Post your most controversial Wresting Opinions!

[Ali]

- Finn Balor doesn't do much for me besides the face paint.

You remind me of my opposite opinion: Demon Finn Balor is stupid. Dark red lighting, smoke, face paint, weird creepy crawling... its just The Boogeyman except without the staff and clock. And we're supposed to take him seriously. I don't.

Also, I miss The Boogeyman. Not saying I want him on TV every week, but having him show up every so often would be fun. I miss fun.

[The Legend]

My most controversial opinion is probably:

Everyone isn't better as a heel. Wrestling would suck if everyone was a heel.

[ShaneOfan]

-Calling certain wrestlers by their real name doesn't make you "cool" doesn't make you "in the know" it makes you a douche bag. I see it happen the most with Daniel Bryan. His character is Daniel Bryan, you know his real name is Bryan Danielson. Yet those same people do not call Undertaker "Mark Calaway". Or Stone Cold Steve Austin "Steve Williams". If I told you one of the best movements in wrestling was when Oscar Gutierrez beat Mike Lockwood for his first title reign, very few of those people would have any clue what I was going on about.

-Roman Reigns is the second highest merchandise seller the company has. The first is John Cena. Until you can convince WWE to stop liking money, neither is becoming a massive heel. Booing a guy who busts his ass to entertain and to live his dream because you don't like what his bosses do is dumb and frankly disrespectful.

-Not everyone deserves to be champ. Some guys should only ever be the guy who puts the other guys over. And just because a guy is your favorite does not make him criminally under used. If it were up to the fans the current WWE Champion would be Daniel Brya... I mean Bray Wya... Cesa... Rollins... no I meant to say Dean Amb... or Finn Balor. And while we are at it doesn't Kofi/Big E/Owens/CM Punk really deserve a run?

-Speaking of Punk, he is one of the most overrated wrestlers ever. The pipe bomb was a scripted incident and you got played. He is also a self righteous asshole. WWE didn't screw him over. He didn't get his way so he took his ball and went home like all punks do.

[Messiah]

Roman Reigns is the second highest merchandise seller the company has. The first is John Cena. Until you can convince WWE to stop liking money, neither is becoming a massive heel.

Do people really think Reigns sells the second highest merchandise because he is the second most marketable/liked?

It is easy to sell a high volume of merchandise when you have the most merchandise being advertised and made. A lot of other guys don't even have more than one shirt.

Hell, honestly, I don't even see that many people in crowds wearing Reigns merchandise like you used to see with Cena. I'm pretty sure if someone like Balor was marketed as heavily as Reigns is, he would sell the same amount if not more merchandise.

And I like Reigns. Nothing against him. But he simply isn't anywhere close to Cena in popularity. At least you could understand and see why a portion of the crowd liked him (kids), and you heard it in his reactions. Cena, unless he was in a complete smark-town, was getting cheered or mixed reactions for the most part. Reigns is rarely not completely booed. There is no reason to like Reigns. And that is why people boo. I don't see why it is disrespectful to boo just because they are working hard, I mean if it wasn't for the crowd being vocal, the Women's Revolution would have taken even longer to start.

[Messiah]

When it comes down to putting together an entertaining match, there is nobody better than Neville. In my opinion, he is without a doubt the most talented wrestler on the roster. I'm so happy he is getting more time to shine on weekly television and PPVs.

John Cena matches since the United States Championship Open Challenges have mostly sucked. His series with Owens aside from the first one sucked. They were all the same thing and had absolutely zero psychology.

Sheamus is one of the best all-around wrestlers on the roster. Criminally underrated. Very good in the ring and on the mic while being one of the best at character portrayal. Not sure why so many people dislike him.

Hideo Itami is boring as hell.

[VaderBomb]

-Calling certain wrestlers by their real name doesn't make you "cool" doesn't make you "in the know" it makes you a douche bag. I see it happen the most with Daniel Bryan. His character is Daniel Bryan, you know his real name is Bryan Danielson. Yet those same people do not call Undertaker "Mark Calaway". Or Stone Cold Steve Austin "Steve Williams". If I told you one of the best movements in wrestling was when Oscar Gutierrez beat Mike Lockwood for his first title reign, very few of those people would have any clue what I was going on about.
.

His wrestling name was Bryan Danielson for unarguably the best and longest portion of his professional wrestling career. Sure, call him Daniel Bryan if you're talking about his WWE tenure, but to refer to all of that amazing stuff before as DB is not only incorrect but would be giving WWE far too much credit.

Using names like Oscar Gutierrez or Mike Lockwood as examples doesn't work. Those guys didn't work the majority of their careers under their real names. Daniel Bryan however, did.

[SlightlyJames]

Roman Reigns is the second highest merchandise seller the company has. The first is John Cena. Until you can convince WWE to stop liking money, neither is becoming a massive heel. Booing a guy who busts his ass to entertain and to live his dream because you don't like what his bosses do is dumb and frankly disrespectful.

Booing a guy who's not particularly compelling and we've been given very little reason to actually like isn't disrespectful, it's natural. He's not a particularly good babyface at the moment, if you like him fair enough but the majority of the people in attendance at most venues he performs in disagree.

You can make the argument that he's the second biggest merch seller behind Cena, and that sure sounds great, but when you take into account the fact that for about three years now the company's focus has been Roman, and he's still only second best? Not particularly inspiring as a top guy. I have a hard time believing many of his peers wouldn't do a better job, given the same unfaltering support Roman has received in his time at the top.

Not forgetting that said support for Roman often amounts to undercutting other performers who begin to attract a following of their own, confiscating anti-Roman signs and turning down crowd mics to pretend the reactions he gets aren't so bad. It's absolutely fucking suffocating feeling like you're not allowed any agency over whether you like this fuckin guy, even if he wasn't as mediocre of a character as he is I would still feel inclined to voice displeasure at that kind of bullshit, and the most natural way to do that is to boo Roman.

Also, live his dream? I guess that's why he only started wrestling after American Football didn't work out :s

[SlightlyJames]

When it comes down to putting together an entertaining match, there is nobody better than Neville. In my opinion, he is without a doubt the most talented wrestler on the roster. I'm so happy he is getting more time to shine on weekly television and PPVs.

I have to agree with this one. He's always been a fantastic performer in the ring but for a while there was something missing for him. I don't think it's a coincidence that his most well loved and successful periods in the company were as champion.

His run on top in NXT is to date my most fondly remembered time of that entire show, and again with the Cruiserweights he's carrying that entire division and putting in fantastic performances.

There's just something else to his game when he's holding a title. I hope at some point down the line he can get a real run at one of the top belts. Most realistically on Smackdown considering how things have played out with that show.

[Headlesspete]

Roman Reigns is quite good, and consistently puts on quite entertaining matches. A lot of fans just hate him because it's the fashionable thing to do.

Kelly Kelly was one of the best Divas WWE have had in some time, but she never seemed to receive the recognition she deserved. On the other hand, Beth Phoenix was praised as if she was a female Bret Hart, when she botched moves on the regular and was often quite dangerous in the ring.

I don't disagree maybe there are some fans that hate on Reigns and likewise Cena because its the "cool" thing to do, but I hate the idea you think a majority of fans do this. Its the exact same bullshit I heard about Cena. Well I can tell you from the numerous WWE events I've attended and fans I've spoken to, people hate Cena and now Reigns for genuine reasons that people here have explained. I've never hated on either of these two because it was the "in thing", I hated them because they flat out sucked!

And Kelly Kelly is everything that was ever wrong with the WWE "Diva" era. She was awful on the microphone, she couldn't wrestle anything above a 1 star match, she botched more moves than she hit and she couldn't run the ropes to save her god damn life. Beth had to carry this woman to decent matches and yeah, Beth wasn't Bret Hart, but she was damn sure more entertaining and enjoyable to watch than Kelly.

Another one I thought of:

Austin's heel turn in 2001 may have been poorly done, but it was sorely needed. Whenever I go back and watch the WWE from around that time period, baby-face Austin just didn't fit in well. I know a lot of people say the Attitude Era ended at WrestleMania 17, which is fair, but the product in 1998/1999 was nothing like it was in 2000. So much changed in that year and so when Austin came back, it just felt like there was something missing with him. I don't know, he was kind of dull. When he turned heel, yeah they could have done some things differently, but he delivered far more interesting segments than he had in the months prior after his return and his matches were fantastic. His clashes with Benoit and Angle were amazing.

Austin in 2001 is one of my favorite runs by a wrestler ever. He could do no wrong.

Massively agree with this one. I think WWE took a massive risk in trying this, and while it didn't pay off the way they wanted, I always thought it was a decent effort. And its reminded me of another controversial opinion.

- The WWE vs Alliance angle of 2001 was fantastic! No it wasn't the greatest storyline in the world that it should have been, and there's so many issues with it from a storyline and logical sense that its easy to see why others hated it. But my 11 year old self still thinks its the greatest angle he's ever seen.

- Despite the many booking problems, TNA Impact was consistently better week-to-week than Raw or Smackdown during 2010-2013.
- Triple H vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 32 was good.
- I was perfectly okay with CM Punk dropping the title to The Rock.
- HBK vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 25 is one of the greatest matches of all time.

- 100% agree on Impact vs WWE. Infact, I'd argue Impact was consistently better than WWE up until around 2015.
- Triple H vs Reigns was aperfectly acceptable mid-card match on a B show Pay Per View. It wasn't a WrestleMania main event .
- Why? Like honestly, I'm curious how your OK with that? It not only undercut the fact Punk had been champion for so long, it also gave us Cena vs Rock II!
- And that's not a controversial opinion, that's a fact!

[ShaneOfan]

-Calling certain wrestlers by their real name doesn't make you "cool" doesn't make you "in the know" it makes you a douche bag. I see it happen the most with Daniel Bryan. His character is Daniel Bryan, you know his real name is Bryan Danielson. Yet those same people do not call Undertaker "Mark Calaway". Or Stone Cold Steve Austin "Steve Williams". If I told you one of the best movements in wrestling was when Oscar Gutierrez beat Mike Lockwood for his first title reign, very few of those people would have any clue what I was going on about.
.

His wrestling name was Bryan Danielson for unarguably the best and longest portion of his professional wrestling career. Sure, call him Daniel Bryan if you're talking about his WWE tenure, but to refer to all of that amazing stuff before as DB is not only incorrect but would be giving WWE far too much credit.

Using names like Oscar Gutierrez or Mike Lockwood as examples doesn't work. Those guys didn't work the majority of their careers under their real names. Daniel Bryan however, did.

Then why don't people say Tyler Black, Pac or Jon Moxley?

[KaiserGlider]

- I was perfectly okay with CM Punk dropping the title to The Rock.

- Why? Like honestly, I'm curious how your OK with that? It not only undercut the fact Punk had been champion for so long, it also gave us Cena vs Rock II!

I don't see how losing to The Rock undercut Punk at all; by that point Punk had been champion for so long that there was nothing left for him to do but drop it to someone. And at that time, I don't think there was anybody on the roster more suited to taking it off him that The Rock, who was coming off a win against Cena in the main event of Wrestlemania 28 and was super over. Ryback wasn't ready. Daniel Bryan wasn't ready. The roster in general was very thin on babyfaces that could fill that spot. The only thing about PunkRock that was disappointing to me was maybe the quality of their match - it could have been better. But at the same time, Rock's win got a massive pop, so Punk's reign went out on a high note. In a perfect world Punk would have lost at Mania to an up-and-comer, but I was okay with what we got.

Cena/Rock II wasn't ideal but it wasn't bad either. Rock couldn't stick around after Wrestlemania, so if the alternative was to have him win the belt there and then not show up until the summer (like Lesnar right now), I'd glad we got what we did. CM Punk's idea of being eliminated early in a Cena/Rock/Punk triple threat would have made him look a hell of a lot worse than what he ended up doing on that show, which was having a great match with The Undertaker.

[Messiah]

Then why don't people say Tyler Black, Pac or Jon Moxley?

I really don't think you realize how popular and well-known Bryan Danielson was. Those three are footnotes in comparison.

Danielson was the indys. Year in and year out, he was considered by everyone to be the best wrestler in the world, he was a founding father of ROH, and won what felt like hundreds of wrestling awards. It is understandable why some people still call him Bryan Danielson. I don't do it, but I see why some would. It is instinctual at that point.

I guarantee you that the same thing would happen if they tried to change AJ Styles' name (personally, I would still call him AJ Styles) or CM Punk when he came to the WWE. Those guys became so popular under those names that changing them would be unfathomable.

[VaderBomb]

-Calling certain wrestlers by their real name doesn't make you "cool" doesn't make you "in the know" it makes you a douche bag. I see it happen the most with Daniel Bryan. His character is Daniel Bryan, you know his real name is Bryan Danielson. Yet those same people do not call Undertaker "Mark Calaway". Or Stone Cold Steve Austin "Steve Williams". If I told you one of the best movements in wrestling was when Oscar Gutierrez beat Mike Lockwood for his first title reign, very few of those people would have any clue what I was going on about.
.

His wrestling name was Bryan Danielson for unarguably the best and longest portion of his professional wrestling career. Sure, call him Daniel Bryan if you're talking about his WWE tenure, but to refer to all of that amazing stuff before as DB is not only incorrect but would be giving WWE far too much credit.

Using names like Oscar Gutierrez or Mike Lockwood as examples doesn't work. Those guys didn't work the majority of their careers under their real names. Daniel Bryan however, did.

Then why don't people say Tyler Black, Pac or Jon Moxley?

I can't speak for everyone but I would call them by their original names if I were watching a Tyler Black, Pac or Jon Moxley match from their pre-WWE careers. If I was discussing a WWE segment or match I'd call them by their newer WWE names.

Like I said in the other post, if you watch a Pac match and call him Neville you are incorrect and giving WWE too much credit. Sure, it's the same guy but why not respect the dude and call him by the name he chose at the time? With that being said, I don't even think it matters much and I wouldn't call somebody out for saying the wrong name, but I don't see the point in being hostile or annoyed at somebody who watches Danielson work ROH/PWG/Japan etc. and refer to him by the name that he uses.