Obviously, they are critiquing Daniel Bryan as a WWE superstar. I have seen even some Daniel Bryan fans agree that he is a B+ player. He is great in the ring, but his mic skills are lacking. You can also make an issue with his look. Personally, I do not have any huge problem with Daniel Bryan's mic skills or his look. Besides, are these supposed shortcomings really holding him back?
Is this the way they should be grading their workers? When students are taking a test, the teacher isn't critiquing the effort they put into trying to figure out the answer or their penmanship. The most important thing is whether or not they are answering the questions correctly. Even in essays, the teacher is supposed to be looking for how well you can make your point and argue and support it. They are grading students based on their ability to get the job done.
How about we grade Daniel Bryan based on his ability to get the job done? His job is to go out there and perform to connect with the fans. Very over individuals should be getting an A. Considering how insanely over he is, I would even go so far as giving him that A+. Even though I am a Randy Orton fan, I would not grade him that highly. Not right now. There is probably no other full-time performer I would say deserves an A+.
The critics say he is a B+ player, while the results he brings make him an A+ player. Who really wins out in the end? To ask another question, how do you get these two ideas to coexist? Just ignore the critics? Or try your best to fit their standards? I see something else. A while back, I talked about the difference between being efficient and being productive. I said efficiency has more to do with the means to getting the job done, while productivity has to do with actually getting the job done. Assuming you have a critic that really is good at what he does, he can really point out the weak points of whatever he is critiquing that can hinder its overall productivity. Wrestling ability aside, maybe Daniel Bryan is not the most efficient WWE superstar out there, but can you deny his productivity? Meanwhile, there are guys critics can grade higher that are not bringing the results he can. There is nothing wrong with how Daniel Bryan has succeeded with the fans. It's better than being overrated to success.
There is still one more way to look at this grading theme that I want to bring up. This grading can be used to describe the type of career wrestlers are getting. If you are being pushed as the face/centerpiece of the company, you are obviously an A+ player. If you are one of the main-eventers outside of that top position, you are an A player. Top-tier legends, like The Undertaker, can also be considered A+ players. Upper-midcarders can be A-/B+. Midcarders can be a solid B. Lower-midcarders can fall in the C range. If you are one of those guys that are employed and absolutely never get anything to do, you are most likely not going to be kept around when your contract expires, and you are a D or even an F, depending on whether or not you ever get anything at all to do.
How does that translate to the diva division? The A+ career is the centerpiece. The top periphery diva, if there is one, will be an A. Other periphery divas will be B players in the division. Credible jobbers will be C+ or down. They aren't pushed to be over.
What kind of player is Daniel Bryan in the WWE based on how he is pushed? I would say he is an A. Although he is not pushed as the centerpiece, he has been pushed as a top main-eventer for months now. The only thing really stopping this guy from having the career of the centerpiece is that they are not letting him dominate title matters. They might as well just go for it and let him have a legitimate title reign for a few months. And don't bury him under Cena during that span. Treat him as if he were the centerpiece. If he does not work out, then you can have a legitimate reason to not push him that hard again until he does improve himself.
Daniel Bryan is pushed as an A player, viewed as a B+ player critically, and brings A+ results. Are we supposed to take some kind of average of all that? To me, the most important thing is the results you bring. And if you can bring awesome results from a position that is below those results you are bringing, you deserve added respect for that. What would it mean for a lower-midcarder, a C+ guy, to bring those A+ results? And if critics point out all these faults you may have, but you just overcome that to bring the results even those people perfect in the eyes of those critics cannot bring, even more power to you. I still don't consider myself a Daniel Bryan fan, but there is no denying what he has done. Will a legitimate run with the WWE title be in his future?
No comments:
Post a Comment