Pete Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 This is what I was talking about in the rumble thread. Go through all that trouble putting Roman in the rumble at #1, set up Triple H to come out at #30, win and become the champ - all to screw Roman out of the title. Then the NEXT NIGHT announce he's getting another shot. Try and swing it however you like in all kinds of convoluted directions but it just doesn't make sense. He was the former champion and he is entitled to a rematch, like every champion has had since forever. So to give him his rematch and still screw him, the Authority put Roman in a match with his best friend and a killing machine. It's pretty simple stuff They own the company and make the rules up as they go along, why would he be entitled to a rematch and why would they be obliged to give it to him? Maybe because they remember Daniel Bryan and his neckbeard army hijacking a show last time they tried to pull a stunt like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It's standard movie villain stupidity: Dangle the carrot in front of the hero with full confidence that they can yank it away. Of course, they usually give up just enough rope to hang themselves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stro Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Bo's rapping was probably the best part of a show with plenty of highlights. And man that guy has some terrible teeth. Bo Dallas is just a genetic wreck and that new singlet is not helping. I mean it's helping in that it's hilarious watching his lower abdomen jiggle around in there trying to seep out. But it's not helping helping. Bo is probably the only guy on the roster where having a bad body works better for him than if he was all cut up and jacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidGoldBomb Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 This is what I was talking about in the rumble thread. Go through all that trouble putting Roman in the rumble at #1, set up Triple H to come out at #30, win and become the champ - all to screw Roman out of the title. Then the NEXT NIGHT announce he's getting another shot. Try and swing it however you like in all kinds of convoluted directions but it just doesn't make sense. He was the former champion and he is entitled to a rematch, like every champion has had since forever.So to give him his rematch and still screw him, the Authority put Roman in a match with his best friend and a killing machine. It's pretty simple stuff The rematch clause is for a rematch for the world title, not a three-way where the winner gets a title shot. I think for the purposes of this "storyline" we are supposed to be working under the assumption that Reigns isn't getting a "rematch clause" for whatever reason. The Authority's goal is to isolate Roman, like they were saying in their opening monologue, they want him broken, beaten, and disheartened. They want him cut off from any support, on an island (Samoa?) unto himself. To do that they need to drive a wedge between him and his closest ally, Ambrose. So obviously the most sinister plan would be to pit the best friends against each other, and then throw a wild BEAST in between them and watch hilarity ensue. And based on kayfabe, those 3 guys had arguably the best Rumble performances...so it seems pretty logical and straight forward story telling to me. Just because people here don't like it doesn't mean it's not perfectly fine pro-wrasslin scripting, and entertaining to the masses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 When was the last time WWE main event booking was logical? I'm serious, and I'm not even complaining about it. I just kinda feel like it was always this way. Like, even going back over twenty years, Wrestlemania 10. Why did Yoko have to defend his title against Lex AND Bret? Why didn't they fight each other instead of Bret/Owen and Lex/Yoko? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stro Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 When was the last time WWE main event booking was logical? I'm serious, and I'm not even complaining about it. I just kinda feel like it was always this way. Like, even going back over twenty years, Wrestlemania 10. Why did Yoko have to defend his title against Lex AND Bret? Why didn't they fight each other instead of Bret/Owen and Lex/Yoko? Because Lex and Bret both won the Rumble, so both were owed a title shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidGoldBomb Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Exactly, it's fn wrestling not a TED talk. When I put on WWE I check all my logical BS at the door, and go with it. Just try zoning out and having fun for a couple hours without the constraints of the real world holding you down. It's simple escapism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I get that, but the "logical" thing to do would've been a decision match, or a triple threat (I know those didn't exist in WWF at the time). Again, I'm not even complaining, I'm glad Bret/Owen happened. I'm just pointing out that logical booking isn't hardly ever a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Harms Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 This is what I was talking about in the rumble thread. Go through all that trouble putting Roman in the rumble at #1, set up Triple H to come out at #30, win and become the champ - all to screw Roman out of the title. Then the NEXT NIGHT announce he's getting another shot. Try and swing it however you like in all kinds of convoluted directions but it just doesn't make sense. He was the former champion and he is entitled to a rematch, like every champion has had since forever.So to give him his rematch and still screw him, the Authority put Roman in a match with his best friend and a killing machine. It's pretty simple stuff The rematch clause is for a rematch for the world title, not a three-way where the winner gets a title shot. I think for the purposes of this "storyline" we are supposed to be working under the assumption that Reigns isn't getting a "rematch clause" for whatever reason. The Authority's goal is to isolate Roman, like they were saying in their opening monologue, they want him broken, beaten, and disheartened. They want him cut off from any support, on an island (Samoa?) unto himself. To do that they need to drive a wedge between him and his closest ally, Ambrose. So obviously the most sinister plan would be to pit the best friends against each other, and then throw a wild BEAST in between them and watch hilarity ensue. And based on kayfabe, those 3 guys had arguably the best Rumble performances...so it seems pretty logical and straight forward story telling to me. Just because people here don't like it doesn't mean it's not perfectly fine pro-wrasslin scripting, and entertaining to the masses. This is all well and good. But it still doesn't explain why they're giving title shots to a guy they don't want as champion. They could put him in a tag team with Sandow and have them open Smackdown every week. Put him in ridiculous 10-man gauntlet matches. Make him and Ambrose fight over a chicken sandwich. But why give him title shot after title shot and still go "DAMMIT HOW IS ROMAN REIGNS OVERCOMING THESE ODDS?" Well, stop giving him bloody title shots and he may not be so motivated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonL21 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 When was the last time WWE main event booking was logical? Like, even going back over twenty years, Wrestlemania 10. Why did Yoko have to defend his title against Lex AND Bret? Why didn't they fight each other instead of Bret/Owen and Lex/Yoko? My guess is they wanted it to be fair and have the main event title match with guys who both wrestled once already earlier in the card. I think Bret v Owen was added 2nd, so Bret had to wrestle twice. Plus, they still has just 4 PPVS. I imagine Bret Vs Luger would have mained the Feb PPV had one existed at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It was a rhetorical question, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caley Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm still fascinated with this board's body issues: "Vince only likes bodybuilders! Give other body types a chance!" vs. "Jericho is so fat and flabby". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Hypocrisy is a wonderful (and universal) thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 How is not logical? Bret and Lex both earned title shots at Wrestlemania. And Bret had to have a match before facing the winner of Lex/Yoko because it wouldn't be fair for him to go into the match completely fresh. It may have been somewhat contrived, but you could readily connect the dots based on what happened on Raw. You weren't forced to fill in the blanks or disregard large portions of the storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overly Critical Man Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Soon, they'll have someone superplex Jericho and they'll reuse the Big Show spot where the ring implodes and collapses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 At least he's not a vanilla midget any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overly Critical Man Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 He's more like Super Porky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm starting to think you're exaggerating at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonteCarl Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 RE: WM10 Both Bret and Lex were declared the winners of the Rumble, so they both were deserved title shots. They did a coin flip to determine who would face Yoko first for the championship and it was said that if Bret won the flip that Lex would face Crush in the opening match, but if Lex won the flip Bret would face Owen. This would make it fair odds in that whoever would be facing each other in the final title match would have already been in one match earlier that night. Think of it like a mini-tournament, I guess RE: RAW Disappointed there was no follow up to Sami Zayn in the Rumble. Was this a full-time call up to the main roster for him, or just another one shot to be in the Rumble? Could've at least given him a 45 second video package or something and promote his "debut" for next week or something, if he is indeed called up full-time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Exactly, it's fn wrestling not a TED talk. When I put on WWE I check all my logical BS at the door, and go with it. Just try zoning out and having fun for a couple hours without the constraints of the real world holding you down. It's simple escapism. I get that, but the "logical" thing to do would've been a decision match, or a triple threat (I know those didn't exist in WWF at the time). Again, I'm not even complaining, I'm glad Bret/Owen happened. I'm just pointing out that logical booking isn't hardly ever a thing. Reminds me of when the wife first got me into the Harry Potter books way back when. Cindy: "Don't let the occasional plot holes bother you too much." Me: "Hey, odd plot holes don't bother me. I've been a pro wrestling fan for 30 years."Cindy: "Point taken." 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Pete gets my actual point, at least. I think. Edit: What they ended up doing at WMX isn't hard to follow, and was logical I guess. Nevertheless, there were several other things they could've done that would've been a lot MORE logical. Like restart the Rumble like they did with Cena and Batista. Or a playoff match. Or a triple threat. Anyway, that was a split-second example that was the first thing that came to mind. I concede that in the history of WWE, I could've made many stronger cases, but again, I didn't put very much thought into it, because it was just a throwaway example of my larger point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Z Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Soon, they'll have someone superplex Jericho and they'll reuse the Big Show spot where the ring implodes and collapses. Can you imagine Chris Jericho vs. Chris Hero? The ring would probably implode, if those two super heavyweights were both just standing in the ring at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I guess the women's version would be Mickie James vs. Molly Holly? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Kofi yelling GOTCHOASS at The Rock after Big E insulted him actually made me laugh the most in that whole segment. . The Rock popped them mollies before this segment because the dude couldn't even stand there calmly. He was bouncing around on his feet like he really, really had to pee. That was entertaining just because it was different than everything else on these shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 They could just lie about it, or figure out a way to have someone with power backing Reigns secretly. They should make Reigns Vince's personal corporate champion. That after Reigns pummeled him, Vince respected him. Or was super afraid like when Homer punched out Mr.Burns. That was quality work. All I had was some obscure reference to the movie "Used Cars". As for the stuff about Reigns rematch, he likely has a rematch clause in his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts