Wrestling Forum banner

Do you care about who goes over?

  • YES! Older guys should always put younger guys over.

    Votes: 27 33.3%
  • NO! I just watch and enjoy, regardless.

    Votes: 54 66.7%
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
I know, it's been a while.
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Whats your views on the whole 'Putting People Over' debate.

I see so much people on here saying, oh he should have put him over.

I myself don't ever think about it, or moan about it. It actually can annoy me that some people think that because a veteran is wrestling and he has already done it all... He should lose to the younger guy to help him progress his career.
I don't agree at all, the younger wrestler's should only beat someone when they are ready.

I tend to try and watch the WWE in a younger fans frame of mind, it just makes the whole expierence better.


Prime examples are CM Punk vs HHH, people went beserk when HHH beat Punk. But lets face it, HHH is a legend of this business and he should always be beating Punk. Just take into account the height / Weight and also acomplishments HHH has had. I thought it made sense.
I don't agree is a huge star coming back to lose to someone lesser than him, just to help him out.
Make your own way to the top by looking more credible, if your not ready, your not ready.

Just wondering where people stand on this?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
59,121 Posts
There are some instances when a veteran faces a younger guy and should win, but in certain situations/storylines the time comes for the young guy to go over. When he doesn't go over, or doesn't look strong, it causes more problems for WWE because it takes longer to get the guy over because of that. It can be a potential momentum killer in some cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
it's not as important as the guys themselves making something of their character, not just doing what WWE creative tells them what to do. The best ones didn't need to be put over by anyone, and if they did, I have no memory of the events of their being put over. Does no good to put over a bland, faceless superstar with no personality.

The return of some of these oldies has made me realize, that the superstar's input is just as important as managements... if these bland faceless characters are just content picking up a paycheck, it's no surprise we can't muster up decent storylines and feuds these days.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
Well it depends on the case...

Trips vs. Punk.
Glad that Punk put Trips over. Triple H was always better than Punk.

Cena vs. The Rock.
Why the fuck did Cena put Rock over? Cena owns The Rock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Dont care....Getting put over has got nothing to do with losing or winning....Look at No Mercy in 99 with the tag team ladder match...Bret vs Austin, Taker vs Mankind in 98, Shamrock in 97, Daniel Bryan, Jericho....You put yourself over...Everyone knows the outcome of matches is determined before hand so really, who gives a shit who wins or loses???....Its all about your promos, how you engage with other wrestlers during storylines and in the ring and obviously how you interact with the audience and how you relate to them
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,732 Posts
People on the internet put far too much emphasis on who wins and who loses in wrestling. It should also be noted that you can put someone over without actually losing to them. See Bret v Austin at Wrestlemania.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
59,121 Posts
Well it depends on the case...

Trips vs. Punk.
Glad that Punk put Trips over. Triple H was always better than Punk.

Cena vs. The Rock.
Why the fuck did Cena put Rock over? Cena owns The Rock.
Punk put Triple H over? :lol Do you realize what you just said?

Same with Cena/Rock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,681 Posts
It all depends on the circumstances, it's not just a case of the younger guy should always beat the older guy, because who the fuck would want to watch that every week?

However, if it's a case of a legend coming back part time, or someone like Cena who really doesn't need to be put over anyone, then the new guy should win, simply because the audience will pay more attention to them if they beat a big name star.

It makes no difference to me though. People get too caught up in this stuff, who gives a shit if it's bad for business if this guy beats that guy? You don't work for WWE, just enjoy the damn match.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
561 Posts
Whats your views on the whole 'Putting People Over' debate.

I see so much people on here saying, oh he should have put him over.

I myself don't ever think about it, or moan about it. It actually can annoy me that some people think that because a veteran is wrestling and he has already done it all... He should lose to the younger guy to help him progress his career.
I don't agree at all, the younger wrestler's should only beat someone when they are ready.

I tend to try and watch the WWE in a younger fans frame of mind, it just makes the whole expierence better.


Prime examples are CM Punk vs HHH, people went beserk when HHH beat Punk. But lets face it, HHH is a legend of this business and he should always be beating Punk. Just take into account the height / Weight and also acomplishments HHH has had. I thought it made sense.
I don't agree is a huge star coming back to lose to someone lesser than him, just to help him out.
Make your own way to the top by looking more credible, if your not ready, your not ready.

Just wondering where people stand on this?
im right with you, and randy orton IS the best in the world right now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,320 Posts
It's a lot harder to for guys to be put over these days. Some people think that bringing in an establish veteran and have him work with a guy that was on the ceiling is going to get the guy that they want to put over, the way to go on to be a main eventer. Here's the problem, wins and losses in wrestling doesn't mean a 3/4 as much as it did 15 to 20 years ago. Last monday Lord Tensei, defeated John Cena, but it will be forgotten in a few weeks. Back in the day the WWE would use a wrestler that they were trying to get over, and have him wrestle against jobbers in order to build up their character, so that when it was time for them to put that potential superstar up against a guy that can challenge him, then it would be the time to put that potential wrestler over. Now in today's WWE, you have these mid-carders who are going up against each other while at the same time trying to get themselves over themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttgeiger

·
Anti-Hero
Joined
·
9,798 Posts
It's a term that's overused by a lot of people who don't know how to use it properly.

Win and losses only mean anything to me in how they move the narrative forward. To me 'putting over' is simply making the other guy shine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
I couldn't care less about someone getting put over in a match. It is all about what kind of segments and airtime they get on TV, That's what gets people over anyway. Why would you sacrifice an older guy who is better and drawing more money just because they are old. It hurts the older guy more than it helps the younger guy, and hurts the overall product. Take CM punk for instance, why put him over the rock and screw up his drawing power, when you can put him over jericho, and still keep the rock's legendary status intact. As long as CM Punk continues to get important entertaining segments on TV, and keeps beating 'someone', so he has half decent cred. his popularity will go up.

Cena can afford to take all the losses they can give him, because as soon as he turns heel, all of that is automatically out the window and forgotten, and he will instantly be the top guy again. The value in winning/losing just varies from person to person, depending on their situation. there is no hard and fast rule that 'older guys should always lose to the younger guys.' that is just IWC silliness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
As someone else alredy stated winning and being dominant doesn't mean you'll get over (and the opposite is true as well) look at Daniel Bryan or Santino Marella, not exactly what you call dominant wrestlers (Bryan character is no longer a loser regardless of his 18 seconds loss but he's not a dominant character either) ... and now look at Alberto del Rio who still lacks heat regardless of his talent and wins against big characters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
Whats your views on the whole 'Putting People Over' debate.

I see so much people on here saying, oh he should have put him over.

I myself don't ever think about it, or moan about it. It actually can annoy me that some people think that because a veteran is wrestling and he has already done it all... He should lose to the younger guy to help him progress his career.
I don't agree at all, the younger wrestler's should only beat someone when they are ready.

I tend to try and watch the WWE in a younger fans frame of mind, it just makes the whole expierence better.


Prime examples are CM Punk vs HHH, people went beserk when HHH beat Punk. But lets face it, HHH is a legend of this business and he should always be beating Punk. Just take into account the height / Weight and also acomplishments HHH has had. I thought it made sense.
I don't agree is a huge star coming back to lose to someone lesser than him, just to help him out.
Make your own way to the top by looking more credible, if your not ready, your not ready.

Just wondering where people stand on this?
you know what else is better in a kids point of mind, Felix The Cat the movie, I DARE YOU TO SAY THAT IS A WORTHWHILE EXPERIANCE, without lying of course

saying triple h is better than punk is like saying a boxer is the best at La Capoeira because he can defeat any expert at it in any given confined back alley

also a 40 plus year old cripple doesn't earn crap from already given achivements given from cliques and nepotism alone, idiot
 

·
Harvester of Sorrow
Joined
·
12,360 Posts
In some circumstances it's nice to see a vetern or legend put over a young guy. Recently Sting put over Robert Roode in TNA, and that just adds to Roode's momentum and status as a TNA World Champion. He can say he beat the Icon Sting, and nobody can take that away from him. But at the same time I don't believe it always has to be a vetern putting over a younger star all the time because that just makes things too predictable and forced. Like for instance, i'm happy that The Rock went over Cena at Mania, not because i'm a Rock fan but also because everybody expected Rock to lose at Mania. I do not think it matters who went over. Both guys are big stars in WWE, and Cena losing/winning at Mania wouldn't have changed anything. But because Cena is the younger guy and the face of this generation, people think it was wrong. Give me a break, Rock hadn't wrestled in over 7 years, it was a comeback moment for him and I think it was all the more better for Rock to go over, because all we'd have in the end is stupid Cena rubbing it in The Rock and everyone elses face that he beat him at Mania.

But yeah, as I said it depends. I like seeing passing the torch moments, but I also don't particulary care if the torch isn't passed either. That's why I was always against Undertaker losing the streak to a younger guy and giving him that rub or even losing to Cena.
 

·
I know, it's been a while.
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
you know what else is better in a kids point of mind, Felix The Cat the movie, I DARE YOU TO SAY THAT IS A WORTHWHILE EXPERIANCE, without lying of course

saying triple h is better than punk is like saying a boxer is the best at La Capoeira because he can defeat any expert at it in any given confined back alley

also a 40 plus year old cripple doesn't earn crap from already given achivements given from cliques and nepotism alone, idiot
What an angry little boy you are.
No need for name calling.

You spelt experience wrong, just for the record.

Triple H is better overall than CM Punk, his height and muscle make him more intimidating that Punk. His physique alone makes him more of a threat. You could imagine HHH winning Lesnar, you can’t really see Punk doing that.
HHH has had nothing given to him; you only have to listen to an interview of his to see how passionate about the business he is. He has been picked to beat people because he deserves it.
The guy is a legend in this business. If you’re just going to come back with immature comments about him, I don’t want to hear it.
 

·
Congratulations, you played yourself
Joined
·
9,528 Posts
No. I just watch and enjoy it. There is a time where someone should have put someone over, like Cena/Barrett for instance. Barrett should have became WWE Champion but instead he lost to Cena which stopped his momentum and put him back to the midcard.

But in a case like Rock/Cena? No. I wanted Rock to win because I simply liked him more. Cena has been the face of WWE for 7 years, so how dare people say Rock should have put him over just because he retired. That would have been too cliche and expected. I'm glad Rock won and it was the right choice IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Putting over does NOT mean that you are supposed to lose to the younger talent.

Look what John cena did for the Miz.

He lost to The miz, even though it wasn't clean, it really established The Miz and brought him up, but later on The Miz got fucked up and went down by him self lol.


Putting over actually means that you feud with a younger guy and the younger guy becomes relevant through out the crowd and is considered as a threat to others. And is a bit established
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top