The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
We'll see...Kane's lost it now they've removed the mask. They did a good job when he first took if off and went on a rampage hurting and burning people and that's when they should of given him the title, not now when he's lost to 'Taker and has been "scarying" Lita.
Ant wrote:
> Nah I think they can still make him as a monster...although losing to
> Taker didn't help. He's still pretty over though.
>
> He's probably the best big wrestler in the WWE...I think he could be
> a great champion. It'd be something new as well, I mean, he's never
> really been the WWE Champion, and since when has he ever been
> successful as a heel? Apart from the first months of his career,
> never, so therefore it could lead to some interesting character
> direction.
>
> Gooooooo Kane! :P
IMHO a a wrestler should be given a title because he can help the credibility of the belt, not just the belt further the credibility of the wrestler. Kane beating Benoit will not further Kane's credibilit but Benoit beating Kane will further his, and thus the belt. Not having held the title before (at least not for long) is not a reason for putting the belt on someone.
> Nah I think they can still make him as a monster...although losing to
> Taker didn't help. He's still pretty over though.
>
> He's probably the best big wrestler in the WWE...I think he could be
> a great champion. It'd be something new as well, I mean, he's never
> really been the WWE Champion, and since when has he ever been
> successful as a heel? Apart from the first months of his career,
> never, so therefore it could lead to some interesting character
> direction.
>
> Gooooooo Kane! :P
IMHO a a wrestler should be given a title because he can help the credibility of the belt, not just the belt further the credibility of the wrestler. Kane beating Benoit will not further Kane's credibilit but Benoit beating Kane will further his, and thus the belt. Not having held the title before (at least not for long) is not a reason for putting the belt on someone.
†hë_Çøñg_Mðñ wrote:
> IMHO a a wrestler should be given a title because he can help the
> credibility of the belt, not just the belt further the credibility of
> the wrestler. Kane beating Benoit will not further Kane's credibilit
> but Benoit beating Kane will further his, and thus the belt. Not
> having held the title before (at least not for long) is not a reason
> for putting the belt on someone.
It seems pretty clear to me that Kane should not be given the belt. The WWE's recent policy of rewarding loyalty with title pushes (Hardcore Holly and JBL) is ridiculous - it doesn't help the belt to have these random people suddenly being pushed as challengers.
I personally think that belts should be used as catalysts for getting wrestlers over (or more over, as the case may be), as that will therefore give the belt more credibility in the eyes of the fans. I disagree with this school of thought that belts should be slapped on the biggest-drawing wrestler in the promotion - if they're already the most over, what will having the belt do for them? Give it to someone who needs it to look credible.
The best case of this is the Benoit situation - before he was given the belt, he was seen as an upper-midcarder. Now that he's the champion, far more people see him as a proper main-eventer for Raw, and Raw has improved massively over the past weeks in the eyes of many people. The belt has pushed Benoit up to the main event, and if he can have more good matches and hold onto the belt for a good few months, he can stay there without it.
Now, Kane probably needs the belt to get over more with the fans. He's not good enough in the ring or on the mic to do it on his own, and I don't think he's good enough to carry the belt respectably in these respects. However, if he could get over properly with the fans with the belt, then fine. The point is, at the moment, Benoit still needs the belt, because as I said before, he needs it for a while longer to stay in the main event without it, thus he shouldn't job to Kane at Bad Blood.
> IMHO a a wrestler should be given a title because he can help the
> credibility of the belt, not just the belt further the credibility of
> the wrestler. Kane beating Benoit will not further Kane's credibilit
> but Benoit beating Kane will further his, and thus the belt. Not
> having held the title before (at least not for long) is not a reason
> for putting the belt on someone.
It seems pretty clear to me that Kane should not be given the belt. The WWE's recent policy of rewarding loyalty with title pushes (Hardcore Holly and JBL) is ridiculous - it doesn't help the belt to have these random people suddenly being pushed as challengers.
I personally think that belts should be used as catalysts for getting wrestlers over (or more over, as the case may be), as that will therefore give the belt more credibility in the eyes of the fans. I disagree with this school of thought that belts should be slapped on the biggest-drawing wrestler in the promotion - if they're already the most over, what will having the belt do for them? Give it to someone who needs it to look credible.
The best case of this is the Benoit situation - before he was given the belt, he was seen as an upper-midcarder. Now that he's the champion, far more people see him as a proper main-eventer for Raw, and Raw has improved massively over the past weeks in the eyes of many people. The belt has pushed Benoit up to the main event, and if he can have more good matches and hold onto the belt for a good few months, he can stay there without it.
Now, Kane probably needs the belt to get over more with the fans. He's not good enough in the ring or on the mic to do it on his own, and I don't think he's good enough to carry the belt respectably in these respects. However, if he could get over properly with the fans with the belt, then fine. The point is, at the moment, Benoit still needs the belt, because as I said before, he needs it for a while longer to stay in the main event without it, thus he shouldn't job to Kane at Bad Blood.
In my opinion, Kane does deserve the title although I'd rather him lose at Bad Blood and get it later in the year because I want to see Benoit Vs Jericho for the title! :D
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.
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.
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.
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...
†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).
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?
Page: