Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post Reply
User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56
Favorite Wrestler: Jeff Hardy
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 5th, '17, 00:02

So, again, I wrote this whole thing on a notebook on my break, but I will transcribe it almost exactly as I wrote it... Which means Seru will be a giant mark later in the show.

With that disclaimer, let's begin!

Enzo opens the show- positive
Enzo opens the show attempting his usual shtick, and I actually like that he's trying to remain normal, but that little hesitation where he should be introducing Cass is a good little character piece that I can appreciate. His promo is heavy with emotion, and though he repeated himself a bit, and maybe went a little bit longer than I would have liked, he makes some good points, and I really liked his little bit about Cass being a catchphrase that he wrote. Excellent.

Cass' Promo Rebuttal- positive
Cass is still awkward on the mic, and this time he doesn't have Enzo to make up for him. He kind of sounds like "generic wrestler #3" in a WWE "make your own career" game. Regardless of all of this, Enzo's attack on him made up for all of it. It's the natural next step after Enzo's promo and it's at the right time in the show to capitalize on the viewer's emotion, which we were still feeling at this point. I don't usually like these spots regardless (it makes heels look like cowards and makes faces look like heels), but in this one rare case, fuelled by emotion, it works.

Listening to Booker's comments regarding the just-announced Enzo v Cass at the PPV, I realized, no one really gives the little guys a chance, but we forget that guys like Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero fell into this category in their time... And they're some of the best! So you'd figure that people would be over that by now.

Sasha Banks/Bayley v Alexa Bliss/Nia Jax- negative
I disliked this match early on because of the way they wrote Bayley out of it... If you want the handicap match, book the handicap match! And I bet they wonder in the office why people are saying Bayley's character is dead. Sh*t like this is why.

Despite all of this, I really like Bayley. She makes me smile all the time! In stark contrast, I don't like Nia Jax at all, despite really trying to. Her offence is repetitive and boring, and there's nothing resembling skill in any of it. This whole match to me seems like a disaster.

Brawn Strowman and Kurt Angle- neutral
Strowman is definitely getting better at promos, but he's better at the quiet, intimidating promo instead of the loud, alpha male yelling, in my opinion.

Cedric Alexander v Noam Darr w/ Alicia Fox- neutral
I actually don't care at all about either of these guys or their story, which is not for lack of trying... I don't watch 205Live and RAW does such a terrible job at telling the cruiserweight division that I have no reason to be invested in hardly any of them. Noam Darr and Alicia Fox are completely insufferable, and I imagine they would be fantastic heels if I actually cared.

Miz TV featuring the Jobbers-to-the-Stars
Why in the world would the Miz want to remind us of the absolute sh*tshow that was last week? Beyond that, he made some valid points about Ambrose being the strongest talker in the Shield and having a lot of potential with a Roddy Piper-esque character, and now he's become a comedy act... I can't help but wonder if this is one writer taking a shot at another for how poorly Ambrose has been booked? Are they becoming self-aware? Ambrose comes out to admit that Miz is right, but that he does whatever he wants anyway... I suppose that's an... admirable trait? Slater comes out and points out that because he pinned Miz, he should get a title shot, and he gets one and loses- although it was a much more ven match than I anticipated, and I surprisingly found myself rooting for Slater a bit. And of course, Miz wins with the distraction from Axel and Dallas.

The hilarious thing to me here is that Ambrose called out the PPV for it's sh*t name. I wonder who got mad at him backstage after that segment?

Apollo Crews and Titus O'Neal- negative
Titus tries to convince Crews to make a name for himself by fighting Strowman later. Yeah, because lets bury another talented superstar because we don't know how to write.

Goldust- "The Shattered Truth"- positive
I wonder what it is with the WWE and Hollywood gimmicks? Are they envious of the mainstream attention movies get and are trying to get that for themselves?

Naturally, Truth interrupts to beat Goldust up, and at this point, I feel like I'm actually starting to care a little bit about this feud, when I couldn't give half a sh*t before. So I guess that's a job well done?

Sheamus and Cesaro in Kurt Angle's Office- positive
We get a 30 MINUTE IRON MAN TAG TEAM TITLE MATCH at the PPV. I will take this, and happily. And to keep in fighting shape, Cesaro wants BALOR? I will also happily take this!

Seth Rollins v Curt Hawkins (again)- negative
Before the match even starts, I don't like it. Wasted time with a wasted superstar in Hawkins, and only for Rollins to cut a promo on Wyatt after. Hawkins says he was supposed to face Strowman, and I wish that he had so that Strowman could make him go away altogether. Rollins cut a good promo at the end of the match though.

Samoa Joe/Brock Lesnar Interview- negative
So, are we supposed to think that Lesnar is the face in this situation? I kind of feel like this is what they're trying to do here. Him and Heyman together make Joe out to be a coward, and when Heyman says that Joe has employed cowardly tactics thus far to get the upper hand, he's kind of right. I was super into this match prior to this, but I feel like they've made Joe feel like a less believable threat to Lesnar. And Joe of course takes offence and goes looking for Lesnar, and we get a pull-apart without the brawl, which is kind of the same thing we've seen for three weeks.

Neville v Mustafa Ali- mostly neutral, but Neville is positive
Neville is a fantastic heel (minus the King of the Cruiserweights) gimmick. His "Neville Level" stuff is awesome and the way he plays the heel in the ring is golden. I actually found myself wondering how he was going to pull off being a heel when he made the turn, because he seemed such a natural babyface. I like that he can play both of those roles. This was a fairly enjoyable match, despite having "205Live Syndrome" where I have no emotional connection to Ali so I don't care what happens to him.

Side question... How long do the commercial breaks have to be to change the ropes to the purple ones for every cruiserweight match? Or are they so good at it that they can do it in like no time?

Another aside... I like that Neville has held the title for a significant period of time, because it makes the title seem like it's more important, but there also doesn't really feel like there's many people worthy of challenging him for it, at the same time.

Bray Wyatt Promo- negative
I feel like I don't even have to write negative on it, because my opinion on any Wyatt promo is the same. I didn't like it before it even started, and when he started taking credit for everything that's happened on RAW since he'd been there, I tuned out and skipped the rest. Pure drivel.

Alexa Bliss Promo- positive
She tries to spin her cowardice and intelligence, and Charly actually calls her on it, which I thought was a neat little character moment for her.

FINN BALOR V CESARO- so positive
Before Balor's music even hits, I'm amped. This match, if they don't f*ck with it, could be fantastic. SCREW THE COMMERCIAL BREAK, GIMME BALOR.

Predictably, Sheamus is ringside, I wonder how he's going to muck this up somehow. At this point, no one in the segment is even from North America, I noticed.

The Hardys come out to back up Balor and I lost my sh*t all over again. Having them on commentary, while it falls into the same "we can't let people forget they're feuding, so they have to be involved in each other's segments somehow" issue that Red mentions often, but Matt makes some very good points and is very respectful, building up Sheamus and Cesaro as difficult opponents, and also talks up Balor at the same time. However... FOCUS ON BALOR AND CESARO DAMMIT.

Of course, Sampson comes out to ruin it, but the Hardys come out to try to even numbers. There's a bit of scuffling between non-combatants, and Balor still wins.

Some side notes...

As a woman, please, please, PLEASE men, wear better tights. Those tiny trunks get reeeeeal awkward at certain camera angles. I don't really want to know that much about the superstars, thanks.

And can we please, pretty please, have more Hardys + Balor? I'll be a good girl.

Braun Strowman v Apollo Crews- negative
I made my opinions mostly known earlier, so I'll skip that part. Crews starts stronger than I anticipated, but still gets ruined, and of course Roman comes out to assault Strowman, and they wreck each other... Yawn. Same old sh*t we've seen the entire feud. I don't even care anymore.

I'm mixed on this RAW... There were some good things and some bad things... Overall not the worst I've watched.



User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 18865
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12
Favorite Wrestler: Kane

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 5th, '17, 01:41

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02

Listening to Booker's comments regarding the just-announced Enzo v Cass at the PPV, I realized, no one really gives the little guys a chance, but we forget that guys like Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero fell into this category in their time... And they're some of the best! So you'd figure that people would be over that by now.
I think the difference is that Enzo has always been a tag team guy, and he was always the babyface in peril. The other three you mentioned were mostly singles guys, so they got to make their own comebacks when they won rather than have someone else do it for them like with Enzo.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
he made some valid points about Ambrose being the strongest talker in the Shield and having a lot of potential with a Roddy Piper-esque character, and now he's become a comedy act... I can't help but wonder if this is one writer taking a shot at another for how poorly Ambrose has been booked?
I got this feeling, too.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Apollo Crews and Titus O'Neal- negative
Titus tries to convince Crews to make a name for himself by fighting Strowman later. Yeah, because lets bury another talented superstar because we don't know how to write.
Got to disagree with you a bit here. I think that Titus is one of the characters that they do seem to know how to write for. It's certainly bad booking, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the actual writing of the character here.

