Guest Youth N Asia Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Let's look at WWE's batch of newbies over the last year. Not talking about vets who just came into the company, but about legit rookies and guys they've had under development. Seems like any rook that comes in starts with a midcard spot right off the bat. Brock Lesnar...kills everybody in sight, yet can't pin RVD. Then in wins predictable KOTR, Sumemrslam, and Royal Rumble matches. Legit main eventer in a matter of 2 months in. Batista...started off with a crap gimmick. Now it seems like that didn't even exist. Now he's a main eventer on TV and house shows. Team Angle...Sheldon had a few Heat matches, but since WWE's going to pretend like that never happened then so am I. No time together at all and they're tag champs, going over on the upper midcard, and they're main eventing Smackdown matches. Cena...debuts and gives Angle a closer match then he should of. And goes over Jericho in a PPV match, the guy who was the champ just a couple months earlier. Now seems to have nudged into his midcard spot. Ok, then you have guys like Orton, who's gotten into a spot where he could legit main event Raw now, and Nathan Jones will come in with a monster push. Should guys have to start at the bottom? I mean it's better to go up from down then down from up. It's going to be hard to imagine Brock now in anything less then a world title contender. And what about guys like Edge. He's been in the midcard since 1998, and finally seems like he's ready for the main event push. But now there's too many guys in the mix. It's stupid that it took Edge almost 5 years to get to the same spot in the roster as Batista. I think things would be better if WWE still had a Saturday morning jobber show on network tv like Superstars. Cause with cable time so precious they don't have time to build anyone properly. Thoughts? Thoughts?
Guest Lord of The Curry Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 So what you're basically saying is "Should guys have to pay dues?". For me, it depends on the guy and the talent they posess. Lesnar- Talent wise he didn't start off too well, but picked up around SummerSlam. As for being over, the guy was over as fuck by the time King of the Ring rolled around so no, he shouldn't have started at the bottom. Batista- Shitty gimmick then, not-so-shitty gimmick now. No talent that I can really see in the ring. Good look and is over with the females. Doesn't really deserve his spot. Team Angle- Benjamin put in his Heat and dark match time, Hass got put onto TV almost right after joining the full time roster. I can justify Benjamin due to aforementioned TV time and for the fact that the guy is a phenomenal athelete. Hass is still too robotic for my tastes.
Guest Youth N Asia Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 I don't think Sheldon's Heat and dark match time should count. I mean shouldn't the guy's just get a hair over before they're wearing belts and main eventing Smackdown and ppv shows? Had Sheldon stayed on Heat and gotten known to the WWE fans a little I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Guest Paranoid Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 I think that it really depends on the talent in question. If the rookie has wht it takes the he should come in and kick some as. If he doesn't then he should work his way to the top.
Guest razazteca Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Still not a fan of Dave and Randy as I have not seen anything to keep my attention as of yet, its just indiffernce right now. The team with HHH has put them in the Main angle on Raw but, they seem like nothing but just muscle for a crippled champion blocking contenders for the title shot, this has brought up before, and It does look like the Triple Threat to me. What will be the end result of Evolution? Will Dave and Randy develop into anything worth ranting about or will it just be "They suck, fire them now" As of now all I see is a pontential match up against Booker T or Tommy Dreamer as they are the 2 guys Dave and Randy keep on beating up week end week out. Well in the case of Booker T they gave Goldie a extended vacation, which should give a reason for Booker T to want to destroy the HHHorseman in a Dusty Rhodes way......now if only Booker T had a bat.
Guest nikowwf Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 The problem is its like the WWE's booking of the WCW guys...make them lose a few times then push them. It immediately stigmatizes them as losers....yes, you can get them over that but its harder. If a guy really has potential its better to start them strong. Monster Guys HAVE to be booked strong right away...or else its like Big Show...you can never push him now cause we have all seen him lose. I'd disagree with some of the people the WWE are pushing...specifically Batista who needs more seasoning and Nathan Jones, who is not close to ready if his WWA stint means anything. niko
Guest BobbyWhioux Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 In general I believe all newcomers need to be booked with some positive momentum right off the bat, so that the fans will see him as someone worth the emotional investment of supporting (in the case of a face. With a heel, it would be somebody worth hating/booing. A loudmouth asshole who loses his debut match and continues to "pay his dues" through losing matches early on isn't going to inspire much hatred. Also, fans will gradually cease to support a face who never wins the big one, or never even gets to the big one. Why bother caring about him? It's not worth the disappointment of watching him lose all the time.) The WWE, traditionally, has done a fairly good job of this more often than not, letting a guy start out with a few wins. I think you have to push a guy in order for him to have a chance at getting over, and that the "he's not over enough to warrant a push" argument is a stance of convenience used when somebody needs a reason to repress somebody. If you start out jobbing, you become labelled as a jobber. By the time "dues" are paid, the fans have identified such person as a loser and any attempt to push them is going to look less believable. Also, every once in a while you get a guy who is so damn good and ready to be a superstar/impact player RIGHT NOW that he shouldn't have to pay dues and, in fact, it would be poor business strategy to make him do so. Sort of like A-Rod in baseball. Should he have had to "pay his dues" by staying in the minors till he was 26 or by riding the bench so that some journeyman shortstop who "has paid his dues" at the major league level could play? HELL NO. Some people do need to become seasoned or experience or "pay their dues" if you weeeeeeeeeeeeel. Others are ready right away. But everybody needs to be booked very carefully and perhaps protectively when they start out, so that the fans will form a positive first impression with the wrestler, which will allow him to have a chance to reach whatever potential for overness he has later on. Just imagine if Kurt Angle had been booked to lose that debut match against Sean "Meat" Stasiak at Survivor Series 99, for example... Since it's come up, my thoughts on Batista: There's more than enough cookie-cutter hosses in WWE right now, and Batista's problem is there's nothing that sets him apart in my mind from, say, Kane or Albert or Bill DeMott etc. Yeah, he's big and angry looking. So what? Why should he matter to me above these other guys? What makes him SPECIAL? (hint: being big doesn't count, Vince. Because it's not 1986 anymore, and you've got a bunch of other big guys running around who all look basically the same in the ring. Also Bastist wears black trunks and boots. JUST LIKE FUCKING EVERYBODY ELSE! Austin, Rock, HHH, Lesnar, Batista, Albert, and a bunch of others probably too that I can't recall right now. They've all got the same basic ring uniform! WHY?)
Guest razazteca Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Also, every once in a while you get a guy who is so damn good and ready to be a superstar/impact player RIGHT NOW that he shouldn't have to pay dues and, in fact, it would be poor business strategy to make him do so. Sort of like A-Rod in baseball. Should he have had to "pay his dues" by staying in the minors till he was 26 or by riding the bench so that some journeyman shortstop who "has paid his dues" at the major league level could play? HELL NO. Bryan Danielson is ready to go now! Some people do need to become seasoned or experience or "pay their dues" if you weeeeeeeeeeeeel. Others are ready right away. But everybody needs to be booked very carefully and perhaps protectively when they start out, so that the fans will form a positive first impression with the wrestler, which will allow him to have a chance to reach whatever potential for overness he has later on Kendrick needs some Mattidude
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Team Angle has to be pushed because of the gimmick. If they are made out to be jobbers, it makes Angle himself look bad. Based on the storyline, Team Angle SHOULD have beaten Los Guerreros, and I'm glad they did.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Team Angle has to be pushed because of the gimmick. If they are made out to be jobbers, it makes Angle himself look bad.
Guest Youth N Asia Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Team Angle has to be pushed because of the gimmick. If they are made out to be jobbers, it makes Angle himself look bad. Based on the storyline, Team Angle SHOULD have beaten Los Guerreros, and I'm glad they did. But it's a case of them not being over or near as good as the Guerreros...I just wish they'd get guys over with the crowd first.
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 I don't care how hard they push a rookie as long as he is over enough to warrant it.
Guest Rob Edwards Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 Seems like a silly decision to make all rookies job initially (although I'm sure Taker would disagree) if you think they might be able to draw right off the bat you may as well push them to the moon
Guest Goodear Posted February 12, 2003 Report Posted February 12, 2003 The problem WWE has is that its either all or nothing. Either you go rocketing to World Titles or you end up getting squashed by Bill DeMott on Velocity. You can work a guy up slowly and see if he actually gets over first (Edge ...) without going to either one of those extremes. Overpushes that expose a worker can be just as damaging as jobbing them out at the start.
