Seth Informed of Winining Title during WM.

[Jacob Fox]

Predictability has never seemed to matter before. I also question just how many people were aware of the plans to have him beat Lesnar for the title since it's not as if everyone reads dirtsheets.

I think the obvious blame goes to Daniel Bryan and the fact that people are just far more invested in him than they are/were with Reigns, and now that Reigns isn't champion and is away from the main scene entirely, the negative reactions for him are starting to diminish a bit.

I guess a lot of it depends on perception. The most common complaint I heard about the Reigns ending was that WWE was going with the predictability factor. And predictability plays a huge role in professional wrestling. Predictability was one of the major variables that WCW used to win ratings early in the Monday Night Wars and that WWF had once WCW had become predictable. Predictability has been one of the most effective variables in wrestling, so it's very odd to hear you say it never mattered before.

As far as the predictability of it, the Reigns story line has been circulating since not long after Wrestlemania last year. It was one of the reasons people speculated on why Lesnar broke the Undertaker streak. The idea was floated on more than just dirtsheets. Although I hate to admit I know this, but Bleacher Report had articles talking about this possibility as early as last summer. And even though that website is about as utterly shitty as journalism can be, as evidenced in this article last August, they get a lot of hits (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ready-to-encounter-brock-lesnar-for-wwe-title). Every other wrestling forum I know of and all the news sites had been swarming with this possibility throughout the year.

I can see how fans might be to blame, but you can't blame Daniel Bryan because he is well liked. Even people like both me and my sister, who like Daniel Bryan exponentially more than Reigns, didn't get upset at Reigns because he got the shot and Daniel didn't. We were both upset because the ending was predictable. That's why Wrestlemania 13 was so good. It was pretty unpredictable in parts.

 

[The GOAT]

I guess a lot of it depends on perception. The most common complaint I heard about the Reigns ending was that WWE was going with the predictability factor. And predictability plays a huge role in professional wrestling. Predictability was one of the major variables that WCW used to win ratings early in the Monday Night Wars and that WWF had once WCW had become predictable. Predictability has been one of the most effective variables in wrestling, so it's very odd to hear you say it never mattered before.

As far as the predictability of it, the Reigns story line has been circulating since not long after Wrestlemania last year. It was one of the reasons people speculated on why Lesnar broke the Undertaker streak. The idea was floated on more than just dirtsheets. Although I hate to admit I know this, but Bleacher Report had articles talking about this possibility as early as last summer. And even though that website is about as utterly shitty as journalism can be, as evidenced in this article last August, they get a lot of hits (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ready-to-encounter-brock-lesnar-for-wwe-title). Every other wrestling forum I know of and all the news sites had been swarming with this possibility throughout the year.

I can see how fans might be to blame, but you can't blame Daniel Bryan because he is well liked. Even people like both me and my sister, who like Daniel Bryan exponentially more than Reigns, didn't get upset at Reigns because he got the shot and Daniel didn't. We were both upset because the ending was predictable. That's why Wrestlemania 13 was so good. It was pretty unpredictable in parts.

Unpredictability has always been a huge asset, but what I mean is that even if the outcome of something is fairly obvious, it can still draw huge money as long as people are invested in seeing that specific outcome play out. It was obvious that Batista was winning the WHC from HHH at WM21. It was obvious that Austin was winning the WWF Title at WM14 (some would dispute this, but unless someone was a complete mark, I think the natural assumption was that Austin was getting his big victory that night, no matter what insurmountable odds were stacked against him.) It was obvious that Sting was beating Hogan at Starrcade 1997. Etc., etc.

My main crucial point there was that if the people were truly invested in Roman Reigns before the news came out that he was gonna win the world title at the next year's Wrestlemania (and while that Bleacher Report page did get a shit-ton of hits, that's still comprises of only a tiny fraction of WWE's overall fan-base), it shouldn't have soured them on him even if they heard about it being planned to happen several months beforehand.

And I wasn't blaming Bryan the real-life person for Reigns' decline of popularity of course, just saying that since the people are clearly invested in Bryan more than any other superstar, his return and failure to win the Rumble was obviously the source for their sudden disdain for Reigns, hence why their resentment for Reigns only started occurring after the Rumble.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Well, there were more Bleacher Report articles, I just couldn't bring myself to paste them. I felt so dirty even doing one of them (just teasing).

Yeah, I think I was taking most of what you read the wrong way. I tend to do that when I stay up all night.

But I think my point about predictability still applies to the things you mentioned. Yes we knew Austin was going to beat Michaels and we knew Sting was going to beat Hogan. But with Sting, on a weekly basis, we never knew exactly what was going to happen on the Nitros that were leading up to the match. The same thing was true with Austin. The match up results were predictable as can be, but the build up wasn't.

It's funny when you think about it though. With Reigns vs Lesnar, I hated how predictable the build up was. But I was actually looking forward to the match. After all of the talking about Reigns, Lesnar, Rollins etc, the match itself actually grew more appealing for me.

I figured I was being too one dimensional with the Daniel Bryan comments. But yeah, the fan bias towards Bryan over Reigns was defintely one of the major factors.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Oh and I think the disdain for Reigns actually began in December. He got an extremely lousy crowd response when he won the Superstar of the Year Slammy.

 

[Stopspot]

Oh and I think the disdain for Reigns actually began in December. He got an extremely lousy crowd response when he won the Superstar of the Year Slammy.

Crowd started turning on Reigns in the summer, it just kicked into high gear come winter time.

And predictability was only a small part of it.

 

[The GOAT]

Oh and I think the disdain for Reigns actually began in December. He got an extremely lousy crowd response when he won the Superstar of the Year Slammy.

Really? I seem to remember him getting a pretty good reaction that night. Although to go along the lines of what Stop mentioned, he did start getting the sporadic weak reaction here and there at certain times last year (as an example, I re-watched the Battleground main event the other day and it really seemed like he received almost zero reaction when coming to the ring) but most crowds still seemed to dig him. It was only really when the Rumble situation happened that the bulk of the fan-base turned on him.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Crowd started turning on Reigns in the summer, it just kicked into high gear come winter time.

And predictability was only a small part of it.

I disagree. After Daniel Bryan not getting the title shot, predictability was the biggest complaint I had seen cited for the disinterest in the main event. I feel it was a major factor.

And I didn't say the crowd began turning on him, i said they developed disdain for him. Disdain implies that someone is viewed as being unworthy of his accomplishments or worthy of another's consideration ; it's not just dislike. I mentioned the Slammy award since it was an accomplishment that many felt Reigns neither earned or deserved.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Really? I seem to remember him getting a pretty good reaction that night. Although to go along the lines of what Stop mentioned, he did start getting the sporadic weak reaction here and there at certain times last year (as an example, I re-watched the Battleground main event the other day and it really seemed like he received almost zero reaction when coming to the ring) but most crowds still seemed to dig him. It was only really when the Rumble situation happened that the bulk of the fan-base turned on him.

I checked it before I posted it, I am a sticler for fact checking. He wasn't booed, but it was a lousy ovation.

But like above, I said disdain not dislike. That's why I used the date of the Slammy since it was an accomplishment.

 

[Stopspot]

I disagree. After Daniel Bryan not getting the title shot, predictability was the biggest complaint I had seen cited for the disinterest in the main event.

And I didn't say the crowd began turning on him, i said they developed disdain for him. Disdain implies that someone is viewed as being unworthy of his accomplishments ; it's not just dislike. I mentioned the Slammy award since it was an accomplishment that many felt Reigns neither earned or deserved.

Biggest reason I have seen for the hate is that fans saw Roman as "not ready", which I agree on. He just wasn't ready as an in ring performer, character or talker to carry a program of that size, or to be put in the position as the top guy. You don't put a wrestler in the main event and expect him to "learn on the job", you prepare him beforehand in the mid card, which they ignored with Roman.

A perfect analogy I saw was this: Your son shows up at your house with a girl on his arm and says "dad, this is X" and you say nice to meet you. He then says "we're getting married tomorrow, you coming?"

 

[Jacob Fox]

Biggest reason I have seen for the hate is that fans saw Roman as "not ready", which I agree on. He just wasn't ready as an in ring performer, character or talker to carry a program of that size, or to be put in the position as the top guy. You don't put a wrestler in the main event and expect him to "learn on the job", you prepare him beforehand in the mid card, which they ignored with Roman.

A perfect analogy I saw was this: Your son shows up at your house with a girl on his arm and says "dad, this is X" and you say nice to meet you. He then says "we're getting married tomorrow, you coming?"

Yes and I agree that was a major factor too.

Oh and btw, thanks for making a good analogy Faulty analogies are one of my biggest internet pet peeves so it is good to see an apt one

 

[The GOAT]

But I think my point about predictability still applies to the things you mentioned. Yes we knew Austin was going to beat Michaels and we knew Sting was going to beat Hogan. But with Sting, on a weekly basis, we never knew exactly what was going to happen on the Nitros that were leading up to the match. The same thing was true with Austin. The match up results were predictable as can be, but the build up wasn't.

It's funny when you think about it though. With Reigns vs Lesnar, I hated how predictable the build up was. But I was actually looking forward to the match. After all of the talking about Reigns, Lesnar, Rollins etc, the match itself actually grew more appealing for me.

The thing is, the build-up didn't have to be as mundane or humdrum (or just damn near non-existent) for Lesnar vs Reigns as much as it was either. Even with a previously-thought-to-be foreseeable outcome, they could have done a lot more to get people more intrigued and invested in the match than they did. Unfortunately, they decided to take the lazy route since it was Wrestlemania and they knew people would be invested in the event regardless. But either way, if a match outcome is predictable, then it's predictable regardless of how well they build up to it.

 

[Leo C]

At least it was a good time to see Brock beating Roman up like there was no tomorrow.