The Wrestling Thread Says, "Wait Just A Second There, Playa!"

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]379545[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]379049[/split]

 

[NDX]

Well, since I neither own the company nor have stock in it, I say fu** "What's good for business". I'm cheering the guy that I like best.

That should be what's wrestling's about. Wanting to see who you want to see and profits be damned. But seeing how long many of us had been fans and have grown with the business to understand it differently from when we were kids, that idea of what's best for business always comes up. It will play a factor.

But in the end, I want to see AmDrag champion until the end of time! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

 

[NDX]

Nell, I have to comment on something you said:

I agree to an extent, but both go hand in hand. And you know this. It gets boring sometimes when the same person always wins. Heck, you even complained about Cena always winning at one point. Putting new guys over is important to putting on a good show and keeping main-event scene fresh.

Perfect example: back in 2000, in main-event scene was Rock, Triple H, and Undertaker. Foley had just retired, and it was pretty much Rock and Triple H feuding, with Undertaker returning. While Rock/HHH is a good feud, they needed to inject new life into the scene, leading to the inclusion of Angle, Benoit, and Jericho.

It's important especially when you have guys that are on the brink and just need more solidifying. That's why despite how much I'm anticipating CM Punk vs Jericho at Mania, I still wish it was CM Punk vs Triple H. I won't argue that Jericho/Punk would be better in-ring wise, but Triple H is higher up on the ladder and considered an icon. A win over him would really put Punk over as the Man. As someone said, the only person who's really done that for Punk at this point is Cena. Back in 1998, Austin went over HBK, then over Foley in a multi-month feud, then Kane, and then the Undertaker. Going over is very important in putting on a good show.

As for Miz, he has come a long way. But like many said, he shouldn't have been main-eventing Mania. Part of that has to do with the fact that Cena was beefing with Rock at the time, and Miz looked like a mortal standing next to titans in that ordeal. The third wheel indeed. Second, I thought his WWE title run was booked poorly. He didn't really get a credible win. I mean, retired Jerry Lawler nearly beat him in a ladder match for goodness sakes.

Strange and surprising, Daniel Bryan's world title run has been booked better, and he actually has a credible win in defeating Mark Henry and Big Show in a steel cage match at the Royal Rumble. I don't know if Creative is finally getting how to book sniveling heels, or some political maneuvering by HBK to protect his former protege, but it's been a solid run.

Anyway, I'm finished. Carry on....

See, everything that you posted here is what I disagree with.

I don't think that guys need "credible" wins, I don't believe Miz suffered for it, and I don't believe that CM Punk needs to beat a "top" guy to get over.

Miz got over with me because of the character work he was putting in at the time. I didn't feel like he was a "weak" champion because he was struggling against Lawler. Here's what you have to remember, on the screen, these guys are characters. Ultimately, they are superheroes. While in real life Lawler may be in his 60's, on screen in kayfabe, he's The King. Not only that, but they were working on building Lawler up to his feud with Michael Cole. Whether that feud should have happened or not, they were inserting Lawler into his own storyline, so essentially King was getting pushed.

CM Punk doesn't need to beat Triple H to get over with me - he's over because he's put in great character work since he dropped the Straight Edge persona, shot on WWE, and walked out with the belt. He's credible of his own merits, not because someone put him over and "did the job" for him. CM Punk could lose to Jericho at Wrestlemania and as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't hurt a damn thing about him. He'd still be over.

And ultimately, that's where I disagree with the mindset of this thread. Wrestling isn't about putting guys over, or credible wins, because if a guy is good, he's gonna get over regardless. Ziggler hasn't had a real big win, yet he's climbing up the totem pole. Why? Because his character work that he's doing is improving, and he's taking himself to a main event level. Nobody has "done the job" for him, he's getting over because he's displaying skill.

Your example of 2000 with Jericho, Benoit and Angle - they earned their main event spot because they absolutely tore the house down in the upper mid card, and showed that they were bigger than that. They worked their way to the top and earned it.