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Goldust- "The Shattered Truth"- positive
I wonder what it is with the WWE and Hollywood gimmicks? Are they envious of the mainstream attention movies get and are trying to get that for themselves?
Yup. And not just Hollywood, but TV and sports as well. Hence why they do things like plug how well they did against other channels or how many social media followers they have.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02


Seth Rollins v Curt Hawkins (again)- negative
Before the match even starts, I don't like it. Wasted time with a wasted superstar in Hawkins, and only for Rollins to cut a promo on Wyatt after.

This was my thought process at first, too, but the more I thought about it the less it bothered me. It makes sense to me to have a guy booked to wrestle a match and then cut his promo, even if the match part is unnecessary. Hawkins didn't really get enough in to make Seth look bad, so I was fine with it. And who knows? Maybe they did it because they're doing something where wins and losses actually matter and this win count for something that winds up with Seth getting a #1 contendership match or a title shot?

Hawkins probably shouldn't have talked, though.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Samoa Joe/Brock Lesnar Interview- negative
So, are we supposed to think that Lesnar is the face in this situation? I kind of feel like this is what they're trying to do here. Him and Heyman together make Joe out to be a coward, and when Heyman says that Joe has employed cowardly tactics thus far to get the upper hand, he's kind of right. I was super into this match prior to this, but I feel like they've made Joe feel like a less believable threat to Lesnar.

I don't think there is supposed to be a babyface here. I think this is supposed to be tweener vs. heel.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02

Side question... How long do the commercial breaks have to be to change the ropes to the purple ones for every cruiserweight match? Or are they so good at it that they can do it in like no time?

I think they're good enough to do it in no time. When I went to Smackdown I was shocked at how quickly they changed the ring skirt from Main Event to Smackdown, but the ropes definitely do take longer. I feel bad for the ring crew because the whole thing is SOOOOO dumb. It's typical WWE: they think the way to get something over is branding, when in reality to get something over you have to first be doing it well.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Another aside... I like that Neville has held the title for a significant period of time, because it makes the title seem like it's more important, but there also doesn't really feel like there's many people worthy of challenging him for it, at the same time.

Yeah, it definitely feels like they're run out of challengers. I haven't been watching 205 Live so I don't know they've been building everyone up, but I think the only guy who has gotten any sort of push that Neville hasn't beaten (aside from Tozwa) is Kendrick, who WWE probably won't put against him because he's a heel, and who just lost his big program to Tozawa.

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
but Matt makes some very good points and is very respectful, building up Sheamus and Cesaro as difficult opponents,
Matt was raised old school. He- unlike the writers- understands that building your opponent up helps you in the end and burying your opponent hurts you in the end. If you build your opponent up and you beat him, you've beaten someone who is very good, which makes you look better, and if you lose to him then you lost to someone very good. If you spent the whole time burying your opponent then if you beat him you've beaten someone who sucks, so that's not very impressive, and if you lose to him then you've lost to someone who sucks, which means that you suck even worse.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
WWE in 2005
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
TNA Victory Road 2008
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
ECW Guilty As Charged 1999

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 3565
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54
Favorite Wrestler: Idk
Location: Ocean Springs,MS.

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by KILLdozer » Jul 5th, '17, 08:47

This whole thing was filled with pretty much a very negative tone that wasn't enjoyable lol.

How has no one remarked on that Heath Slater Top rope Powerslam though?!?

That was incredible lol.

Even Ambrose was sitting there like "What in the hell..."
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56
Favorite Wrestler: Jeff Hardy
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 5th, '17, 19:12

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02

Listening to Booker's comments regarding the just-announced Enzo v Cass at the PPV, I realized, no one really gives the little guys a chance, but we forget that guys like Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero fell into this category in their time... And they're some of the best! So you'd figure that people would be over that by now.
I think the difference is that Enzo has always been a tag team guy, and he was always the babyface in peril. The other three you mentioned were mostly singles guys, so they got to make their own comebacks when they won rather than have someone else do it for them like with Enzo.
I get that, but it was more an observation on any competition where size is a factor- the commentators always give the edge to the bigger guys. It wasn't just a comment on Enzo v Cass. I can't remember who the guys involved were, but I remember Booker saying the same thing a little while ago.
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Apollo Crews and Titus O'Neal- negative
Titus tries to convince Crews to make a name for himself by fighting Strowman later. Yeah, because lets bury another talented superstar because we don't know how to write.
Got to disagree with you a bit here. I think that Titus is one of the characters that they do seem to know how to write for. It's certainly bad booking, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the actual writing of the character here.
I wasn't complaining about the writing of the character. I couldn't stand Titus for the longest time, but I am beginning to appreciate his character. I suppose I should have said booking rather than writing.
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Seth Rollins v Curt Hawkins (again)- negative
Before the match even starts, I don't like it. Wasted time with a wasted superstar in Hawkins, and only for Rollins to cut a promo on Wyatt after.

This was my thought process at first, too, but the more I thought about it the less it bothered me. It makes sense to me to have a guy booked to wrestle a match and then cut his promo, even if the match part is unnecessary. Hawkins didn't really get enough in to make Seth look bad, so I was fine with it. And who knows? Maybe they did it because they're doing something where wins and losses actually matter and this win count for something that winds up with Seth getting a #1 contendership match or a title shot?

Hawkins probably shouldn't have talked, though.
Realistically, I don't think a win against someone like Hawkins should really contribute to whether or not someone deserves a title shot. Someone better than Hawkins, sure. And Hawkins definitely shouldn't have talked.
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Samoa Joe/Brock Lesnar Interview- negative
So, are we supposed to think that Lesnar is the face in this situation? I kind of feel like this is what they're trying to do here. Him and Heyman together make Joe out to be a coward, and when Heyman says that Joe has employed cowardly tactics thus far to get the upper hand, he's kind of right. I was super into this match prior to this, but I feel like they've made Joe feel like a less believable threat to Lesnar.

I don't think there is supposed to be a babyface here. I think this is supposed to be tweener vs. heel.
I think you're right, but he doesn't really feel like a tweener to me.
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
but Matt makes some very good points and is very respectful, building up Sheamus and Cesaro as difficult opponents,
Matt was raised old school. He- unlike the writers- understands that building your opponent up helps you in the end and burying your opponent hurts you in the end. If you build your opponent up and you beat him, you've beaten someone who is very good, which makes you look better, and if you lose to him then you lost to someone very good. If you spent the whole time burying your opponent then if you beat him you've beaten someone who sucks, so that's not very impressive, and if you lose to him then you've lost to someone who sucks, which means that you suck even worse.
I love this about this style of promos. Contrasting it with Lesnar/Heyman, who have been calling Joe a coward the whole time... If Lesnar loses to Joe after implying that the only way Joe has gotten the upper hand lately is by being a coward, he's going to look like garbage!

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 18865
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12
Favorite Wrestler: Kane

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 6th, '17, 13:29

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 19:12
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02

Listening to Booker's comments regarding the just-announced Enzo v Cass at the PPV, I realized, no one really gives the little guys a chance, but we forget that guys like Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero fell into this category in their time... And they're some of the best! So you'd figure that people would be over that by now.
I think the difference is that Enzo has always been a tag team guy, and he was always the babyface in peril. The other three you mentioned were mostly singles guys, so they got to make their own comebacks when they won rather than have someone else do it for them like with Enzo.
I get that, but it was more an observation on any competition where size is a factor- the commentators always give the edge to the bigger guys. It wasn't just a comment on Enzo v Cass. I can't remember who the guys involved were, but I remember Booker saying the same thing a little while ago.
Ah. I see what you're saying now. I get why they're doing it, but at the same time it does kind of make them look silly because they're blatantly ignoring history. I think this is a failing of the current philosophy of announcing in WWE. They are so single-minded on the focus of the story/main idea/whatever of the particular feud in question that they don't ever think about things from any other direction. If the commentators were allowed to call things in more of a "real sports" style then the obvious fact that Enzo's best shot of winning is to chop Cass down by going after his legs or trying to use leverage to get submissions would be something the announcers would bring up, but because WWE's style is to beat you over the head with whatever the current big idea is, all they do is approach things from that one angle.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 19:12
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Seth Rollins v Curt Hawkins (again)- negative
Before the match even starts, I don't like it. Wasted time with a wasted superstar in Hawkins, and only for Rollins to cut a promo on Wyatt after.

This was my thought process at first, too, but the more I thought about it the less it bothered me. It makes sense to me to have a guy booked to wrestle a match and then cut his promo, even if the match part is unnecessary. Hawkins didn't really get enough in to make Seth look bad, so I was fine with it. And who knows? Maybe they did it because they're doing something where wins and losses actually matter and this win count for something that winds up with Seth getting a #1 contendership match or a title shot?

Hawkins probably shouldn't have talked, though.
Realistically, I don't think a win against someone like Hawkins should really contribute to whether or not someone deserves a title shot. Someone better than Hawkins, sure. And Hawkins definitely shouldn't have talked.
You're not wrong, but I do think that a win over a jobber is better than no win at all. Plus they can obfuscate to by talking about how Seth is on a winning streak or hasn't been pinned in a month or whatever they might eventually do with it.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 19:12
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
Samoa Joe/Brock Lesnar Interview- negative
So, are we supposed to think that Lesnar is the face in this situation? I kind of feel like this is what they're trying to do here. Him and Heyman together make Joe out to be a coward, and when Heyman says that Joe has employed cowardly tactics thus far to get the upper hand, he's kind of right. I was super into this match prior to this, but I feel like they've made Joe feel like a less believable threat to Lesnar.

I don't think there is supposed to be a babyface here. I think this is supposed to be tweener vs. heel.
I think you're right, but he doesn't really feel like a tweener to me.
Now I'm confused as to where you are coming from. My thinking is that Joe is the heel and Brock is a tweener.
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 19:12
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 01:41
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 5th, '17, 00:02
but Matt makes some very good points and is very respectful, building up Sheamus and Cesaro as difficult opponents,
Matt was raised old school. He- unlike the writers- understands that building your opponent up helps you in the end and burying your opponent hurts you in the end. If you build your opponent up and you beat him, you've beaten someone who is very good, which makes you look better, and if you lose to him then you lost to someone very good. If you spent the whole time burying your opponent then if you beat him you've beaten someone who sucks, so that's not very impressive, and if you lose to him then you've lost to someone who sucks, which means that you suck even worse.
I love this about this style of promos. Contrasting it with Lesnar/Heyman, who have been calling Joe a coward the whole time... If Lesnar loses to Joe after implying that the only way Joe has gotten the upper hand lately is by being a coward, he's going to look like garbage!
I don't think it's an issue in that feud because while calling Joe out for being a coward (which he has been at times in feud) I think Heyman has made sure to focus on the fact that- whether it happens through cheating or not- if Joe gets Brock in the Coquina Clutch, that could be it. They're making Joe look a bit cowardly (though not really any more so than he has been since coming up to the main roster), but they're still getting his move- and by extension Joe himself- over as a legitimate threat.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
WWE in 2005
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
TNA Victory Road 2008
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
ECW Guilty As Charged 1999

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56
Favorite Wrestler: Jeff Hardy
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 6th, '17, 14:57

I'm on my phone, so I can't reply like I should, I apologize.

I get what you're saying about Joe and Lesnar, and Joe does feel like the heel, but Lesnar doesn't really feel like the tweener to me. I think that's what they're going for but I just feel like it's missing something heel-y, if that makes sense. I definitely think they're doing a good job at getting the clutch over as a move, but my thinking, as a casual fan, would be that Joe can only get the upper hand on Lesnar when he has the element of surprise, as he has had in the past, but he won't have that in a scheduled one-in-one match.

That being said, I'm still rooting for Joe. :P

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 3565
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54
Favorite Wrestler: Idk
Location: Ocean Springs,MS.

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by KILLdozer » Jul 7th, '17, 11:37

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 6th, '17, 14:57
I'm on my phone, so I can't reply like I should, I apologize.

I get what you're saying about Joe and Lesnar, and Joe does feel like the heel, but Lesnar doesn't really feel like the tweener to me. I think that's what they're going for but I just feel like it's missing something heel-y, if that makes sense. I definitely think they're doing a good job at getting the clutch over as a move, but my thinking, as a casual fan, would be that Joe can only get the upper hand on Lesnar when he has the element of surprise, as he has had in the past, but he won't have that in a scheduled one-in-one match.

That being said, I'm still rooting for Joe. :P
That's because he can't get the upper hand without the element of surprise lol.
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56
Favorite Wrestler: Jeff Hardy
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Seru's Stance on RAW 3/7/17

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 7th, '17, 15:41

KILLdozer wrote:
Jul 7th, '17, 11:37
Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 6th, '17, 14:57
I'm on my phone, so I can't reply like I should, I apologize.

I get what you're saying about Joe and Lesnar, and Joe does feel like the heel, but Lesnar doesn't really feel like the tweener to me. I think that's what they're going for but I just feel like it's missing something heel-y, if that makes sense. I definitely think they're doing a good job at getting the clutch over as a move, but my thinking, as a casual fan, would be that Joe can only get the upper hand on Lesnar when he has the element of surprise, as he has had in the past, but he won't have that in a scheduled one-in-one match.

That being said, I'm still rooting for Joe. :P
That's because he can't get the upper hand without the element of surprise lol.
I'm not buying that. I have a hard time believing Lesnar as the monster they tell me he is honestly. He's a shadow of the athlete he was during his first run, looks like the pillsbury dough boy in comparison, and has no stamina at all. And he looks like he has popsickle sticks for legs. Not a very formidable monster IMO

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests