Roman Reigns

[LuckIsForLosers]

Where did I say that they were being compared by traits and NOT the spots in the company as top stars?

That comparison is why I made the reply I did; had I thought you were comparing anything else, my reply would have been a bit more vindictive and direct rather than giving credit.

Disclaimer - hopefully I didn't get the quote-different-paragraphs thing wrong, so if I did, apologies in advance.

So - for that intro re the comparisons it wasn't inserted particularly for your benefit or because I mistakenly imagined that you thought otherwise - it was in general so that anybody who read the original post could clarify that I indeed was neither inexplicably comparing Roman Reigns' mic skills to John Cena's not Cena's athleticism to Reigns'.

So I am not sure where this “innate compelling attractiveness” fits in, but appeal would be the word you are trying to use closest to the actual definition – not the compelling (which I don't find a big guy coming down stairs by himself and shrugging his shoulders to be 'compelling' in the least) key word you used. This is why I gave you the benefit of doubt when making your statement, because Reigns DOES have that appeal. But stoic – I think we see it a bit differently. The reason he is void of passion (being that stoic is the word you chose) doesn’t come across as his intent but rather that he is, indeed, void of passion that the other members show. It is the aspect of Roman that doesn’t seem artificial to me in that he has natural athletic ability but not a passion for the industry created over time, blood (meaning blood spilled, not his bloodline), and pain the way Ambrose and Rollins come across, having worked the scene for years. And honestly, do you think the silent Jericho got over because he didn’t say anything or was it because it was such a contradiction to the character that IS Jericho, that his charisma shown in spite of the fact he didn’t say a word. Your best comparison would have been Goldberg because he succeeded in displaying charisma without saying a word, but that didn’t become evident after three matches, where as you are putting Reigns in a spot that Goldberg wasn’t talked about being in until after 50-60 wins.

Definition was the first that came up on Google...I'm lazy...appeal is the most apt word but probably works the same anyway. As for the stoicism - it isn't material whether it is intentional or not, but more how it comes across - of course it comes across as unintentional to you, a flaw rather than a strong point. I disagree because the truth of it is irrelevant - what makes it work is the fact that he can go from the calm to the malgined primal scream, to the triple powerbomb, to the "BELIEVE IN THE SHIELD" back to the calm - that, whether cheesy or not, doesn't really indicate devoid of passion. As for the "blood" point I think that's also immaterial - the fact that Reigns has gone from footballer to wrestler shouldn't preclude the on-screen character's passion in comparison to the others' indie work. The only way in which that IS relevant is that those two have had more experience which is a strength that they capitalise on; however it isn't a fair assumption to say that, because wrestling obviously wasn't the man's first choice and because he hasn't put in the graft that the other two have in the scene, that there is a correlation between that and his calmness (or as you call it lack of passion) in promos as if to imply that he sits in front of a camera thinking "sigh, right now I wish I was in the NFL but I'm stuck in this cesspit"...a bit of an unfair assumption and one that probably can't be reasonably hypothesised from seeing a calm guy in front of the camera. Most likely it's because the calm destroyer, the cliched "I do my talking with my fists", "strong silent type" is an attractive character; or because his current weakness of mic skills is best circumvented by him being the quiet guy.

As for Y2J - no - I didn't say he got over by being quiet, though perhaps I should've elaborated rather than saying "see Y2J promo" - he was already over - my point was that silence or words used sparingly can work. The scenario in which it can work of course varies, but it can work.

This is the major point – it is what YOU see in Reigns. Some see the same thing in Tyson Kidd. Others see it in Chris Masters, Kofi Kingston, Jack Swagger, the Miz... But it is dependent upon how that person views them as an individual. They all possess a potential to break out into that role that you envision Reigns resting in, but it’s a little easier to believe that Kidd could be awesome with a belt on him after watching his body of work. It’s a bit more believable that a Kofi heel turn might be enjoyable because he’s been a face for years. It’s also more believable that Swagger can be relevant in the main event picture... These are all more believable than Reigns being labeled as a future face of the WWE because of the amount of time and matches that these guys have had. Your original post is putting Reigns into a league that he shouldn’t be in ANYTIME soon; at least not until he has a LOT more than 4 matches on WWE’s major brand.

