Wade Barrett's Intercontinental Championship reign, and before him, Antonio Cesaro's run with the United States Championship were/are synonymous with one thing - losing.
I may be reading far too much into things, but both these guys are terrific wrestlers who developed very little credibility against good opposition. Both looked unstoppable against guys like Gabriel and Ryder, but their combined win-loss record against Orton and Sheamus alone must be nearing 2-30 or something ridiculous like that.
I realise champions in wrestling compete a lot more than in 'real sports' such as boxing, but not only would they not be champions in a real sport with records like that, they may not even be professional fighters any more with those kind of win-loss numbers.
The perplexing thing for me is that - and these two are the biggest examples - WWE refuses to put anyone over their upper-midcarders, specifically Randy Orton and Sheamus ironically. Orton and Sheamus have been there long enough, and won enough titles that they don't need to be protected with booking decisions every single week.
Someone said this week that Del Rio and Big E's series of matches doesn't mean anything because they are trading wins, well to be honest it means a damn sight more than Barrett winning 1 out of 5 against Sheamus, or Orton having a 7-0 record against Cesaro.
Del Rio and Langston (who have been gelling together extremely well IMO) look evenly matched without either of them looking invincible, and to me that is great booking. It keeps Del Rio strong as Langston is a beast, and Big E looks good because Del Rio is strong.
It's not good enough any more to have guys like Barrett, Cesaro and to a lesser extent Kofi beating up Sheamus/Orton etc for most of the match only to lose. They have to win some otherwise they lose all credibility.
This is happening with Ryback to some extent. Batters Ryder, puts Kingston in hospital and throws Bryan through a table, but against Cena, CM Punk and even The Shield he has failed to win on PPV or on TV with any regularity, and that's why I find it hard to believe that they will give him the belt at Payback. He has win one sooner or later but they've built him to be scared of Cena for instance.
I realise there has to be winners and losers most of the time, but at least make it believable WWE, because when you push Cesaro, Barrett or Sandow (another Sheamus bullying victim) to a World Title, you will wonder why the fans don't get it, because like Swagger, Bryan and Ziggler before them, they too have lost to the same people, and won a WHC with little credibility over the top guys.
And by the way, I like Sheamus and Orton as wrestlers, but how they are booked is horrible (Christian 5-day title reign, and D-Bry 18 second Mania match anyone?), and this takes away from their ability to be honest. If they were in the title picture I could understand them dominating mid-card champions most of the time, but not when they are in meaningless feuds not involving a strap.
What do you guys think?
I may be reading far too much into things, but both these guys are terrific wrestlers who developed very little credibility against good opposition. Both looked unstoppable against guys like Gabriel and Ryder, but their combined win-loss record against Orton and Sheamus alone must be nearing 2-30 or something ridiculous like that.
I realise champions in wrestling compete a lot more than in 'real sports' such as boxing, but not only would they not be champions in a real sport with records like that, they may not even be professional fighters any more with those kind of win-loss numbers.
The perplexing thing for me is that - and these two are the biggest examples - WWE refuses to put anyone over their upper-midcarders, specifically Randy Orton and Sheamus ironically. Orton and Sheamus have been there long enough, and won enough titles that they don't need to be protected with booking decisions every single week.
Someone said this week that Del Rio and Big E's series of matches doesn't mean anything because they are trading wins, well to be honest it means a damn sight more than Barrett winning 1 out of 5 against Sheamus, or Orton having a 7-0 record against Cesaro.
Del Rio and Langston (who have been gelling together extremely well IMO) look evenly matched without either of them looking invincible, and to me that is great booking. It keeps Del Rio strong as Langston is a beast, and Big E looks good because Del Rio is strong.
It's not good enough any more to have guys like Barrett, Cesaro and to a lesser extent Kofi beating up Sheamus/Orton etc for most of the match only to lose. They have to win some otherwise they lose all credibility.
This is happening with Ryback to some extent. Batters Ryder, puts Kingston in hospital and throws Bryan through a table, but against Cena, CM Punk and even The Shield he has failed to win on PPV or on TV with any regularity, and that's why I find it hard to believe that they will give him the belt at Payback. He has win one sooner or later but they've built him to be scared of Cena for instance.
I realise there has to be winners and losers most of the time, but at least make it believable WWE, because when you push Cesaro, Barrett or Sandow (another Sheamus bullying victim) to a World Title, you will wonder why the fans don't get it, because like Swagger, Bryan and Ziggler before them, they too have lost to the same people, and won a WHC with little credibility over the top guys.
And by the way, I like Sheamus and Orton as wrestlers, but how they are booked is horrible (Christian 5-day title reign, and D-Bry 18 second Mania match anyone?), and this takes away from their ability to be honest. If they were in the title picture I could understand them dominating mid-card champions most of the time, but not when they are in meaningless feuds not involving a strap.
What do you guys think?
Comment