|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 26, 2012 19:01:34 GMT -5
This whole thing would be a colossal disappointment if they really do go ahead with Rock/Cena II. I mean how obvious is it that Rock would lose this one? We didn't know for sure with the last one, which made it fun. But this time around...there's no friggin' way Cena is losing to Rock again. And this ain't exactly a Streak match we're talking about here, which is an exception to the predictability rule due to the nature of what it is. The enjoyment of this falls entirely on Rock. If Rock is the one to end Punk's reign at RR, then he should be on the televised show until WM29, and compete on Raw and Main Event once in a while just like everyone else. If he isn't committing to one last actual 'run' with the company, just have Punk pull the surprise win at Rumble and do a triple threat with Rock and Cena at WM29, and drop the title there. Drop the title to who though? If he loses to Cena at Mania, that accomplishes absolutely nothing since it's not Cena beating Rock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 19:01:35 GMT -5
There's just no way they can handle the title picture with Rock/Cena/Punk through WM and not piss some people off.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 26, 2012 19:03:11 GMT -5
The enjoyment of this falls entirely on Rock. If Rock is the one to end Punk's reign at RR, then he should be on the televised show until WM29, and compete on Raw and Main Event once in a while just like everyone else. If he isn't committing to one last actual 'run' with the company, just have Punk pull the surprise win at Rumble and do a triple threat with Rock and Cena at WM29, and drop the title there. But if Rock was on every single show, he would be just another guy. And it would hurt his appeal as a draw for Mania. If you can see him wrestling for for free every other week or so, why buy 'Mania on PPV?
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Dec 26, 2012 19:05:24 GMT -5
This whole thing would be a colossal disappointment if they really do go ahead with Rock/Cena II. I mean how obvious is it that Rock would lose this one? We didn't know for sure with the last one, which made it fun. But this time around...there's no friggin' way Cena is losing to Rock again. And this ain't exactly a Streak match we're talking about here, which is an exception to the predictability rule due to the nature of what it is. The enjoyment of this falls entirely on Rock. If Rock is the one to end Punk's reign at RR, then he should be on the televised show until WM29, and compete on Raw and Main Event once in a while just like everyone else. If he isn't committing to one last actual 'run' with the company, just have Punk pull the surprise win at Rumble and do a triple threat with Rock and Cena at WM29, and drop the title there. Drop the title to who though? If he loses to Cena at Mania, that accomplishes absolutely nothing since it's not Cena beating Rock. Cena can pin Rock in the match, then Punk gets the Extreme Rules rematch one-on-one with Cena since Rock would presumably be gone. While Cena being champion again is hardly the kind of payoff one would want for Punk's historic reign, it's been so long since Cena - their man guy - held the title, that it would still be a fitting end as he's Punk's main adversary.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Dec 26, 2012 19:08:08 GMT -5
The enjoyment of this falls entirely on Rock. If Rock is the one to end Punk's reign at RR, then he should be on the televised show until WM29, and compete on Raw and Main Event once in a while just like everyone else. If he isn't committing to one last actual 'run' with the company, just have Punk pull the surprise win at Rumble and do a triple threat with Rock and Cena at WM29, and drop the title there. But if Rock was on every single show, he would be just another guy. And it would hurt his appeal as a draw for Mania. If you can see him wrestling for for free every other week or so, why buy 'Mania on PPV? Because he'd be facing Dolph Ziggler and Antonio Cesaro on tv, not CM Punk/Lesnar/Cena/Taker/Sheamus etc. I don't think he'd be seen as a regular guy due to the short length this would be, and because you'd hold him off from the main event guys. But, you raise a good point in that people would become accustomed to him wrestling again.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2012 19:10:14 GMT -5
The enjoyment of this falls entirely on Rock. If Rock is the one to end Punk's reign at RR, then he should be on the televised show until WM29, and compete on Raw and Main Event once in a while just like everyone else. If he isn't committing to one last actual 'run' with the company, just have Punk pull the surprise win at Rumble and do a triple threat with Rock and Cena at WM29, and drop the title there. But if Rock was on every single show, he would be just another guy. And it would hurt his appeal as a draw for Mania. If you can see him wrestling for for free every other week or so, why buy 'Mania on PPV? People shouldn't get tired of a superstar that fast. John Cena's on just about every Raw of the year, yet he still has his loyal fans that buy PPV's to see him. And if Rock does win the title and doesn't show up regularly, it just gives fans even less of a reason to watch Raw. How many people are going to tune in when the WWE champion isn't even going to be appearing? And with Raw ratings already at an all time low, the WWE can't afford to lose any more viewers.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Dec 26, 2012 19:23:12 GMT -5
Great idea.
End Punk's amazing reign by putting over The Rock...
Why would they want to give the rub to Ryback (who makes perfect sense) or another young star who can make the most of the win? Nahh... give it to The Rock and use it to build another disappointing feud with Cena!
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Dec 26, 2012 19:23:22 GMT -5
Alright so I am in agreement with most of the thread and I think this is not a good idea. But we all saw it coming since Raw 1000 blah blah...
Let's find a positive...... NEW BELT! Surely Rock will see this version as the "Cena Belt" and bring us out a new WWE title. The downside of that is if it is over the top like the current one, it will be known as "The Rock's Belt" which will be stupid. Idk, wishful thinking.....
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Dec 26, 2012 19:35:35 GMT -5
It seems to be a lose-lose situation either way. You either have Punk's one year long reign end at the hands of a 40 year old part-timer, or you have it ended by a guy who's already been 'the guy' for the past eight years. There is another road, one that undoubtedly the WWE will never take, but would work out for just about everybody. Punk/Rock at Mania - Punk goes over Rock, due to interference from Cena, thus Cena goes heel. Cena gets screwed out of a number one contender's match by sudden Rock interference and the two are booked for the rematch at Mania. Cena goes over Rock, thus getting his win back, but also cementing himself as the top heel of the WWE. On the WWE title side, they use the Rumble to elevate a guy to the WWE title. Build him up good and have him end Punk's reign at WrestleMania, thus sending the crowd home happy. Off the top of my head, RyBack, Miz, and Bryan seem like the best contenders for this, particularly Miz for the sole fact that him and Punk have never had an extended program to my knowledge (outside him, Punk and Morrison in ECW, but that's neither here nor there).
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 26, 2012 19:38:04 GMT -5
While I'm not the biggest fan of the guy, I think it would be dumb not to have Punk/Ryback at Wrestlemania to have Ryback be the guy to shut up Punk and end his monster reign rather than have the Rock do it. The Rock's already over, so winning the title doesn't help him. Cena's been 'the Man' of WWE since 2005, so beating the Rock for the title doesn't help put him over any more with the fans than he already is (and given that Wrestlemania is going to be in New Jersey, it's going to be a smart/smark crowd booing Cena out of the building when he beats the Rock for the title). I don't think CM Punk retaining at Wrestlemania will help WWE's business of the bottom line any more than his lengthy title reign has thus far.
