Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 26, 2012 21:15:14 GMT -5
The "Make a star" argument is irrelevant, as its not one or the other.
In fact, beating Cena for the title >>>> beating Punk for the title, 1000 day title reign or not. If Ryback beat Cena clean at Summerslam or something, he's made.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,072
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Dec 26, 2012 21:23:11 GMT -5
The "Make a star" argument is irrelevant, as its not one or the other. In fact, beating Cena for the title >>>> beating Punk for the title, 1000 day title reign or not. If Ryback beat Cena clean at Summerslam or something, he's made. If they actually let Punk keep it for 1000 days, the person they finally have beat him better not be somebody who's already established as a permanent main-eventer...
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 26, 2012 21:28:50 GMT -5
The "Make a star" argument is irrelevant, as its not one or the other. In fact, beating Cena for the title >>>> beating Punk for the title, 1000 day title reign or not. If Ryback beat Cena clean at Summerslam or something, he's made. If they actually let Punk keep it for 1000 days, the person they finally have beat him better not be somebody who's already established as a permanent main-eventer... I don't see "ending the long reign" as being a big rub or any better than just winning the title after someone has had a few months reign.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:30:58 GMT -5
If they actually let Punk keep it for 1000 days, the person they finally have beat him better not be somebody who's already established as a permanent main-eventer... I don't see "ending the long reign" as being a big rub or any better than just winning the title after someone has had a few months reign. ...Why?
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 26, 2012 21:33:09 GMT -5
I don't see "ending the long reign" as being a big rub or any better than just winning the title after someone has had a few months reign. ...Why? Because I just don't see it? The rub comes from WHO you beat, not the circumstances behind beating them. Punk has yet to reach the invincibility level of a Cena, Triple H, or Undertaker. Like the poster earlier said, beating Cena after a month-long reign would be a bigger rub for someone than beating Punk after this reign.
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Dec 26, 2012 21:33:50 GMT -5
Anne Frank coulda seen this comin No!!! You mean Helen Keller! Askew aside, as nice and over as Ryback is getting, it's sad that they just used him as a warm body to give Punk something to wrestle while he waits for the Rock instead of having him wind up beating Punk after all at WrestleMania. Not ready or ready, it'd be logical as opposed to us wondering whether or not the guy who's going to go make another movie is going to lose to the guy that wins 4 out of 5 WrestleMania Main Events.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:47:25 GMT -5
Because I just don't see it? The rub comes from WHO you beat, not the circumstances behind beating them. Punk has yet to reach the invincibility level of a Cena, Triple H, or Undertaker. Like the poster earlier said, beating Cena after a month-long reign would be a bigger rub for someone than beating Punk after this reign. So we'll just neglect a possible Wrestlemania build up? A guy winning the Rumble to get the shot? A possible multi-month build up to do it? Things don't exist in a vacuum; you have a set of circumstances, it should be incumbent on the bookers to do something with them. If they don't, it's a titanic failure on WWE's part.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 26, 2012 21:49:07 GMT -5
Because I just don't see it? The rub comes from WHO you beat, not the circumstances behind beating them. Punk has yet to reach the invincibility level of a Cena, Triple H, or Undertaker. Like the poster earlier said, beating Cena after a month-long reign would be a bigger rub for someone than beating Punk after this reign. I don't even think that is close to right. It's what they do with you after you get the title, case in point: CM Punk. He beat Cena not once but twice for two of his 3 WWE Championship runs but isn't important according to you and many and why is that? Probably because he played second fiddle to Cena all year until his heel turn and by the heel turn it was ingrained into most people that Punk didn't matter. Imagine if he's booked as strong as Cena was in 05-10 or Triple H in 2000-2004, or Taker at any point in career beating him then would mean something whether he had the belt for 4 minutes, 4 months or 400 days.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 26, 2012 21:50:13 GMT -5
Because I just don't see it? The rub comes from WHO you beat, not the circumstances behind beating them. Punk has yet to reach the invincibility level of a Cena, Triple H, or Undertaker. Like the poster earlier said, beating Cena after a month-long reign would be a bigger rub for someone than beating Punk after this reign. So we'll just neglect a possible Wrestlemania build up? A guy winning the Rumble to get the shot? A possible multi-month build up to do it? Things don't exist in a vacuum; you have a set of circumstances, it should be incumbent on the bookers to do something with them. If they don't, it's a titanic failure on WWE's part. Him beating Punk in the middle of the card somewhere while Cena and Rock main event isn't going to be that star making match. Him doing that to Big Show isn't that match either. Thats not even counting HHH, Lesnar, and Undertaker having higher profile matches undoubtedly. Its just that simple. If you seriously want to make the guy a star, he's main eventing against the biggest name and going over clean. If not, then its a half assed attempt.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:50:39 GMT -5
Because I just don't see it? The rub comes from WHO you beat, not the circumstances behind beating them. Punk has yet to reach the invincibility level of a Cena, Triple H, or Undertaker. Like the poster earlier said, beating Cena after a month-long reign would be a bigger rub for someone than beating Punk after this reign. I don't even think that is close to right. It's what they do with you after you get the title, case in point: CM Punk. He beat Cena not once but twice for two of his 3 WWE Championship runs but isn't important according to you and many and why is that? Probably because he played second fiddle to Cena all year until his heel turn and by the heel turn it was ingrained into most people that Punk didn't matter. Imagine if he's booked as strong as Cena was in 05-10 or Triple H in 2000-2004, or Taker at any point in career beating him then would mean something whether he had the belt for 4 minutes, 4 months or 400 days. Right: if anything, the argument is a massive, massive indictment of WWE's writing abilities.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:51:51 GMT -5
So we'll just neglect a possible Wrestlemania build up? A guy winning the Rumble to get the shot? A possible multi-month build up to do it? Things don't exist in a vacuum; you have a set of circumstances, it should be incumbent on the bookers to do something with them. If they don't, it's a titanic failure on WWE's part. Him beating Punk in the middle of the card somewhere while the Cena and Rock main event isn't going to be that star making match. Thats not even counting HHH, Lesnar, and Undertaker having higher profile matches undoubtedly. Its just that simple. If you seriously want to make the guy a star, he's main eventing against the biggest name and going over clean. If not, then its a half assed attempt. CM Punk main evented and won, TWICE, against the biggest name. Now we're sitting here saying beating Punk wouldn't mean all that much given the circumstances. Again, that is a gigantic failure on WWE's part, if it's the case.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 26, 2012 21:54:05 GMT -5
Him beating Punk in the middle of the card somewhere while the Cena and Rock main event isn't going to be that star making match. Thats not even counting HHH, Lesnar, and Undertaker having higher profile matches undoubtedly. Its just that simple. If you seriously want to make the guy a star, he's main eventing against the biggest name and going over clean. If not, then its a half assed attempt. CM Punk main evented and won, TWICE, against the biggest name. Now we're sitting here saying beating Punk wouldn't mean all that much given the circumstances. Again, that is a gigantic failure on WWE's part, if it's the case. Its not a gigantic failure on WWE's part. Its just saying that Win-loss record be damned, Punk just isn't Cena as far who a clean win means more against.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 21:57:01 GMT -5
Then we're making a blatant admission that building new stars is basically pointless, as Cena will always remain the bar to be cleared. By that logic, who else should hold the belt? What becomes the purpose?
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,125
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Dec 26, 2012 21:57:32 GMT -5
I'll say it again, the only way to do Rock/Cena II properly is for Cena to cheat to win.
Have him be unable to put Rock away, get desperate and finally give in to the pressure and cheat.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 26, 2012 21:58:50 GMT -5
If they actually let Punk keep it for 1000 days, the person they finally have beat him better not be somebody who's already established as a permanent main-eventer... I don't see "ending the long reign" as being a big rub or any better than just winning the title after someone has had a few months reign. I'd say that no big one moment can "make" a guy as a star - whether it be ending a long title reign or beating the undertaker at mania. He has to be at or close to star level already for it to work as a big moment, and he has to be able to carry the momentum forward. And if it all doesn't work right, you can hurt the guy and whoever he beat. Think of all the trendy pushed guys that have come and gone, would one bigger moment have changed their fortunes with the company? I think if Kennedy or Lashley beat the Undertaker at Mania, for example, we'd just think of how stupid it was to job Undertaker to a non-star.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 26, 2012 21:58:52 GMT -5
Then we're making a blatant admission that building new stars is basically pointless, as Cena will always remain the bar to be cleared. By that logic, who else should hold the belt? What becomes the purpose? Where the hell did I say that? I said you could build a new star better if you beat Cena clean in the main event. How is that bad? If WWE want to tell us they're serious about this Ryback push, then do that, then we'll know its for real. Beating Punk for the title is nice and all, but its not a guaranteed star making moment in the slightest, if you really want to go in that direction.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2012 22:02:21 GMT -5
CM Punk main evented and won, TWICE, against the biggest name. Now we're sitting here saying beating Punk wouldn't mean all that much given the circumstances. Again, that is a gigantic failure on WWE's part, if it's the case. Its not a gigantic failure on WWE's part. Its just saying that Win-loss record be damned, Punk just isn't Cena as far who a clean win means more against. None of that really matters though, as even if Cena ends up winning the title, no one's beating him clean to take it away.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Dec 26, 2012 22:03:02 GMT -5
Then we're making a blatant admission that building new stars is basically pointless, as Cena will always remain the bar to be cleared. By that logic, who else should hold the belt? What becomes the purpose? It's the way they've been booking the promotion for a couple years. Even when Cena isn't champ he is champ, and then theres two world champions and a top of the card picture that spins its wheels in limbo. I have no issues with Punk losing his title, but holding the title for over a year does tend to mean something even if you think Punk's reign has been less than overwhelming just dropping it to one of two guys who've held it 10 times because you want to have a blockbuster Main Event for WrestleMania seems like short term BAD booking
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 26, 2012 22:07:31 GMT -5
Its not a gigantic failure on WWE's part. Its just saying that Win-loss record be damned, Punk just isn't Cena as far who a clean win means more against. None of that really matters though, as even if Cena ends up winning the title, no one's beating him clean to take it away. I'll never understand why "clean wins" are so important to people in a fake sport, but I think you're being a little cynical here. The "Cena will never lose" and "Cena will never lose to the Rock at Mania" posters have been proven wrong.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2012 22:13:08 GMT -5
None of that really matters though, as even if Cena ends up winning the title, no one's beating him clean to take it away. I'll never understand why "clean wins" are so important to people in a fake sport, but I think you're being a little cynical here. The "Cena will never lose" and "Cena will never lose to the Rock at Mania" posters have been proven wrong. This isn't about "Cena never losing", or "Cena never losing to Rock at Mania". I'm saying if Cena wins the title, the WWE won't book any heel to beat him clean. And clean wins are important because the WWE makes them so. They book their top faces as dominant so that on the rare chance they do lose clean, it's seen as a big deal. And I don't see any full-time wrestler beating Cena clean at this point in his career.
|
|