Norman Reigns is pretty bad. But it's not supposed to be good. 


How you figure? He's versatile, has exceptional mic skills and managed to get over and connect with the crowd in every situation they stuck him in. That's already better than the vast majority of the roster. The only reason you think of him as less than is because you've let yourself get worked by WWE's nonsense. Once again, who gets pushed and who gets buried has almost nothing to do with talent.
Norman Reigns is pretty bad. But it's not supposed to be good.![]()
What the fukk happened to this thread?
The mostIs there a thread about nickname fails? Noman and Cripple H have to be the lead-offs
On the flip side, Michael Heavenbottom is![]()
nickname ever. 
nah she improved i like her recent match on NXT vs asuka and the one vs bliss wasnt badThat Tough Enough shyt was a mess and it showed for the 2 seconds she was on that show. Clearly, WWE got whatever they could out of her with Total Divas but it's not like she was gonna improve as a wrestler

No one said anything about genre-defining anything. He was talented and above-average, which is more than you can say for other guys they keep and often push. Particularly he was good on the mic and connecting with the crowd [getting over] which are two qualities that WWE and more often WWE apologists trot out to try to explain why guys do and dont succeed. Situations like this prove those excuses are just that.im not getting worked. I been watching wrestling since 91. nikkas are acting like he was a era defining talent. He was ok.
Is there a thread about nickname fails? Noman and Cripple H have to be the lead-offs
On the flip side, Michael Heavenbottom is![]()

ron killings is.
