Outside of my podcasts, I don't write wrestling articles very often, but this week it just so happens that I did. Has been quite well received elsewhere, so some food for thought:

http://placetobenation.com/why-roman...-dory-funk-jr/

Let me know your takes after reading. Note, it's split over four pages.

good article. generally speaking when i post about 50/50 booking i'm talking about/thinking of midcarders but your article really goes to show that nobody, no matter how high up in the card and in spite of whatever else you do to get them over, is immune to the 50/50 booking model. not only does reigns not get the benefit of a long winning streak but the wins he does have are against guys who have a hard time winning themselves. big difference from dory and backlund who racked up wins vs goes who were very successful in their own right.

i was going to say reigns has many other shortfalls aside from his W-L record and that i'm not sure if booking his matches properly would've made a big difference, but goldberg is a pretty good example of a guy who basically brought nothing to the table other than a long winning streak and was super over anyway.

Lord,

nice article. Didn't know you podcasted, will have to check it out.

Interesting take. The business hasn't changed as much as Vince would like it to have changed.

Reigns is pretty terrible, and he just doesn't have that "it" factor. Whatever that may be.

He's the worst written character in the last 20 years.

I guess in this context, "it", is a heel turn.

Reigns definitely isn't the greatest in the ring or mic but he's not terrible. He's not someone completely useless that you can't do anything with like Alex Riley for example. People cheered him for 2 years in the Shield.

I'm clearly not his biggest fan but if they gave him a silent monster type gimmick that doesn't do the same routine offense and he could do very well imo.

I guess the question is how this works when you put in a Cena comparison - you couldn't argue he hasn't been strongly booked (lolcenawins), but he doesn't get over with the smark crowd.

I will also say, I watch with my 9 year old who knows nothing of IWC, and he lives and dies for Roman.

I don't really agree with the premise or conclusions and think, if anything, Roman's issue has been being booked too strong, to the point that it was transparent that he was getting pushed and made to look godly behind the scenes. I do think wins and losses matter, but Reigns beating everyone in sight wouldn't have gotten him over, since the initial backlash was due to the perception that WWE was putting him over people the crowd actually liked at any cost.

The issue with Reigns is more just that his "character" (whatever it is) doesn't resonate with most WWE fans, who aren't really into the superhero act anymore and prefer someone like Daniel Bryan who is hard-working, skilled in the ring, and "real."

Imo, the entire reason he is terrible on the mic is because he is a natural heel trying to be an unnatural face.

He is a smug, arrogant, golden boy who thinks people who hate him are jealous. Why the hell he is a face is beyond me.

They have a grudging respect for him and generally have to admit he's had a lot good of matches.

I am reminded of a quote from Roger Ebert that went something like this:

He was reviewing the Mel Gibson movie Payback, in which the director had claimed that he (the director) had wanted to make a movie about a bad guy, but not apologize for him. Ebert's response was that if you cast Mel Gibson as your bad guy, you don't have to make the same apologies as you would if he were played by, say, James Woods.

His point was that people onscreen have an inherent personality to them - and booking them against that personality only works if a) it's done in small doses, and b) the actor in question has a fair amount of skill and range.

To expand on Eskimo's point, Vince's biggest problem is trying to dictate who is heel and face, even against the natural bent that each performer has. There's a reason that Orton and Jericho have a tendency to migrate back towards heel...the same way that imo, Cena will never be a convincing heel.

Reigns has the look of a heel. AMBROSE looks like a face...in the way that there seems to be a smirk looming beneath the surface with him all the time. Reigns looks like he thinks he should be somewhere else...somewhere better...so go with that, and make him a heel. A heel turn on the new champion Ambrose (whenever that happens) would even make narrative sense.

Wasn't Cena a heel quite a while during his Thuganomics days?

And a lot of other known babyfaces or heels had extended runs playing the other side. Flair was a babyface during his Terry Funk feud and Harley Race 83 feud. Sting started off as a heel with Warrior and later Gilbert. Rhodes started as a heel during his tag team days with Murdoch. Hogan was a heel in WWWF and AWA before his WWF run and of course turned heel for his NWO run. Lawler was babyface in Memphis and a heel in WWF, etc. Steamboat is the only babyface I can think of who never had a heel run

It's this weird limbo where we feel like WWE wants him to be The Man but hasn't put the work into him to be The Man.

If in 2014 Rusev screwed him out of the Rumble, he beats Rusev at Mania for the US Title and then takes on all challengers on the way to the 2015 Rumble, it might have worked.