http://www.wweshop.com/item/daniel-bryan-yes-authentic-t-shirt/NewUpcoming/01-16384 This will of course probably explode the internet now.
Hey Scotty, With all the hullabaloo about Brock Lesnar and Daniel Bryan since Wrestlemania, I have to ask. Do you think the WWE are going to use up one of Brock’s matches against Daniel Bryan. I bet the two of them could have an epic David vs. Goliath matchup. My concern is that you’d have to feed Brock a few victims to really build up the importance of D-Bryan being able to hang for longer than a few minutes with him? Also, with John Laurenit-whoever you spell it pitching Punk to defend his title every week, do you think they’re doing a Batman: Knightfall type angle, with Punk so exhausted from beating everyone else that Brock can just step in, break his back and walk off with the title? Finally, even though I said I’d retire from asking for a plug, like all good wrestlers, I LIED! 🙂 Any chance you could plug my wonderful and not at all Batman biased Top 30 Comic Book Films of All Time http://bit.ly/sDvokz Thanks, your old friend, That Film Guy
My god man, are you trying to cause the implosion of the universe due to the awesomeness of two money-drawing blog topics being pitted against each other in a battle for the ages? If so, WELL PLAYED. YES! YES! YES! As for the serious answer, I’m pretty certain they’re keeping Bryan far away from Brock given they apparently have to pay out more than their usual PPV break-even point just to get him in the ring. David and Goliath is nice when someone thinks David has a shot, but they’re better off having Brock go through the big guns and making all their money back. For question 2, yes. Brock is THE GUY and you need to get the belt on THE GUY, so whether it’s Brock dismantling Punk or the more likely scenario of them putting the belt onto a bigger draw and having Brock dismantle THEM, yes, Punk seems to be on borrowed time with that belt. And no, I will not plug your site.
Let me start by saying that I ordered Wrestlemania for the 3 big matches and since I was not invested in Danial Bryan or Sheamus at all I actually liked the 18 second match from a “holy shit did that just happen standpoint” That said as a neutral observer it seems to me that the loss could actually help Bryan. First off it obviously built sympathy as the Raw crowd was rabid for him the entire night. Second he can easily blame the loss on AJ and further build up the jerk boyfriend character he has been portraying. From the little bit I have seen the last one to play this character as good was The Macho Man, and jerk boyfriend + talented wrestler turned out pretty good for Randy. Just something to think about.
Well, the Macho Man dynamic was completely different. Savage was the star quarterback dating the girl next door, and he was insecure and paranoid about losing her because he had obvious self-esteem issues that helped balance out what would have been a dominant heel run otherwise. People booed Macho for his treatment of Elizabeth because otherwise they’d cheer him for being so awesome. Bryan has a different thing going on, where AJ seems fine with the abuse because everyone can see that Bryan is a delusional egomaniac who is overachieving and doesn’t actually pose any physical threat to her. People really believed that Savage would snap and beat the shit out of Elizabeth any moment. It’s actually a very different type of character.
So simply put, how would you book Daniel Bryan going forward the next 6 months? Heel, face or tweener? Does he stay focused on the WHC and Sheamus, or does he go to Raw to chase Punk (where the biggest heel is Lauranitis)? What feuds make sense, and what main events should he be in at the next big PPVS?
I think he should move to RAW first and foremost and get the US title off Santino because having the secondary belt on a hot property would instantly elevate it. He should definitely stay a heel because people don’t want another goody-goody babyface, and in fact they should hook him up with Eve and then have him feud with Zack Ryder and new girlfriend AJ for a while. He really doesn’t need to be the main event guy, and in fact in some ways he’d be worse off there because it’s overloaded with big guys like Cena, Brock, Orton and possibly Batista. Really, he needs to get away from Sheamus for the good of Sheamus’ title reign anyway.
Scott, Revisionist history is a wonderful thing in wrestling. It allows people to blindly say “this caused this” and “Vince wanted such and such” even though that person may have been 4 years old at the time when it happened. But more importantly, it allows people to be over-praised or, by the same token, over-bashed for certain things.
So the other day I was thinking of the infamous Goldberg/Hogan match from Nitro in July 1998. Yes we can all agree that should have been a PPV match. But in specific regards to both individuals, there are some things I felt beared mentioning: In regards to Hogan. Hogan gets bashed for never truly “making” anyone. They mention how he dicked around with the Sting/Hogan StarrCade ending…..or how he immediately got the belt back from Luger at Road Wild that time. All of that is true, and I’m not saying Hogan doesn’t deserve SOME of the reputation he had. But does it seem that Hogan doesn’t get enough credit for making Goldberg? Goldberg was a guy who had basically beaten jobbers, mid-carders, and NWO B-teamers for a year, before finally beating Raven for the US title. He was clearly the hottest thing in WCW at that time. And in one night….in front of his home-state crowd…….Goldberg CLEANLY defeated, IN THE SAME NIGHT, Scott Hall and Hulk Hogan (2 out of the 3 guys who changed the landscape of pro wrestling in the late ’90s with the NWO angle) to win the WCW Heavyweight title to go along with his U.S. title. Look at that from a mark perspective: he already, in theory, had been weakened by having to wrestle Scott Hall previously…then went on to cleanly defeat “The Immortal” Hollywood Hulk Hogan, brother. What more could have been done to put Goldberg over that night? Maybe they could have filmed a vignette of him saving 50 orphans from a burning building after his match with Hall, only to crawl to the ring “just in time” for the Hoganmatch after refusing medical treatment for excessive smoke inhalation, followed by a spear and a jackhammer? Anyway, point is….people who bash Hogan for not really “doing the right thing for business” (again, some may be justifiable) like to forget that he put over the hottest commodity in Pro Wrestling NOT named Steve Austin, when he was at his absolute hottest point in terms of marketability and general fan interest (I’ve always said that Spring and Summer of 1998 was one of the absolutely best points in pro wrestling history, in terms of WCW, WWF and even ECW all being in demand) So that brings me to Bill Goldberg: The only thing anybody ever mentions about Goldberg is that “Nash killed WCW blah blah blah by pinning Goldberg”. Don’t really care about all that, this isn’t about Nash. But in 1998, WCW began their back-and-forth tug of war with WWF for ratings. WCW won basically the first quarter of the year….WWF finally won in April, but even April and May was sorta back and forth between WCW/WWF. Finally in June, WWF started winning every week (though ratings were still pretty close). Finally, WCW won again the night Goldberg won the title on July 6th. They didn’t, however, win again until the months of August and September….when WCW brought in the Warrior and did the Horseman Reunion. But after that, WCW would ultimately only win once more..that being October 26th. So I said all that to say this……is it possible that Goldberg doesn’t catch enough flack for MAYYYYYBBBE not being quite the “draw” that people like to paint him out to be? He had the title put on him at one of the hottest times in pro wrestling history (so people can’t bitch about how “business was down” during his run), he held the belt for 6 months (so it’s not like he wasn’t given a somewhat lengthy run), and he beat the absolute biggest name in pro wrestling history to win that belt (and Hogan never “got his win back”, either). So to sum all that up….1. Was Hogan not given enough credit for “making” Goldberg? and 2. Does revisionist history paint Goldberg as being more of a long-term draw than he really was or would have been?
First of all, can you phrase this in a way that involves Daniel Bryan, because the site is doing record-shattering numbers thus far this weekend and I’d like to continue that. 1. Hogan may have put Goldberg over, but who was main eventing at the very next PPV? Hogan. And at Road Wild? Hogan. He may have been the champion, but he had no opportunity to be the top guy in the promotion. 2. Goldberg had an incredibly high Q rating, which is basically a measurement of celebrity, higher even than Steve Austin in 1998. So yes, he was a really big celebrity at the time and WCW was the only promotion stupid enough to piss it away.
Does WWE not know how to build up babyfaces anymore? Sheamus started getting over as a babyface by standing up to people and fighting them like a man. After WrestleMania and Raw they seem to think that him cheap shotting people when they’re not looking makes him a badass. I’m a huge Daniel Bryan fan so obviously I was upset that they didn’t get a chance to put on an actual match. Then on Raw Del Rio comes out and talks to him face to face and Sheamus waits until Del Rio turns around to get a new mic before kicking him in the face when he wasn’t ready. So why is anyone supposed to cheer for Sheamus?
Because they tell you to, fella. I don’t blame Sheamus in all this, I like him just fine, but he’s in a really bad position at the moment. And honestly, no, they don’t know how to build up babyfaces. Just look at poor Zack Ryder.