The General Wrestling Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Warner2BruceTD
    2011 Poster Of The Year
    • Mar 2009
    • 26142

    Originally posted by EmpireWF
    Nobody is over like the guys in the late 90s. Not even Cena.
    By Ryback isnt over at all. Nobody cares. They are piping in crowd heat while kids sit there looking bored.

    Goldberg was a thousand times more charismatic and played the character way better. He conveyed real danger. Ryback comes of cartoonish. He's wearing tights RVD left in the back and was a Nexus goof a year ago.

    Comment

    • Warner2BruceTD
      2011 Poster Of The Year
      • Mar 2009
      • 26142

      Originally posted by FedEx227
      Absolutely, so the dead horse of RYBACK SUCKS COMPARED TO GOLDBERG is pretty stupid.

      Brodus Clay has nothing on Earthquake!
      Those comparisons are WWE's fault, though. They chose to do a carbon copy gimmick. They even replaced "Who's next" with "Feed me more". Of course people will compare.

      Ryback reeks of a bad TNA ripoff gimmick.

      Comment

      • LiquidLarry2GhostWF
        Highwayman
        • Feb 2009
        • 15429

        Originally posted by FedEx227
        Absolutely, so the dead horse of RYBACK SUCKS COMPARED TO GOLDBERG is pretty stupid.

        Brodus Clay has nothing on Earthquake!
        But, he does suck in comparison to Goldberg...so, what does that tell you about Ryback?

        I mean, I actually dig Ryback as a guy...but you just can't compare him to one of the most over guys (albeit for a brief time) in the history of the business...its like comparing apples to skee balls.

        Comment

        • LiquidLarry2GhostWF
          Highwayman
          • Feb 2009
          • 15429

          Originally posted by Warner2BruceTD
          Those comparisons are WWE's fault, though. They chose to do a carbon copy gimmick. They even replaced "Who's next" with "Feed me more". Of course people will compare.

          Ryback reeks of a bad TNA ripoff gimmick.
          Ryback didn't start immediately as a Goldberg rip off...but after the fans started chanting "Goldberg" after a few weeks into the gimmick, they ran with it. Hell, before Feed Me More took off, they were piping in Goldberg chants WCW style. He did this gimmick before in both OVW and FCW...its a "terminator" gimmick, but he was never an unbeatable win-streak guy...he actually lost more than won (teamed up with ol Sheamus O'Shaunnessy back in the day with that name).

          At this point, Ryback reeks less of a bad TNA ripoff and more of a mid-90's WCW rip off. But the WWE only has themselves to blame...it isn't what the character should have been in the first place, and it is a character desperate for a manager.

          I can't state enough...I actually like the guy, but this is another case of the WWE totally screwing the pooch and shooting their load early with a guy.

          Comment

          • BRUCE80
            Tradition Football
            • Mar 2009
            • 541

            Who thinks he wins Sunday? Somehow I think Punk wins..I just cant buy Ryback as a champion...no skills on the mic...zero charisma...spouts a few one liners and stomps around.. Reminds me of Rob Terry from TNA...useless and boring.

            I am surprised they dont have him sprinting to the ring like Warrior yet..

            Comment

            • SuperKevin
              War Hero
              • Dec 2009
              • 8759

              Originally posted by BRUCE80
              Who thinks he wins Sunday? Somehow I think Punk wins..I just cant buy Ryback as a champion...no skills on the mic...zero charisma...spouts a few one liners and stomps around.. Reminds me of Rob Terry from TNA...useless and boring.

              I am surprised they dont have him sprinting to the ring like Warrior yet..
              He'd get burned out and his squashes would have to be Diesel vs Bob Backlund-esque

              Comment

              • s@ppisgod
                No longer a noob
                • Apr 2011
                • 1032

                Originally posted by SuperKevin
                He'd get burned out and his squashes would have to be Diesel vs Bob Backlund-esque
                Most forgotten reign ever.

                Comment

                • IamMedellin
                  Everything Burns...
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 10910

                  Originally posted by s@ppisgod
                  Most forgotten reign ever.

                  dont tell Nash that, He sold out MSG before he left




                  Comment

                  • s@ppisgod
                    No longer a noob
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 1032

                    Originally posted by IamMedellin
                    dont tell Nash that, He sold out MSG before he left
                    Not Nash, Backlund. His winning the belt was over-shadowed by Bret vs. Owen, I can't even remember how he became #1 contender, and he was squashed like a bug against Nash and it wasn't even on TV. Ironic, considering how long he held the belt in the 70's.

                    Comment

                    • FedEx227
                      Delivers
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 10454

                      I think Ryback as champion would be awful. Monsters are champions are boring, a lot of times the organizations really don't know what to do with them.

                      My hope, HOPE is that Lesnar gets in the Cell. Heyman locks it and they just beat Ryback down and Punk retains that way. He "wins" but didn't do it without the help of one of the biggest monsters in wrestling history. Ryback's streak is over, but he lost because two guys did it. This can build up to a "shudder" Ryback/Lesnar match-up and in some ways can get Punk away from Ryback and onto The Rock or whomever his next feud will be.

                      Really, there's no winning in this. Either you kill Punk's reign for a hotshotted Ryback win. You kill Ryback's streak. You kill the Cell and have a no-contest. Really just horrible short and long term booking IMO.
                      VoicesofWrestling.com

                      Comment

                      • LiquidLarry2GhostWF
                        Highwayman
                        • Feb 2009
                        • 15429

                        The best thing they could do for Ryback's career is have him lose. Not lose like a geek, but have him lose the match.

                        No one's career or momentum should be stopped by losing to the champ who beats everybody. If he is, you really didn't have momentum in the first place.

                        Comment

                        • s@ppisgod
                          No longer a noob
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 1032

                          Originally posted by LiquidLarry2GhostWF
                          The best thing they could do for Ryback's career is have him lose. Not lose like a geek, but have him lose the match.

                          No one's career or momentum should be stopped by losing to the champ who beats everybody. If he is, you really didn't have momentum in the first place.
                          That's the problem with monster undefeated streaks. Anything other than a clean win is adowngrade. They're a good thing until they're not. And with the accelerated process with Ryback, it's only worse and they've painted themselves into a corner where they have him lose and lose all the momentum, even though the fans aren't behind him, or he wins and you have to run with him to try and make him a star. Or have a screwy ending that we all expect and make people less interested in Ryback and shitty secondary PPVs. It was the same way with Goldberg's streak ending and Samoa Joe's streak ending in TNA. I don't think either were terrible ideas, but when you end a streak, the fans take the wrestler less seriously and are overly analytical of when it who or how or why. It's endlessly stupid. Ryback losing to Punk wouldn't be a bad idea. Neither was Goldberg losing to a red hot Nash who at the time was leading a ridiculously over Wolfpac stable. Neither was Joe losing to a newly acquired wrestling machine Kurt Angle. But it's never remembered that way because undefeated streaks are a double-edged sword that undo all the good they did the second the wrestler is pinned or submitted. I would never be in favor of using one.

                          Comment

                          • EmpireWF
                            Giants in the Super Bowl
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 24082

                            If they go with Punk retaining in whatever fashion, expect someone to be on the receiving end of a monster beatdown Monday by Ryback.


                            Comment

                            • LiquidLarry2GhostWF
                              Highwayman
                              • Feb 2009
                              • 15429

                              Originally posted by s@ppisgod
                              That's the problem with monster undefeated streaks. Anything other than a clean win is adowngrade. They're a good thing until they're not. And with the accelerated process with Ryback, it's only worse and they've painted themselves into a corner where they have him lose and lose all the momentum, even though the fans aren't behind him, or he wins and you have to run with him to try and make him a star. Or have a screwy ending that we all expect and make people less interested in Ryback and shitty secondary PPVs. It was the same way with Goldberg's streak ending and Samoa Joe's streak ending in TNA. I don't think either were terrible ideas, but when you end a streak, the fans take the wrestler less seriously and are overly analytical of when it who or how or why. It's endlessly stupid. Ryback losing to Punk wouldn't be a bad idea. Neither was Goldberg losing to a red hot Nash who at the time was leading a ridiculously over Wolfpac stable. Neither was Joe losing to a newly acquired wrestling machine Kurt Angle. But it's never remembered that way because undefeated streaks are a double-edged sword that undo all the good they did the second the wrestler is pinned or submitted. I would never be in favor of using one.
                              The only issue with Samoa Joe losing his winning streak was that he should have beaten Angle first at Genesis...and then lost the rematch Turning Point...

                              Comment

                              • s@ppisgod
                                No longer a noob
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 1032

                                Originally posted by LiquidLarry2GhostWF
                                The only issue with Samoa Joe losing his winning streak was that he should have beaten Angle first at Genesis...and then lost the rematch Turning Point...
                                I actually liked the way they did it. He lost to the hyped incoming Angle, which is a respectable loss, then beat him to follow-up the first loss of his tenure in TNA. You need something to re-establish him after a loss. The problem was they gave him mostly crap after that for roughly 6 years(?).

                                Comment

                                Working...