Those comparisons are different - most of the names, particularly Kofi, Swagger, Kidd etc - their advocates have stated that they are underused and have strengths based on proven competent ring work. That is not the point I'm making here - the point I am making is that when you go beyond mic skills, ring work and other technical skills, a key facet, one which is hard to learn and indoctrinate, is the it factor - the aura - the charisma - the appeal - I say Reigns has that. People will agree; people will disagree. With Swagger/Kofi etc it's fact - their in ring work is good. But that doesn't mean people see IT in them - in fact most of the people that advocate those workers say that "they have technical skills but lack the it factor and appeal - perhaps a change in writing or a heel turn or a face turn will change that". With Reigns I'm talking about the it factor, the instant PRESENCE, not the technical skills that of course we will need several matches to evaluate. Of course this is MY perception as you say - but that's what opinion is; people predict at some stage that X will be a star when X has not had any significant exposure, e.g. with John Cena (the kid that challenged Angle as you say), and The Deacon (you yourself said this, if you were being serious) - despite not seeing their body of work, if you are judging them on that appeal and it factor and presence, that is something you may or may not see from the get-go. And I am making this prediction also based on what WWE, for the most part (exceptions = Punk et al.) look for in their "stars".

As for the timing of things - I again stress that I see this for the future. By near future I mean 2 years till that breakout moment rather than the 5 many breakout stars have with various gimmicks and development. I don't think that he could have the strap put on him now; I certainly don't think that he could carry the brand now; I think that he carried himself well in the EC match and worked the destroyer powerhouse well but still think he needs polishing; this is potential I speak off.

[Cabers]

I'm sure that judging by my posts on anything even remotely Shield related, and looking at my signature, that some of you can tell that I'm a staunch advocate of Roman Reigns eventually being one of THE guys. Indeed several of you agree judging by a poll on a thread created by someone else.

Never got to it i had a good laugh at We(ed) The People haha

[LuckIsForLosers]

Never got to it i had a good laugh at We(ed) The People haha

Ha, the guy who created the Titus o'neil thread's is far better, look at it

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

Disclaimer - hopefully I didn't get the quote-different-paragraphs thing wrong, so if I did, apologies in advance.

So - for that intro re the comparisons it wasn't inserted particularly for your benefit or because I mistakenly imagined that you thought otherwise - it was in general so that anybody who read the original post could clarify that I indeed was neither inexplicably comparing Roman Reigns' mic skills to John Cena's not Cena's athleticism to Reigns'.

No worries – You’re doing it right. As for the intro, I figured it was directed towards me since the remainder of the post was directed to the comments I made. However, if you were just clarifying for the sake of users reading your post, fair enough.

Definition was the first that came up on Google...I'm lazy...appeal is the most apt word but probably works the same anyway. As for the stoicism - it isn't material whether it is intentional or not, but more how it comes across - of course it comes across as unintentional to you, a flaw rather than a strong point. I disagree because the truth of it is irrelevant - what makes it work is the fact that he can go from the calm to the malgined primal scream, to the triple powerbomb, to the "BELIEVE IN THE SHIELD" back to the calm - that, whether cheesy or not, doesn't really indicate devoid of passion. As for the "blood" point I think that's also immaterial - the fact that Reigns has gone from footballer to wrestler shouldn't preclude the on-screen character's passion in comparison to the others' indie work. The only way in which that IS relevant is that those two have had more experience which is a strength that they capitalise on; however it isn't a fair assumption to say that, because wrestling obviously wasn't the man's first choice and because he hasn't put in the graft that the other two have in the scene, that there is a correlation between that and his calmness (or as you call it lack of passion) in promos as if to imply that he sits in front of a camera thinking "sigh, right now I wish I was in the NFL but I'm stuck in this cesspit"...a bit of an unfair assumption and one that probably can't be reasonably hypothesised from seeing a calm guy in front of the camera. Most likely it's because the calm destroyer, the cliched "I do my talking with my fists", "strong silent type" is an attractive character; or because his current weakness of mic skills is best circumvented by him being the quiet guy.

As for Y2J - no - I didn't say he got over by being quiet, though perhaps I should've elaborated rather than saying "see Y2J promo" - he was already over - my point was that silence or words used sparingly can work. The scenario in which it can work of course varies, but it can work.

The word stoic, by definition, means that he lacks a passion. But the passion he lacks isn’t that he’s trying to be Festus but rather that he appears to lack the passion that comes when you have dedicated your entire life to one goal. Reigns, and how he carries himself, is indeed stoic because he doesn't feel that he HAS to do this wrestling thing (which of course, is just my speculation based upon the limited amount of exposure I have had to the guy). It is why he also appears uninterested at times, especially in the particular picture I posted as well as when he’s not the guy with the mic in his hand, screaming his one liner, or setting up for the triple bomb; he appears to be nonchalant in a way that he doesn’t care unless it is about what he is doing. The “blood” part is what helps to make talent into superstars; their dedication is what makes people like Hart, HBK, Undertaker, Angle, and even Cena in a different league than say Lesnar, Batista, or The Rock. It doesn’t take away from ability or drawing power but makes them appear as people who were only there as a stepping stone in order to self serve, and not truly caring for the industry they have chosen. If you don’t care about people coming in so they can become famous and charge more money for an appearance, then by all means it is immaterial for you, but not for the ‘common’ wrestling fan.


And for clarification – First, It’s not because wrestling wasn’t his first choice he is hindered; it’s because he comes across as being upset that his first choice didn’t work out. Through the history of the industry, many ex-football players have been successful, but the ones who shine are those who are willing to invest their whole into the industry (Ron Simmons and Bruiser Brody come to mind) and not just using it as a way to get to a different place. Reigns, comes across this way with the exact traits that you seem to praise him for. As we have stated, time will tell where he ends up, but these things you build as being benefits are also seen as negatives to other fans. Secondly, his “calmness” doesn’t give this impression of not caring; his “stoic” (your word) demeanor is what gives this impression. And to the Y2J thing – Tommy summed it up; it worked with a star who was established, but isn’t the norm in how a star gets over. If Reigns wants to choose that route, he is just making it harder on himself to get over.

Those comparisons are different - most of the names, particularly Kofi, Swagger, Kidd etc - their advocates have stated that they are underused and have strengths based on proven competent ring work. That is not the point I'm making here - the point I am making is that when you go beyond mic skills, ring work and other technical skills, a key facet, one which is hard to learn and indoctrinate, is the it factor - the aura - the charisma - the appeal - I say Reigns has that. People will agree; people will disagree. With Swagger/Kofi etc it's fact - their in ring work is good. But that doesn't mean people see IT in them - in fact most of the people that advocate those workers say that "they have technical skills but lack the it factor and appeal - perhaps a change in writing or a heel turn or a face turn will change that". With Reigns I'm talking about the it factor, the instant PRESENCE, not the technical skills that of course we will need several matches to evaluate. Of course this is MY perception as you say - but that's what opinion is; people predict at some stage that X will be a star when X has not had any significant exposure, e.g. with John Cena (the kid that challenged Angle as you say), and The Deacon (you yourself said this, if you were being serious) - despite not seeing their body of work, if you are judging them on that appeal and it factor and presence, that is something you may or may not see from the get-go. And I am making this prediction also based on what WWE, for the most part (exceptions = Punk et al.) look for in their "stars".

The examples ARE relevant because they have a body of work behind them that makes the speculation and opinions have depth and a greater possibility of being correct assumptions. With what you are claiming about Reigns potential is like me claiming that in 2015, Fandango will hold the WHC. I have a VERY limited basis to make this statement because there is a micro-sample size example of what Fandango "is" and can do, just like there is with Reigns. This is the point I was making which obviously you missed... Along with missing the fact that this entire time I have agreed with you in that Reigns has the “look”. But just because he has the “look” doesn’t mean he will be the face of the product – Example: Billy Gunn. As for “the kid” and “deacon”, had someone made the same statement about these two athletes when they were 3 matches into their WWE career, I would be having the same conversation with them; the sample size isn’t enough to make the claim for them to be the face of the company, even if they do have a look about them... And I still wouldn’t disagree with myself at that moment in time because hindsight is 20/20 but trying to be Miss Cleo often makes you look the fool.

As for the timing of things - I again stress that I see this for the future. By near future I mean 2 years till that breakout moment rather than the 5 many breakout stars have with various gimmicks and development. I don't think that he could have the strap put on him now; I certainly don't think that he could carry the brand now; I think that he carried himself well in the EC match and worked the destroyer powerhouse well but still think he needs polishing; this is potential I speak off.

Yet you claim by 2015 he will be the face of the brand? You are not speaking of his potential, rather you are placing him out of his league. Yes, it COULD happen... But you are giving him credit based upon what you think about him, not what his performance has given us a glimpse of. In 2 years, I do see him having a successful run in a singles career, perhaps even holding the WHC... But I do NOT see him being the face of the WWE as it would be an absolutely stupid decision on the WWE's part. If they were to make him the face of the WWE by 2015, and he was to follow in the footsteps of Brock, that means he would be out of the WWE by 2017 at the latest (Brock debuted in 2002 and was gone by 2004 while he was the face of Smackdown!, on his way to being the face of RAW). How smart would that be for the WWE to do this with an unproven talent – especially when it has already screwed them before?

[LuckIsForLosers]

The “blood” part is what helps to make talent into superstars; their dedication is what makes people like Hart, HBK, Undertaker, Angle, and even Cena in a different league than say Lesnar, Batista, or The Rock. It doesn’t take away from ability or drawing power but makes them appear as people who were only there as a stepping stone in order to self serve, and not truly caring for the industry they have chosen. If you don’t care about people coming in so they can become famous and charge more money for an appearance, then by all means it is immaterial for you, but not for the ‘common’ wrestling fan.

But it IS immaterial for the purposes of this discussion and the emboldened part I have quoted from you yourself is why - because the place WWE is at at the present and has been since 2002 is a place where those very qualities, particularly drawing power, determine who the top 2 guys are. And that's precisely WHY someone of CM Punk's innate unlimited talent had less than half of his incredible reign as world champion NOT in the main event, why someone like Daniel Bryan isn't among the top couple of guys, why Brock Lesnar was instantly utilised as the company's top guy, or at the very worst, one of the company's top guys, till 2004 and why The Rock was the number 2, or should I say number 1.5, guy and when Austin wasn't around/injured/in a strop, THE guy. Of course from a personal standpoint I appreciate, respect, and cherish the wrestlers who have undergone trials and tribulations to get to where they are - just look at my list of my favourite wrestlers ever! Don't turn this into a discussion it isn't about or lose sight of what it's about.

The examples ARE relevant because they have a body of work behind them that makes the speculation and opinions have depth and a greater possibility of being correct assumptions. With what you are claiming about Reigns potential is like me claiming that in 2015, Fandango will hold the WHC. I have a VERY limited basis to make this statement because there is a micro-sample size example of what Fandango "is" and can do, just like there is with Reigns. This is the point I was making which obviously you missed... Along with missing the fact that this entire time I have agreed with you in that Reigns has the “look”. But just because he has the “look” doesn’t mean he will be the face of the product – Example: Billy Gunn. As for “the kid” and “deacon”, had someone made the same statement about these two athletes when they were 3 matches into their WWE career, I would be having the same conversation with them; the sample size isn’t enough to make the claim for them to be the face of the company, even if they do have a look about them... And I still wouldn’t disagree with myself at that moment in time because hindsight is 20/20 but trying to be Miss Cleo often makes you look the fool.