Yea, obviously it's both - a guy has to be given the opportunity, but he also has to roll with it. Guys have gotten "put over", had people "do the job" for them, and gotten those pushes, and still flounder because they suck. On the other hand, guys have "weak" runs, and yet still get over without someone "doing the job" for them because they get themselves over with their talent. And that's why I don't buy the whole "so and so needs to 'do the job'" mindset, and why I don't allow myself to get caught up in it when I'm watching.

These are both valid arguments of wrestling fan mindsets. And I have to agree with both ideas. A lot of times, it's about the right balance. Nell brings up a great point about Dolph. While he hasn't had an recent victories that say he should be a main eventer, people are still touting him as the next main event heel sensation because of his in ring skill and the way he carries himself, his character. He's been on a losing streak to Sheamus and Cena and others and STILL we claim he'll be headlining PPVs soon enough. Because he oozes that charisma and skill that makes us believe it. He's been a loser the last few months, but it hasn't deterred us from our thoughts.

And I both agree and disagree about Punk. His position with the fans is solidified, so a lose to Jericho won't hurt his momentum. In fact, it might add fuel to it because he'll now be chasing the holy grail, trying to take it from one of the most dispicable, glittery heels in wrestling history. But I have to say, Sage brings up a great point about HHH vs Punk. A win for Punk over the King of Kings, the man in charge, the Son-In-Law of Son-In-Laws, would pretty much guarantee he will never be taken out of the main event for longer than a cup of coffee (possibly one made by Chris Benoit). So while his match with Jericho could prove to be a wrestling match of epic proportions, a defining match with Triple H could be the WrestleMania moment WWE always talks about.

In the end, it's about the right booking and the right characters. Miz fell into his, and ran with it as long as he could. But instead of keeping it up, he slacked off and wasted his opportunity to get back into the spotlight. Instead he's getting fed to Sheamus, Cena and being used to look pathetic by trying to latch on to Daniel Bryan, a man who he supposedly brought in. Not a good sign for Miz right now, and it's all his fault. It's why people feel Ziggler will be king of the heep and Miz will be in a dung heep, Ziggler acts like he still wants it. Miz doesn't exude that anymore.

 

[Kaleb]

''sometimes at night the wrestling thread and I like to spoon''

 

[Pink Ranger]

''sometimes at night the wrestling thread and I like to spoon''

Good, but disturbing.

 

[MMMMM...Pancakes]

''sometimes at night the wrestling thread and I like to spoon''

You get my vote good sir.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

These are both valid arguments of wrestling fan mindsets. And I have to agree with both ideas. A lot of times, it's about the right balance. Nell brings up a great point about Dolph. While he hasn't had an recent victories that say he should be a main eventer, people are still touting him as the next main event heel sensation because of his in ring skill and the way he carries himself, his character. He's been on a losing streak to Sheamus and Cena and others and STILL we claim he'll be headlining PPVs soon enough. Because he oozes that charisma and skill that makes us believe it. He's been a loser the last few months, but it hasn't deterred us from our thoughts.

And I both agree and disagree about Punk. His position with the fans is solidified, so a lose to Jericho won't hurt his momentum. In fact, it might add fuel to it because he'll now be chasing the holy grail, trying to take it from one of the most dispicable, glittery heels in wrestling history. But I have to say, Sage brings up a great point about HHH vs Punk. A win for Punk over the King of Kings, the man in charge, the Son-In-Law of Son-In-Laws, would pretty much guarantee he will never be taken out of the main event for longer than a cup of coffee (possibly one made by Chris Benoit). So while his match with Jericho could prove to be a wrestling match of epic proportions, a defining match with Triple H could be the WrestleMania moment WWE always talks about.