Guest Mole Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 Rookies are allowed to get pushed, but not straight to the main event level. It isn't the fact that they need to 'pay their dues' However, if a rookie like Brock has the potential to be big like he is, then the push should be justified.
Guest IPCRivalSchools Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 I think a key problem here is the lack of the secondary title - without it, there's nowhere for the rookies/new guys to go with a minor push to test the waters - so they're seen as being being stuck nowhere, and eventually are permantly perceived by fans as being unable to credibly go for the big one (see Van Dam, Rob). later, Ian
Guest THE MIGHTY THOR Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 If the rookie is talented he should get a good push to the top, if he lacks talent like Batista he should "pay his dues" till he is ready to get the monster push. Brock started to get over right after he wrestle the Rock so his monster push worked out but he still needs someone to talk for him b/c the fans will get bored with his lack of promo skills. Edge took 5 years to get where he is right now meaning he wasn't ready a couple years ago, but he still needs to do something with his character, which it hasn't evolved since 2000. So if giving a push to a rookie is good for the business then it's ok in my book, but if a rookie is getting the monster push and he still can't draw then his push should be stopped inmediately.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 I don't care how hard they push a rookie as long as he is over enough to warrant it. That's the problem. Rookies in general aren't over. Workers get over usually because of pushes. RVD and Booker are known workers who were pushed elsewhere, and retain heat from that. People just aren't going to cheer somebody they don't know. What should determine a push is future potential. Pushing Brock was a good idea, even though the bookers botched the early stages of it. Once he got to Smackdown things greatly improved. Team Angle is over because of Kurt Angle and because they were pushed to mean something. You push who is eventually going to make money. It doesn't have to be an immediate push to the top like Team Angle, but sometimes a slow push like with Cena. Everybody (except Anglesault) knows that Cena will be a star someday, so it makes sense not to bury him. The problem is deciding this, and WWE typically has problems with it. Batista does not have either the talent or charisma of Lesnar. Lesnar was green, Batista is bad. Vince seems to have trouble telling the two apart. Now, I do agree that someone should be over before winning the World Title. But he will need a few big wins to get over in the first place.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 I think a key problem here is the lack of the secondary title - without it, there's nowhere for the rookies/new guys to go with a minor push to test the waters - so they're seen as being being stuck nowhere, and eventually are permantly perceived by fans as being unable to credibly go for the big one (see Van Dam, Rob). later, Ian With the smaller rosters, that's what the tag titles are for. On Smackdown they used it to build up Benoit & Angle on their way to the main events, Edge, Rey, the Guerreros, and now Team Angle. Of those, only Team Angle and Chavo could not really be considered a title threat by marks. The CW will be moved to Matt Hardy and used to help build him up, but up to this point it hasn't been doing much. RAW has the titles on Regal & Storm. As always, the problem is with the booking, not the missing IC title.
Guest Imarkout4chrisdaniels Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 Why not start up new TV titles? Call them the Raw Television Title, and Smackdown Television Title respectively. They are defended on the television show every week, will be a lower belt that could provide a chance for a few wrestlers to feud over or to care about, and since they are started new...the titles could become worth something bwcause they could be built up from scratch with no past de-valuing from WWE or WCW.
Guest Lord of The Curry Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 With the smaller rosters, that's what the tag titles are for. On Smackdown they used it to build up Benoit & Angle on their way to the main events, Edge, Rey, the Guerreros, and now Team Angle. Of those, only Team Angle and Chavo could not really be considered a title threat by marks. The CW will be moved to Matt Hardy and used to help build him up, but up to this point it hasn't been doing much. RAW has the titles on Regal & Storm. As always, the problem is with the booking, not the missing IC title. Nah, the CW Title won't be used for a build-up to Matt, he's only a transitional champ so he can job the title to Rey at WrestleMania.
Guest Trivia247 Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 There are differences though... Brock, Batista, team Angle and the Like were Paying dues...alot of them spent the last couple of years in either OVW or HWA and some elsewhere before that... they aren't true "Rookies" If you want to go by Storyline then sure maybe some should have started at the bottom where the More established stars were better..... But keep in mind, Even Steve Austin started at the bottom in WWF...and He had Career developements in USWA WCW and ECW before even getting in the WWF. Now Tough enough kids... those who just learned how to properly headlocksomeone 3 months earlier... Yea keep them at the bottom of the barrel or just send them off to OVW till they get better..
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now