I haven't missed the point at all - in fact you've maybe missed the point and essence of my prediction - it isn't simply based off "look", it is based off a combination of what the WWE typecasts their stars as (in addition to look) and the "it factor" I believe he emanates. 1) this "it factor" is usually something that strikes a viewer INSTANTLY upon seeing a superstar should they subscribe to it; I don't claim to be on Chris Jericho's level of nous when it comes to this business, but if you read his books, he says that from the instant he saw John Cena's Kurt Angle programme, he pegged him as THE future face of the business, while Vince scoffed at the idea. Why? Jericho felt the "it factor". Did Vince disagreeing with him make him wrong? No, because it is a subjective thing. The examples you give ARE inapplicable because they are examples that would be judged from their in-ring work and for being good workers; that isn't the point I am trying to make at all and in fact judging by the time those superstars have had and what has come from it it would be easier to probably summise that they WON'T live up to any of that speculation. 2) The WWE obviously see some sort of "it factor" in him too - they were to choose 3, only 3, out of a wealth of wrestlers in their developmental territory. They chose one ex-ROH World Champ, then the guy in developmental that probably has the most buzz about him in Ambrose, and then Reigns. Why? Because he's a powerhouse? Yes. Only because of that? Of course not - the push they've given the Shield compared to that of the Nexus shows that these guys are moulded and touted. Does it mean they'll necessary succeed? No. But it DOES mean that WWE saw and see something big in all three. My point is that just because you weren't hit by the "it factor" I claim to be have hit by re Roman Reigns and because you don't see it does not mean it isn't there.

But I do NOT see him being the face of the WWE as it would be an absolutely stupid decision on the WWE's part.

If his sample size is too small to make a judgement yet, as is the crux of your argument, how can this be a point?

If they were to make him the face of the WWE by 2015, and he was to follow in the footsteps of Brock, that means he would be out of the WWE by 2017 at the latest (Brock debuted in 2002 and was gone by 2004 while he was the face of Smackdown!, on his way to being the face of RAW). How smart would that be for the WWE to do this with an unproven talent – especially when it has already screwed them before?

Who said he'd follow in the footsteps of Brock? Because an NCAA wrestler who was paid a huge amount of money, an unprecedented amount, in Developmental, within a couple of months of his TV debut beat The Rock for the title and who hated being on the road, left after 2 years Roman Reigns will too? No correlation! Instead, they'd assess him as they no doubt have been since he joined FCW in 2010, and as they no doubt did when they decided to put him in front of every other developmental wrestler bar at the most two in Rollins and Ambrose, and see if they were indeed right about him. If they push someone in 2015 who has been with the company for 5 years at that point to huge heights that would be no different to what they did with Orton, Cena, Rock, Batista and countless others.

At the end of the day, this debate can go back and forth...semantics and the like - it is one based on a fan being hit with the instant it factor (I'm getting sick of using this term for lack of a better one) of a superstar, the kind of reaction that comes instantly but very rarely, combined with an alignment to the company's track record in terms of who becomes a made man (rather than an assessment of technical talent as you seem to think I am giving him "credit"), and a comparison to the remainder of the roster within his generation (I call it 32 and under). It's not a shot in the dark nor is it a guess nor is it based of nothing (or my post history would show a similar thread about Alex Riley, Tyson Tomko, Chris Masters, Vlad Kozlov etc)...to say that you don't see it is equally your opinion. As for Fandango and 2015 - if his promos showed you something that they haven't shown me, kudos.

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

Shortened due to content limitations.... Don't turn this into a discussion it isn't about or lose sight of what it's about.

Just because he has a look about him doesn’t mean he can appear to only be happy or involved with the product as long as it is centered on him, which is how he comes across on the screen. Like I said before, if you are content with your superstars appearing to only care about self serving and getting to some other destination, then by all means. I’d rather have a wrestler who has is working his ass off to become the best wrestler possible, not the next person to leap from the wrestling industry to Hollywood, MMA, or any other outside world. As for the discussion, it is still focused on point; you are giving credit to Reigns that he doesn’t deserve yet because you think he looks like a star. Check, we’re still on track.