In the end, it's about the right booking and the right characters. Miz fell into his, and ran with it as long as he could. But instead of keeping it up, he slacked off and wasted his opportunity to get back into the spotlight. Instead he's getting fed to Sheamus, Cena and being used to look pathetic by trying to latch on to Daniel Bryan, a man who he supposedly brought in. Not a good sign for Miz right now, and it's all his fault. It's why people feel Ziggler will be king of the heep and Miz will be in a dung heep, Ziggler acts like he still wants it. Miz doesn't exude that anymore.

Agreed on The Miz. As much as I love the guy, he lost his spot in the main event because post Wrestlemania, the work that he was putting in wasn't as good, and apparently he started slacking off backstage. It has nothing to do with the fact that he tapped like a whiney girl to Cena and said "I Quit" at Over The Limit.

I still disagree on CM Punk in the way that it doesn't matter whether CM Punk gets a win over Triple H ever or not at all, CM Punk will remain in the main event as long as he entertains as well as he has been, he will be a top star that can carry the company as long as he continues to be the reason people tune in on Monday nights, and it will have nothing to do with whether he goes over a Triple H or not. Perfect example being Miz has a Wrestlemania main event win over John Cena, walking in with the belt, and walking out with the belt, and a week out from the next Wrestlemania, he's not even on the card. Why? Because his character work took a drop.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Feels like we only started a new thread a couple of days ago, hurm!

 

[Wheels]

You're going to tell me Bill Goldberg got over basd on talent? I don't think so. He got over because of his look and the booking.

 

[Kaleb]

WWE Champion CM Punk spoke with InkedMag.com this week. Here are some highlights:

You seem to be cognizant of wrestling history. For example, after Macho Man Randy Savage’s death, you wore tights designed like his and performed his elbow drop. Why is the past so important to you?

Like they say, if you don’t remember the past you’re doomed to repeat it. Not that repeating pro wrestling’s past would be such a horrible thing; there were certain aspects that were a lot cooler back then. When I was a kid, Macho Man was the ****. When he passed away I just felt the need to do something. So I had some classic WrestleMania III Macho Man tights made and I wore them, thinking that maybe someone who didn’t know who he is would hear people talking about him and check him out. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Macho Man. He is cooler than anyone around today, myself included.

Leading up to your championship you were portrayed as an outsider and an underdog. You’ve talked about how you weren’t marketed correctly or enough. Now that you have been crowned champion, can you still make that claim?
Not without adding some sort of severe backlash from people. It’s hard to say you’re an underdog when you’re the champ. There are still people who are crossing their fingers waiting to see me fail. This industry has always been about image, and I don’t fit that image. I’m the one standing up and saying, “So what?” I’m the best wrestler in the world, and that is what this is about. Who cares if I don’t look like you want me to? That’s something I’ve been dealing with my entire life.

What’s it like to wrestle alongside or against the same guys you idolized as a kid?
I wrestled independently for a very long time and wrestled guys like Dusty Rhodes, Terry Funk, and Ricky Steamboat, so that stuff blows my mind. I met Mick Foley in 2003 and he said, “I think you’re awesome and you need to be in WWE.” Mick’s been waving the CM Punk flag for damn near a decade. Having these old-school guys have my back, having Dusty and Terry Funk telling me that I’m the man after wrestling in front of 500 people in Philadelphia—to me that’s bigger and better than any paycheck I’ll ever get. That’s validation from people who are as close to being my heroes as you can get.

Do you think people understand how many years of effort it took to finally reach the main stage?

When I came to WWE I was already world traveled, I had all these tools, and I knew how to wrestle all these different styles. That made me know how to deal with all the pitfalls and land mines I have to navigate in WWE. I think that’s something a lot of guys today are lacking.

It seems like wrestling has always struggled to gain respect from the general public. What are your thoughts on that?

We’ve always had that stigma. There are always people who are going to harp on, “Oh, it’s fake!” I dare anybody who has the balls to say that to my face to step into my shoes for one day and do what I do.

Do you think that those opinions will ever change? Or do you think that the lack of respect is something that will always be there?

I’m sure golf can be viewed the same way. Is golf a sport? I’m not going to criticize these people because I’m kind of in their shoes. I have people telling me wrestling’s not a sport all the time. They can’t tell me that it’s not, and I can’t tell them that it is. It’s a stalemate. To me it’s like religion. The people who believe in God can’t be convinced otherwise, and for the atheists there is no explanation to get them to believe. I love pro wrestling. I’m a fan of it and I’m going to champion its history until the day I die. I just wish there were more people who honestly respected it

When you’re not using those celebrity connections, who inks you at home?

Robin King is the one who did my chest, and it’s gorgeous. I’m in love with that tattoo. She works out of Metamorph in Chicago. I have to mention Mike Baalke, who has done probably 85 percent of my work. He works out of Tattoo Factory in Chicago. I’ve been going to him for years and years.

What is it about tattoos that you are so drawn to? And what are some of the ones that have great meaning to you? They all have a lot of meaning to me. The reason that I like tattoos is that I’m a very heart-on-my-sleeve kind of guy. I can cover my body in my beliefs and the things that I love. Tattoos are very subjective. I know there are a lot of people who look at me and think, Your tattoos are stupid, you have a tattoo of a slice of pizza. Well, guess what? I’m from Chicago and I love Chicago pizza. So I got a tattoo of it. It’s sad to me that they don’t have any tattoos because they can’t possibly love something as much as I love pizza. Or my little sister’s jersey number, which I have behind my left ear. These are all things I love. These aren’t things that I’m going to grow out of or grow tired of. So, yeah, you’re damn right I ink them on my body and I want them to be with me for the rest of my life. I love that idea. There’s something romantic about that.

read more here

source: http://www.inkedmag.com/features/article/q-cm-punk/page/2/

 

[Metallo]

Your going to tell me Bill Goldberg got over basd on talent? I don't think so. He got over because of his look and the booking.

The same applies to Lex Luger. Or (Psycho) Sid Vicious.
Its a combination of things thats used get someone over. Good steady booking, in ring talent, mic skills, good look, charisma, good promotion, etc.

Now somebody doesn't have to have all of them working for them but its important to have most.

Once you are establleshed wins and losses don't really matter so much in most cases. Benoit, Michaels, Flair, and Savage have looked like a million dollars losing. In the fans eyes it didn't matter that they lost. But those guys all had decades of (quality) experience and strong runs behind them at the points that was happening.

If you take someone new to the business or new to the WWE they have to get some momentum going. Its much harder for the people to get behind a loser who doesn't get a chance to connect in some way. People like winners. Its that way in movies or sports. Doesn't matter what the entertainment arena is. Not to mention the fact that even the casual wrestling audience is somewhat jaded and has seen it all at this point. The bar of expectations has been raised.

Once someone like Daniel Bryan carves a place for himself as a singles guy wins or losses won't matter as much. Even with wins and losses presentation is still important though. But even presentation only holds up so far unless someone looks like they have a chance.

Nobody was going to take Barry Horowitz seriously as a threat to Hulk Hogans title just because WWE says he would be out of the blue. Doubt and anticipation are huge parts of peoples enjoyment of something. Thats not smark/behind the scenes talk. Thats normal person talk.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You're going to tell me Bill Goldberg got over basd on talent? I don't think so. He got over because of his look and the booking.

Well considering I never watched WCW its hard for me to say for sure, but what I know about Goldberg, he got over because he was a badass that people wanted to see.

And that goes back to my point that I always bring up about character over in ring talent. Goldberg was a badass character that people wanted to see. There are many many examples of less than stellar in ring workers that get over because of an incredible character, far fewer examples of weak characters that got over based on in ring skill. And even those guys had some semblance of character.

People will want to see guys like Goldberg that just destroy their opponent. People will want to see guys like The Rock, Austin, or CM Punk that rip their opponent apart on the microphone. People will want to see the over the top badasses that kick ass and take names like Austin. If these guys are given the opportunity (yes, obviously they need the opportunity) they will get over if they are good at what they do.

Talent in wrestling goes far beyond just being able to hit a suplex. Its presenting a character, a character that people want to tune in weekly to see, and spend $60 a month on to get resolution to.

 

[Hunter Rider]

These are both valid arguments of wrestling fan mindsets. And I have to agree with both ideas. A lot of times, it's about the right balance. Nell brings up a great point about Dolph. While he hasn't had an recent victories that say he should be a main eventer, people are still touting him as the next main event heel sensation because of his in ring skill and the way he carries himself, his character. He's been on a losing streak to Sheamus and Cena and others and STILL we claim he'll be headlining PPVs soon enough. Because he oozes that charisma and skill that makes us believe it. He's been a loser the last few months, but it hasn't deterred us from our thoughts.

And I both agree and disagree about Punk. His position with the fans is solidified, so a lose to Jericho won't hurt his momentum. In fact, it might add fuel to it because he'll now be chasing the holy grail, trying to take it from one of the most dispicable, glittery heels in wrestling history. But I have to say, Sage brings up a great point about HHH vs Punk. A win for Punk over the King of Kings, the man in charge, the Son-In-Law of Son-In-Laws, would pretty much guarantee he will never be taken out of the main event for longer than a cup of coffee (possibly one made by Chris Benoit). So while his match with Jericho could prove to be a wrestling match of epic proportions, a defining match with Triple H could be the WrestleMania moment WWE always talks about.

In the end, it's about the right booking and the right characters. Miz fell into his, and ran with it as long as he could. But instead of keeping it up, he slacked off and wasted his opportunity to get back into the spotlight. Instead he's getting fed to Sheamus, Cena and being used to look pathetic by trying to latch on to Daniel Bryan, a man who he supposedly brought in. Not a good sign for Miz right now, and it's all his fault. It's why people feel Ziggler will be king of the heep and Miz will be in a dung heep, Ziggler acts like he still wants it. Miz doesn't exude that anymore.

Dolph Ziggler is more an exception than a rule though as his talent is on another level to most that have come through, he's a selling machine that can take the losing streak and still get his chance, however at some point he needs to beat someone to solidify his name.

Nell is back on the Punk not needing to beat Triple H crap again, he doesn't because Cena put him over twice and that was enough, but Triple H became "The King of Kings" and all his other slogans because he beat Foley, Rock, Austin, Angle, Show, Jericho and Benoit clean in the space of a year, Brock Lesnar beat Hogan, Rock and Taker in the space of two months, Cena went over Triple H and HBK at back to back WrestleMania's, Batista beat Triple clean 3 PPV's in a row. If you want to make true top stars then wins have to come into it. Punk is claiming to be best in the world, to be that guy he's going to need to beat some other genuine top guys.

Now take a look at Sheamus and Henry, Sheamus bombed as champion and had to start from the ground up as a face because they booked a 6'5, 280lb badass as a coward. On the other side of the coin Kane, Show and Orton all put Henry over clean and that's why his monster run worked.

The Miz first run was like Jericho's, booked to look like he didn't belong and then when Mania came he was the third wheel, that's why coming out of Mania both fell back into the floating heel role as they had not been established with any credibility, not that Miz ever should have been but that's a different story.

There are always exceptions like Ziggler and I'd say Bryan as well, but in truth compared with the Miz and Jericho's reigns he's been booked like a legit star in his matches, despite some of the finishes.

At the end of the day the wins and how they go down do matter overall to establishing a guy as a top guy, if they didn't guys like Triple H, HBK, Austin, Hogan, Vader and even Sting recently wouldn't have politicked so much to avoid doing jobs.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Well considering I never watched WCW its hard for me to say for sure, but what I know about Goldberg, he got over because he was a badass that people wanted to see.

And that goes back to my point that I always bring up about character over in ring talent. Goldberg was a badass character that people wanted to see. There are many many examples of less than stellar in ring workers that get over because of an incredible character, far fewer examples of weak characters that got over based on in ring skill. And even those guys had some semblance of character.

