Spoiler Roman Vs. Show - Did they book this right?

Discussion in 'RAW' started by CM Punk, Feb 2, 2015.

  1. [​IMG]

    Okay, if you've seen RAW, then you obviously saw that Big Show defeat Roman Reigns via interference.
    Roman lost via a light hit on the back with a plastic briefcase and a chokeslam? And of all people, he lost to fucking Big Show? In their defense, they'll probably think that since Roman was blindsided, he hasn't had a legitimate loss.

    Now when I saw this, I was pretty mad as it seemed like dumb booking decision. At first I was picturing that they would book "The Powerhouse" Roman Reigns Vs. "The Beast" Brock Lesnar. Both men have been booked really strong since 2013.

    • Extreme Rules 2013 defeating HHH
    • Summerslam 2013 defeating CM Punk
    • Royal Rumble 2014 squashing Big Show
    • Wrestlemania XXX defeating The Undertaker and ending his streak
    • Summerslam 2014 destroying John Cena for the WWE Championship
    • Night of Champions retaining his Championship
    • Royal Rumble defeating both John Cena and Seth Rollins
    • Roman Reigns from Survivor Series 2013 being the sole survivor and eliminating 4 competitors
    • Defeated CM Punk in a singles match at RAW Goes Old School 2014
    • Royal Rumble 2014 eliminating 12 competitors and being part of the last two survivors
    • Being undefeated in singles match till basically now and defeating the likes of Randy Orton, Kane, Seth Rollins, Alberto Del Rio, CM Punk, etc.
    • Was placed in the WWE Championship ladder match at MITB 2014
    • Superstar of the Year 2014
    • Winning the Royal Rumble 2015

    You get the jist of what I'm trying to get across. They've both been booked fairly well ever since, so you would expect a match where all of this comes into fruition at Wrestlemania where it's a Streak Vs. Streak scenario. But now we have Roman Reigns losing to Big Show in the most horrific way ever. Getting hit in the back ON HIS BACK with a plastic briefcase and getting chokeslammed. And there are two things that bother me with this.

    1. Roman wears a vest. How on earth would that even remotely hurt?
    2. He lost to Big Show by one Chokeslam alone

    Now coming into RAW, we know that Roman will have to defend his Wrestlemania event spot against either Rollins or Daniel Bryan at Fast Lane. So it's my best bet to believe that they're trying to make it seem that Roman is not invincible heading onto Fast Lane or even Mania. Now would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

    For one, people complain that Roman is booked way too strong and that he should lose sometime, which is right. We do the same complaining about Cena. But was it a good idea to book him like this heading into Mania? In my defense, it might be a minor detour where he is booked like this to make the Fast Lane PPV less predictable on who's going out the winner. But we all know Roman is winning that match.

    I think I'm in the middle of him losing. For one, I wanted to see Streak Vs. Streak. But on the other hand, we know that Roman is not invincible.

    So was it the right decision to have Reigns lose now?
  2. :nope:

    This feud should've ended last week on SmackDown. Reigns defeated Show, end of story. Move on.

    How about booking Reigns with someone who is still relevant?

    But nah, fuck that. Let's have him feud with Big Show for at least a year.
  3. I think it might be a way to calm the those who might think he's going to become a super-man.
  4. Yes, it did suck. Why the hell would Reigns lose to BIG SHOW? Good gosh, not even a point to this, unless Reigns is turning then it's a bit less stupid. No reason to do this at all, having your new star (hated or not) get pinned by Show. As far as the interference, yes, it was just a hit on the back, but granted that throughout the years, when there's interference, it seems like one punch from the dude interfering hurts worse than the finish of the dude who's in the match :dawg: so it's not the first time.
  5. Terrible booking decision. Reigns is booked to be this powerful warrior who's gonna "beat the 1 in 21-1", so why decide to job him out (dirty or not) only a couple of months before that's set to happen? You keep him undefeated in singles competition all this time and think NOW is the time to have him lose?

    Thankfully it was just a random match on Raw so they can easily sweep this loss under the rug, but still. Little things like this annoy me.
  6. Shit booking throughout the night, really. This match was no exception.
  7. Guess it'll all be forgotten when he turns, but still:

    This contributed nothing, sucked a lot, drove away viewers, and didn't make Reigns look either sympathetic or strong. Didn't really set up the show-closing angle.
    If you had replaced this match with 5 Popeye's Chicken ads the show would have had a net benefit.
  8. Surely you realize this simply isn't happening, right?
  9. Discussed it in the thread. Can they continue pushing him as a face after the way he was booked when the show started?

    Which you'd reply with "Don't book that crap in the first place". Of course, but what's done is done.
  10. Nothing about his booking to open the show said heel to me. Not even close. What made you think that?
  11. I don't think he's a heel tbh. More of himself vs. the world type of character.
    Similar to Ryback's first run.
  12. You know, people keep on saying that Roman is being pushed to be the next Cena, but I relate it more to Orton's push in 2010. Well character wise at least.
  13. I would be booking Roman to tear apart everyone in his push to WM31 vs Brock. This way you could book the match along the lines of the unmovable object vs the unstoppable force. For me it would really take that type of booking to show that Roman was the one to take down brock, I think over all they are bowing down to the fans far far too much in this moment.
  14. I thought it was pretty dumb to have him lose to Big Show right then. But I thought the whole set up was stupid. Roman Reigns may not have been the guy I wanted to be in the main event at Wrestlemania, but he won the Rumble and belongs in the title match. Having him defend it irritates me.

    Now, the reason I bring that up when it was not the question that was asked is that I doubt he would have lost to the Big Show if they weren't messing around with the Wrestlemania main event like they are. I think it's an attempt to make the eventual main event seem ambiguous for a while. Perhaps by throwing Daniel Bryan and Seth Rollins into the mix WWE might think the eventual outcome will seem less predictable. And then by having Reigns lose to the Big Show to make the people who were vocally against Reigns when he won think that WWE might be leaning towards replacing him in the main event (which for the record would piss me off. The Royal Rumble is supposed to mean something and I really hate when they do this crap).

    I don't know. I guess only time will tell, but I think it was a pretty poor decision to have him lose to Big Show so early on. I know some of the posts people have pondered that perhaps WWE is trying to make Reigns seem less invincible. I don't think that is necessary when his opponent is Brock Lesnar. At this point I think that the actual Superman would not look invincible if his opponent was going to be Brock Lesnar.

    Whatever the reasons are, they shouldn't have done that to Reigns.

  15. You've over-thought this a tad.
  16. I legitimately thought that the Show/Reigns feud was over after Reigns victory on Smackdown and then I heard Show's music and I just completely tuned out, that one match, no matter what the outcome was, ruined RAW for me and the fact that Show actually won in the stupidest way possible just makes it even worse.

  17. Will you ever find your smile again?
  18. Only if you send me a naked photo showing your greased up tailpipe.
  19. So sorry, but that's not in the cards.
  20. Yeah, it's probably just bad booking. lol
    I don't want to always criticize, so I just see what reason they might want to do this. Doesn't necessarily mean I'll like it.