I haven't missed the point at all - in fact you've maybe missed the point and essence of my prediction - it isn't simply based off "look", it is based off a combination of what the WWE typecasts their stars as (in addition to look) and the "it factor" I believe he emanates. 1) this "it factor" is usually something that strikes a viewer INSTANTLY upon seeing a superstar should they subscribe to it; I don't claim to be on Chris Jericho's level of nous when it comes to this business, but if you read his books, he says that from the instant he saw John Cena's Kurt Angle programme, he pegged him as THE future face of the business, while Vince scoffed at the idea. Why? Jericho felt the "it factor". Did Vince disagreeing with him make him wrong? No, because it is a subjective thing. The examples you give ARE inapplicable because they are examples that would be judged from their in-ring work and for being good workers; that isn't the point I am trying to make at all and in fact judging by the time those superstars have had and what has come from it it would be easier to probably summise that they WON'T live up to any of that speculation. 2) The WWE obviously see some sort of "it factor" in him too - they were to choose 3, only 3, out of a wealth of wrestlers in their developmental territory. They chose one ex-ROH World Champ, then the guy in developmental that probably has the most buzz about him in Ambrose, and then Reigns. Why? Because he's a powerhouse? Yes. Only because of that? Of course not - the push they've given the Shield compared to that of the Nexus shows that these guys are moulded and touted. Does it mean they'll necessary succeed? No. But it DOES mean that WWE saw and see something big in all three. My point is that just because you weren't hit by the "it factor" I claim to be have hit by re Roman Reigns and because you don't see it does not mean it isn't there.

If his sample size is too small to make a judgement yet, as is the crux of your argument, how can this be a point?

Yeah, you’re still missing the point, sparky. Jericho saw Cena as the Face of the company and predicted it at that moment, but was he right? No... He wasn’t right until the moment that the WWE fully invested into Cena as the face of the WWE. Until then, Jericho was just making a prediction because Cena wasn’t “time tested” which is the problem that Reigns faces and indeed confirms my opinion. You’re retort does nothing to make my examples ‘inapplicable’ because you don’t agree with them; they are still examples of possible routes that Reigns could potentially take, therefore for you to say that my examples are inapplicable is for you to say that your theory of where he will end up by 2015 is also inapplicable because speculation is speculation, regardless of how many times you claim to be right and poorly use bolded words from another users post to feel justified in making your statement. Also, Reigns was chosen for his bloodline. Had Big E. had the same lineage, he could easily slide into the mold that Reigns is in and it wouldn’t cause a hiccup. And to your final bolded part – again you have missed the point. Re-read my statements and tell me where I said that he didn’t have this “it-factor” because I fail to see the contradiction. However, I can, once again, see where I agree with this statement NUMEROUS times. But I guess by me not saying “By god, you are completely right... Reigns will be the new face!!!” means that I am disagreeing with you on that fact and has you “compelled” to continue trying to argue a point that is invalid rather than explain how stating that Reigns will be the face of the company can be considered justified as more than a prediction because he simply had “the look” that you think a star needs. I have given you NUMEROUS examples of others who had that same “it factor” yet fell flat with fans in the current position you are in, left baffled that they did not succeed, blaming it solely on the creative department. If Reigns has that same outcome and isn’t the “face of WWE by 2015” as you predict, yet is stuck in a tag team with say Mason Ryan, think of this conversation as you do your best not to, indeed, blame creative and not that you put all your faith in an unproven talent.

Who said he'd follow in the footsteps of Brock? Because an NCAA wrestler who was paid a huge amount of money, an unprecedented amount, in Developmental, within a couple of months of his TV debut beat The Rock for the title and who hated being on the road, left after 2 years Roman Reigns will too? No correlation! Instead, they'd assess him as they no doubt have been since he joined FCW in 2010, and as they no doubt did when they decided to put him in front of every other developmental wrestler bar at the most two in Rollins and Ambrose, and see if they were indeed right about him. If they push someone in 2015 who has been with the company for 5 years at that point to huge heights that would be no different to what they did with Orton, Cena, Rock, Batista and countless others.

The correlation is indeed what you are doing with Reigns. They (the WWE and fans) gave too much credit to an untested talent; how are you not doing the same by claiming that Reigns will be the face of the WWE in 2015? Is Roman the same as Brock? At a first glance, no... But Brock’s fans (and the WWE) didn’t expect Brock to do what Brock did, so once again, why would the WWE choose to put themselves in the same situation with Reigns? Because you like him? That’s a very valid reason.

At the end of the day, this debate can go back and forth...semantics and the like - it is one based on a fan being hit with the instant it factor (I'm getting sick of using this term for lack of a better one) of a superstar, the kind of reaction that comes instantly but very rarely, combined with an alignment to the company's track record in terms of who becomes a made man (rather than an assessment of technical talent as you seem to think I am giving him "credit"), and a comparison to the remainder of the roster within his generation (I call it 32 and under). It's not a shot in the dark nor is it a guess nor is it based of nothing (or my post history would show a similar thread about Alex Riley, Tyson Tomko, Chris Masters, Vlad Kozlov etc)...to say that you don't see it is equally your opinion. As for Fandango and 2015 - if his promos showed you something that they haven't shown me, kudos.

The problem is that this isn’t a debate. This is me posing questions and you deflecting because you can’t give reasons to why I am wrong. I can provide examples and you take micro portions of what was said to justify your statements rather than actually hearing what another user is saying to you. If anything, I am having a conversation with a brick wall whose only answers are “nuh-uh I’m right because I’m right”, regardless of how many words you incorporate into your reply, equipped fully with badly butchered "big words" to make you seem as though you are in the know with what you are saying. BTW, the “assessment” that you are claiming is something I would have said you made yourself, had you actually stated anything about Reigns previous work in NXT (which was pretty good). Yet you didn’t and claimed only that his impression left upon YOU in the Shield angle means that he will be the face of the brand within the next 2 years. The "Shield Sample" is small whereas the "Reigns" sample is larger. But you made this about Reigns and his involvement with the Shield, now didn't you? Or do you plan on deflecting that question as well?

Final thought – Once again the plane missed the landing strip with my Fandango point... This has become a very common occurrence within this brief conversation I have had with a cinder block.

[LuckIsForLosers]

Just because he has a look about him doesn’t mean he can appear to only be happy or involved with the product as long as it is centered on him, which is how he comes across on the screen. Like I said before, if you are content with your superstars appearing to only care about self serving and getting to some other destination, then by all means. I’d rather have a wrestler who has is working his ass off to become the best wrestler possible, not the next person to leap from the wrestling industry to Hollywood, MMA, or any other outside world. As for the discussion, it is still focused on point; you are giving credit to Reigns that he doesn’t deserve yet because you think he looks like a star. Check, we’re still on track.





Yeah, you’re still missing the point, sparky. Jericho saw Cena as the Face of the company and predicted it at that moment, but was he right? No... He wasn’t right until the moment that the WWE fully invested into Cena as the face of the WWE. Until then, Jericho was just making a prediction because Cena wasn’t “time tested” which is the problem that Reigns faces and indeed confirms my opinion. You’re retort does nothing to make my examples ‘inapplicable’ because you don’t agree with them; they are still examples of possible routes that Reigns could potentially take, therefore for you to say that my examples are inapplicable is for you to say that your theory of where he will end up by 2015 is also inapplicable because speculation is speculation, regardless of how many times you claim to be right and poorly use bolded words from another users post to feel justified in making your statement. Also, Reigns was chosen for his bloodline. Had Big E. had the same lineage, he could easily slide into the mold that Reigns is in and it wouldn’t cause a hiccup. And to your final bolded part – again you have missed the point. Re-read my statements and tell me where I said that he didn’t have this “it-factor” because I fail to see the contradiction. However, I can, once again, see where I agree with this statement NUMEROUS times. But I guess by me not saying “By god, you are completely right... Reigns will be the new face!!!” means that I am disagreeing with you on that fact and has you “compelled” to continue trying to argue a point that is invalid rather than explain how stating that Reigns will be the face of the company can be considered justified as more than a prediction because he simply had “the look” that you think a star needs. I have given you NUMEROUS examples of others who had that same “it factor” yet fell flat with fans in the current position you are in, left baffled that they did not succeed, blaming it solely on the creative department. If Reigns has that same outcome and isn’t the “face of WWE by 2015” as you predict, yet is stuck in a tag team with say Mason Ryan, think of this conversation as you do your best not to, indeed, blame creative and not that you put all your faith in an unproven talent.





The correlation is indeed what you are doing with Reigns. They (the WWE and fans) gave too much credit to an untested talent; how are you not doing the same by claiming that Reigns will be the face of the WWE in 2015? Is Roman the same as Brock? At a first glance, no... But Brock’s fans (and the WWE) didn’t expect Brock to do what Brock did, so once again, why would the WWE choose to put themselves in the same situation with Reigns? Because you like him? That’s a very valid reason.



The problem is that this isn’t a debate. This is me posing questions and you deflecting because you can’t give reasons to why I am wrong. I can provide examples and you take micro portions of what was said to justify your statements rather than actually hearing what another user is saying to you. If anything, I am having a conversation with a brick wall whose only answers are “nuh-uh I’m right because I’m right”, regardless of how many words you incorporate into your reply, equipped fully with badly butchered "big words" to make you seem as though you are in the know with what you are saying. BTW, the “assessment” that you are claiming is something I would have said you made yourself, had you actually stated anything about Reigns previous work in NXT (which was pretty good). Yet you didn’t and claimed only that his impression left upon YOU in the Shield angle means that he will be the face of the brand within the next 2 years. The "Shield Sample" is small whereas the "Reigns" sample is larger. But you made this about Reigns and his involvement with the Shield, now didn't you? Or do you plan on deflecting that question as well?

Final thought – Once again the plane missed the landing strip with my Fandango point... This has become a very common occurrence within this brief conversation I have had with a cinder block.

ah I was wondering when th insults would come to fruition. The sign of the white flag. Every point you made above and indeed throughout your ramblings had no bearing, right from your presentation of superstars who you believe are comparable yet are not applicable to the light I see reigns in to your constant assumptuous yet baseless correlations to hard work, blood, Brock walking out and other irrelevant factors. In the future when you disagree try not to rely on insults, irrelevant points and long text to try and invalidate someone's post who's opinion isn't in line with your apparently supreme one.

thank you

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

Such truth and depth to your response; at leats you agree with my stance. "none of these superstars compare to the light I see Reigns in" which was inded my point through al of this; the only thing that matters to you is how you view things so contrary opinions don't have value to you. Since this is the case, why even start the thread to begin with? Was your hope to feel that your thoughts are somewhat validated by random strangersconcurring with you on the internet? I guess to each their own my friend.


On a final note - you might not "get it" but the comments were made as observations, not insults.; you just went gloriously out of your way to confirm them as factual. I'm not sorry that my opinions differ from yours. I am' however, sorry that you areso blinded by your specific thoughts on a topic that you can't think outside of your own bubble to see that not everyone inlife HAS to agree with you in order for your opinions to be relevant; it must make daily conversations a hard thing to deal with.


Good night sweet prince

[LuckIsForLosers]

I believe that the reaction to one's opinion and tantrum-like outbursts at someone not agreeing with you is more pertinent to you...check your posts for evidence. A look in the mirror is needed sir. Of course if my plight was to bash others that don't agree with me I would not have made this thread and instEad would have been on the shield poll attacking all who didn't vote reigns.

on an end note - arguments based of baseless unsubstantiated assumption (they chose Reigns because they wanted someone with a bloodline - I know this as I work for wwe) makes you look the fool. Thank you.

[B-MCINTYRE]

Roman should run over John Cena like rikishi did... For da rock!