Royal Rumble Give me one good reason why Bryan deserved to win the Rumble?

[Aids Johnson]

If Lesnar manages to pull the crowd, I'd love to see Reigns win and thus be convinced Heyman is the manager for him (the following Monday night).
This scenario is virtually impossible but I fully expect for the crowd to be behind Lesnar nevertheless.
To further Jacob Fox's analogy, Batista was never given a green light until it was necessary.... in other words, their hand was forced.
Reigns and Batista both deserved to win their respective rumbles for completely different reasons. Nobody was looking over Batista's shoulder which was why he had the crowd's full support.

Had Reigns not won this year, he would have won next year and c*ckblocked for Dean Ambrose.... the next year, Bray Wyatt... and so on.

Oh shut the fuck up.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Oh shut the fuck up.

Rude.

 

[Red Rain]

Oh shut the fuck up.

 

[CM Punk]

Yes but the problem with this is that only some crowds are rowdy for Reigns where practically every crowd is for Bryan.

Sorry, but I thought the question was that Reigns was not over enough? You think it's easier to scream out loud for an entire entrance or chant yes!? Dean Ambrose doesn't get monster pops and neither does Ziggler, but people would rather have them win. Are people getting my point? They just didn't want Reigns winning it. Well guess what, deal with it.

History is pointing towards Reigns failing, but lets see if he does. And know right now that I'm not denying nor accepting it, I'm just going to wait and see.
At Mania or either the night after when Rollins cashes in, we'll see how everything pans out.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Sorry, but I thought the question was that Reigns was not over enough? You think it's easier to scream out loud for an entire entrance or chant yes!? Dean Ambrose doesn't get monster pops and neither does Ziggler, but people would rather have them win. Are people getting my point? They just didn't want Reigns winning it. Well guess what, deal with it.

History is pointing towards Reigns failing, but lets see if he does. And know right now that I'm not denying nor accepting it, I'm just going to wait and see.
At Mania or either the night after when Rollins cashes in, we'll see how everything pans out.

Okay, honestly I have no idea why this is directed towards me because you're arguing against points that I have neither made nor that I hold. The one thing I did say was about the cheering and I will address that:

I am sorry, but I don't think it's any harder to cheer for someone or chant yes over and over. I've seen plenty of wrestling crowds in 30 years where a wrestler gets cheered throughout their entire entrances. Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, the Rock. They are constant cheers with the crowd going completely crazy and not screaming yes. In fact, if you watch early Attitude Era matches, Austin's cheering section is much more rowdy and vocal than Daniel Bryan's has ever been. Roman Reigns does not get that kind of consistency yet. And I say yet, because I do believe it will happen. As far as Dean Ambrose and Ziggler go, that's irrelevant to my argument since I never mentioned them.

It's completely unimportant to me who the fans like more. After Ric Flair, my favorite wrestler is Jeff Jarrett. If I cared a wit about popularity or the loudness of cheers, I definitely wouldn't be a Jarrett fan. Hell when he won his last NWA Title, the fans littered the ring with trash and I may have been the only person in the world cheering. So when I mention fan response it is only as an observation and not a commentary in any way.

Now, I don't appreciate the implication that I didn't want Reigns to win and the accompanied "deal with it." If you look back at my posts, I have said that I have no problem with Reigns winning. What I wanted was for Daniel Bryan to last longer than he did. That is it, utterly and completely. Despite what you seem to think in your response to me, I am actually looking forward to the Reigns and Lesnar match and will cheering for Reigns.

For the record, the only reason I have expressed a single thing about the cheering is because I am concerned that WWE is going to damage Roman Reigns's career if they push him when it SEEMS like most of the fans either want Bryan OR the Bryan fans are just more vocal. That is not me disrespecting Reigns, that is me being concerned about his career. I think he has a promising career. I have never referred to him as Cena lite or said he only knows five moves or anything else at all negative about the man. The only thing I have done is expressed concern for him because last year when Batista was getting a push, the backlash of the vocal Daniel Bryan fans hurt his push. I have been concerned that if that happens with Reigns, it could be detrimental to his career. How you seem to think that is me criticizing Reigns is astounding to me because it sure seems to me like it is supportive of him.

This comes full circle when I return to the cheering comment. After I explained my position, if I am wrong about the cheering, why does it matter? If I am wrong, the only thing it means is that the concern I have for Roman Reigns's career is not something I should be concerned for. If I am wrong and the crowd does like Reigns as much as they like Bryan, then I shouldn't worry that they are going to hurt the guy's career. Is that something I should be berated for?

 

[The GOAT]

The problem with your comparison is that Batista was in a different situation than Roman Reigns was in. Batista was a member of Evolution and had a lot of personal business with Triple H. The whole Evolution and Randy Orton dismissal from Evolution was one of the strongest stories of the year. So when Batista turned on Triple H and Ric Flair, it made sense for the fans to cheer him because of his personal connection to Evolution. WWE was teasing a Batista turn on Triple H for at least two months before the turn happened. Batista got over not simply because he was Batista but because he was a person with a personal connection with Triple H and the feud made sense. If Batista had done what Triple H had suggested and gone to Smackdown to face JBL, I have no doubt the fans would not have warmed up to him in the same way. I do realize, however, that is complete speculation.

In reference to Reigns, I have said over and over that if Seth Rollins was champion and Reigns won the Royal Rumble, then the match makes sense. The fan base would be behind that and likely would generate a lot of support for Reigns. Against Lesnar,with whom Reigns has had zero interaction, it just doesn't make sense.

The reason it is different Bryan and Lesnar than Reigns and Lesnar is that Bryan is already remarkably over. He doesn't need any connections with his opponents to get over. You put Daniel Bryan up against a cardboard box at this point and the fans will be behind him.

I didn't like the idea of Reigns winning, but now that he has and WWE has to stick with it. They can't pull another triple threat or anything like they did last year. Daniel Bryan just isn't going to be in the main event unless he somehow gets the belt in a match before then, which is unlikely.

My point was simply that just because someone doesn't have years of experience as a singles star yet doesn't necessarily mean that pushing them to the top can't turn out to be a huge success. And while Batista did have Triple H (GOAT heel) to work with, that didn't undoubtedly mean that the fans HAD to rally behind him. They could have just cheered nobody and watched the angle fall flat. If you recall, Randy Orton was pushed as the babyface hero against Evolution first and it flopped. People tried to put it on the fact that he lost the world title after only a month, but that's reaching considering a babyface being screwed out of his championship and being forced to chase it is a typical booking strategy meant to get people to further rally behind said babyface in support. If that's enough to make the fans lose hope in you, then they weren't really that behind you in the first place.

I happen to believe that Batista's ass-kicker persona as "The Animal" was just a very easy babyface character to get behind and think he would have been fine even without Evolution provided that he received the right booking. The fact that they told a well-built story between he and Triple H helped, but Big Dave had to eventually go off and survive on his own (on the Smackdown brand), and he did well for himself. Hypothetically, if Batista were in Reigns' position today at the same stage in his career that he was back then, could having Batista be the one to defeat Brock Lesnar get him over big as a main event star? I believe so, although it's a complete hypothetical.

Anyway, point is, nothing says that Brock vs Reigns and Reigns being the one to take down The Beast can't have a spark of magic to it. The fans were cheering Reigns nearly everywhere he went before (Meltzer even said his winning 2014 Superstar Of The Year was legit, although I'm still skeptical about that) and nothing says that once we get the whole Philly thing out of our hair (which everyone was already prepared for, anyway) that people won't still love him.

 

[Jacob Fox]

My point was simply that just because someone doesn't have years of experience as a singles star yet doesn't necessarily mean that pushing them to the top can't turn out to be a huge success. And while Batista did have Triple H (GOAT heel) to work with, that didn't undoubtedly mean that the fans HAD to rally behind him. They could have just cheered nobody and watched the angle fall flat. If you recall, Randy Orton was pushed as the babyface hero against Evolution first and it flopped. People tried to put it on the fact that he lost the world title after only a month, but that's reaching considering a babyface being screwed out of his championship and being forced to chase it is a typical booking strategy meant to get people to further rally behind said babyface in support. If that's enough to make the fans lose hope in you, then they weren't really that behind you in the first place.

I happen to believe that Batista's ass-kicker persona as "The Animal" was just a very easy babyface character to get behind and think he would have been fine even without Evolution provided that he received the right booking. The fact that they told a well-built story between he and Triple H helped, but Big Dave had to eventually go off and survive on his own (on the Smackdown brand), and he did well for himself. Hypothetically, if Batista were in Reigns' position today at the same stage in his career that he was back then, could having Batista be the one to defeat Brock Lesnar get him over big as a main event star? I believe so, although it's a complete hypothetical.

Anyway, point is, nothing says that Brock vs Reigns and Reigns being the one to take down The Beast can't have a spark of magic to it. The fans were cheering Reigns nearly everywhere he went before (Meltzer even said his winning 2014 Superstar Of The Year was legit, although I'm still skeptical about that) and nothing says that once we get the whole Philly thing out of our hair (which everyone was already prepared for, anyway) that people won't still love him.

Batista may have been fine without the Evolution storyline and he may not have been. We'll never know. That's the deal with our hypotheticals, we have no idea what would have happened otherwise. But I will admit that not having that knowledge is no more damaging to your point than it is to mine.

While I agree that you don't have to years of experience to be a singles star, I maintain that the situation with Batista was too different from Reigns for the comparison to be valid. Honestly, you might have had an easier time arguing Goldberg in that position. Goldberg had absolutely zero heat with Hulk Hogan, but there didn't have to be a story with both of them included because each wrestler had a good story on their own. That comparison would have, in my opinion, been more applicable to the Reigns versus Lesnar scenario. Lesnar is the established wrestler who, like Hogan, has had a long history of being unstoppable. Reigns is the younger guy who has had a quick build up who also seems unstoppable. They don't have heat, but it might not be necessary because they have individual stories that will collide in an appropriate way.

You're right, nothing says that Reigns taking down Lesnar can't have a spark of magic to it. I never said it wouldn't. What I said is that it is not the same situation as Batistia and Triple H was, and I maintain it's not. I honestly think that it could be good, I just think it has been booked poorly. However everyone seems to think that I am adamantly against this match up and I am not. I am simply saying that I didn't think it was presented in the best way and before tonight I still believe that. However, as I have also mentioned in the Raw LD, WWE got it right tonight. The interview with Heyman, Lesnar and Reigns was absolutely spell binding and I think it gave the match exactly what it had been missing.

 

[The GOAT]

Batista may have been fine without the Evolution storyline and he may not have been. We'll never know. That's the deal with our hypotheticals, we have no idea what would have happened otherwise. But I will admit that not having that knowledge is no more damaging to your point than it is to mine.

While I agree that you don't have to years of experience to be a singles star, I maintain that the situation with Batista was too different from Reigns for the comparison to be valid. Honestly, you might have had an easier time arguing Goldberg in that position. Goldberg had absolutely zero heat with Hulk Hogan, but there didn't have to be a story with both of them included because each wrestler had a good story on their own. That comparison would have, in my opinion, been more applicable to the Reigns versus Lesnar scenario. Lesnar is the established wrestler who, like Hogan, has had a long history of being unstoppable. Reigns is the younger guy who has had a quick build up who also seems unstoppable. They don't have heat, but it might not be necessary because they have individual stories that will collide in an appropriate way.

You're right, nothing says that Reigns taking down Lesnar can't have a spark of magic to it. I never said it wouldn't. What I said is that it is not the same situation as Batistia and Triple H was, and I maintain it's not. I honestly think that it could be good, I just think it has been booked poorly. However everyone seems to think that I am adamantly against this match up and I am not. I am simply saying that I didn't think it was presented in the best way and before tonight I still believe that. However, as I have also mentioned in the Raw LD, WWE got it right tonight. The interview with Heyman, Lesnar and Reigns was absolutely spell binding and I think it gave the match exactly what it had been missing.

Comparisons don't have to be 100%. And the comparison wasn't meant to imply that I was saying the storylines were similar, but rather that Reigns' quick rise to the top was and that if it didn't prove to be detrimental to Batista (and some people were doubting his longevity as a main eventer even after he beat Hunter at Wrestlemania), then nothing says it will be for Reigns either. Goldberg might have been a better comparison, but I was sticking with more recent WWE stars (Reigns has been referred to as a modern-day Batista as well as a modern-day Goldberg, depending on who's making the comparison.) We've pretty much settled this particular point, so I'll leave it be.

I'm also not saying you're against Reigns vs Brock, I just feel the need to continuously support my original reasons for why I'm not either.

Also, to be fair, Reigns vs Hunter was original scheduled to go down at Summerslam last year if you recall. Reigns/Orton was planned for Battleground instead but they booked it for Summerslam instead and kept putting the HHH match off. Then Reigns got injured, and by the time he made his return, it was too late for HHH to give him the rub since it might be rushing things (not enough time to organically build up to it again, arguably) and The Authority were temporarily ostracized from power at the time he made his return anyway. So while none of this matters now, they were originally set to give Reigns the big rub by having him go over HHH at some point. Hell, he probably would have been the sole survivor at Survivor Series if that match had still happened with Reigns there. Circumstances kind of put them in a tough spot on that one, although it's a little of their own fault, too.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Comparisons don't have to be 100%.

Oh I know. But when the comparison is not 100% valid, it allows for either outcome. Sorry, I am a research psychologist so the majority of my time is spent controlling variables and running statistical programs. For my line of work, every variable has to be controlled or the test/comparison is invalid. It's natural for that sort of thing to spil out into the real world. It's kind of impossible for me not to see everything like this. So I am always going to see that although an example might support what you say, if all the variables are not applicable in both circumstances, the best you can do is infer a correlation.

It's just me being anal about statistical measures. The best thing to do is make fun of me and move on

 

[The GOAT]

Oh I know. But when the comparison is not 100% valid, it allows for either outcome. Sorry, I am a research psychologist so the majority of my time is spent controlling variables and running statistical programs. For my line of work, every variable has to be controlled or the test/comparison is invalid. It's natural for that sort of thing to spil out into the real world. It's kind of impossible for me not to see everything like this. So I am always going to see that although an example might support what you say, if all the variables are not applicable in both circumstances, the best you can do is infer a correlation.

It's just me being anal about statistical measures. The best thing to do is make fun of me and move on

Geek. :4/10:

 

[Jacob Fox]

I'm also not saying you're against Reigns vs Brock, I just feel the need to continuously support my original reasons for why I'm not either.

Also, to be fair, Reigns vs Hunter was original scheduled to go down at Summerslam last year if you recall. Reigns/Orton was planned for Battleground instead but they booked it for Summerslam instead and kept putting the HHH match off. Then Reigns got injured, and by the time he made his return, it was too late for HHH to give him the rub since it might be rushing things (not enough time to organically build up to it again, arguably) and The Authority were temporarily ostracized from power at the time he made his return anyway. So while none of this matters now, they were originally set to give Reigns the big rub by having him go over HHH at some point. Hell, he probably would have been the sole survivor at Survivor Series if that match had still happened with Reigns there. Circumstances kind of put them in a tough spot on that one, although it's a little of their own fault, too.

Oh I should also answer the rest. Sorry about thinking you were saying I was against Reigns vs Brock. A few people have expressed that opinion of me and I erroneously assigned that expression to you, which was definitely unfair.

And a great point about Reigns's buildup before the injury. I think too many people are looking at his injury and saying he was limited in action like Bryan. But I hadn't in those discussions knocked myself over the head and said that yes, he would have gotten a much more solid push if he hadn't been injured.

 

[CM Punk]

Okay, honestly I have no idea why this is directed towards me because you're arguing against points that I have neither made nor that I hold. The one thing I did say was about the cheering and I will address that:

I am sorry, but I don't think it's any harder to cheer for someone or chant yes over and over. I've seen plenty of wrestling crowds in 30 years where a wrestler gets cheered throughout their entire entrances. Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, the Rock. They are constant cheers with the crowd going completely crazy and not screaming yes. In fact, if you watch early Attitude Era matches, Austin's cheering section is much more rowdy and vocal than Daniel Bryan's has ever been. Roman Reigns does not get that kind of consistency yet. And I say yet, because I do believe it will happen. As far as Dean Ambrose and Ziggler go, that's irrelevant to my argument since I never mentioned them.

It's completely unimportant to me who the fans like more. After Ric Flair, my favorite wrestler is Jeff Jarrett. If I cared a wit about popularity or the loudness of cheers, I definitely wouldn't be a Jarrett fan. Hell when he won his last NWA Title, the fans littered the ring with trash and I may have been the only person in the world cheering. So when I mention fan response it is only as an observation and not a commentary in any way.

Now, I don't appreciate the implication that I didn't want Reigns to win and the accompanied "deal with it." If you look back at my posts, I have said that I have no problem with Reigns winning. What I wanted was for Daniel Bryan to last longer than he did. That is it, utterly and completely. Despite what you seem to think in your response to me, I am actually looking forward to the Reigns and Lesnar match and will cheering for Reigns.

For the record, the only reason I have expressed a single thing about the cheering is because I am concerned that WWE is going to damage Roman Reigns's career if they push him when it SEEMS like most of the fans either want Bryan OR the Bryan fans are just more vocal. That is not me disrespecting Reigns, that is me being concerned about his career. I think he has a promising career. I have never referred to him as Cena lite or said he only knows five moves or anything else at all negative about the man. The only thing I have done is expressed concern for him because last year when Batista was getting a push, the backlash of the vocal Daniel Bryan fans hurt his push. I have been concerned that if that happens with Reigns, it could be detrimental to his career. How you seem to think that is me criticizing Reigns is astounding to me because it sure seems to me like it is supportive of him.

This comes full circle when I return to the cheering comment. After I explained my position, if I am wrong about the cheering, why does it matter? If I am wrong, the only thing it means is that the concern I have for Roman Reigns's career is not something I should be concerned for. If I am wrong and the crowd does like Reigns as much as they like Bryan, then I shouldn't worry that they are going to hurt the guy's career. Is that something I should be berated for?

I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore tbh. Also, this isn't the Attitude Era.

I've already agreed that Bryan shouldn't have gone out the way he did, so I'm assuming it was about reactions? It's a stupid say stuff like, "He's not over enough" when crowds do cheer him, but not to an extent like Bryan. Since Lesnar has came back, in some cities he's gotten mediocre reactions. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the spot he has. Doesn't mean he's not ready. How are people going to convince me that Reigns is not ready, when Lesnar does one whole move throughout the match. And I LOVE Lesnar, so I don't get the issue.

We watch a product where we want to develop new stars, we have Rollins who faced Cena and Lesnar, we have Rusev who went off with Rock and is going to feud with Cena, we have Bray who's been rumoured to have a match with The Undertaker and has been booked well upon his return and we've got Ambrose getting segment time and being one of the final five in the Rumble. Roman Reigns has been penciled in to win the Rumble since last year. No one has been vocal about it since then, but once the IWC's golden boy and main event winner at Wrestlemania returns, they want him to win? I'm fucking glad WWE didn't change plans for once and stuck to their plan. I'm glad that they stuck to their long term booking rather than pulling some shit from their ass. Bryan shouldn't have been in the Rumble, he should have returned the night after or after Wrestlemania. Some of you guys are basically like, "We want new stars, no, we don't want that star."

This isn't directed at you, this is directed at people who wanted Bryan to win so badly and who think Reigns doesn't deserve to win based off their personal perception on how things would pan out. And that's all in theory, but not reality. This isn't the Attitude Era where everyone isn't getting popped, this isn't TNA where you book the most talented guys to become Champion, this is WWE and this is the Reality Era. And no one seemed to give a good answer on who deserved to win the Rumble based off my question, it was all half-assed or if they were booked good. Roman Reigns was booked good and he won. Understand?

 

[Jacob Fox]

At this point, I'm just going to acknowledge that we're not going to agree on everything. I tried several responses but didn't really like any of them. No reason to keep going back and forth.

 

[Swift]

wait the Rumble already happened? :damn:

 

[Swift]

cba reading the entire thread, but was Reigns booed? If so lel.