Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Has any other top star had such a lackluster career like Orton?


rzombie1988

Recommended Posts

To speak on Reigns a bit since his name was brought up, and it sort of ties into Orton being on WWE TV and heavily pushed for 15 years........

 

I like Roman quite a bit, I think he always delivers in his big matches, but the reason he's so polarizing in some ways dates to when the crowd wanted D-Bry to be "the guy" and his push has just never recovered from that fan backlash. And fans now have a memory and are "smart" and on the net, so even though I like the guy I totally get when he gets the reactions he gets. The audience felt like they were being ignored and disrespected and that he was the chosen guy being pushed down their gullet

 

And so I totally get why a lot of people are sick of Orton, Big Show, Kane.....all these guys who've been on top for years. But they're all good/great performers who are reliable and have managed to stay over for a long time. And without the territories........the reality is these guys will become stale because they're in the same promotion in top spots, on tv every week. I think all 3 of them fall into the same category......and all 3 have taken time off TV and done lots of heel/face switches to change character/freshen up.......but without anywhere else to go what can they really do? Some guys do go the indy/Japan route, but can you really blame guys for not doing it when they're firmly established in WWE and making top money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I do think it's interesting how polarizing Orton can be, even in this thread.

 

I personally think much of the issue is that WWE hasn't had many successful multi-month angles in the last fifteen years. (Orton as Legend Killer/IC Champ may actually be one of them). You take out Michaels vs Jericho and even the stuff we kind of fondly remember like Punk (Nashed) and Bryan (They fell into it and pushed against it and got it right after a few reverse courses only to screw it up enough after the win that he was getting booed) don't really hold up.

 

Yeah, this is certainly an issue. Let's use Punk as an example, since he's a great promo and natural storyteller. He was in WWE for over 7 years and had very few long-term feuds that are even "good." The Jeff Hardy stuff is a good angle and there's actually a progression in the finishes to the big matches (in part because Punk was able definitively win since they fired Hardy at the end). After that... the stuff with Mysterio is ok but repetitive, the feud with Bryan and Kane over AJ is decent soap opera stuff with great matches, and the Cena stuff never worked for more than a month at a time. And this was a pushed guy!

 

So I think that leads to the question of how much of this falls on Orton not being a compelling character vs. the position he's in and the era he's in. If Orton is around in the 80s, he probably falls into a role in various territories a bit like Jake Roberts - the sociopathic killer heel with a lights out finisher. But the movement would allow him to keep an aura that the current format just does not allow. He also probably would have been a babyface far less frequently, which really doesn't play to his strengths.

 

I just haven't had time to make the thread but i really want to know what people think are multi-month angles that have worked in post 2001 WWE. Jericho vs Michaels, Michaels vs Undertaker, maybe the Flair retirement, maybe Legend Killer Randy Orton, maybe Hall of Pain Mark Henry to a degree, the Batista turn, but it's not much. It's astoundingly not much. And what about in this decade specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I do think it's interesting how polarizing Orton can be, even in this thread.

 

I personally think much of the issue is that WWE hasn't had many successful multi-month angles in the last fifteen years. (Orton as Legend Killer/IC Champ may actually be one of them). You take out Michaels vs Jericho and even the stuff we kind of fondly remember like Punk (Nashed) and Bryan (They fell into it and pushed against it and got it right after a few reverse courses only to screw it up enough after the win that he was getting booed) don't really hold up.

 

Yeah, this is certainly an issue. Let's use Punk as an example, since he's a great promo and natural storyteller. He was in WWE for over 7 years and had very few long-term feuds that are even "good." The Jeff Hardy stuff is a good angle and there's actually a progression in the finishes to the big matches (in part because Punk was able definitively win since they fired Hardy at the end). After that... the stuff with Mysterio is ok but repetitive, the feud with Bryan and Kane over AJ is decent soap opera stuff with great matches, and the Cena stuff never worked for more than a month at a time. And this was a pushed guy!

 

So I think that leads to the question of how much of this falls on Orton not being a compelling character vs. the position he's in and the era he's in. If Orton is around in the 80s, he probably falls into a role in various territories a bit like Jake Roberts - the sociopathic killer heel with a lights out finisher. But the movement would allow him to keep an aura that the current format just does not allow. He also probably would have been a babyface far less frequently, which really doesn't play to his strengths.

 

I just haven't had time to make the thread but i really want to know what people think are multi-month angles that have worked in post 2001 WWE. Jericho vs Michaels, Michaels vs Undertaker, maybe the Flair retirement, maybe Legend Killer Randy Orton, maybe Hall of Pain Mark Henry to a degree, the Batista turn, but it's not much. It's astoundingly not much. And what about in this decade specifically?

 

 

This decade has really been hurt by the gimmick PPVs, because it means that the blowoff to a feud is a TLC match or Hell in a Cell not because the feud has built to it, but because that's what month it is. So the finishes in a three month feud don't really escalate or move forward. So there's the overall 50/50 booking issue interacting with the use of gimmick matches in a really lazy way. Jericho v. Michaels, for example, starts with a regular match that moves to an unsanctioned match, which then moves to a ladder match, all of which were built to as the storyline progressed. They also had them feuding without having a match on each PPV available, which just doesn't happen anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of this is gimmick PPVs? How much of it is weekly TV with big matches. How much is it that WWE doesn't want to build uncontrollable stars relative to a brand? How much is the TV writers? How much is Vince being out of touch? How much is PG? How much is the lack of competition? Lack of places for wrestlers to go? And is it REALLY that dire? Have they really not managed any compelling multi-month storyline? Are we falsely remembering how they did this in decades past or in other territories?

 

It's amazing at how bad they seem to be at this when it should be their single job, more or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think WWE has had lots of great angles/programs in the last decade+, the problem is with so much TV overexposure and all the PPVs it does tend to all blend together, and be bogged down. I remember really liking the Cena-Orton program a decade or so in the past, with the I Quit match and Last Man Standing and everything, but off the top of my head I couldn't tell you what year it actually happened because they went to that well so many times. I really like the Cena-Batista program when Dave was on his way out (think it was 09? maybe 10?) but again, it all gets a bit muddied in my mind

 

IMO the Jericho-Michaels feud is probably the best of the last decade, I can remember it pretty much beat by beat, from the Flair retirement to the ladder match......but those were two masters who were allowed to basically script their whole program without "creative" interfering. Most guys today don't have carte blanche like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I do think it's interesting how polarizing Orton can be, even in this thread.

 

I personally think much of the issue is that WWE hasn't had many successful multi-month angles in the last fifteen years. (Orton as Legend Killer/IC Champ may actually be one of them). You take out Michaels vs Jericho and even the stuff we kind of fondly remember like Punk (Nashed) and Bryan (They fell into it and pushed against it and got it right after a few reverse courses only to screw it up enough after the win that he was getting booed) don't really hold up.

 

Yeah, this is certainly an issue. Let's use Punk as an example, since he's a great promo and natural storyteller. He was in WWE for over 7 years and had very few long-term feuds that are even "good." The Jeff Hardy stuff is a good angle and there's actually a progression in the finishes to the big matches (in part because Punk was able definitively win since they fired Hardy at the end). After that... the stuff with Mysterio is ok but repetitive, the feud with Bryan and Kane over AJ is decent soap opera stuff with great matches, and the Cena stuff never worked for more than a month at a time. And this was a pushed guy!

 

So I think that leads to the question of how much of this falls on Orton not being a compelling character vs. the position he's in and the era he's in. If Orton is around in the 80s, he probably falls into a role in various territories a bit like Jake Roberts - the sociopathic killer heel with a lights out finisher. But the movement would allow him to keep an aura that the current format just does not allow. He also probably would have been a babyface far less frequently, which really doesn't play to his strengths.

 

I just haven't had time to make the thread but i really want to know what people think are multi-month angles that have worked in post 2001 WWE. Jericho vs Michaels, Michaels vs Undertaker, maybe the Flair retirement, maybe Legend Killer Randy Orton, maybe Hall of Pain Mark Henry to a degree, the Batista turn, but it's not much. It's astoundingly not much. And what about in this decade specifically?

 

Daniel Bryan's Character arc from late 2011-summer of 2013 really worked but I can't pretend the intention was to get him as over as he was. Bryan vs The Authority worked immediately following that if one chooses to ignore the bumps in the road & sees the end as WM 30 (I do for instance). Goldberg-Brock worked but if you dislike part-timers main eventing shows for titles then it's probably not your thing. Cena-AJ was a good 8 month long story. Jericho-Owens up until the break-up? Punk-Bryan-AJ love triangle is excellent in my opinion & lasted like 3 months. The Shield from their debut until summer of 2013 is great. Hall of Pain Mark Henry is almost perfect. There's more successful long term stories than we think. However, I think the bad ones or the botched ones stand-out more for whatever reason. Summer of Punk falling apart. Nexus angle turning into a PG cartoon. Most Authority angles & storylines outside of the best Bryan stuff. Taker's Streak ending the way it did. Seth Rollins title reign. Owens Title reign. Lots of bad stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of this is gimmick PPVs? How much of it is weekly TV with big matches. How much is it that WWE doesn't want to build uncontrollable stars relative to a brand? How much is the TV writers? How much is Vince being out of touch? How much is PG? How much is the lack of competition? Lack of places for wrestlers to go? And is it REALLY that dire? Have they really not managed any compelling multi-month storyline? Are we falsely remembering how they did this in decades past or in other territories?

The number of hours of TV per week is a huge part, as is being forced of having to have all stars on TV almost every week and having hardly any squash matches, plus 15 or however many "PPV" special events per year. It's pretty hard to do a slow and long burn under this circumstances. I haven't watched NXT television in more than a year, but there you could see big differences: 1 hour per week, maybe 4-5 specials a year, not every star is on every episode. That's why they got away with putting Asuka vs. Ember Moon off for six months or so, even so it was obvious to anyone that this was Asuka's next stop after Bayley was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main issue with him has always been that once he made it to the top, he only gets motivated for about 2 months a year and shamelessly halfasses it the rest of the time. He couldn't even bring himself to put in the effort against AJ or in a WM title match. The only guy who goes through the motions more than him is Ambrose. When he wants to be, he can be great. But he almost never wants to be, instead settling to be that kid who can pass his classes with a C without having to study instead of putting the effort in to get As.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main issue with him has always been that once he made it to the top, he only gets motivated for about 2 months a year and shamelessly halfasses it the rest of the time. He couldn't even bring himself to put in the effort against AJ or in a WM title match. The only guy who goes through the motions more than him is Ambrose. When he wants to be, he can be great. But he almost never wants to be, instead settling to be that kid who can pass his classes with a C without having to study instead of putting the effort in to get As.

 

 

Agree with this, especially the point about Ambrose being the new Orton in terms of giving less than 100% at all times. I get that it's probably not realistic to expect someone to give maximum effort 365 days a year on every show, but the performance he gave at Mania this year was so embarrassingly bad I was wondering if maybe he was hurt going in and was toughing it out. I'm sure he probably saw the plans for the projection stuff and figured "fuck all this", but how many times have we seen guys take ridiculous and/or stupid ideas and make it work through force of sheer will? I feel Orton is never going to be a guy anyone says that about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point on how hard it is to "freshen" Orton after so many years, I'd just note that when the feud with Lesnar began, Orton got a HUGE pop for RKOing Lesnar. The moment he went into the crowd was awesome too. Even fans like myself who generally are bored or uninterested in Orton were interested in him.

 

Then the match happened and it underwhelmed...which is kind of what tends to happen with Randy's big matches.

 

Also, I'd second the point about others taking lemons and turning them into lemonade. Extreme Rules 2014 comes to mind and has been sort of alluded to by others in this thread. I thought the Kane/Bryan match was really fun - that making it a wild, cartoonish "kitchen sink" PG hardcore match worked (flaming tables, kendo sticks, a forklift - it was zany entertainment and the crowd was hot for most of it). Earlier in the show, John Cena lost a steel cage match to Bray Wyatt because a little girl singing "He's Got The Whole World In His Hands" distracted him...and I liked that mostly ridiculous match too. Speaking of Cena, around a year later, he made a squash match where he took 20some suplexes in a row into a seminal event, easily one of the top 5 "must see" matches of the 2010s. I'm guessing some people here forgot Orton even wrestled Lesnar before reading this post.

 

It would've taken a great performer to make "The ring has cockroaches on it!" work...but how many big, tough heels in the 80s got mileage out of being afraid of an animal 15 feet away? How terrified did the heels of the 90s always seem of Taker's generally harmless "sorcery"? Orton didn't need to devalue himself to the level of Hogan in the Dungeon of Doom ("This water...it's not hot!"), but no-selling it entirely? Came off as "I'm too cool."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the way young Orton would react so huge to stuff. Just rewatched the Foley match and he's this phenomenal mix of cocky young star ready to take the world by storm and terrified kid who realizes too late he's in over his head. Even sillier stuff, like Taker coming back at Survivor Series '05, he gave an enormous reaction to. Now it's hard to imagine him doing more than staring blankly at anything that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually argue Orton has had a pretty strong career. Loads of decent-good matches and some great ones (vs. Foley, Rey, Bryan, Cesaro etc.). It's all accumulated quality of course and doesn't mean he is a great wrestler by any means (though I consider him to be pretty good). Lots of duds and mediocre stuff along the way.

 

I don't want to veer off into GWE territory but Orton is a good example of why having a resume of good matches built up over a bunch of years doesn't mean you are an elite worker.

 

"Has any other top star been as lackluster as Orton?" would be a better question for me personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Sheamus been mentioned? At one point in 2012 after he squashed Bryan at WM he was set to be the # 2 babyface behind Cena. That seemed to kill his potential as a top guy because of the resentment. I was listening to former wwe writer kevin Eck with Keller and if they had gone with the Cena heel turn Vince was thinking of Sheamus replacing him as top babyface. He was going to be one of the main guys and it never worked out. Have to consider his career a disappointment at this point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a "was pushed to be the top guy or 1b to Cena's 1a" guy being a disappointment is a bigger deal than a "might have been a top guy but became perennial secondary title fodder" guy being a disappointment. And depending on how much you value his TV work, some people might not call Sheamus a disappointment.

 

EDIT: Orton's also done it much longer and will probably still do it after Sheamus is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Sheamus been mentioned? At one point in 2012 after he squashed Bryan at WM he was set to be the # 2 babyface behind Cena. That seemed to kill his potential as a top guy because of the resentment. I was listening to former wwe writer kevin Eck with Keller and if they had gone with the Cena heel turn Vince was thinking of Sheamus replacing him as top babyface. He was going to be one of the main guys and it never worked out. Have to consider his career a disappointment at this point

Besides Sheamus and Reigns, were there other victims of the company's inability to grasp Bryan's star power? Comeback Bautista, I guess, but that was likely a short-term thing anyway. Orton didn't seem to come out of his long feud with Bryan any better or worse than he already was. Which I guess is quintessential Randy Orton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Has Sheamus been mentioned? At one point in 2012 after he squashed Bryan at WM he was set to be the # 2 babyface behind Cena. That seemed to kill his potential as a top guy because of the resentment. I was listening to former wwe writer kevin Eck with Keller and if they had gone with the Cena heel turn Vince was thinking of Sheamus replacing him as top babyface. He was going to be one of the main guys and it never worked out. Have to consider his career a disappointment at this point

Besides Sheamus and Reigns, were there other victims of the company's inability to grasp Bryan's star power? Comeback Bautista, I guess, but that was likely a short-term thing anyway. Orton didn't seem to come out of his long feud with Bryan any better or worse than he already was. Which I guess is quintessential Randy Orton.

 

Was the initial plan to have Brock crush Batista at Summerslam to set up Reigns at Mania?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is he's just so damn lazy, when he started wrestling early in career he would work his long headlock spots like a 70's wrestler.

It's what made him stand out, as no one else was doing it anymore, now he just sits in them boring everyone to sleep.

 

He should be trying to work like a young Barry Windham, not a old Barry Darsow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Sheamus been mentioned? At one point in 2012 after he squashed Bryan at WM he was set to be the # 2 babyface behind Cena. That seemed to kill his potential as a top guy because of the resentment. I was listening to former wwe writer kevin Eck with Keller and if they had gone with the Cena heel turn Vince was thinking of Sheamus replacing him as top babyface. He was going to be one of the main guys and it never worked out. Have to consider his career a disappointment at this point

Sheamus' ascent to the top wasn't really organic though. He really didn't deserve his main event push when he got it. Triple H/Vince put him there and once they moved onto other fetishes, they forgot about him.

 

I wouldn't call his outside of the ring work that good but in-ring he was pretty decent. I think he's where he should have been all along right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...