Monday, December 21, 2009



I will agree. He looks unique. He's got a cartoon-style muscly body and the most contrasted orange-on-white ginger-hair-to-skin ratio I've ever seen on a human being. He talks really well (although, apparently his accent is put on, which explains why it sounds kinda bizarre), and he doesn't look awkward or uncomfortable on camera or in the ring.

But I can't figure out how people are just accepting the way this lad's being booked. I mean, look:


- He "runs through" ECW by defeating jobbers, Goldust, and Shelton Benjamin.

- Shows up on RAW, shoves Mark Yeaton, kicks Jerry Lawler, retires Jamie Noble, who hadn't appeared on TV in weeks.

- Wins "Breakthrough Battle Royal" by eliminating Kofi, who had just eliminated Randy Orton.


- Gets knocked on his ass by gangly weirdo Mark Cuban

- Wins WWE Championship when John Cena falls through a table.



So they then run all of these video packages showing how crazy and dominant and scary Sheamus is. But if anyone were to look at this objectively, they would realize that Sheamus as literally not defeated ANYONE of any kind of importance, with John Cena excluded, because he wasn't pinned, he fell through some furniture.

I'm not trying to whine or be a douchey little smark. I'm just pointing out what feels like the obvious to me, but no one else.

If the angle was "Sheamus is crazy dude, clearly… he destroyed Jamie Noble and attacks people, and has looked impressive in every match, and now he got a lucky break beating Cena. But hey, he has yet to prove himself. He isn't "dominating" until he handily defeats some big names." - then sure. I'm on board. But it's not.

To compare, let's look at a guy who in the past 17 years had the fastest beeline to the WWE Championship: Brock Lesnar (won the title 160 days after his debut - Sheamus? 166.)

Brock showed up similarly to Sheamus. He went nearly undefeated, he attacked people, and was put over as being a crazy bastard (primarily because looking at him, he just clearly was a freak). How does his track record compare to Sheamus' before winning the WWE Title?


- DESTROYS three men by attacking them for his debut

- Defeats Hardy Boys in singles matches, and a tag match with Paul Heyman as his partner

- Wins King of the Ring by defeating Bubba Ray, Booker T, Test and finally RVD in the finals (no match touches the 10 minute mark).

- Defeats the biggest name of all in the DESTRUCTION of "The Immortal" Hulk Hogan. He wipes the Hulkster's blood on his goddamn chest.

- Decisively defeats The Rock at Summerslam for the WWE Title.



If Brock was dominating, how in the hell could Sheamus be dominating? I know we're supposed to forget things from like a year ago, and suspend disbelief… but I didn't think suspending disbelief applied to LOGIC.

What I think has happened is, the main event scene has been so stale for so long that fans and critics alike were ready to give ANYBODY a go as champion, who's name isn't Triple H, Randy Orton or John Cena. I think the standards for matches have been so dummed down, the standards have been lowered so much, that when Sheamus won, it was not only exciting for a lot people, but it was also a "great match."

For me, it's a tough thing to complain about, because everybody is ready to jump down your throat saying it's pushing new talent, blah blah blah. I'm all for pushing new guys. But I'm not all for booking that is so flimsy you can't help but writing a whole frigging blog about it and feel like you just wasted your afternoon DAMNIT THURSDAY RAW THURSDAY.

Check out this blog about wrestlers who sprinted to the WWE Title. I was shocked to see Sheamus was number five.

No comments:

Post a Comment