People will want to see guys like Goldberg that just destroy their opponent. People will want to see guys like The Rock, Austin, or CM Punk that rip their opponent apart on the microphone. People will want to see the over the top badasses that kick ass and take names like Austin. If these guys are given the opportunity (yes, obviously they need the opportunity) they will get over if they are good at what they do.

Talent in wrestling goes far beyond just being able to hit a suplex. Its presenting a character, a character that people want to tune in weekly to see, and spend $60 a month on to get resolution to.

No one is arguing that but you don't build an Austin or a Goldberg into a ticket seller by taking the attitude that wins don't matter, why do you think Austin was so reluctant to job to anyone? because in his eyes he needed to maintain himself as this unbeatable entity, same with Goldberg, his look and presence mean nothing if he loses every time out, or can't win without help. Look at Rock, if Rock doesn't get some big wins and look credible against top guys he's basically the Miz, all mouth and no trousers.

 

[Metallo]

Well considering I never watched WCW its hard for me to say for sure, but what I know about Goldberg, he got over because he was a badass that people wanted to see.

People wanted to see Goldberg because he was a badass who KICKED ass and won. It took some time to established that.

No one is arguing that but you don't build an Austin or a Goldberg into a ticket seller by taking the attitude that wins don't matter, why do you think Austin was so reluctant to job to anyone? because in his eyes he needed to maintain himself as this unbeatable entity, same with Goldberg, his look and presence mean nothing if he loses every time out, or can't win without help. Look at Rock, if Rock doesn't get some big wins and look credible against top guys he's basically the Miz, all mouth and no trousers.

People want to see a badass kick ass not be a loser. Is a constant loser really that much of a badass?

In the movies you know the hero is usually going to win in the end but the hero and villain should look like they stand a chance at winning.

 

[Wheels]

Just because a guy can get over without being booked well doesn't excuse the company booking horribly. A talented guy like Rhodes or Ziggler could be a mega heel if they had gotten the Drew McIntyre push but instead they waste it on a guy who will probably never get over.

 

[Metallo]

In order for Rhodes and Ziggler to take it to the next level they have to look like real contenders at some point. At this point itd REALLY hard to believably blame Rhodes or Ziggler for the any problems in their ascension up the ladder. Rhodes has really deified a lot of expectations and he has it all. its up to WWE and how they support him as a character.

It all goes hand in hand. People want to see a character they like and when they like him they want to see him succeed...but they have to have a reason to like him in the first place.

The Rock could have said all the cool funny sh** he wanted to when he started but if he was getting his ass beat by Duane Gill his entire career I seriously doubt he would have gotten as big as he did. But even with the wins he was getting early on he didn't really get over until the WWF changed his presentation.

 

[The Sage]

See, everything that you posted here is what I disagree with.

What?!!

I don't think that guys need "credible" wins, I don't believe Miz suffered for it, and I don't believe that CM Punk needs to beat a "top" guy to get over.

I think Miz absolutely suffered from it. He can have belt, but if he doesn't look good holding it, then he's a weak champion. As many have said, the man makes the belt. If the man looks weak, the belt looks weak. That's why booking and storytelling are so important.

CM Punk needed to beat a top guy to look like he belonged at the top. That's how it works. And it has to look good. That's how it always has been.

Name a big name star whose name is in the upper echelon that didn't beat other top guys.

Miz got over with me because of the character work he was putting in at the time. I didn't feel like he was a "weak" champion because he was struggling against Lawler. Here's what you have to remember, on the screen, these guys are characters. Ultimately, they are superheroes. While in real life Lawler may be in his 60's, on screen in kayfabe, he's The King. Not only that, but they were working on building Lawler up to his feud with Michael Cole. Whether that feud should have happened or not, they were inserting Lawler into his own storyline, so essentially King was getting pushed.

On the screen, Lawler's a retired wrestler who sits behind a commentator desk, and its obvious by his looks that he's little up there in age. So to me it does look weak. And while it was used to build up the Lawler/Cole feud, it could've been done in a way in which Miz still looked strong.