Ryback's the guy, whether you like it or not, who's got the most upswing with a WWE title victory at Wrestlemania. I'd rather Punk/Ryback, Cena/Taker, Rock/Sheamus, Bryan/Lesnar, Ziggler/Big Show at Wrestlemania than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 19:43:51 GMT -5
I have no idea if they WILL do this, but if WWE booked Rock to end Punk's title reign, then booked Cena to beat Rock for the belt at WM, it'd rightly go down as one of the absolute worst booking ideas in modern wrestling history, for a variety of reasons. How is that bad booking, though? It wouldn't be my first choice (I'd rather us get a Triple Threat between them at Mania) but it seems to be pretty classic, logical booking. Rock beat Cena last year, Rock wins the belt, Cena gets his win back over the Rock. In terms of the longterm creative health of the WWE, it'd be horrendous booking. CM Punk has had a very long title reign, and is now a heel; whomever defeats him stands to gain a big time rub from it, potentially a star-making push. If the Rock beats him...Rock is already a bigger name than anybody else on the roster. Then if Cena beats the Rock...Cena doesn't need the belt, at all. Cena is already WWE's A-#1 guy, putting the belt on him would do nothing to raise his ability to sell tickets or pay per view gates. It'd be taking a big opportunity to put over a newer potential star talent and flushing it down the toilet to do EXACTLY THE THING they had CM Punk rage against when he first got himself incredibly over: putting the past over the present (Rock over Punk), then reverting immediately to the ultimate signal of the status quo, putting the title on Cena. It'd be idiotic and destructive, and in my honest opinion no fan should tolerate it should it come to pass (barring big time Cena fans). In fairness, there might be those who point to Hulk Hogan defeating Randy Savage for the belt at WM V as a parallel example of this, but that's not very fair, as John Cena is nowhere near the cultural icon that Hulk Hogan was in 1989, and Cena as champion wouldn't do anything to improve business over Punk being champion, whereas Hogan was a better draw as champion than Savage was in 1988-1990 (not an indictment of Savage, one of my all-time favorites, just the reality of the situation of the time). Put more simply, it'd be taking the whole CM Punk "pipebomb" storyline that began with his worked shoot and violently putting a bullet through its head, as it would have all unfolded as a long road to putting the belt back on the status quo figurehead.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 26, 2012 19:46:29 GMT -5
How is that bad booking, though? It wouldn't be my first choice (I'd rather us get a Triple Threat between them at Mania) but it seems to be pretty classic, logical booking. Rock beat Cena last year, Rock wins the belt, Cena gets his win back over the Rock. In terms of the longterm creative health of the WWE, it'd be horrendous booking. CM Punk has had a very long title reign, and is now a heel; whomever defeats him stands to gain a big time rub from it, potentially a star-making push. If the Rock beats him...Rock is already a bigger name than anybody else on the roster. Then if Cena beats the Rock...Cena doesn't need the belt, at all. Cena is already WWE's A-#1 guy, putting the belt on him would do nothing to raise his ability to sell tickets or pay per view gates. It'd be taking a big opportunity to put over a newer potential star talent and flushing it down the toilet to do EXACTLY THE THING they had CM Punk rage against when he first got himself incredibly over: putting the past over the present (Rock over Punk), then reverting immediately to the ultimate signal of the status quo, putting the title on Cena. It'd be idiotic and destructive, and in my honest opinion no fan should tolerate it should it come to pass (barring big time Cena fans). In fairness, there might be those who point to Hulk Hogan defeating Randy Savage for the belt at WM V as a parallel example of this, but that's not very fair, as John Cena is nowhere near the cultural icon that Hulk Hogan was in 1989, and Cena as champion wouldn't do anything to improve business over Punk being champion, whereas Hogan was a better draw as champion than Savage was in 1988-1990 (not an indictment of Savage, one of my all-time favorites, just the reality of the situation of the time). Put more simply, it'd be taking the whole CM Punk "pipebomb" storyline that began with his worked shoot and violently putting a bullet through its head, as it would have all unfolded as a long road to putting the belt back on the status quo figurehead. Cena beat JBL after his long reign of terror and it led to him getting booed by everyone
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 19:51:54 GMT -5
In terms of the longterm creative health of the WWE, it'd be horrendous booking. CM Punk has had a very long title reign, and is now a heel; whomever defeats him stands to gain a big time rub from it, potentially a star-making push. If the Rock beats him...Rock is already a bigger name than anybody else on the roster. Then if Cena beats the Rock...Cena doesn't need the belt, at all. Cena is already WWE's A-#1 guy, putting the belt on him would do nothing to raise his ability to sell tickets or pay per view gates. It'd be taking a big opportunity to put over a newer potential star talent and flushing it down the toilet to do EXACTLY THE THING they had CM Punk rage against when he first got himself incredibly over: putting the past over the present (Rock over Punk), then reverting immediately to the ultimate signal of the status quo, putting the title on Cena. It'd be idiotic and destructive, and in my honest opinion no fan should tolerate it should it come to pass (barring big time Cena fans). In fairness, there might be those who point to Hulk Hogan defeating Randy Savage for the belt at WM V as a parallel example of this, but that's not very fair, as John Cena is nowhere near the cultural icon that Hulk Hogan was in 1989, and Cena as champion wouldn't do anything to improve business over Punk being champion, whereas Hogan was a better draw as champion than Savage was in 1988-1990 (not an indictment of Savage, one of my all-time favorites, just the reality of the situation of the time). Put more simply, it'd be taking the whole CM Punk "pipebomb" storyline that began with his worked shoot and violently putting a bullet through its head, as it would have all unfolded as a long road to putting the belt back on the status quo figurehead. Cena beat JBL after his long reign of terror and it led to him getting booed by everyone Cena was over like hell when he won that belt, but the WWE's idiotic booking has done a number on him. Not a good excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Dec 26, 2012 19:52:14 GMT -5
Some of you aren't getting it.
They're doing Cena vs. Rock, everything else be damned. And the only way to make it bigger than the last time is to make it for the championship.
That's their plan.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 26, 2012 19:54:03 GMT -5
I think Cena beating the Rock would work if he turned into a delusional goody-two-shoes heel. "I've beaten Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Brock Lesnar, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Randy Orton, Edge, Batista, and the Rock. I'm the best champion WWE has ever had and the perfect role model to all the children of the CeNation out there in the WWE universe."
Next week John Cena comes out wearing a green and yellow polka-dotted shirt, yuk-yuking it up further in the most pandering corporate kissass promo ever.
Instant mega heel heat.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Dec 26, 2012 20:18:50 GMT -5
I have no interest in Rock v Cena II. The last match was meh, and now with the end result in little to no doubt (unless the Rock wants to hang around for a couple of months which I dont see happening) why watcha rehash of what wasnt good a year ago?
Also (to me at least) it shows WWE knows theyre working with a mediocre roster thats about as interesting as late 94" and bringing in someone from a time period that people cared about is the best route to sell Mania.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 26, 2012 20:31:16 GMT -5
I don't want Rock to end Punk's reign, and I like Rock more than Punk.
Cena ending Punk's reign would make sense, Rock ending it wouldn't make sense. Punk beat Cena for the WWE Title at Money in the Bank 2011, he beat Cena for the WWE Title at SummerSlam 2011, he won a triple threat at SummerSlam 2012 over Cena and Big Show, Cena still didn't beat him at Night of Champions, and Punk won a triple threat at Survivor Series.
Cena winning would be him finally beating Punk on ppv. It makes a f***load more sense than Rock being the one to end Punk's reign.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Dec 26, 2012 21:00:36 GMT -5
The Rock: I'm okay with whatevs
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 26, 2012 21:07:54 GMT -5
How is that bad booking, though? It wouldn't be my first choice (I'd rather us get a Triple Threat between them at Mania) but it seems to be pretty classic, logical booking. Rock beat Cena last year, Rock wins the belt, Cena gets his win back over the Rock. In terms of the longterm creative health of the WWE, it'd be horrendous booking. CM Punk has had a very long title reign, and is now a heel; whomever defeats him stands to gain a big time rub from it, potentially a star-making push. If the Rock beats him...Rock is already a bigger name than anybody else on the roster. Then if Cena beats the Rock...Cena doesn't need the belt, at all. Cena is already WWE's A-#1 guy, putting the belt on him would do nothing to raise his ability to sell tickets or pay per view gates. It'd be taking a big opportunity to put over a newer potential star talent and flushing it down the toilet to do EXACTLY THE THING they had CM Punk rage against when he first got himself incredibly over: putting the past over the present (Rock over Punk), then reverting immediately to the ultimate signal of the status quo, putting the title on Cena. It'd be idiotic and destructive, and in my honest opinion no fan should tolerate it should it come to pass (barring big time Cena fans). In fairness, there might be those who point to Hulk Hogan defeating Randy Savage for the belt at WM V as a parallel example of this, but that's not very fair, as John Cena is nowhere near the cultural icon that Hulk Hogan was in 1989, and Cena as champion wouldn't do anything to improve business over Punk being champion, whereas Hogan was a better draw as champion than Savage was in 1988-1990 (not an indictment of Savage, one of my all-time favorites, just the reality of the situation of the time). Put more simply, it'd be taking the whole CM Punk "pipebomb" storyline that began with his worked shoot and violently putting a bullet through its head, as it would have all unfolded as a long road to putting the belt back on the status quo figurehead. The Status quo argument is lame. Its just code for "Cena should never be champion" because thats essentially what you're saying. Nevermind him not holding the title for over a year. He just simply can't win it again or its "Status quo!!!!!!" I get that some people may think that should be the case, but no way is it realistic. Nor is it smart, as there is still value in Cena winning the title and dropping it to someone else, much like he did for Punk in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:13:54 GMT -5
In terms of the longterm creative health of the WWE, it'd be horrendous booking. CM Punk has had a very long title reign, and is now a heel; whomever defeats him stands to gain a big time rub from it, potentially a star-making push. If the Rock beats him...Rock is already a bigger name than anybody else on the roster. Then if Cena beats the Rock...Cena doesn't need the belt, at all. Cena is already WWE's A-#1 guy, putting the belt on him would do nothing to raise his ability to sell tickets or pay per view gates. It'd be taking a big opportunity to put over a newer potential star talent and flushing it down the toilet to do EXACTLY THE THING they had CM Punk rage against when he first got himself incredibly over: putting the past over the present (Rock over Punk), then reverting immediately to the ultimate signal of the status quo, putting the title on Cena. It'd be idiotic and destructive, and in my honest opinion no fan should tolerate it should it come to pass (barring big time Cena fans). In fairness, there might be those who point to Hulk Hogan defeating Randy Savage for the belt at WM V as a parallel example of this, but that's not very fair, as John Cena is nowhere near the cultural icon that Hulk Hogan was in 1989, and Cena as champion wouldn't do anything to improve business over Punk being champion, whereas Hogan was a better draw as champion than Savage was in 1988-1990 (not an indictment of Savage, one of my all-time favorites, just the reality of the situation of the time). Put more simply, it'd be taking the whole CM Punk "pipebomb" storyline that began with his worked shoot and violently putting a bullet through its head, as it would have all unfolded as a long road to putting the belt back on the status quo figurehead. The Status quo argument is lame. Its just code for "Cena should never be champion" because thats essentially what you're saying. Nevermind him not holding the title for over a year. He just simply can't win it again or its "Status quo!!!!!!" I get that some people may think that should be the case, but no way is it realistic. Nor is it smart, as there is still value in Cena winning the title and dropping it to someone else, much like he did for Punk in 2011. Why should he hold the title? What does WWE gain from it? Ratings and gate revenues have not gone up or down depending on whether John Cena, the definitive face of the WWE, the man with the most exposure in the entire current wrestling world, holds the company's top belt. Unless you have a sound storyline in mind that demands Cena having the belt to see it through to completion, why put the belt on a guy who so clearly doesn't need it? Meanwhile, you have a champion who's had the belt for over one year, a situation that opens a chance to elevate a major-but-not-yet-top star wrestler to the pinnacle. Why not take advantage of it? It's a situation that so rarely comes along. WWE has made an awful habit of throwing major titles at young guys who aren't ready (typically by having them cash in Money in the Bank cases), so why not finally take advantage of a situation like this to REALLY cement a star? There COULD be a scenario where Cena holding the title becomes needed or necessary, but this sure as hell ain't it.
|
|