Ryback is the same height as punk(6'1-even though ryback is blled as 6'3" its an obvious lie) where as Ambrose is a bit taller (6'4") so of course its possible. Ambrose is much bigger than ryback, even if he doesn't look like every muscle has been systematically filled with water but Ambrose is quite wide and he has buffed up A LOT. there are pics on this forum to show it...not that it even matters as a smaller guy could take down a larger guy with the right offense...its just having the skill to pull it off, hence why Bryan is so good. he makes defeating everyone plausable by varying his strategies.
you clearly have no idea who or what you are talking about. Ambrose is supposed to be a sadistic monster that does not stop. What a great way to build two new guys. Ryback, a machine of a man and Ambrose, a maniac with skills to put away anyone.
Ryback hasn't earned shit yet anyway, he's only facing punk out of sheer luck due to Cena's injury. if it wasn't for Cena bowing out then Ryback would still be crushing jobbers and low card hacks. Ryback could fuck it up for himself come HIAC, I don't think he can handle a 30 min match especially in a cell, its a lot to ask of a man that hasn't had one meaningful PPV match under normal circumstances.
Ambrose has buffed up in the upper body area. Nothing too noticable but a good improvement. But feuding him against Ryback right off the bat is a bad idea. First off, I doubt Ambrose is truly 6'4". 2nd, even if Ambrose has buffed up, he still doesn't look like a guy that would be able to beat Ryback before he has even debuted. Hell, CM Punk doesn't look like guy who could beat Ryback, but he's been in WWE for 6 years, he's established as one of the WWE's best, and he's been champ for about a year.
Besides, it's bad idea b/c neither man could afford to lose momentum so early in their careers. Why would they put a guy who they are very high on to be the next big star in Ryback against another guy they are high on in Ambrose? One of them would go up and one of them would go down. Maybe a year or two when both men are established this feud could work, but not now.
Mankind took out Undertaker on HIS FIRST NIGHT IN THE COMPANY.
It can work. And for the fans to accept Ryback, he has to lose. But by losing to someone booked as equally unstoppable it won't affect his reputation.
Look at history, wrestlers with the undefeated streak inevitably hit a slump as soon as they have to job. This is a great way of stopping that, pushing both Ryback and Ambrose and giving fans a hard hitting feud - free from the title scene - that will appeal to mature audiences tired of clean cut faces and heels.
Both are exciting new talents, both have great potential, both should be given the chance to show what they can do.
Originally Posted by new_year_new_start
How the hell can you compare Mick Foley pre-WWE and Jon Moxley/Dean Ambrose pre-WWE?! How old are you, 15 or something? You're talking about a guy who had been in WCW for 3 years and spent time in ECW who were a lot bigger than any of the indies Moxley has worked for. You're talking about Mick Foley, a guy who 4 years before even debuting in WWF, had wrestled STING on WCW pay-per-view. You also forgetting his texas death match with Vader in the MAIN EVENT at Halloween Havoc in 1993?
I literally cannot believe you'd be stupid enough to compare Mick Foley pre-WWE with Jon Moxley/Dean Ambrose. When Mick debuted as Mankind people knew he was, it's not like when Ambrose debuts and only internet fans will know who he is. I'd understand your argument more if Moxley had been relatively over in TNA (even then would still be ludicrous to compare WCW/ECW to TNA, but at least somewhat understandable) but the guy hasn't been on TV before, LET ALONE PPV.
As for Ryback losing, as I previously said, the perfect person for him to lose to/get taken out by would be Brock.
New year new start wins this argument. Foley was a well established star when he came to WWE. He was worhty of a debut feud against Taker. Ambrose isn't that established at all. Plus, it wouldn't be smart to put two relatively newcomers against each other b/c one would lose their momentum. I'm not saying WWE isn't going to debut Ambrose on a high note or in a high profile storyline. They were going to debut him against Mick Foley, a future HOF and a legend. It's obvious their high on him. I've been saying for months to debut him against Kane b/c Kane is an established star, it wouldn't hurt him to take the loss, and their characters mesh well together. But for reasons, stated above, debuting him against Ryback would be a bad move for everyone involved.
Apologise for those statements and I'll respond to you.
It's the internet buddy. Asking for an apology is like asking Tyron Lannister to say something nice about Jeff Hardy or like asking Sunny to not get arrested for the next month. It's not going to happen.
i just cant wait till this guy debuts,
dean ambrose is the only superstar on the planet i would accept seeing end the undertakers wrestlemania streak
To quote the Miz, "Really?". You wouldn't accept seeing Cena, Punk, Orton, Brock, maybe even Sting ending the streak, but you would accept a guy who hasn't even debuted yet.
I actually think that Ambrose ending the streak would be a good idea.
On his first match, he could end Ryback's streak. Then, I would wait until WrestleMania (which would be his first PPV) where he would destroy the Undertaker. Then I would feed Sting to him.
Originally Posted by I Came To Play
They should debut him as The Undertaker's mystery opponent at 'Mania, he should take the streak by making Taker tap. After this he should interfere in the rest of the matches destroying Punk, Ryback, Cena, Lesnar, Sheamus and The Rock and then cut one of his legendary promos to end Mania. This would be awesome.
You guys are joking right? Please tell me you're joking. This guy would be the next Alberto Del Rio if this happened. The guy w/ all the talent in the world that accomplished way too much way too soon.