CM Punk doesn't need to beat Triple H to get over with me - he's over because he's put in great character work since he dropped the Straight Edge persona, shot on WWE, and walked out with the belt. He's credible of his own merits, not because someone put him over and "did the job" for him. CM Punk could lose to Jericho at Wrestlemania and as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't hurt a damn thing about him. He'd still be over.

His own merits would also include the people that he's beaten. Do you think Triple H would be the man he is if he hadn't beaten credible opponents?

Heck, I remember when Triple H first became WWF Champion. I wasn't buying it for months. And then two things happen, he became more vicious in character and he defeated Mick Foley in two matches: a Street Fight and a Hell In A Cell. When that happened, he was flat out cemented in my mind as being the man.

When Edge became a main-eventer, it took quite awhile before it could catch on with me. But after he feuded with Cena and developed in character, it caught on with me. I was watching him make his entrance down to the ramp for a PPV as WWE Champion, I think it was Unforgiven 2006, and it struck me. I was like, "Wow, this guy really is a champion and belongs there."

So for me, it takes two things. The winning is important.

And ultimately, that's where I disagree with the mindset of this thread. Wrestling isn't about putting guys over, or credible wins, because if a guy is good, he's gonna get over regardless. Ziggler hasn't had a real big win, yet he's climbing up the totem pole. Why? Because his character work that he's doing is improving, and he's taking himself to a main event level. Nobody has "done the job" for him, he's getting over because he's displaying skill.

A guy can be good and all, but if he doesn't win, he's a choke artist.

I'm glad you brought Dolph Ziggler up. Back in 2009 when he debuted, he kept losing on PPV despite how good he was. And eventually the crowd started to lose interest. Over time, he was booked better with good wins, and he developed as character. Now, he's over with the crowd and it can't be denied that he's the next rising star.

Your example of 2000 with Jericho, Benoit and Angle - they earned their main event spot because they absolutely tore the house down in the upper mid card, and showed that they were bigger than that. They worked their way to the top and earned it.

Yes, but once they got to the top, one of the guys at the top had to put them over to solidify them.

Kurt Angle beat the Rock to become WWF Champion.
Chris Jericho defeated Austin and Rock to become the Undisputed World Champion.
Chris Benoit made Triple H tap out at Wrestlemania to become World Champion.

Yea, obviously it's both - a guy has to be given the opportunity, but he also has to roll with it. Guys have gotten "put over", had people "do the job" for them, and gotten those pushes, and still flounder because they suck. On the other hand, guys have "weak" runs, and yet still get over without someone "doing the job" for them because they get themselves over with their talent. And that's why I don't buy the whole "so and so needs to 'do the job'" mindset, and why I don't allow myself to get caught up in it when I'm watching.

Yeah it's both. Perfect example is Jack Swagger. They made him champion, he even went over Orton, but the crowd wasn't catching on and he obviously wasn't ready in terms of character and mic skills.

And nowadays it makes me twinge when it's brought up that he's a former world champion.

 

[Kaleb]

hey guys look here.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^ But all that is pretty much my point.

The guy gets himself over with his talent, and earning his spot. THEN he can get his wins.

Winning and "going over" doesn't get the guy over. The guy gets himself over. Then he can "go over" as reward for getting himself over. Jericho, Angle, and Benoit all solidified themselves before they "went over". It wasn't going over The Rock, or Austin, or Triple H that made them big. They made themselves big, and then they got the win that they had earned for themselves.

 

[kal-el1990]

The Once in a Lifetime Special was on in the UK today. Was a very good watch!!

 

[Kaleb]

The kid in the far back ( left side) has the best facial expression

 

[Wheels]

Punk is over and i haven't seen HHH put him over like he did for Cena or Batista. Punk deserves to be put over by HHH.

 

[Daniel Thompson]

The kid in the far back ( left side) has the best facial expression

Lol, well cannot blame the kid.t: