Those jabronis can take a hike and shouldn't be the ones catered to. I offer a disclaimer before this post: I enjoy Roman Reigns. I like his wrestling, I like his character, I dig his vibe. I acknowledge he's a great focal point for WWE, and I still like the faction of the Bloodline itself. So please know that this isn't some weird anti-WWE, "push my guy" stance haha
That said, I wouldn't have seen it as "damned if you do" if they had Cody win at WrestleMania 39. It would have been a satisfying pay off. It would have been putting the world title on a new, white hot face. They built the Bloodline for 3 years. At no point did it seem like any one was a true threat to Roman until WM39, and that was literally by design. WWE made sure that was the case. They placed all the pieces in their respective spots to finally pay off this exquisitely built angle because, yes, despite the common WWE creative direction, stories CAN end. And they literally built a perfect ending, to the point that "finish your story" was practically a catchphrase by the time the match came along. And then... they didn't pull the trigger. They let the expiration date run out, and with Reigns missing from weekly TV, they're now just letting the story get old.
It's just a shame because they didn't let the story get old a single time for 3 years, which isn't common for modern WWE, and now they're just reverting back to the "same old same old" to get Reigns to 1,000 days. It's a big oof.
PizzaTheHutt wrote:> It just would have looked too
> easy.
This particular argument honestly annoys me, just because I've seen it a bunch lately. No offense of course, just a difference in opinion. It's just that winning the Rumble would have been MORE than enough to justify a title win at Mania in ANY other year, so I don't understand why it's being downplayed this year just to give WWE's booking a pass. Batista won the rumble in 2005, then won the title at WM21... did that look too easy? Mysterio in 2006. Austin in 98. Triple H in 2002. And so on, and so forth. It's happened countless times. In my opinion, it wouldn't have seemed "too easy" if Rhodes won the title after winning the Rumble.
But just on top of that, the whole "adversity" argument is so ridiculous. Rhodes has easily faced more adversity in his career than most dudes in his spot. Dusty's whole "hard times" promo was about overcoming REAL LIFE hard times, not just the hard times imposed on your character by a team of lackluster writers.
Cody's adversity:
-Is regulated to midcard for his entire initial WWE run.
-Is given a knockoff Goldust gimmick just to fill time.
-Leaves WWE to forge his own path and build his own name, a lot like his father.
-Travels the globe for years, winning world titles and building his "star" along the way.
-Helps found the second biggest wrestling company in the US, and build a genuine fanbase for that brand.
-Returns to WWE, to an all-time WrestleMania pop.
-Has 3 straight wins over one of WWE's top guys.
-Injures himself, battles through that, then rehabs that serious injury for months upon months.
-Returns, wins the Rumble (which, again, is commonly enough to justify a title win at Mania).
-Is the one guy to get Owens and Zayn to reconcile after years of being enemies, FINALLY GIVING US THE STEENERICO REUNION WE ALL WANTED! (Don't count WrestleMania 34 season pls).
Rhodes should have been booked to win at WrestleMania 39. It was the time to solidify a new top guy in WWE, it was time to end the Bloodline angle. Folks keep saying that Rhodes would have no story to tell if he had won, but he's literally feuded with ONE other guy other than Reigns (until now, with Brock), so just about ANY angle following his hypothetical title win at WM39 would have been fresh story to tell. Roman as champion is the dude with no story to tell unless they sack up and put him against Gunther. Otherwise, it's just spinning tires until he finally drops the belt to whoever. He's gone through any credible member of the roster already. Rhodes should have won at Mania.