Wrestling Forum banner

Ever notice how Roman Reigns career is similar to The Rock's?

5K views 48 replies 42 participants last post by  xio8ups 
#1 ·
Currently watching the Attitude Era, just began the year 2000. The Rock and his popularity is extremely high and the fans love him. Then it got me to thinking.

The Rock made his WWF/E debut at Survivor Series 1996. Although he was a face, the fans hated and boo'd him.

Was part of a classic heel faction, Nation of Domination. Although Farooq was the leader, The Rock made a name for himself and took over eventually. The group turned its back on Rock.

Reached Main Event status 2 years after debuting and won the WWF championship in late '98/early '99.

Won 2000 Royal Rumble.

----

Roman Reigns made his debut at Survivor Series 2012. Heel, and the fans boo'd him too.

Part of a heel faction, The Shield. Although Seth Rollins (and Dean Ambrose) was the leader, Roman Reigns made a name for himself as the muscle of the group and people were drooling over his looks.

Reached Main Event status 2 years after debuting and won the WWE World Heavyweight Championship in late 2015.

Won 2015 Royal Rumble.


Just an observation. I find it interesting how similar their paths are. Only difference is the charisma and crowd reception. Even as a Heel early on, the crowd was cheering for the rock. Even as a face, the crowd is boo'ing the hell out of Roman Reigns (slight cheers). I wonder if it's a family thing...lol

Do you guys think Reigns will switch it up and be as big as Rock later down the road? Maybe even go Hollywood on us?
 
See less See more
#8 ·
Not even close. The Rock was legitimately popular. And he had to face serious backstage adversity with HHH and HBK running the show during his prime, and Austin being the chosen top babyface until his injury, then followed by getting the weakest booking of the "face of the company" I have ever seen He lost three straight wrestlemanias to Austin, HHH, then Austin again during his peak. The Rock was like the anti Roman Reigns, he became popular without impeccable booking protection. Roman Reigns on the other hand has near invincible booking protection and still is absolutely irrelevant.
 
#17 ·
The Rock was supposed to be cheered at first, but was boo'd. Reigns was meant to be boo'd, and was boo'd. That's not the same.

The Nation of Domination betrayed the Rock. Seth Rollins betrayed the rest of the Shield. Not the same.

Two years into the Rock's career, he was organically embraced by the fans... and then turned heel going 1999. Roman Reigns stayed over, but then the fans turned on him in 2015. Not the same, almost the opposite in some ways...

But the BIGGEST difference? The Rock debuted in '96, and was legitimately the top guy alongside Hogan and SCSA by 2001. Roman Reigns debuted in 2012, and by 2017 he's not even close to Dwayne Johnson's popularity.

I don't see it.
 
#30 ·
Although I'm not remoterly surprised at how you, smarks are used to kill the meaning of the world charisma, it is amusing to me that you reallly believe Rocky Maivia showed any kind of appeal, or that he had more appeal than Roman.

Reigns today ozees a big amount of physical charisma that easily destroys that Dawne's most awful incarnation.
 
#14 ·
Well I guess they are similar in the sense that both of their initial face runs were outright disasters. That's where the similarities end however. They put The Rock in a position where they encouraged people to boo him after his face run failed then he found himself as a character and performer. They let him grow. With Reigns it's a non stop push forward with the status quo because the WWE has adopted an any reaction is a good reaction mentality.
 
#15 ·
As a fan of both they're nothing alike. Reigns push should replicate that of the Rocks. The only reason Rock got mega over was because they turned him heel to take the pressure off him and allowed him to go out and do his thing. Unless they offer Reigns the same privilege then it's going to be a slow career for Roman.

BTW, I'm watching 2000 Attitude Era also. The amount of amazing characters they had was amazing. Majority of the lower midcarders would be main eventers these days.
 
#18 ·
I'm waiting for Roman Apologists to come here and either say any of the following..

"You're still talking about Roman Reigns, he can legitimately try his best to be as bad as Eva Marie and Khali and deliberately botch his every move and you're still talking about him.. WWE Deserves to push him"

"Any reaction is a good reaction = Right, you're all wrong If social media had existed back then it would be stupid not to adhere to that mentality"

"Vince was wrong here he should have stuck Rock as a face"

"Roman is nowhere near as hated as Rocky Maivia"

I'm waiting for them to challenge the concrete Rock example
 
#21 ·
I don't see any similarities at all. Rock started as a babyface and Roman as a heel. Rock got booed when he got a big push in the midcard and when he turned heel and got over he remained in the midcard for awhile feuding with Austin and HHH over the IC title. Then he joined the corporation and became a main eventer and feuded with Austin over the main title. Rock never got the wrong kind of heat as a main eventer.
 
#23 ·
The thing about Rocky Mavia is that people hated the character. I don't think people necessarily hate the Roman Reigns character as much as they do the idea of him, someone who isn't particularly great at anything being force fed to the audience during a time when it's become much harder to make fans cheer for the people you want them to cheer and boo who you want them to boo. And because WWE is continuing to try to force the issue, it's just putting them into a deeper hole than they were before. At this point I don't think a character change will help Reigns, especially when he hasn't really done anything to prove he's capable of playing a somewhat good character.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top