The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
†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.
RVD is not OVERATED in fact I think his underated
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.
Page: