The Rock is one of those few superstars that can put people over (lose) and yet somehow remain hugely popular.
He's actually been getting booed in big matches since he faced Austin at Mania and I say the Fed should run with it. Hell, have him play the whole " and when I get tired of your monkey asses, I'll go back to making movies AGAIN" angle of his other career.
The perfect timing for a heel turn (had he stayed on TV) would have been right after he faced Hogan at Mania. Befriend him, then turn on him. When they didn't have Rock do it, I thought they would turn Edge. But alas.
Originally posted by redsoxnationI'm trying to figure out where this Flex will put over Booker sentiment comes from. Didn't he continually go over Booker in the Invasion in 2001? And of course, who can forget the midget elbow that turned Lance Storm from a serious challenger to a joke. And, in those non-title matches when Flex returned this summer, he did a great job putting guys over. Oh wait, he never jobbed a non-title match.
You've gotta be kidding. Rock has done more clean jobs than ANY other main event-level talent to up-and-comers. Yes, he went over Eddy, but he also TAPPED TO THE CROSSFACE. That's not giving guys a rub? His feud with Booker wasn't the best, but did SCSA go to any great lengths, either, to put Book over?
And as for Brock, I've got one word - Undertaker. It took him two PPV's to do what Rock did in one. And the aging Mr. Calloway, probably suffering from a lack of self-esteem, couldn't even do it cleanly.
Where oh where does the "Flex" hatred come from???
"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
I'm a huge Rock fan. Also, you've got to remember that the Rock was over HUGE with the IWC during 1998, to the point where the People's Elbow was named "best move" in the RSPW awards.
However, there are three legit reasons (I think) to have beef with the Rock.
1) He has no sense of long-term match psychology. He's great at selling individual moves. But he's really bad at match pacing and long-term selling.
If you look at his main-event PPV matches, you'll notice they have a really weird rythym to them. One example is he'll do the "Hulk Up" spot at strange times with no build up. There's a lot of other stuff too. He's kind of the Anti-Bret Hart when it comes to this.
2) His in ring work looks somewhat sloppy (as has been pointed out before). This is weird, as it used to be really tight, I think. The best example is to rent any PPV from 98, and watch him do his floatover DDT (a thing of beauty, in my eyes). Then look at the once-a-year time he pulls it out now, and how much worse it looks.
Other examples are the Belly-to Belly throw, the Samoan drop, the Dragon Screw legwhip, and some other move essentially look "casual" and not "crisp." There are some people (again, Bret Hart comes to mind), who came off as looking a little sloppy because they were trying to make the moves look realistic and not choreagraphed. A lot of Rock's moves look neither realistic nor non-choreagraphed. They just look sloppy.
3) This is the big one. The guy is in the middle of an almost 4-year face run. I can't think of anyone who's been a face consistently since the Spring of 99. Heck, I can't think of anyone who's been a face consistently since the Spring of 2002. Smarks have been BEGGING for heel Rock for, like, two years at least. I think this extended face run has made him really stale, and so do a lot of others, especially smarks. This is where I think most of the Rock hate comes in to play.
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
It should be noted that Booker T hasn't beaten anyone since he stepped into WWF, really. He's had a couple meaningless tag title runs but more often then not, he jobs. Why? Because he's a WCW creation, that's why.
The 'Rock put Brock over fast and clean, while Taker didn't " example is bullshit. Rock had to put him over asap so Brock looked good, and Rock could leave.
Brock's extended feud with Taker, ending with HitC was amazing. Sure, the first ppv match had a horrible finish but they salvaged the feud in great fashion, and managed to turn Brock face because of it. As for Rock. Yes his moves aren't always crisp. I don't mind with the samoan drop but other moves I am okay with. The sharpshooter looked so funny that in the Smackdown 4 game there is the sharpshooter and Rock's sharpshooter. Oh well, people popped for it..
I totally agree about his pacing and timing for comebacks..I see the same thing with Edge now. sell like crazy, don't sell at all, sell like crazy, etc etc.
His promos last time were alright, but his character could use some change. At least keep stuff fresh and don't pick on the interviewer every week, etc. Basically, be diverse and don't do the same schtick. A heel turn would go great along with that.
Well, if the rumored Goldberg-Rock match at WM19 is true then I think Rock will definately be playing the heel role. I think too many casual fans will pop big for Goldberg (much like last year with Hogan).
I'm all for it, I loved the heel Rock. Ecspecially if he gets a good six month run (the current rumor for the length of his next stint) at the top as a heel with a strong face chasing him (Brock, RVD, Booker T...) for a showdon at Summerslam.
Seattle sketch comedy fans, be sure to check out the dark new comedy show from "Flaming Box of Stuff"
Performances: Friday, January 3rd at 8pm and 10pm. Saturday, January 4th at 8pm and 10pm At the Union Garage @ 1418 10th Avenue. All tickets are $6
Originally posted by dMpThe 'Rock put Brock over fast and clean, while Taker didn't " example is bullshit. Rock had to put him over asap so Brock looked good, and Rock could leave.
Brock's extended feud with Taker, ending with HitC was amazing. Sure, the first ppv match had a horrible finish but they salvaged the feud in great fashion, and managed to turn Brock face because of it.
Hey, maybe it ended okay, but it's still a fact that an insecure Taker vetoed doing the job to Brock the first time around. Rock didn't. So Rock rules because he's unselfish, and Taker is a crying baby.
"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
I think Rock will be a face until post-WrestleMania. I think they need to matchup Rock against someone he'll get booed against at Mania. Austin or Goldberg, I guess. And then, post-Mania have him turn heel because like everyone said in this thread, the fans turned on him first. The Rock has always been a heel disguised as a face, IMO. I always like heels who in someway are justified in their actions. As Mick Foley said, the best heels are the ones who think what they're doing is right and in some twisted way, they are.
Will it turn WWE around? If they play their cards right, it might but at the very least, we should be in for some entertaining TV.
Originally posted by asteroidboy Hey, maybe it ended okay, but it's still a fact that an insecure Taker vetoed doing the job to Brock the first time around. Rock didn't. So Rock rules because he's unselfish, and Taker is a crying baby.
Only problem with that theory: They didn't set the storyline up correctly for Taker to job in the first PPV. He was "defending the honor" of his pregnant wife, for Pete's sake. How can you have a top face lose clean in a situation like that, especially when you mean to extend the feud another month and have the other guy go over in the end? If he said he "wasn't feeling it", I can see why.
Rocky's feuds rarely center on anything more than insults and attitude; he can lose because there really isn't anything vital at stake. Their characters are different at the core, which is a good argument for NOT making every damn wrestling character a bad-ass who can't do a lot of jobs without damaging his value. The dark version of the Undertaker had more flexibility than the current one; not all of it has to go down to ego.
I don't much care how booking decisions are made, but I do care whether they make sense for the characters. Like it or not, Taker (and Stone Cold and Brock and HHH) are built on not losing very often, and making them job all the time would more or less ruin their credibility. WWE needs more Rocks, not more old-school bad-asses, though they have their place. Unfortunately, Rocks are pretty damn rare, and they take a lot of time off to do movies. ;-)
Having Rocky revert to his heelish roots would really give WWE a huge shot in the arm for 2003. Team Angle will have likely run its course and the Heyman threat will likely have been squashed once and for all (or at least for another 6 months), so there are worse ideas than having Rocky return to feud with new champion, Brock.
Or better yet...a freshly-turned Kurt Angle.
I'll see YOU at Wrestlemania X-9! Hey, Rocky! You're Next!
Originally posted by Madame Manga I don't much care how booking decisions are made, but I do care whether they make sense for the characters. Like it or not, Taker (and Stone Cold and Brock and HHH) are built on not losing very often, and making them job all the time would more or less ruin their credibility. WWE needs more Rocks, not more old-school bad-asses, though they have their place. Unfortunately, Rocks are pretty damn rare, and they take a lot of time off to do movies. ;-)
I'd bet that ANY wrestler would argue that his "character" is built on not losing very often. It's just not everybody that can get away with it. Taker got loyalty points for sticking around, then he was rewarded by getting to squash EVERY new piece of talent that has come down the pipe. Don't agree? Then who has Taker put over? Austin was already over when he beat him at Summerslam '98 and I'm sure they had to hold a gun to his head to get him to lay down to Brock.
Look at the two main eventers who've jobbed the most during their tenures - Rock and Angle. And they'll go down as two of the best, long after Undertaker and HHH are forgotten. Austin is the only exception I can think of.
(edited by asteroidboy on 27.12.02 0931) "My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
I'd bet that ANY wrestler would argue that his "character" is built on not losing very often.
This is ridiculous. You named two examples yourself, Rock and Angle.
Look, different types of characters need different stuff to remain over and keep their characters' credibility. And I would imagine that the wrestlers want whatever it is that lends their character credibility and overness more than not losing very often.
For instance, HHH needs clean wins. Brock Lesnar, the Big Show, Kane, and Taker need to look powerful (which doesn't necessarily mean clean wins). Ric Flair needs screwjob wins. An 80s era Ric Flair would have been nobody if he had won all those screwy finishes clean. Jeff Hardy needs gimmick matches and big spots. Mick Foley needed big spots. Hogan needed the championship.
The Rock and Angle, while not needing as many specific outcomes in the ring, need more mic time. Can you imagine the Rock as a main eventer with the amount of mic time Brock Lesnar gets? His charcter and overness would be dead.
As another example of needing something to be over that doesn't have to do with match outcome, Raven needs long-term storylines and characters development to get and stay over.
Taker's character is built on being a bad-ass. Giving him Owen Hart or Ric Flair or Mr. Perfect style match outcomes would be stupid. Angle's character isn't built on being a bad-ass. It's built on being an obnoxious ass. In order to be an obnoxious ass, you need middle-of-the-ring mic time, which he gets a lot of. Taking this mic time away from him but having him squash Brock Lesnar would also be stupid. It would be the equivilant of jobbing Taker to Bill DeMott but letting him cut a 15 minute promo at the end of the show.
You can also apply this logic to HHH/Jericho, but I'm staying away from that one.
(edited by MoeGates on 27.12.02 1416) It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
I think Kurt Angle needs ring time more then anything else. He does need mic time but in the past few months they've really pushed his in ring ability on TV and it pretty much turned him face. Angle's becoming the new Flair in that way. It doesn't matter how much crap they make him do, he'll always get over because of his work.
If we're arguing for people to stay true to their characters, then why do we often hear how Benoit needs to improve on the mike? If his character depends on being a bad ass technical grappler in the ring, then why is there usually an outcry on his mike skills?
I also disagree with a previous point about Rock-E, and how his matches/losses never have anything vital at stake. Whether or not that's true is one thing, but feuds and matches with the Rock in them have always FELT more important to me, and I credit that to his ability to raise the stakes of entertainment and do his job to get the crowd to either go along with or against him.
Originally posted by GRLIf we're arguing for people to stay true to their characters, then why do we often hear how Benoit needs to improve on the mike? If his character depends on being a bad ass technical grappler in the ring, then why is there usually an outcry on his mike skills?
i think the idea is that even if someone doesn't necessarily need mic time to get over, they're always provided with it at some point, especially when feuding with some for whom talking IS his strong point. so if Benoit is in a feud with, say, the Rock, while he will likely "do his talking in the ring," he still needs to be competent enough an actor to pull off the few lines he is given, which is his problem right now. in the wwe today (where there is nary a manager/mouthpiece to be seen), a wrestler who can't at least hold his own on the mic (we're not talking about excelling, just holding his own) is pretty much doomed.
I'm all for heel Rock. But they need to make his turn a MAJOR angle to suck the fans in. They should make it absolutely monumental and earth-shattering like Hogan joining the nWo...Rock is the mega-face who is teaming with other beloved faces to go against some nemesis. Then *POW* he screws them and cuts a "Die fans, die!" promo. Personally, if I had the sheet, I would have turned him the night after Wrestlemania. When he came out to immense boos and Hogan was being cheered, I loved the heelish way Rock did the "Fiiiinaaallly..." then looked at the crowd like they were bastards.
"This is Hard Harry reminding you to eat your cereal with a fork and do your homework in the dark." - Christian Slater, Pump Up the Volume
"So I got a lotta eggs...and I keep 'em in the couch..." Strong Bad
Originally posted by Parts UnknownI'm all for heel Rock. But they need to make his turn a MAJOR angle to suck the fans in. They should make it absolutely monumental and earth-shattering like Hogan joining the nWo...Rock is the mega-face who is teaming with other beloved faces to go against some nemesis. Then *POW* he screws them and cuts a "Die fans, die!" promo. Personally, if I had the sheet, I would have turned him the night after Wrestlemania. When he came out to immense boos and Hogan was being cheered, I loved the heelish way Rock did the "Fiiiinaaallly..." then looked at the crowd like they were bastards.
You have to remember this about Hogan joining the NWO though: In a glorious 3 week period in January/February of 1996, Ric Flair and Arn Anderson went over Hogan cleanly (let me have my delusion, ok). Then, Hogan a few weeks later went away for a few months. The main reason that the Hogan joining the NWO was a surprise is that no one had seen Hogan for several months (and many were hoping and praying never to see him again.) A way to turn Flex now would be to have him come in to make the save for Lesnar in a Dangerous Alliance/Team Angle beatdown, then completely destroy Lesnar and join with Dangerous Alliance/Team Angle.
I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
Hmmm ... Think about Angle's promo on Smackdown. His reasoning for hiring Heyman was that he's a very important person and important people need AGENTS.
The Rock should have his own wrestling agent now shouldn't he?
Thinking like Paul Heyman, Rock should return as a face a few weeks before Mania and do his match with Goldberg. Then in the Main Event of Angle-Lesnar, Rock does his heel turn then. How great would it be for Team Angle to be taking apart Lesnar after a ref bump, Rock rushes out ala Hogan at BATB, Team Angle clears the ring and then Rock Bottom on Lesnar! The greatest "contingency plan" of them all.
It serves many purposes. First, it allows for many more Angle-Lesnar matches in the future. Second, Lesnar and Rock can feud while Angle can continue his title run. Third, it's the biggest stage for Rock to turn heel. Fourth, it gives WWE that shot in the ass it needs for Post-WrestleMania, which historically is the worst period.
I bet if they play their cards right, they could even sell a PPV headlined by Lesnar/Goldberg against Rock/Angle.
I'm also thinking that they should probably move Los Guerreros to RAW. RAW really needs some heels for RVD and Booker to face. And with Rock & Angle as heels on Smackdown, it really takes away a lot of the Guerreros upward mobility. There's no shortage of midcard heels on Smackdown so the Guerreros should move to RAW, IMO. Eddy even has unfinished business with Austin, if they want to go that route.
Hopefully they'll realize that they've have to use the spark of Austin & Rock to get over the new stars. The casual fans will comeback for Austin & Rock but its WWE's job to give them a reason to stay after Rock goes to make a movie and Austin's time is done.
Hey, I'll be the first to deem the Triple H World Title experiment as a dud, but taking the title off him at WM and giving it to Booker now might not be the best reason for 3 reasons: 1. The belt is really devalued.