M
I just see a lot of irrational criticism of the guy where no one else applies the same standard to other guys that they like. For instance, the "he sucks in the ring and only has three moves" and then advocates for Dean Ambrose who literally is a brawler, who has the rope move clothesline, dive, punches and "Dirty Deeds."
He sucks on the mic (he's not good because creative has such a tight grip on him. I've interviewed the guy three times and even Steve Austin said this- the guy's natural personality is so much better than what they allow him to do and say) but they will be fans of Cesaro, Brock, Rollins and Daniel Bryan (WWE version) who are not good on the mic at all.
I swear that if Ambrose was given the same exact booking over the same amount of time, the IWC would still find a way to complain and want something "different." It'd be like "Boo Ambrose! WWE is pushing the guy down our throat. We want something different- give us Kevin Owens or Cesaro." If there is a hint that the WWE likes someone that the smarks feel they didn't "discover" or "create", they automatically rebel. This is the group who cheers heels and has a chub for indie guys.
I will also say that Seth Rollins was the focus on the majority of 2015 where Reigns took a backseat from May-November. Ambrose was in the main event 4 times compared to Reigns 6 and Rollins was in 7 of them.
Like I mentioned earlier, you find me the other faces that have a look, capable of mainstream marketing, over with the fans and have a good character worthy of a top face promotion during that time? Who are the options? Ambrose, Ziggler, who else? Nobody.
[laughing]
![]()
Nothing cracks me up more than Heisman's defense of Reigns.
I love the "WWE has no other faces to push." Well if they hadn't spent the last 2 years trying so hard to get Reigns over maybe they would be in a better spot.
But they didn't because Vince was hell bent on making Reigns the next Cena.
I just see a lot of irrational criticism of the guy where no one else applies the same standard to other guys that they like. For instance, the "he sucks in the ring and only has three moves" and then advocates for Dean Ambrose who literally is a brawler, who has the rope move clothesline, dive, punches and "Dirty Deeds."
He sucks on the mic (he's not good because creative has such a tight grip on him. I've interviewed the guy three times and even Steve Austin said this- the guy's natural personality is so much better than what they allow him to do and say) but they will be fans of Cesaro, Brock, Rollins and Daniel Bryan (WWE version) who are not good on the mic at all.
I swear that if Ambrose was given the same exact booking over the same amount of time, the IWC would still find a way to complain and want something "different." It'd be like "Boo Ambrose! WWE is pushing the guy down our throat. We want something different- give us Kevin Owens or Cesaro." If there is a hint that the WWE likes someone that the smarks feel they didn't "discover" or "create", they automatically rebel. This is the group who cheers heels and has a chub for indie guys.
I will also say that Seth Rollins was the focus on the majority of 2015 where Reigns took a backseat from May-November. Ambrose was in the main event 4 times compared to Reigns 6 and Rollins was in 7 of them.
Like I mentioned earlier, you find me the other faces that have a look, capable of mainstream marketing, over with the fans and have a good character worthy of a top face promotion during that time? Who are the options? Ambrose, Ziggler, who else? Nobody.