This doesn't sound like a controversial opinion at all. To me, it's not. The reason I am asking the question though is the discussions I already mentioned above. In that message board thread there seems to be a lot of, "I like the guy, but..." and "He's a midcard face, but can't be a top guy" types of responses.
Me? I do not get that at all. To that point I said this in that thread after going back and forth about a few issues there.
It it makes me wonder why so many people here think the most over guy on the roster "doesn't belong" in the top tier.The response centered on the idea that people just don't see him as a main eventer due to the booking. As usual this is a function of WWE Creative's inability to get the most out of any of their talent at best. At worst, seeming to actively minimize most talent's assets. You will have to fire the entire roster if being mistreated by WWE Creative in the past disqualifies you as a main eventer in the present or future. Speaking to that point I said the following.
I mean he's one of the few guys bulletproof enough to get over despite Creative's best efforts, and the crowds love him.
What's the problem?
Someone has to main event. Who does it? He's maintained that kind of support of the crowd in spite of all that. He seems like an obvious choice.Fighting the Ambrose thing at this point seems silly. He isn't perfect, few are, but the crowds clearly want to rally behind the guy. He does not have any glaring issues that disqualify him as a top guy in my eyes. I say pull the trigger on the guy and let's see where things go.
That's what I don't get. We don't want the part-timers, we don't want Roman Reigns, we're tired of Cena, Rollins was a failure. At some point SOMEONE has to be at the top. I don't see why Dean Ambrose is somehow unqualified. If he is, I'm not sure who is more qualified.
The weaknesses I see are easily fixable and are by and large nitpicky.
Have him stop spamming the Wacky Line/Lunatic Lariat. If nothing else if it gets countered don't hit later again in the match. That particular move has grown tiresome to me. The other move that I simply do not care for is the bouncing off the bottom turnbuckle to get a head of steam to hit the guy with the forearm in the other corner. I don't know what that is called, but I do not like it at all. It irrationally bothers me to tell the truth.
Also, let's tone down the "LUNATIC FRINGE!" aspect of his character. The whole thing comes off as trying way too hard. Everything he does seems to point to the fact that he's "CRAZY" and it just goes way over the top. This is mostly a criticism of how the commentary team deals with him really.
Something else is over the top and it's his mannerisms. I like Dean. He is my second favorite guy in the company behind Roman Reigns, but the whole thing often comes off kind of hammy. Tone it down a bit and the whole thing is more effective.
One final nitpick is his entrance music. The opening gets a great pop from the crowd and it totally works for him. The problem is that his music is far too repetitive. If they could keep that intro and the rest of it, but stop from repeating the opening so much it would be much better.
Those nitpicks aside I look at Dean Ambrose and see a guy who has a connection with the WWE Universe that is really impressive. If WWE really got behind him I think they could take a good thing and make it great. I hope they do.
"Why not Dean Ambrose?" I cannot think of a single reason.