The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Who do you think in the WWE is overrated, and likewise, who do you think is underrated?
Whilst most people think that the whole of Smackdown's Cruiserweight division is underrated, you can only select two superstars for each catagory. ;c)
Anyway, for me it would be:
Underrated :: The Hurricane
C'mon, WWE could have done so much with his gimmick. He could be Intercontinental Champion right now, had WWE not messed him about, and stuck him on Heat.
Underrated :: Rico
Man, he is my favourite Smackdown superstar right now. I'm glad he's in a decent storyline, one that makes me laugh every time I see him wrestle. He's a good wrestler too. Just look for some of his matches as Rico Constantino (I think that's what he's called)...when he had a mullet... :cD
Overrated :: Rob Van Dam
You can't spell Overrated with an R...a V and a D...
Sure, he's pretty good in the ring, but his mic skills suck.
Overrated :: John Bradshaw Layfield
This may be just an Internet thing...but he is way overrated. He's a boring wrestler who can do a few basic moves, a clothesline and a few other powerful moves. His mic skills suck, and he really shouldn't be main eventing Smackdown. Sure, he was brilliant in the APA as a face, or the Acolytes as a heel...but I'm not liking his JBL gimmick.
Whilst most people think that the whole of Smackdown's Cruiserweight division is underrated, you can only select two superstars for each catagory. ;c)
Anyway, for me it would be:
Underrated :: The Hurricane
C'mon, WWE could have done so much with his gimmick. He could be Intercontinental Champion right now, had WWE not messed him about, and stuck him on Heat.
Underrated :: Rico
Man, he is my favourite Smackdown superstar right now. I'm glad he's in a decent storyline, one that makes me laugh every time I see him wrestle. He's a good wrestler too. Just look for some of his matches as Rico Constantino (I think that's what he's called)...when he had a mullet... :cD
Overrated :: Rob Van Dam
You can't spell Overrated with an R...a V and a D...
Sure, he's pretty good in the ring, but his mic skills suck.
Overrated :: John Bradshaw Layfield
This may be just an Internet thing...but he is way overrated. He's a boring wrestler who can do a few basic moves, a clothesline and a few other powerful moves. His mic skills suck, and he really shouldn't be main eventing Smackdown. Sure, he was brilliant in the APA as a face, or the Acolytes as a heel...but I'm not liking his JBL gimmick.
Page:
Flockhart wrote:
> †hë_Çøñg_Mðñ wrote:
> The booking squad have made it clear that the
> neverendingfeud between Michaels and HHH is the most important thing
> at Bad Blood.
>
> When is that going to end, it's been going on forever, and how ?
> Either they will retire or they'll reform and i cant see the latter.
Apparently Michaels will be taking some time off soon as his missus is up the duff.
> †hë_Çøñg_Mðñ wrote:
> The booking squad have made it clear that the
> neverendingfeud between Michaels and HHH is the most important thing
> at Bad Blood.
>
> When is that going to end, it's been going on forever, and how ?
> Either they will retire or they'll reform and i cant see the latter.
Apparently Michaels will be taking some time off soon as his missus is up the duff.
RVD is not OVERATED in fact I think his underated
†hë_Çøñg_Mðñ wrote:
> The booking squad have made it clear that the
> neverendingfeud between Michaels and HHH is the most important thing
> at Bad Blood.
When is that going to end, it's been going on forever, and how ?
Either they will retire or they'll reform and i cant see the latter.
> The booking squad have made it clear that the
> neverendingfeud between Michaels and HHH is the most important thing
> at Bad Blood.
When is that going to end, it's been going on forever, and how ?
Either they will retire or they'll reform and i cant see the latter.
It depends what you want from wrestling, really. I watch it for what happens in the match in terms of psychology, workrate, how they tell the story, the use of spots and such all coming together into a good match, where one wrestler beats the other. The belt only comes into it as a reason for them to work even harder. I don't see it as much for a wrestler to be particularly proud of in terms of "being the champ" - the only pride they can feel is that the promotion put the belt on them. In this sense, it is indeed a booking tool.
It's also not why I watch wrestling, therefore.
It's an incentive to wrestle differently, to me, and being heavyweight champion doesn't mean you're the best. It just means that you either need it to get over, or you seem convincing as a champion. Having the belt doesn't mean that you're the top of the heap compared to other wrestlers - what about when Big Show had the belt? Was he the best? I didn't think so, at least.
The belt is used to get people over, or to cement their spot in that division. If it was given to the 'best' wrestlers (whatever that term actually means) then Kane coudn't be given the belt, and JBL would be nowhere near main-event quality.
The position the match is on the card also doesn't really mean too much - as we've all seen lately, being last up doesn't mean you're going to provide the best match. It also depends on a promotion's main aim - WWE, for example, seem to want to make money more than put on good wrestling (that's not to say they don't have good matches, of course), so they usually have the policy of keeping the belt on the people that'll draw the most money and fans in. Other indy promotions sell their product based on the in-ring action quality, and so will make their most able in-ring or on-the-mic talent and put them high up the card, belt or not.
It's far from simple, of course. But it does depend on what you want from wrestling. To be honest, I'd still be happy with no belt at all so long as the matches were consistently great, but not everyone agrees by a long way, so there's never a correct formula. Anyway, that's my two pence, for what they're worth.
It's also not why I watch wrestling, therefore.
It's an incentive to wrestle differently, to me, and being heavyweight champion doesn't mean you're the best. It just means that you either need it to get over, or you seem convincing as a champion. Having the belt doesn't mean that you're the top of the heap compared to other wrestlers - what about when Big Show had the belt? Was he the best? I didn't think so, at least.
The belt is used to get people over, or to cement their spot in that division. If it was given to the 'best' wrestlers (whatever that term actually means) then Kane coudn't be given the belt, and JBL would be nowhere near main-event quality.
The position the match is on the card also doesn't really mean too much - as we've all seen lately, being last up doesn't mean you're going to provide the best match. It also depends on a promotion's main aim - WWE, for example, seem to want to make money more than put on good wrestling (that's not to say they don't have good matches, of course), so they usually have the policy of keeping the belt on the people that'll draw the most money and fans in. Other indy promotions sell their product based on the in-ring action quality, and so will make their most able in-ring or on-the-mic talent and put them high up the card, belt or not.
It's far from simple, of course. But it does depend on what you want from wrestling. To be honest, I'd still be happy with no belt at all so long as the matches were consistently great, but not everyone agrees by a long way, so there's never a correct formula. Anyway, that's my two pence, for what they're worth.
I agree with most of what is said, but surely the belt means a hell of a lot?
I mean, it's why we watch it, yes?
Being the Champion will mean something not only to the wrestlers but to the fans, it signifies respect and it will always go down in history. It's a compliment to the wrestler if they can hang onto the belt for a long period of time, and it's something most wrestlers dream of being...the WWE Champion...because in the eyes of not only the WWE but also many fans ('marks' or not), you are recognised as the best, or at least one of the best, in the company.
Hmm. I'm not making much sense really. I'm just trying to say...I'd really like to think the belt means a lot. I mean, that's what all the main events are based around, right?
I mean, it's why we watch it, yes?
Being the Champion will mean something not only to the wrestlers but to the fans, it signifies respect and it will always go down in history. It's a compliment to the wrestler if they can hang onto the belt for a long period of time, and it's something most wrestlers dream of being...the WWE Champion...because in the eyes of not only the WWE but also many fans ('marks' or not), you are recognised as the best, or at least one of the best, in the company.
Hmm. I'm not making much sense really. I'm just trying to say...I'd really like to think the belt means a lot. I mean, that's what all the main events are based around, right?
†hë_Çøñg_Mðñ wrote:
> Stuff
Yes, I agree with that, and see what you mean. The belt shouldn't just be placed on anyone, of course, they do have to be believable, respectable and credible as a champion, which pretty much eliminates Kane's chance of wearing the belt at the moment unless he improves in-ring or his character becomes hell-bent on getting it (and that would take some good booking to make that a believable storyline).
> Stuff
Yes, I agree with that, and see what you mean. The belt shouldn't just be placed on anyone, of course, they do have to be believable, respectable and credible as a champion, which pretty much eliminates Kane's chance of wearing the belt at the moment unless he improves in-ring or his character becomes hell-bent on getting it (and that would take some good booking to make that a believable storyline).
Agreed with most of Jim of Honors' comments. However I'd just like to emphasise the point that is the belt is JUST a booking tool then surely putting it on anyone would get them over? Nope. So, surely we should remember that if we put the belt on someone who ISN'T over this will damage the image of the belt and then not put the next guy who wears it over just by winning it. IMHO the belt should spend at least 10 months of the year around the waist of the 'top guy' or guys on the roster, that way it makes it mean so much more when someone who isn't considered a top guy gets their hands on it...
I agree with Cong Man in this respect.
But I completely disagree with the idea that top-drawing stars should get the belt for being 'best'. If this was a real sport then perhaps it would be so, but the belt is little more than a booking tool. It has no worth. It's used to get people over. It's no bad thing to need the belt to get over, but people obsessed with staying champion (as some have Trips as being) are just deluded. Having the belt would do nothing for Triple H at the moment - I buy him as a main eventer, and having the belt would only be to the detriment to others.
Now, back to Kane. Indifferent on the mic, ditto in the ring. He's famed for... being big. And scary (just FEEL the fear in Lita when they walk past each other). Any good in actual wrestling? Well, he can jump off the top rope... and hit a chokeslam, but let's face facts, he's never going to put on a MOTY without being carried by someone. So should he get the belt? Firstly, he needs to be pushed properly by the writers. That gives him a good chance of getting over. But would him having the belt actually do anything for him? He's never been about being an athletic wrestler in his gimmick, he's always been the big scary guy with the (psychological) burns. Benoit (and many others lately) have characters that have a strong focus on getting the belt and being the best. Kane doesn't have this, and needs it if having the belt is going to help him get over.
And no, he doesn't just 'deserve' the belt as is. If that were the case, there'd be tons of wrestlers out there in WWE who deserve it equally, if not more, than Kane.
But I completely disagree with the idea that top-drawing stars should get the belt for being 'best'. If this was a real sport then perhaps it would be so, but the belt is little more than a booking tool. It has no worth. It's used to get people over. It's no bad thing to need the belt to get over, but people obsessed with staying champion (as some have Trips as being) are just deluded. Having the belt would do nothing for Triple H at the moment - I buy him as a main eventer, and having the belt would only be to the detriment to others.
Now, back to Kane. Indifferent on the mic, ditto in the ring. He's famed for... being big. And scary (just FEEL the fear in Lita when they walk past each other). Any good in actual wrestling? Well, he can jump off the top rope... and hit a chokeslam, but let's face facts, he's never going to put on a MOTY without being carried by someone. So should he get the belt? Firstly, he needs to be pushed properly by the writers. That gives him a good chance of getting over. But would him having the belt actually do anything for him? He's never been about being an athletic wrestler in his gimmick, he's always been the big scary guy with the (psychological) burns. Benoit (and many others lately) have characters that have a strong focus on getting the belt and being the best. Kane doesn't have this, and needs it if having the belt is going to help him get over.
And no, he doesn't just 'deserve' the belt as is. If that were the case, there'd be tons of wrestlers out there in WWE who deserve it equally, if not more, than Kane.
Let's face it, the BELT needs pushing more than Kane OR Benoit. Why? Bercause the booking squad have made it clear that the neverendingfeud between Michaels and HHH is the most important thing at Bad Blood. Kane and Benoit haven't even been feuding which makes a joke of the title.
Personally I think Kane's pretty good on the mic...
I disagree though, I think if you're the best around then you SHOULD have the belt, at least for a long while. It's only fair really....
However I don't think Benoit should job to Kane at Bad Blood. I think Benoit should win, and then maybe they should have a gimmick match at the next PPV and I'd like to see Kane win it then. Benoit would have had the title around 4-5 months, a pretty long title run that moulds him as a main eventer.
I disagree though, I think if you're the best around then you SHOULD have the belt, at least for a long while. It's only fair really....
However I don't think Benoit should job to Kane at Bad Blood. I think Benoit should win, and then maybe they should have a gimmick match at the next PPV and I'd like to see Kane win it then. Benoit would have had the title around 4-5 months, a pretty long title run that moulds him as a main eventer.
Page: