Rate Raw - 12/15/2014

[Jacob Fox]

If you're literally saying Roman Reigns will have no realistic opponents, than I 100% agree with you.
John Cena? How? Undertaker? No. HHH? Definitely not. If those three couldn't conceivably defeat Reigns than who can?
One analogy was the 'force of will' theory where a man simply trains beyond his limits. It's the reason Lesnar barely got by Punk only to defeat Cena handily.
I hate the 'he's just got your number' theory. Now, THAT would be weak, yet its used consistently in WWE lure.

WWE has, in essence, booked Reigns into a corner. The man who defeats Reigns should be a guy who trains to his limit and surpasses him.
Make it evident that superstars are targeting HIM, not the championship. Train to take down your target, not what that target possesses.

Yup, that's what I meant. After Warrior beat Hogan, he seemed pretty much unbelievably indestructible. I always thought it was ironic, however, that his most realistic opponent for the title was Randy Savage because Savage was still one of the few people who had been WWF Champion even though he decisively lost the belt to Hogan.

The reason I think it is ironic is that Warrior and Savage didn't wrestle for the belt because Savage caused Warrior to lose it to Slaughter (oh and for the record, I hate story lines that a wrestler will cause the man he is feuding with to lose the belt to someone else, thus effectively eliminating himself from a title shot).

For Reigns, though, I'm not sure who will be viable. I assume he'll feud with Rollins, but will they have the man who took down Brock Lesnar be beaten for the belt in his first feud? If they do, it will make him look like he has viable opponents but also it pretty much wastes everything with Cena and Lesnar that was meant to build Reigns up in the first place.

Will they be stupid enough to put him into a feud with John Cena, face vs face? Is Daniel Bryan realistic after all the time he has been out? Could he feud with Bo Dallas who could accuse Reigns of not "bo-lieving" in the Shield (okay I'm not serious about that one, but I couldn't resist the pun)?

Hmmm. Maybe Bray Wyatt would work because much of it would be psychological.

But the fact of the matter is that that you're right. It does seem like they booked him into a corner like they did with Warrior.

 

[Wacokid27]

Yup, that's what I meant. After Warrior beat Hogan, he seemed pretty much unbelievably indestructible. I always thought it was ironic, however, that his most realistic opponent for the title was Randy Savage because Savage was still one of the few people who had been WWF Champion even though he decisively lost the belt to Hogan.

The reason I think it is ironic is that Warrior and Savage didn't wrestle for the belt because Savage caused Warrior to lose it to Slaughter (oh and for the record, I hate story lines that a wrestler will cause the man he is feuding with to lose the belt to someone else, thus effectively eliminating himself from a title shot).

For Reigns, though, I'm not sure who will be viable. I assume he'll feud with Rollins, but will they have the man who took down Brock Lesnar be beaten for the belt in his first feud? If they do, it will make him look like he has viable opponents but also it pretty much wastes everything with Cena and Lesnar that was meant to build Reigns up in the first place.

Will they be stupid enough to put him into a feud with John Cena, face vs face? Is Daniel Bryan realistic after all the time he has been out? Could he feud with Bo Dallas who could accuse Reigns of not "bo-lieving" in the Shield (okay I'm not serious about that one, but I couldn't resist the pun)?

Hmmm. Maybe Bray Wyatt would work because much of it would be psychological.

But the fact of the matter is that that you're right. It does seem like they booked him into a corner like they did with Warrior.

I think there are two non-former-WWE-Champion guys who are being built up right now that could conceivably challenge Reigns for a title shot depending on how they are booked between now and Mania.

Bray Wyatt is the first possibility and I think that's going to be a huge future feud. I think Wyatt vs. Reigns could be one of the biggies over the next 3 - 5 years.

Don't sleep on Rusev. I could actually see him staying undefeated and being the first challenger to Reigns as WWE WHC. Of course, Reigns would beat him eventually.

Rollins will either take the belt from Lesnar or Reigns using the MITB briefcase, though. I think that's something that has to happen.

wk

 

[Red Rain]

Yup, that's what I meant. After Warrior beat Hogan, he seemed pretty much unbelievably indestructible. I always thought it was ironic, however, that his most realistic opponent for the title was Randy Savage because Savage was still one of the few people who had been WWF Champion even though he decisively lost the belt to Hogan.

The reason I think it is ironic is that Warrior and Savage didn't wrestle for the belt because Savage caused Warrior to lose it to Slaughter (oh and for the record, I hate story lines that a wrestler will cause the man he is feuding with to lose the belt to someone else, thus effectively eliminating himself from a title shot).

For Reigns, though, I'm not sure who will be viable. I assume he'll feud with Rollins, but will they have the man who took down Brock Lesnar be beaten for the belt in his first feud? If they do, it will make him look like he has viable opponents but also it pretty much wastes everything with Cena and Lesnar that was meant to build Reigns up in the first place.

Will they be stupid enough to put him into a feud with John Cena, face vs face? Is Daniel Bryan realistic after all the time he has been out? Could he feud with Bo Dallas who could accuse Reigns of not "bo-lieving" in the Shield (okay I'm not serious about that one, but I couldn't resist the pun)?

Hmmm. Maybe Bray Wyatt would work because much of it would be psychological.

But the fact of the matter is that that you're right. It does seem like they booked him into a corner like they did with Warrior.

Your viewpoint is a similar viewpoint that I hold. It's the viewpoint that wrestling should looker 'realer' than it actually is.
I remember when Papa Shango, of all people, put the Ultimate Warrior out. This made sense because it was psychological and Warrior's weak point.
WWE had its head in clouds with Warrior believing if they built him up, that would be it. Warrior would be 'there' and they'd deal with potential problems when they arose.
Hogan passed the torch at a time when Vince had not failed and had little doubt Warrior could pick up the ball.

Daniel Bryan's MMA training impresses me as does Wyatt's psychological disposition.
Daniel Bryan could 'will' himself to defeat Reigns. (Ironically, though, Bryan's high risk and power game will be effected post injury).
Using vignettes chronicling his climb and subsequent return to the mountain top would be believable in my view.

Wyatt may be Reigns 'natural rival'. I've always held that view since they both debuted. They were born to rival one another, regardless of the heel/face dichotomy.