randy orton

[OctoberRaven]

Now whose putting words in mouth?

I said he was an EXAMPLE of the worst in the industry. He got to where he is by contributing ZERO (and yes, he contributes zero. He doesn't do anything special either in or out of the ring that makes him deserving of anything other than a dark match jobber role) to the product, taking 10 minuites to do a 5 minuite match, and pushed solely on his name and look.

The only difference between him and Sid Vicious, is Sid's daddy wasn't a wrestler.

You can take any of the schmucks in FCW, shave their head, and name them "Randy Orton" and nobody could tell the difference. Well, except match quality will skyrocket.

It's not entirely his fault, as some have said. WWE has completely forgotten how to think long term. They pretty much book by ratings, which is what WCW did in 1999 when they lost twelve million dollars a year. They don't even know what they're going to do half the time! It won't be long until Kane attacks Undertaker and they feud YET AGAIN, which you may claim you want, but it will just be the exact same thing over and over. If that's what you want, watch Blue's Clues.

[jroma1]

1. He got to where he is by contributing ZERO (and yes, he contributes zero. He doesn't do anything special either in or out of the ring that makes him deserving of anything other than a dark match jobber role) to the product, taking 10 minuites to do a 5 minuite match, and pushed solely on his name and look.

2. You can take any of the schmucks in FCW, shave their head, and name them "Randy Orton" and nobody could tell the difference. Well, except match quality will skyrocket.

I'm taking the following two statements separately, hence the numbering.

1.
Where is your evidence that he contributes nothing? What backs that up? Just saying "well, watch the matches!" isn't backup. Show me INSTANCES, show me PROOF, that he conributes nothing in the ring. And if you come back with little YouTube clips of him botching things, that's not convincing, as you can find clips of ANYONE botching things that should be relatively simple. Hell, Randy Savage, who was an in-ring PERFECTIONIST in his prime, botched things. No one is infallible.

Your next question will be, "well, show me instances of things he DOES contribute!". No worries.

How about one of the best dropkicks in the business?
How about bringing back the Garvin Stomp?
How about his Rope Hung DDT? (Gimmick-y but looks pretty devastating compared to a normal DDT)
How about his Inverted Headlock Backbreaker?
How about his mic skills? They're not the best, but they don't have to be. He does an effective enough job on the mic to get by, and has even had flashes of brilliance in some promos.
^^^ Note that NONE of these things have to be overly sold by the opponent. As such, they live and die by how ORTON performs them. You cannot say he contributes nothing, when clearly he DOES contribute.

And as far as "taking 10 minutes to do a 5-minute match", have you stopped to consider the "fault" you just claimed? You think it would be better served as a 5-minute match? Short matches (ie. less WRESTLING) just leads to more non-wrestling on TV, which WWE already has too much of. So you're essentially criticizing him for being methodical in his matches, which is just a stupid criticism. Yup, let's just do nothing but Goldberg matches, even when it doesn't fit the character. Great idea.

2.
Again, not a claim that you have any chance of proving. You don't know that. You can SAY it, but you don't KNOW it. I'd say try, but you can't. I'd tell the WWE to try, but they wouldn't. And your attempt to use over-exaggeration to try and make your claim seem more valid - "match quality will skyrocket" - fails miserably, because again, it's not something you can PROVE, only something you can assume and infer.



Your arguments clearly fall into the category of "I don't like the guy so I'm going to find reasons to bash him". I'm not even an Orton fan, but I'll defend virtually any pro wrestler from people who just rag on them for the sake of ragging. I think he could be more effective (or deserved a longer run) as a face where he doesn't have to be in control of the matches, where he can absorb and continue to grow. But let's not forget that dude's still only 29 - he has at least another 7-8 year run in him (barring injury). He still has time and room to grow. We've all agreed that he's been pushed too far for the skill set that he has, and he's likely gotten there MOSTLY by his name. But not solely. That's my whole point.

[OctoberRaven]

What I obviously meant by taking 10 minuites to do a five minuite match was that he takes too long to tell a story of any interest.

And for f---s sake, will people stop pointing to that friggin' backbreaker as a reason why he's good? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was "Above Average" Mike Sanders' finisher. In other words, he's NOT innovative as people want to claim. And if taking signature moves from guys who the average WWE mark never heard of makes you a good wrestler, Jim Morrison and CM Punk must be the best guys in WWE because that's all they do. Heck, Morrison's entire moveset reads like an indy show highlight reel. And I don't know him personally but I would think Ronnie Garvin facepalms when he sees Orton use his stomp.

Meanwhile, someone who is ACTUALLY innovative, Matt "They changed my name just to give me a stupid pun catchphrase" Sydal is stripped of a lot of the spots that got HIM over in the indies, so he comes off as another vanilla high flyer, which he isn't. Granted I can see why they bar him from using the "Here It Is" Driver due to Vince's unofficial ban on piledrivers for guys not Undertaker and Lawler (which is stupid, but that's an entirely different subject), but what I've seen from Sydal in the E isn't even half of what he can do.

And best dropkick in the business? Compared to who, Maven? As much as I hate to give credit to AJ "Overrated" Styles, he's got a MUCH more crisp dropkick than Orton and that's just off the top of my head.

And Mic Skills? He's a good interview like Keanu Reeves is a good actor.

Orton's still better than Linda McMahon, at least.

People who ARE better interviews, well, besides the entire CHIKARA Roster especially UltraMantis Black, Nigel "What kind of a name is Desmond Wolfe" McGuiness is one too.

...Though, if he had just added an "U-dududu-dududu-dududu-duduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" to the end of that promo I'd have called it the best moment in American Mainstream Wrestling in the past ten years, so take that for what you will.

[TheLordReaper]

Orton isn't innovative no, but how many WWE stars are?

I agree he takes his time in the ring, but I think that's more a part of his persona than anything. I also agree entirely with the point about Matt Sydal, it's a shame. This said, WWE has done it with other stars before, other very genuine stars.

CM Punk though, hmmm he has some pretty good stuff, but he's a stripped down version of the indy CM Punk :/

EDIT: And yea Punks GTS is terrible >_>

[Amen]

Well to make another short comment that probably won't be noticed:

Since WWE now is PG, they want wrestlers that children can understand and idolize. They want 5 move wrestlers who suck at everything but seem entertaining towards kids. Go back and watch an old childrens show, you'll notice it's way worse then you remember it. Everything seems flashy when you're 3 ft 3, fat, named Tom and a standard American wrestling mark kid.

[OctoberRaven]

HEY NOW WAIT A SECOND.

Rocko's Modern Life is still awesome.

[jroma1]

More words being put into mouths. Who said he was "innovative"? You're the first person to use that word in this thread.

Big difference between a guy who contributes things to matches and a guy who is considered "innovative". You have to contribute to be innovative, but you don't necessarily have to be innovative to contribute. Innovation is a new creation/adaptation - contribution is a donation of SOMETHING, that doesn't necessarily have to be something new. A guy could do nothing new -- see, John Cena -- but still contribute heavily to his matches. You're making counterpoints to a point that was never made. Otherwise known as skirting the points that WERE made.

And as far as mic skills - I'd love to see you try to make ANY negative points (that are above the level of generalization) about the promo Orton just cut on RAW not two minutes ago with Legacy vs. MVP, Henry, and Kofi. If you missed it, find a video, watch it, and I'll be on the edge of my seat.

If you plain don't like the dude, just say you don't like the dude. That's all you have to say. You don't have to try and wax philosophic or go into any more detail - rather, what you feel in your own mind is "detail" - just say you don't like him. That would have been the end of it. Instead, here we are.