|
|
Post by arthuradams2002 on Apr 23, 2010 21:01:20 GMT -5
I liked how the feud was built around Batista being jealous because he could never been as popular as Cena. It worked because when both were babyfaces on different shows, Cena had been the bigger babyface with all the merchandise and movie appearances. They only had one other match, and that was when both were faces, so this was fresh. The storyline wasn't build around a championship, but they threw it in at the last minute to give the storyline some padding. What comes to the top of my mind is Savage/Warrior at WM 7. The rivalry was a classic in itself, and didn't need to be fought over a title to draw interest. Do you also feel that the Bastisa/Cena angle was good enough without the title being added to it ?
What do I think would have been better ? Have Sheamus will the Chamber by a fluke, then go on to face The Game at WM. It wasn't even like Sheamus was a transitional champion because it didn't seem to mean anything when Bastisa got it back. Here is a guy they built up as the most unlikely champion, just have him drop it to an angle that doesn't need a championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2010 22:53:12 GMT -5
Exactly what I've been saying all along. Sheamus should still be champion right now, the fact that he didn't even get a rematch makes me puke. Cena doesn't need a title, Batista doesn't need a title. Sheamus NEEDED to show people that his win wasn't a fluke. Instead he was winning all his matches against everybody worth a damn by DQ/countout, and if he won clean, they would say "Oh, his foot slipped off the rope" or some other lame excuse.
It's their fault Sheamus' reign flopped.
|
|
jamielowndes {N}
Unicron
The following post has been paid for by the Nexus World Order
Posts: 3,240
|
Post by jamielowndes {N} on Apr 24, 2010 3:27:08 GMT -5
What I don't like is the Hogan Era-esque unwillingness of the bookers to let Cena lose clean. Can anyone even name his last feud that didnt involve a belt? Having Cena in the title mix neuters every opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris the Bambikiller on Apr 24, 2010 4:26:29 GMT -5
Who is Bastisa?
Anyway, I don't think Sheamus' reign was a failure, they portrayed him as a very dangerous man who can surprise anyone with a win, and he still is.
|
|
|
|
Post by supercarl90 on Apr 24, 2010 5:15:36 GMT -5
What I don't like is the Hogan Era-esque unwillingness of the bookers to let Cena lose clean. Can anyone even name his last feud that didnt involve a belt? Having Cena in the title mix neuters every opponent. This i agree with. The last time he was in a feud without the title, I think it was against Big Show at Judgment Day and Extreme Rules 2009. As for the last time he lost clean I couldnt even guess that. And i most certainly agree having cena in the title mix does indeed do nothing for the opponent he faces. |
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Apr 24, 2010 5:39:06 GMT -5
I think you have a point about it not needing the belt, because I loved this feud. The fact it was over the belt made no difference and in fact made me angrier, because I wanted Batista to win but knowing the title was involved meant I knew for sure that Batista would just lose the belt to Cena at Mania.
|
|
