Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 415: Feel the GLOW. On Netflix.

(+) Yeah! (+)

AJ's established, but not at a "face of the company" level like those other guys (arguable for Orton-- Brock and Cena are definitely a league above though)
---

Brock/Cena, yes definitely. Orton isn't there anymore; otherwise he wouldn't lose four straight major events to the likes of Bray Wyatt and Jinder Mahal.
---

It probably had more to do with him getting the title when it was a terrible idea.
---

Yeah that's true.

I feel like Orton's sorta on the level where he's not a huge name but losing to him isn't going to damage you like it would someone like Reigns or Rollins.

Just one competitive feud with Brock and he's easily repaired (though less easily by the month). Not too unlike the situation where AJ's at. Which is kinda why I think AJ vs Orton would've been a money feud because no matter who wins I think it's a net positive.

AJ going Cena -> Orton -> Brock -> midcarders would've been an excellent progression I think and really would've put AJ where he needs to be.
---

Except if AJ does anything other than squash the non top guys he's ruined, and if he does then there's no one to ever actually progress to his level so you're not really creating stars so much as making a few guys look like the least shitty parts of the shitshow.
---

When a guy who has won the title as many times as Orton is no longer a huge guy.

The guy just came off a royal rumble win and won the title at mania.

That used to mean something.
---

Panthera posted...

Except if AJ does anything other than squash the non top guys he's ruined

You are, seemingly intentionally because you apparently think Seth Rollins is in fact a big deal, missing the major point.

The point is that AJ can't ever lose to the guys "beneath him." It's that he needs a consecutive run of that not happening for a decent period of time while he dukes it out with all the big guys, to really entrench him as a household name.

After that point, you can have him face Kevin Owens and Seth Rollins and whoever else. But not before, otherwise he just falls into the rank and file, as has been the trap time and time again in the past 15 years for everyone that isn't named Cena.
---

Lopen posted...

You are, seemingly intentionally because you apparently think Seth Rollins is in fact a big deal, missing the major point.

When did I mention Rollins or my opinion of him? How did you get to the fantasy land you're in?

Lopen posted...

After that point, you can have him face Kevin Owens and Seth Rollins and whoever else. But not before, otherwise he just falls into the rank and file, as has been the trap time and time again in the past 15 years for everyone that isn't named Cena.

By your definition he will fall into the rank and file no matter what because there literally are not enough "big" names to feud with for him to not spend so much time on mundane stuff that he will inevitably begin to fit in, and your criteria for what makes someone a big deal is strict enough that it's impossible to create enough to fix that problem.
---

So... having quite a bit of time on my hands lately, I compiled a spreadsheet and determined the # of ppv main events for every WWE Superstar. The only definition I used was that a main event was the last match to close out a ppv, even if it's something as simple as a MITB cash in that replaces the original main event. The top ten are...

1) Undertaker - 69
2) John Cena - 68
3) Triple H - 67
4) Shawn Michaels - 49
5) Randy Orton - 47
6) Stone Cold Steve Austin - 41
7) Kane - 36
8) The Rock - 34
9) Chris Jericho - 30
10) Batista/Brock Lesnar/Big Show/Edge - 26 each

Before anyone asks, the next highest active wrestler outside the top ten is Roman Reigns, who has closed out 21 ppvs and is 16th on the all time count.
---

...no Hogan?
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

...no Hogan?

No Hogan makes sense given there were at most 4 PPVs a year during his glory years in the WWE and that they only expanded to monthly PPVs by 1995.
---

Hogan's tied for 14th on the all-time list with CM Punk, both main evented WWE ppvs 24 times each.

paulg pretty much summed it up best. Hogan mostly main evented ppvs when it was just the big four, and left for WCW before In Your House and King of the Ring became yearly ppvs. When he returned in 2002, Hogan only main evented the following:

Backlash 2002
Judgment Day 2002
No Way Out 2003
SummerSlam 2005
---

The page-and-a-half of posts about the established Stars really don't matter though. The only time ratings ever seem to go up as if Cena is announced to be on the show or if Brock is announced to be on the show there are no stars in the WWE now. There is really no other way to explain the lack of ratings
---

There are a lot of ways to explain lack of ratings other than JUST stars. There's no innate drama like there was due to the Monday Night Wars, where there was a meta-expectation that bizarre and momentous things would happen to beat something else in ratings. TV has entered a Golden Age so the shitty writing that's been rehashed for 10 years now has lost all of its luster. And because of those two things, the lack of stars is much more of a problem than it would be by itself.
---

Beeleedat
---

Panthera posted...

By your definition he will fall into the rank and file no matter what because there literally are not enough "big" names to feud with for him to not spend so much time on mundane stuff that he will inevitably begin to fit in, and your criteria for what makes someone a big deal is strict enough that it's impossible to create enough to fix that problem.

Yeah, except for the eras when Wrestling was actually on the rise.

Just because current day WWE is failing at it doesn't mean the 80s and 90s weren't succeeding. Not sure why you're white knighting the WWE, here.
---

The thing is there isnt any big segments either. There's no beer truck, no river belts, no big things to make people tune in
---

This is why Braun Strowman is the hero we need. He won't bring a beer truck but he'll flip the one that was brought in over.
---

Breezango are building to a big segment. Trust me.
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah, except for the eras when Wrestling was actually on the rise.

Just because current day WWE is failing at it doesn't mean the 80s and 90s weren't succeeding. Not sure why you're white knighting the WWE, here.

I'm criticizing your idea, not blindly worshiping the WWE. Not sure why you've completely given up on rational conversation and decided to just invent weird things to accuse people of but hey, have fun.
---

The only company I blindly worship is World Championship Wrestling.
---

Well you're criticizing my idea based on hyperbolic interpretations of what I'm saying rather than any sort of justification based on reality, since this is actually how stars have been made in the past (have already cited many examples-- hell Cena and to a lesser extent Brock themselves were made that way), so I don't know when the rational conversation actually started here.
---

Lopen posted...

Well you're criticizing my idea based on hyperbolic statements rather than any sort of justification based on reality, since this is actually how stars have been made in the past, so I don't know when the rational conversation actually started here.

The hyperbolic statement of pointing out that if there are only a few guys that are presented as top guys and everyone else is clearly not worthy (you specifically feel that the non-big deals should be booked as obviously well below the big deals), there is no way to keep anyone out of the mediocre zone for long enough to keep them from seeming mediocre? Bringing up the past isn't even all that relevant because people's way of getting into wrestling has clearly changed over the years, but even as late as the 90s stars weren't made by essentially saying that everyone who has at any point not been booked strongly is permanently ruined.

The key part of your idea that I disagree with is that your criteria of who is "damaged" and not main event worthy is far too broad and when I try to think of how to book things the way you want, I realize that I have about one year of storylines before I run out of relevant things to do and have to make a choice with the big names: Either rehash the same feuds or stick them in the midcard so long it inevitably makes them not feel big anymore. And I also don't see how I can ever build a new star when anyone that hasn't already done it is damaged goods, and to keep the non-big deals where they belong I have to ensure that there's no upper mid card credibility that could be used to push anyone to a higher level.

But no I'm a deranged Seth Rollins fanboy being as deliberately stupid as possible.
---

To clarify: In your own words, guys like Reigns and Rollins who have had high profile feuds against big names in the company about as much as humanly possible without serious repetition, have not been treated as relevant and are permanently damaged and simply can't matter enough to be main eventers. John Cena doesn't even really qualify by your standards as you describe them, he's spent so much time feuding with midcarders (and almost never main events PPVs anymore) that any relevance he had is gone. Hell, LESNAR barely qualifies thanks to the Ambrose and Joe feuds dragging him down. Unless you think relevance is a thing that can't be lost once attained, but given that you're not advocating for Universal Champion Triple H vs WWE Champion Big Show I feel that can be safely ruled out.
---

I think Seth is permanently damaged by "Demon King" and "Sparkle Crotch".
---

It's not impossible to keep anyone out of the mediocre zone because as said, it's been done in the past. The thing you're not understanding is that the more guys you get out of the mediocre zone, the easier it is to book programs where people aren't in that zone, because each guy you get out of there gives you more guys to work with on that top level, and you can use them as a building block to get more guys out of there. Having two major players should be plenty to build more guys.

The other thing you're not really taking in, and is why you can try and claim Brock and Cena aren't on that level, while seemingly not being intentionally obtuse, is that it's possible to give your big guys something to do without booking them against other big guys-- like AJ facing Kevin Owens is not fundamentally flawed-- AJ facing Kevin Owens and having 4 title changes is what's flawed. Why does Kevin Owens need to be protected. AJ Styles is a guy who pushes John Cena to his limit. Kevin Owens is not on his level, and shouldn't be treated as such.
---

I think it's pretty clear from all of the backstage news that KO wasn't supposed to win at Battleground.
---

If Owens doesn't look legit against Styles, then Owens is useless for making anyone look legit (beating him means nothing because it doesn't require you to be good to do it). If the entire non-main event scene isn't legit, then there's no one for newer guys to actually feud with to establish themselves. You're basically just perpetuating the Bray Wyatt filler zone by making sure that only Cena and Reigns (Styles and Nakamura or whatever but we all know how Vince rolls) are legit and the Wyatts of the world just meaninglessly faff about with one another because they aren't good enough to actually build anyone up to the Cena/Reigns level.

And if the top guys just lose randomly to dudes that have never achieved anything to make it feel right, then at BEST you just swapped one top guy for another rather than adding to the count.
---

So to get this straight, if Kevin Owens can't beat any given wrestler on the roster at any time he's useless for building anyone.

Yeah, no. That's not how it has ever worked.
---

He's useless for building AJ, that's for sure.
---

Lopen posted...

So to get this straight, if Kevin Owens can't beat any given wrestler on the roster at any time he's useless for building anyone.

Yeah, no. That's not how it has ever worked.

What was that about hyperbolic statements?

Because you said that guys like Owens should be clearly below guys like Styles. That certainly sounds like you don't think Owens should look like a genuine threat to Styles.
---

It's not hyperbolic to literally repeat what you said.

Panthera posted...

If Owens doesn't look legit against Styles, then Owens is useless for making anyone look legit

Literally your quote.
---

That is literally what you are proposing Lopen. You specified that a guy like Owens should be clearly below a guy like Styles. If he isn't a legit threat to Styles (which he isn't if he's clearly beneath him), how does beating him actually push anyone to the level of Styles?
---

Guys

I have one thing to say about all of this

Jinder Mahal.

is not a star
---

http://www.newsarama.com/35741-john-cena-joins-transformers-bumblebee-spin-off.html
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

Guys

I have one thing to say about all of this

Jinder Mahal.

is not a star

He will prove us ignorant Americans (and Canadians) wrong and establish a new form of stardom. He will do it for his people, and for his hero, The Great Khali.
---

Panthera posted...

That is literally what you are proposing Lopen. You specified that a guy like Owens should be clearly below a guy like Styles. If he isn't a legit threat to Styles (which he isn't if he's clearly beneath him), how does beating him actually push anyone to the level of Styles?

Styles > Dude > Owens and Dude > Styles > Owens are two valid inequalities

Beating Owens doesn't say a guy can beat Styles. Nor should it. It does make you consider that dude can beat Styles though.
---

Every time I'm watching Raw and I see Bray Wyatt talking gibberish with no real reason, I'm going to make a post that says the following:

"I see the snakes, man! The snakes, they call to my demonic soul! They lurk in the depths of hell... hahahaha. But you... I can save you from the snakes! Listen to the whispers man, do you hear them? Hahaha..." SPOOKY OUTRO OOH SO SPOOKY

Let's see here in a minute if I need to use this post!
---

Lopen posted...

Styles > Dude > Owens and Dude > Styles > Owens are two valid inequalities

Beating Owens doesn't say a guy can beat Styles. Nor should it. It does make you consider that dude can beat Styles though.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point - I don't think someone looks like a legit threat to a top guy unless they beat someone that is a legit threat to a top guy. The formula you're proposing just doesn't really click for me because while I might still like certain surprise wins over big names, a lot of the time I'll just be scratching my head about it.
---

I'm pretty sure at the start of that segment, Corey Graves basically said "I don't really know why Bray wants to fight Finn but maybe we'll find out!"

That's how I've felt since he's been fighting people with no good reason (like Seth). I don't know why he's randomly fighting people and talking spooky voodoo to them. And after that promo, it seems like Bray's reason for fighting Finn Balor is "The fans like him and so I'm gonna beat him down to make the fans upset!" So did we really find out anything? That's not much of a reason to fight someone unless you're trying to build generic heel heat. Bray needs more than that at this point.

I wish they'd book him right because he has great delivery on his promos but... I'm tired of the booking for him and I'm tired of the Bray Wyatt character period.

I'm not gonna use the post yet because that wasn't an unintelligible Bray promo, but it was still a bit meaningless.

EDIT: At least his feud with Orton had purpose. It was a pretty bad feud because the matches were garbage, but I knew why they were fighting each other.
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

I'm pretty sure at the start of that segment, Corey Graves basically said "I don't really know why Bray wants to fight Finn but maybe we'll find out!"

Pretty much the perfect summary of Bray Wyatt since...actually every single moment of him on the main roster except the Shield feud and maybe parts of the Orton story. Even the WWE doesn't know what he's supposedly doing at any given moment.
---

It's because of the Demon thing

Bray hates brand confusion
---

Maaannnn and I really thought Finn might have been coming out as the demon king because of the heartbeat stuff. Oh well. Guess that's behind him now, he's just a normal guy.
---

On the flip side, if anyone has to have beaten Styles to be a credible threat to build to beating Styles, then you either have an extremely linear route to take to get to the point where you can beat Styles, or Styles has been beaten by enough that beating him has no real value.

I mean if Owens is considered to be on the level of Styles, why is Styles the one to build up to to beat in the first place, and why do you need to beat Styles if you've already beaten Owens.

Basically if you try to make everyone a star no one is is what I'm getting at. I'd rather have predictable booking than 'unpredictable' booking (which usually ends up predictable amusingly enough by reading the ebb and flow of the storyline) where everyone can beat everyone and the wins don't matter.
---

WOOOOO ROMAN

Dat clean win!

Nice
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

http://www.newsarama.com/35741-john-cena-joins-transformers-bumblebee-spin-off.html

https://mobile.twitter.com/RusevBUL/status/892132095572803584
---

Lopen posted...

On the flip side, if anyone has to have beaten Styles to be a credible threat to build to beating Styles, then you either have an extremely linear route to take to get to the point where you can beat Styles, or Styles has been beaten by enough that beating him has no real value.

I mean if Owens is considered to be on the level of Styles, why is Styles the one to build up to to beat in the first place, and why do you need to beat Styles if you've already beaten Owens.

Basically if you try to make everyone a star no one is is what I'm getting at. I'd rather have predictable booking than 'unpredictable' booking (which usually ends up predictable amusingly enough by reading the ebb and flow of the storyline) where everyone can beat everyone and the wins don't matter.

I don't think someone has to beat Styles to be able to beat Styles. I think it seems like an ass pull if someone beats Styles without having beaten guys who were at least close to Styles unless the guy took a Strowman style path of squashing everything in sight for a while.

I don't know, I just find it funny that your solution to the WWE's lack of starpower that they created in large part due to refusing for years to let anyone other than Cena (and Orton and Batista to a lesser extent) look like a top guy is to make sure that only Cena and a couple others get to look like top guys.
---

Why does Kalisto still work here but is not a cruiserweight?
---

So in week 2, are we all in agreement that Chad Gable might have ended up with the better end of this deal?
---

Everyone thought I was crazy because I said Bray wasn't any good as a character years ago.

Who's crazy now?!
---