Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
But Sandow WAS used to his complete potential. He's a funny guy, who pretty much blows in the ring. So they put him with Miz, got months and months out of a storyline, did the blow off, and then that was it. They even managed to find Sandow yet another comedy angle to work, and it was one of those things that was funny one time, but not something you are going to get long term benefit from.
People dont seem to get that the spots on TV and Network Specials are VERY limited. Just being a steady feature on the Network Specials is a big deal. You have most months 7 matches per show. At least one will be a Divas match, one will likely be a tag. So you're left with about 12-15 spots. So where do you want them to go with guys? Whats wrong with where Cesaro is right now? He just worked with Kevin Owens, who is now in an IC title fight. Who's spot should he have?
The way WWE books right now is you have your top guys (basically Cena and Rollins right now), you have some part timers who come in now and then, but primarily for Mania (Lesnar, Taker, Trips, Rock, Sting, Jericho, etc), and then you have a glut of guys who get monthly programs and are on TV every week (Reigns, Ambrose, Wyatt, Ryback, Cesaro, Owens, Sheamus, Orton, etc). And then you have a few jobberish guys who are just on RAW to get beat up but are known characters.
I just dont get where people think some of these guys should be right this moment, unless you think they should with Rollins and Cena.
|
No, Sandow was not used to his complete potential, and I don't think you'll find many people (including the WWE it now seems) that will agree with your opinion on that. If the WWE admits they are wrong on a subject by pushing a guy that was used to his maximum potential, does your tone change on them?
I think what you're not getting is that people want to see better booking top-to-bottom on WWE shows. Some want to see the part-timers cooled off and other guys heated up. Others want the Intercontinental Title to actually mean something. Some want to see SmackDown used more effectively than it currently is, with guys being allowed to grow their personalities on it, instead of just doing maintenance television every week.
Your argument basically comes down to "The WWE is shit. Therefore you should like shit. Why do people want something other than shit? What do you expect to see if not shit?" People want it to be be DIFFERENT. You can't use the same to discredit fruit of change.
Cesaro has been booked HORRENDOUSLY. They gave him the big Battle Royal win...then had him lose almost every match he ever had with Heyman by his side. That's a great way to sell the guy as a world-beater, right? Ambrose has been booked terribly. He was getting hot, so what does the company do? Have him lose all his big matches and take away his top feud by putting him in a program with a guy returning off hiatus and needs wins himself. Ambrose then suddenly forgets that he hates Rollins for a few months.
Orton could have been white-hot earlier this year, but they turned him heel...then turned him face again. Brilliant. Owens could be a threat that invests people by scaring little kids that love Cena and thrilling fans that want his blood. Reigns has been given too strong a push with too little development, now his best chance is bad booking making him attractive to smart fans, etc.
You seem to like what the WWE does. That's cool. You're allowed to. But people aren't wrong for not being into a cold product that produces no real stars. It doesn't make them product of the dirt sheets -- you can feel how vacuous these shows are as you watch them, and you can pinpoint old, old rules of both wrestling and television that are very often being broken.