL linebacker), but for an audience that isn't as much about look, that wasn't enough to sustain him, so that's fine. As far his alleged unsavory disposition, well, I have to question why TNA would take someone who seemingly had a lot of potential and constantly keep shifting him to the back burner. It could be argued that TNA was making him conform to a standard that maybe he shouldn't have been held to as he doesn't work the same style as most of the other roster. But I have to believe that as obtuse as the booking commitee can be, they wouldn't squander a star in the making. I think it gets back to the "self-centered" accusation. I understand the correlation between the wrestlers and the angles, but I definitely think that the angle is far more important than the wrestler. Especially for someone like Monty, who needs that heat from the story and from the promos to compensate for his lack of experience at telling the story with his match. And if you're not willing to do the things that management feels are necessary to get the angle over, you're bound to rub everyone the wrong way. Get the angle over, and you get the people involved over. You get them over and then you can pair them with other guys and get those guys over, all on the strength of that first hot angle. If people find out that you're not willing to do what it takes to help everyone else in the company make money (while getting over yourself in the process), then of course you'll end up in the doghouse. Granted, this isn't always visible on TV and I'm basing my argument on the word the TNA has put out about Monty, but I haven't had a good discussion with anyone in a while so humor me, will ya? The question you have to ask is this: Was Monty the victim of bad booking, or was he booked that way as punishment for his personality? Everyone can draw their own conclusions on that one. In the interest of keeping this shorter, I'll be brief with my final argument. Monty's larger than life aura and marketability are apparent at first glance. He might even crank out a decent promo to make you buy into that image. But when he gets in the ring, that disappears. Even with guys bumping for him like crazy, I don't know if he has the ability in the ring to make his image believable. But, unlike charisma, that is something that can be taught. He may never be a Steamboat like worker, but hey, neither was Hogan. But right now he lacks the patience in the ring to generate the proper heat, and the stuff he does do doesn't really look good. Is he willing to listen to criticism and try to get better? TNA says no...I guess those in the WWE might get a chance to find out. Well, I could sit here all day and trade arguments with you Almaida, and as good as these arguments are, I'm at work and probably should do...you know...work stuff. Take care, Stu

[Trashbear]

[QUOTE=Almaida;156380]Calling him self-centered is just a tad over-dramatic, don't you think? Every star in the history of everything made it that far by getting themselves over, so you can't exactly fault Monty for a flaw --if you want to call it that-- in the system. That's a fallacy. Furthermore, from what I could see, Monty was not a stupid man; it doesn't make sense to say he was only interested in getting himself over and not the angles, because both have a lot to do with each other. Angles generally only work well when the people involved are over, and good angles often help people get over. I'm not saying he was some sort of genius savior or anything, but I think you're being too hard on the guy and exaggerating the potential effects of his alleged selfishness. I somehow don't think management or talent was alienated by Monty Brown trying to be the star they so sorely need. But I want to back up a bit. I also appreciate good wrestling, though my definition of it is somewhat different than TNA's, which is a different thread entirely. But here's the thing, TNA is already full of what they believe are good wrestlers (and for argument's sake, I'll pretend I have the same view of "good" as them). If you have 40ish good wrestlers who've been doing their thing for a couple of years and reached a plateau as far as popularity, and you have one guy who can break through and be a huge star, why would you force the potential star to be just like everyone else? Why would you homogenize everything like that? People always complain about WWE making everyone wrestle the same match, but TNA really isn't any better in terms of expectations. Monty was something different, he was someone who wouldn't do a million flips a night and go at a breakneck speed, but he was a guy who had a genuine larger-than-life aura and real marketability. That's something that can neither be taught nor manufactured. It's that rare something that someone either has or they don't. Monty has it, and he has it in spades. THAT's the type of guy you build into a star and put on top to bring the people in, and then when they're already there, if they want to go gaga over Chris Sabin's latest "innovative~!" moves, let them. But if you make him another face in the crowd, you're squandering the most useful characteristic a wrestler can have, and it's something you can't just teach your latest project to have. It's true that at the end of the day, what your boss says goes, but Monty shouldn't be blamed for how his TNA stint went any more than a Brent Albright or a Psicosis should be blamed for not doing well in WWE. TNA tried to force Monty into being something he wasn't, and the result was that it just didn't work. You can't force a square block into a round hole, and you can't force a star to be like every other midcarder. While we're on the subject, and since you brought it up. I have reason to believe that Brown's lack of overness in the Impact Zone is not evidence that he's not good enough to get over, and the reasons are twofold. First of all, ignoring how "smart" (or notsmart) the TNA crowd may or may not be, it is one tiny, tiny sample of wrestling fans; it's roughly the same 900 people week after week after week seeing the same guys in the same building over and over. They're bound to cool off on guys they see all the time, it's inevitable. Of course, it doesn't help that these are the same people who pop for contrived spots, bust out feeble and cliché duelling chants for a damn Sharkboy vs. Maverick Matt match, are "above" heel heat, and think they're making a statement by booing Jeff Jarrett because he's "bad for business." On top of that, this crowd WAS hugely into Monty at one point, even if he was wrestling an "inferior" style. And then he got squandered and buried; he failed to win the title from Jarrett, turned heel to become a lackey for the same guy, won at least three or four #1 contender's matches and never got a title shot, and then when he was getting over as a face again, he turned heel [i]again[/i] to position himself under Jarrett [i]again.[/i] And then there was the nothing feud with Rhino, which morphed into a nothing three-way feud with another guy they're horribly botching in Samoa Joe. It's no wonder Monty didn't mean much by the end of his run there; he [i]wasn't allowed[/i] to mean much, and that makes all the difference. You say someone's worthless for a long enough period of time and people will start to believe it. This is another reason I hope he does end up with WWE, because he'll get a fresh start. Of course, WWE's another political minefield, and whether Monty gets the chance to reach his potential there is highly questionable as well. [/QUOTE] I must say, I do have to agree with your point about Monty's overness with the TNA audience not being representative of what the general population might think of him. I think TNA is actually hurt by the fans in the Impact Zone, which is made up of smart marks and southern rasslin' fans. No one can deny that a good portion of smart marks are ridiculously pretentious and are so concerned with "the business" and less concerned with having fun that they really can't be considered a good barometer for gauging how popular a wrestler actually is. They tend to base their opinions on workrate and less on entertainment, so by looking at the situation I guess I can give Monty Brown a free pass on not being so over. The initial buzz seemed to have a lot to do with his great look and his reputation as legitimate athlete (Pro Bowl NFL linebacker), but for an audience that isn't as much about look, that wasn't enough to sustain him, so that's fine. As far his alleged unsavory disposition, well, I have to question why TNA would take someone who seemingly had a lot of potential and constantly keep shifting him to the back burner. It could be argued that TNA was making him conform to a standard that maybe he shouldn't have been held to as he doesn't work the same style as most of the other roster. But I have to believe that as obtuse as the booking commitee can be, they wouldn't squander a star in the making. I think it gets back to the "self-centered" accusation. I understand the correlation between the wrestlers and the angles, but I definitely think that the angle is far more important than the wrestler. Especially for someone like Monty, who needs that heat from the story and from the promos to compensate for his lack of experience at telling the story with his match. And if you're not willing to do the things that management feels are necessary to get the angle over, you're bound to rub everyone the wrong way. Get the angle over, and you get the people involved over. You get them over and then you can pair them with other guys and get those guys over, all on the strength of that first hot angle. If people find out that you're not willing to do what it takes to help everyone else in the company make money (while getting over yourself in the process), then of course you'll end up in the doghouse. Granted, this isn't always visible on TV and I'm basing my argument on the word the TNA has put out about Monty, but I haven't had a good discussion with anyone in a while so humor me, will ya? The question you have to ask is this: Was Monty the victim of bad booking, or was he booked that way as punishment for his personality? Everyone can draw their own conclusions on that one. In the interest of keeping this shorter, I'll be brief with my final argument. Monty's larger than life aura and marketability are apparent at first glance. He might even crank out a decent promo to make you buy into that image. But when he gets in the ring, that disappears. Even with guys bumping for him like crazy, I don't know if he has the ability in the ring to make his image believable. But, unlike charisma, that is something that can be taught. He may never be a Steamboat like worker, but hey, neither was Hogan. But right now he lacks the patience in the ring to generate the proper heat, and the stuff he does do doesn't really look good. Is he willing to listen to criticism and try to get better? TNA says no...I guess those in the WWE might get a chance to find out. Well, I could sit here all day and trade arguments with you Almaida, and as good as these arguments are, I'm at work and probably should do...you know...work stuff. Take care, Stu

[MightyDavidson]

[QUOTE=Remianen;156471]Well, I'd disagree that having joint shows with someone else's promotion name displayed would be the preferred way of doing things. When I say 'house show', I mean shows they advertise on iMPACT (like WWE does with their house shows) and run as TNA events (no one else's name even appearing on ads or the arena). That may well have been what occurred but I'm pretty sure they didn't advertise it as widely as they could have (or, in my view, SHOULD have). And I didn't mean TNA's audience is lowbrow. I meant that they're predictable. The Jerry Springer reference was chosen as a similar type of audience predictability. Steve and the security staff know exactly which segments or spots they're going to have to get involved in and these are usually discussed in production meetings. Even outside of the scripted portions, you can predict the audience's reactions with an eerily high success rate.[/QUOTE] I never said it was the preferred way to do things, I said that it was a good way for them to do it for now. House shows cost money after all and this way they reap the benefits with little risk. Overly cautious maybe but you can hardly blame them. Also I used the joint shows as an example because I knew they'd happened and didn't have a better example.

[MightyDavidson]

[QUOTE=Remianen;156471]Well, I'd disagree that having joint shows with someone else's promotion name displayed would be the preferred way of doing things. When I say 'house show', I mean shows they advertise on iMPACT (like WWE does with their house shows) and run as TNA events (no one else's name even appearing on ads or the arena). That may well have been what occurred but I'm pretty sure they didn't advertise it as widely as they could have (or, in my view, SHOULD have). And I didn't mean TNA's audience is lowbrow. I meant that they're predictable. The Jerry Springer reference was chosen as a similar type of audience predictability. Steve and the security staff know exactly which segments or spots they're going to have to get involved in and these are usually discussed in production meetings. Even outside of the scripted portions, you can predict the audience's reactions with an eerily high success rate.[/QUOTE] I never said it was the preferred way to do things, I said that it was a good way for them to do it for now. House shows cost money after all and this way they reap the benefits with little risk. Overly cautious maybe but you can hardly blame them. Also I used the joint shows as an example because I knew they'd happened and didn't have a better example.

[mystic]

he has signed now with the WWE [url]http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/3694976[/url]

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=mystic;160244]he has signed now with the WWE [url]http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/3694976[/url][/QUOTE] Cool, Going to enjoy seeing how this comes about, lol.

[Marshall]

I am really excited about this - I'm a major Monty Brown mark! I hope they don't overhype him as a former American football player as they have in the announcement, and give him his 'Alpha Male' personna I see the 'E throwing him in with Cena from the beginning, and booking him like a true star. What does everyone else think?

[screwus]

i hope the E pushes him eithee as the alpha male or just him self wot ever way go monty

[mystic]

updated story from wwe [url]http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/montybrownspeaks[/url]

[wooodaddy]

thanks for the link Mystic... a good read..

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=Marshall;160292]I am really excited about this - I'm a major Monty Brown mark! I hope they don't overhype him as a former American football player as they have in the announcement, and give him his 'Alpha Male' personna I see the 'E throwing him in with Cena from the beginning, and booking him like a true star. What does everyone else think?[/QUOTE] They book all new comer's, that aren't homegrown, or straight out of their development schools in a high card match to start. I don't know why they do that, but they do..... Even when just changing brands, from one to the other. Examples are like Jeff Hardy, got a good match right off the bat. Chris Master's debut on RAW after being on Smackdown, right off the bat face's John Cena. I don't know if he will be up against Cena, Edge, or Nitro or who, but it won't be one of the Spirit Squad (I doubt). Heck, I don't know which one he will be on, Raw, Smackdown or ECW? Whichever, I'm pretty positive they will have him up against someone up on the card. I think they do that, so they can get a good feel right away. You book a new person up against a Main Eventer, to see if they can get some kind of reaction from the crowd. Then if they don't, you go down the card till they do. If they do get a good Re-action, they generally put them right at the next lower level... So if he get's a good re-action from the first match, he will probably be in as a Mid to Upper-Midcard right off the bat, only fighting lesser one's to establish that card position.

[James Casey]

A non-homegrown, former TNA star... Yeah, he'll be on SmackDown, aligned with MVP or, more likely, King Booker ("Squire Monty"). It'll be the exact same as Goldberg, with WWE squandering a potentially brilliant prospect by not booking him to do the things he does best - work short, power based matches where he dominates his opponents. In fact, Batista's doing that on SmackDown already, so he's off to Raw, where he'll be putting Edge, Orton and Nitro over in a matter of weeks. They might, I suppose, put him on ECW - in fact, that might be the best place for him, as he'd be brilliant as Paul Heyman's protege, a la Brock. Plus, with only an hour of TV time each week, he'd not be booked in the longer matches that Raw and SmackDown put on. Then, when he's had some more training and improved his in-ring skills, comes the inevitable turn on Heyman and striking out on his own. He has charisma - he needs help hiding his other shortcomings.

[The Gaz]

Does anybody have another update on this Monty Brown - WWE other than he is rumoured to wrestle for ECW? Thanks.