Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WrestleMania 32


TravJ1979

Recommended Posts

On the last DA show, we were talking about who could appear at Mania and somebody brought up that Kurt Angle has wrestled his last match for TNA. I could see WWE allowing Angle to come back for a match against Sheamus or Del Rio as the American who has to take on the foreign legion and then give him a Jericho deal where he works house shows or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 652
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

During his drunken Christmas show, Alvarez let it slip that he has reason to believe Taker is winning the Rumble. That should be taken with several grains of salt, but from his tone it had the vibe of: Dave and/or WWE sources prob. wouldn't want me spilling this, but these two shots of raspberry Grey Goose have worked their magic.

 

Serious question that I think we discussed in a different thread within the last six months here: is the Rumble winner predictable/boring/bad like, at least 80% of the time? They've worked themselves into a corner by having it be for the Mania title shot, esp. with only one world champ. No idea why Taker would be winning, unless he really is retiring and a match with Reigns is the sendoff. But wow, that is an odd way of booking your 1st timer precarious babyface champ. If it's purely for the sake of giving Taker a big match, that seems like a pretty bad message to your young roster.

I'm not sure I could think of a worse viable winner for the Royal Rumble than Taker.

 

The whole booking cycle of Royal Rumble / Elimination Chamber / Wrestlemania / MITB is really stale at this point, especially with a single world title. At least they managed to get rid of Elimination Chamber this year. It's even worse when all of your top heels have be aligned with The Authority, so it's either going to be a babyface winning the Rumble despite The Authority's attempts to stop him, or the Authority succeeding in manipulating the outcome of the match to have their choice win. I guess Taker is big enough to defy this template, but he's a bad choice for every other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the last DA show, we were talking about who could appear at Mania and somebody brought up that Kurt Angle has wrestled his last match for TNA. I could see WWE allowing Angle to come back for a match against Sheamus or Del Rio as the American who has to take on the foreign legion and then give him a Jericho deal where he works house shows or something.

LOL. Triple H is never letting Angle step one foot in their rings. Vince might like the idea but given Angle's history of drug problems, he would be easily swayed into not going for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question that I think we discussed in a different thread within the last six months here: is the Rumble winner predictable/boring/bad like, at least 80% of the time? They've worked themselves into a corner by having it be for the Mania title shot, esp. with only one world champ. No idea why Taker would be winning, unless he really is retiring and a match with Reigns is the sendoff. But wow, that is an odd way of booking your 1st timer precarious babyface champ. If it's purely for the sake of giving Taker a big match, that seems like a pretty bad message to your young roster.

 

Yes. I have felt that for a long time. I can't remember the last time I was truly excited/surprised by a Rumble winner. WWE has mis-used that spot for years. Guys like Taker, Brock, HHH, Cena, etc. don't need to win The Rumble. It should be that guy who WWE wants to elevate to the next level. Someone like Ziggler, Ambrose, Cesaro, Big E. , etc. The thing I loved about WW3 is that I never knew who was going to win. It was never really that obvious especially sometimes with the last 4 coming down to some random ass guys like Regal, Savage, Guerrero, Giant, and Luger. WWE needs more of that and less of what they have been doing.

 

The predictable outcomes and the Rumble tropes (stopping during the match to look/point at the WM sign, pointing to the Mania sign after the match, etc. ) has made The Rumble pretty lame.

 

Re: Angle

 

I wouldn't mind seeing Angle come in for Mania and doing something with someone like Alberto or Rusev. I have NO INTEREST in seeing Angle do a full schedule. Angle popping up for the RR, WM, SS, and whatever WWE considers its fourth biggest show of the year is fine with me. No gimmick matches and no moonsaults off the top of ANYTHING and Angle should be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the Royal Rumble winner spot is used is because that spot is firmly bonded with the fact that the person was gonna main event Wrestlemania. You are not gonna see them put a guy like Ambrose or Ziggler there yet. The champion going in are typically either the heel upstart via MITB or the veteran heel or the veteran fighting champion babyface. That leaves less room for WWE to operate in finding matches for their champion. So it isn't very often that there is a clear path for an ascending wrestler to win. So its always gonna be the reliable names with a Sheamus or an Alberto Del Rio mixed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During his drunken Christmas show, Alvarez let it slip that he has reason to believe Taker is winning the Rumble. That should be taken with several grains of salt, but from his tone it had the vibe of: Dave and/or WWE sources prob. wouldn't want me spilling this, but these two shots of raspberry Grey Goose have worked their magic.

 

Serious question that I think we discussed in a different thread within the last six months here: is the Rumble winner predictable/boring/bad like, at least 80% of the time? They've worked themselves into a corner by having it be for the Mania title shot, esp. with only one world champ. No idea why Taker would be winning, unless he really is retiring and a match with Reigns is the sendoff. But wow, that is an odd way of booking your 1st timer precarious babyface champ. If it's purely for the sake of giving Taker a big match, that seems like a pretty bad message to your young roster.

Predictable is great if it is somebody you want to see. This should not be an issue if they have a babyface people want to win the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the Royal Rumble winner spot is used is because that spot is firmly bonded with the fact that the person was gonna main event Wrestlemania. You are not gonna see them put a guy like Ambrose or Ziggler there yet. The champion going in are typically either the heel upstart via MITB or the veteran heel or the veteran fighting champion babyface. That leaves less room for WWE to operate in finding matches for their champion. So it isn't very often that there is a clear path for an ascending wrestler to win. So its always gonna be the reliable names with a Sheamus or an Alberto Del Rio mixed in.

 

It's all about the booking. WWE can easily change the narrative to 'this is where stars are born' and ' guys who have never received a title shot are working overtime tonight', etc. I am not saying Stardust should win but surely a mega push for someone like Cesaro, Ziggler, Ambrose, etc. wouldn't be THAT crazy. The last two years have shown us that the fans would totally buy it. I just think RR is a waste if Taker, Brock, Kane, Big Show, Sheamus, or ADR win this year. Would people REALLY not purchase/go to WM if the main event was Cesaro/Reigns? I know Cesaro is hurt, but it would be different and interesting and help set the tone of the rest of the year vs. the stale booking. I just don't think there is any excuse for stale booking at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that which is why he should be working Brock again.

 

The number of casual fans I know that love Undertaker while ripping on Brock for only working a part time schedule and hitting the same three moves is hilarious, but none the less real. There's a genuine dislike of the guy, and yet he is both one of the only guys that moves the needle AND can deliver on the big stage. I honestly find Brock/Roman to be a no-brainer.

 

Undertaker is the white elephant in the WWE room now. There's nothing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as people bag on Sheamus, at least he gets the right reaction and has helped Reigns get over as a babyface. Working with guys like Cena and Undertaker does Reigns no favors at all. He should be working with people the audience genuinely doesn't like.

 

They should push Miz to the moon again then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As much as people bag on Sheamus, at least he gets the right reaction and has helped Reigns get over as a babyface. Working with guys like Cena and Undertaker does Reigns no favors at all. He should be working with people the audience genuinely doesn't like.

 

They should push Miz to the moon again then.

 

They should. Miz is the kind of guy everyone will shit on but won't get I-don't care-go away heat like Sheamus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As much as people bag on Sheamus, at least he gets the right reaction and has helped Reigns get over as a babyface. Working with guys like Cena and Undertaker does Reigns no favors at all. He should be working with people the audience genuinely doesn't like.

 

They should push Miz to the moon again then.

 

They should. Miz is the kind of guy everyone will shit on but won't get I-don't care-go away heat like Sheamus.

 

 

Are you sure about that? He got TONS of that kind of "go away" heat during his MITB/Title/Main Event run and not much has changed in terms of audience reaction to him, even during his failed face run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say it was "go away heat" but people cared about it. Miz generated heat, Sheamus generates apathy. That's at least how I see it. And I think the backlash was more for the Miz-Cena program, more specifically on how they underperformed at Wrestlemania (and later in that I-Quit or whatever match, but Miz's run was done by that point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanna see them do something with the guys who are there for the other 364 days of the year. I don't give a shit about WrestleMania plans for Austin, Angle, Taker, HHH, Sting, Lesnar, Hogan, etc. Nothing they could potentially do would interest me outside of maybe a couple Lesnar scenarios. They will never create stars with the attitude they currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miz was pushed too soon. He's much more comfortable in his role now than he was in 2010 and if he was being pushed near the top now, chances are that it would work better. The problem is that he's seen as damaged goods, and that's an even harder label to get past than the eternal midcard label most of the guys have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was too soon with Miz, per se (he was pretty hot as a midcard act at the time), but his main event push was extremely mismanaged.

 

Firstly they gave him his title run during Wrestlemania season, and once Rock came back it all became about Rock and Cena and Miz looked like a total afterthought in comparison. One of the first things I would have fixed about that period was giving Miz the belt after Mania where he wouldn't look like a teenager next to The Fucking Rock Coming Back.

 

There was also a lot of bad presentation going on with him where they tried too hard to make him look badass. He'd be so serious and do these long beatdowns on Cena or whatever and it was just...not The Miz. But again he was swimming upstream trying to look credible next to Rock and Cena, which goes back to point one. We all loved the Lawler feud for ourselves, but I think it also didn't help to establish him on top that he could barely beat a 60 year old announcer.

 

Ever since 2011 I've wondered if Miz ever really had a shot at being a main event guy. Whether there's a ceiling for a guy like Miz who could talk his ass off, have this effective annoying heel character, get heat, all of it, but at the same time not come off as tough in any way. I'm not sure if it's just my personal bias, but I've seen other people express it, but Miz just doesn't come off as being someone who fights other people. He's big and muscley enough so it's not a size thing, he's just wholly unintimidating. And there are other wrestlers who come off like that, but they're mostly confined to comedy or lower card roles. It's hard having no credibility and trying to be a legitimate main eventer. And I think Miz worked tremendously well as the US Champ/upper midcard cowardly heel, who would talk shit and do skits and get his ass beat but cheat to retain the title. That works, but it works much better on the midcard level. At the world title level it is cheapening. Honky Tonk wouldn't have worked as the WWF Champ, and Miz has much more in common with Honky Tonk than Flair, to use an example of a heel world champ.

 

I honestly don't know if it's something that could have been overcome or harnessed with Miz with better booking of his reign, or whether it's just chemical and he was just never meant to headline.

 

In terms of today, Miz is one of a long list of guys who feel burned through already due to the mismanagement of 2010s booking. He COULD have a world title reign, but that feels like more of an indictment of how far the title has fallen and how inconsequential the product is (in the sense of "well if we can have Sheamus, Miz isn't much different") rather than that it would be a good or effective idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

During his drunken Christmas show, Alvarez let it slip that he has reason to believe Taker is winning the Rumble. That should be taken with several grains of salt, but from his tone it had the vibe of: Dave and/or WWE sources prob. wouldn't want me spilling this, but these two shots of raspberry Grey Goose have worked their magic.

 

Serious question that I think we discussed in a different thread within the last six months here: is the Rumble winner predictable/boring/bad like, at least 80% of the time? They've worked themselves into a corner by having it be for the Mania title shot, esp. with only one world champ. No idea why Taker would be winning, unless he really is retiring and a match with Reigns is the sendoff. But wow, that is an odd way of booking your 1st timer precarious babyface champ. If it's purely for the sake of giving Taker a big match, that seems like a pretty bad message to your young roster.

Predictable is great if it is somebody you want to see. This should not be an issue if they have a babyface people want to win the title.

 

Many fans would be very happy with Taker winning and even beating Reigns for the title. Don't think that makes it a good idea right now.

 

In ideal situations, you have a few big matches at Mania. Having a big legend vs. legend match that looks good on the poster is fine. Appease that audience, make them feel like their ticket price went toward something "epic". That's why I like Cena vs. Taker as an option this year. That's a match that looks like the main event to some people, but doesn't need to go on last and certainly doesn't need to be for a title.

 

In at least one of your top 2-3 matches, you should really be elevating someone new. Establishing a new main eventer on the year's biggest stage. That can be a new guy vs. a mega-star opponent (a la Bret vs. Austin, or the unrealistic Owens vs. Lesnar match people have been proposing), or it can be a Rumble win and title match. Or something entirely different. I actually don't even think the Rumble winner needs to go on to win the title if you play it right.

 

Someone like Ambrose or Owens wins the Rumble. They face Reigns. Reigns wins a good match. Maybe someone turns, but if the match is good enough, you can just send people home happy on a face win. That combined with Cena-Taker, Brock vs. whoever's left over among Ambrose/Owens/Reigns, and a good undercard? That's a show, Jerry.

 

I'll clarify that I'm not assuming Alvarez is correct about Taker winning. I really hope he's wrong and just can't see why they'd be going with Taker this year unless it's a surprise retirement. The greater question of what the Rumble should be remain. People have said that crowds have crapped on the match the last few years because of Bryan and "the wrong guys winning." I would add that the formula of the match is really stale and that it would benefit from having more "stock going up" guys in the match to create genuine suspense. You could easily get 4-6 serious contenders looking like capable winners during Sept-Dec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with Miz is that he's just so goddam...normal. There's nothing really "larger than life" about him. He has always come off (to me anyway) as a normal dude cosplaying as a pro wrestler. He's mechanically good, but just doesn't have that "it factor".

What is "it" anyway other then a meta term for "I don't like this guy". None of these goofs are Rock/Choshu/Santo in terms of charisma, someone's gotta main event. And even a guy like Ambrose who has a huge cult following has been ruined by terrible booking and mismanaging (I will note I think his ring work has been terrible for at least a year but that just raises more questions about the WWE get-your-shit-in style). Bryan seemed like "just a guy" in 2010 and ended up as the most over guy on the roster. Things only matter as much as you present them to and that's where WWE does a terrible job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I feel I need to add is none of the guys are at that level of charisma [as they are now]. Looking at WWF TV from 1998 The Rock did not look like a superstar trading wins with Ken Shamrock for the IC title. He only "got it" when they spontaneously turned him and put him over Kane and Taker. He transformed into a completely different performer and when they ran a match vs Shamrock again when he was a face the crowd was eating out of the palm of his hand. You'd think with how much they rely on him they'd at least try to remember that this big movie star only got "it" during his push. But alas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I feel I need to add is none of the guys are at that level of charisma [as they are now]. Looking at WWF TV from 1998 The Rock did not look like a superstar trading wins with Ken Shamrock for the IC title. He only "got it" when they spontaneously turned him and put him over Kane and Taker. He transformed into a completely different performer and when they ran a match vs Shamrock again when he was a face the crowd was eating out of the palm of his hand. You'd think with how much they rely on him they'd at least try to remember that this big movie star only got "it" during his push. But alas...

 

Unbelievably, Dave has said before that WWE thinks one of the big things that got Rock over was 50/50 booking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...