This is not a new Observer but half of this content was new to me and the other half I'm piecing in to complete the overall picture.


Historically Vince has always had a top guy that was a great promo. Bruno was a great promo. Hulk Hogan was a great promo as Hulk Hogan. Bret Hart was a great promo as Bret Hart. Steve Austin, The Rock, those guys are historically great promos. John Cena's not always a great promo but a lot of the time he is great ...

Roman Reigns is not a great promo and Daniel Bryan is a great promo.

But you know, Vince looks back at it and says he's getting hurt all the time and probably thinks he made the right call. They've got Cena working in the middle, but ... you have Brock with Paul and that's great and obviously him and Taker are being used for this big show ... but Cena is their top babyface. Even knowing Roman wasn't a great promo, he made the call for him to replace John Cena.


Triple H told his friends about eighteen months ago they had a problem with Daniel Bryan because they couldn't push him past a certain level.

Alvarez: I think they decided a long time ago not to push him past a certain level.

Yeah. That's how they've viewed him the whole time. It's like the Rey thing where they see him as an underdog and the second they gave him the title he wasn't over anymore.

Alvarez: I don't know how anyone could watch what happened with Rey's title reign and NOT know why he's not over.

Yeah. Yeah. They had him doing squash jobs to Mark Henry and Khali ... but how many times have fans known that companies over the years are making huge mistakes and they're oblivious to it?

Alvarez: They're almost always oblivious to it. In fact, a lot of times when they fail they deny that they failed.

I maintain Reigns can be t heir top star down the line, they just pulled the trigger too early on him. Promos wise, I don't think you get too many great promos any more. Everything is just the same mould as the last one now. Guys like Austin and Rock were original.

And Rey was Champion because of Eddie, so that fairytale was only going to last 15 minutes. It's nothing like Daniel Bryan and WWE are silly for thinking it is. He's not THE mega star that even non-wrestling fans know about, but he's a top star that every single wrestling fan knows about.

I don't think Roman is going to be a top guy. He's not a great wrestler. Not great on promos. And the way WWE has been pushing him post WrestleMania stinks.

And the way they treated Daniel Bryan the first time he won The WWE Championship was kind of garbage so there's no way he was going to be a top guy. All the wrestling fans got behind him but casuals just saw a guy getting beat up each and every week.

"A lot of times when they fail they deny that they failed."

This is, and always has been, the issue.

If they have a prejudice against a wrestler or superstar, they will book them as such. So if Rey or Bryan or anyone else is squashed over and over, the fans will only see that person as a loser. The problem is that they don't seem to see that this is the problem and do not recognise it as their fault, but as the wrestler's.

For example, I dislike Sheamus, so I have noticed that since he won MITB, he hasn't been like previous MITB winners. Previous MITB winners frequently go on a losing streak, but Sheamus? Not at all, Sheamus has been winning, in fact.

This is the same reason guys like Cesaro, Cody Rhodes and Sandow aren't bigger than they are at the minute. Sandow won the MITB (when it probably should've been Cody), then proceeded to go on a losing streak and then lose cashing in. Then they blame him for not running with what they gave him, so drop him down the card. When, in reality, Sandow runs with everything he is given and turns it around.

They had Cody and he was a red hot babyface in a ladder match that was ALL HEELS, including himself! Instead of letting to heat up and up, they had Sandow win, him lose to Sandow then he faded into obscurity. THEN they brought him back up with the Rhodes family storyline, and finally when it looked like he was posed for something good, it just resulted in a tag team with Goldust. After that, they won the titles, held it for a while and essentially cooled down. They then made the switch to Cody as Stardust, which Cody can pull off, no problem, he's incredibly talented, but Stardust, as a character, will be nothing huge. The logical thing was to take some more (seeing as they didn't go with Cody turning), then have Stardust turn on Goldust, give them their Wrestlemania match, and have Cody talk about how ridiculous Stardust and Goldust is then go on to bigger things. Whilst building this from almost nothing, Cody had people chanting Cody at him, just to piss him off as Stardust. But the storyline was dropped, with no notice because the fans weren't connecting. EXCEPT they were connecting, they were chanting Cody just to get under his skin, week in and week out. Now, they taken Cody's work at getting Green Arrow involved, and turned it round for themselves, but after this, Cody will still be Stardust and be back to doing squash matches, despite Cody being an incredible talent that can quite clearly get over with any story or gimmick he's given or comes up with.

It's the company's views on the wrestler and prejudice that leads to situations like this, then they palce all of the blame on that wrestler, hurting them further.

I have noticed that about Sheamus and it bothers me too. I'm sure a lot of it is his size and they feel like the best way to get a big heel over is for him to win whereas they probably seen guys like Punk as an underdog that needed to lose to get over and guys like Swagger and Edge as guys that needed to take losses to babyface so they could be chicken-shit heels and etc.

I mean, it's bat shit crazy, but it's interesting.