|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 26, 2012 22:23:59 GMT -5
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. I don't think they'd have a problem letting Ryback beat Cena clean during 2013 if Ryback keeps rising.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 26, 2012 22:27:33 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. You're actually agreeing with me. I never said Punk isn't important. Beating him is still a big deal but he's not on the level of the other 3 I mentioned. Beating Cena raised him up to the level right below Cena. Before that he was a few notches below. In time, maybe he'll become that invincible-type. Having a young guy beat Punk does mean something but it's not this "huge rub" that the WWE is wasting by having Rock win the title as some are pointing out.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 22:40:53 GMT -5
Again though, this is arguing as if beating Punk would exist in a vacuum, which it wouldn't if we're discussing a potential Wrestlemania main event title match. There's buildup involved, there's the fact that you wouldn't just pick a green kid fresh out of FCW, you'd pick somebody on the roster who's ready to break out.
Rock and Cena have nothing to gain by winning the title. The WWE would have nothing to gain in either of them winning, outside of most likely a one week ratings boost when a bunch of lapsed fans tune in when they hear that the Rock is champ again.
WWE has been pretty awful at booking for a long term future, and it's a pity because they do have enough younger (or at least fresher) talent to carry them forward. Well, here's a chance to totally solidify one, to build someone up as the slayer of CM Punk, the guy who even John Cena couldn't beat when it counted most.
Yeah, if some random guy, even an upper card guy, ran in and just outright beat Punk out of the blue on Raw it'd be ridiculous and would not make for an automatic rub, but if you can build up a big main event match and feud before doing it, why wouldn't there be a big effect?
|
|
|
Post by The Tee Why on Dec 26, 2012 22:42:48 GMT -5
I take all wrestlemania talks/finishes with a grain of salt, isn't it known that they often change endings and matches about 10 times before they settle on one?
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 26, 2012 22:53:58 GMT -5
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. Predicting it won't happen is one thing, stating it as a definitive fact now is a bit much, IMO. Who knows what the future will bring. Cena could take some time off, be on a part-time schedule at some point. It's not impossible that a heel would beat him (especially to build a up a Cena return feud later.) That's just one scenario.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 26, 2012 22:55:40 GMT -5
Again though, this is arguing as if beating Punk would exist in a vacuum, which it wouldn't if we're discussing a potential Wrestlemania main event title match. There's buildup involved, there's the fact that you wouldn't just pick a green kid fresh out of FCW, you'd pick somebody on the roster who's ready to break out. Rock and Cena have nothing to gain by winning the title. The WWE would have nothing to gain in either of them winning, outside of most likely a one week ratings boost when a bunch of lapsed fans tune in when they hear that the Rock is champ again. WWE has been pretty awful at booking for a long term future, and it's a pity because they do have enough younger (or at least fresher) talent to carry them forward. Well, here's a chance to totally solidify one, to build someone up as the slayer of CM Punk, the guy who even John Cena couldn't beat when it counted most. Yeah, if some random guy, even an upper card guy, ran in and just outright beat Punk out of the blue on Raw it'd be ridiculous and would not make for an automatic rub, but if you can build up a big main event match and feud before doing it, why wouldn't there be a big effect? Who do you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 26, 2012 22:56:15 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. I'd rather they do that for Cena/Taker at Mania, and Cena ends the streak as a heel.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 26, 2012 22:59:14 GMT -5
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. You're actually agreeing with me. I never said Punk isn't important. Beating him is still a big deal but he's not on the level of the other 3 I mentioned. Beating Cena raised him up to the level right below Cena. Before that he was a few notches below. In time, maybe he'll become that invincible-type. Having a young guy beat Punk does mean something but it's not this "huge rub" that the WWE is wasting by having Rock win the title as some are pointing out. To reiterate something I said, Ryback has the most upswing, in terms of elevating a talent, if he won the title at Wrestlemania. I do think that a lot of people view CM Punk as being below John Cena despite being WWE champion for 400+ days, but that's just the way WWE books its main-event talent. That being said, I don't think WWE would risk working a face vs. face program with Ryback vs. Cena right now. I don't even think they would consider it until 2014. So while yes, a clean win over Cena would elevate Ryback in a major way, chances are it is not going to happen. Which also begs the question as to why Cena needs to get his win back over the Rock, let alone win the WWE title off of him, if that actually materializes. While the Rock seemingly transcends WWE, John Cena in reality really isn't that far behind the Rock. The gap between Cena and the Rock is negligible compared to the distance between Ryback and Cena. But since Ryback/Cena won't happen, let alone Ryback/Rock (which would put Ryback even more over than a clean win over Cena would), the only real, sensible option, given the booking of Ryback since late September or so, is a victory over CM Punk. Now the perception of CM Punk is that he may not be as over as John Cena is, but I think given his position in the company and status as longest reigning champion of the modern era, puts him far above Ryback in terms of central focus. So in this respect, yes, a clean victory over CM Punk WOULD put Ryback over, would be a sensible booking strategy given the amount of TV time dedicated to Ryback's chase of CM Punk, and would (hopefully, ideally) cement a major player who is a fresh face to the main-event scene after the endless rotation of John Cena-CM Punk for the past 18 months. So, let us restate some options: 1) Ryback beats the Rock. Would put Ryback over huge, but how do you book a series of events to ever get to that match. Right now, it's the least plausible option. 2) Ryback beats John Cena. Doesn't put Ryback over in the same way that a victory over the Rock would, but it still would put him in a position not seen since Triple H jobbed to Batista three pay-per-views in a row to cement Batista as a legitimate main-event talent. And while there is a little bit of history between John Cena and Ryback (see October and November of this year), the difficulty of booking a face-face match-up with Cena playing the role of Hulk Hogan and Ryback playing the role of the Ultimate Warrior (for comparison's sake), let alone logic reasons on TV for that match to occur other than the fact that it could (see: Rock/Cena 'Once in a Lifetime'), is hard to avoid. Not to mention the fact, as already stated, that it would be unlikely WWE would play that card in 2013. 3) Ryback beats CM Punk. They've already had some matches, but each time because of some screwy interference Ryback has been denied. Ryback is the face chasing for the title. It doesn't make sense for him not to have winning the title in mind given he's wanted to 'eat' Punk for awhile now and only gets these Pyrrhic victories (the number of times Punk takes the Shellshock) which in the end mean very little. Ryback has a lot of buzz right now and the fan reactions seemingly indicate that the audience is willing to latch on to him. So why not go with it? Again, the distance between Ryback and Punk is more than that between Punk and Cena, and even more than between Cena and the Rock. So why not bring someone up to at least Punk's level? Otherwise, the past 2.5 months of Ryback booking have functionally been meaningless. It'd be like Stone Cold Steve Austin in early 1998 feuding with D-Generation X, then suddenly deciding at Wrestlemania 14 that instead of going against Shawn Michaels for the WWF title, instead he wanted to take on Faarooq because he leads the Nation of Domination. That would make no sense. But with Ryback in 2012-2013 it does? Okay... I guess. 4) Ryback beats the Big Show. Ryback beating the Big Show at Wrestlemania for the World Heavyweight title doesn't get Ryback any more over than he is now, since the WHC is basically the new Intercontinental title. All this of course assumes that Ryback will win the Royal Rumble and then go after the Big Show because that frees up Rock and Cena to do their 'even stevens' thing much to the boredom of the NY/NJ crowd. You want to know why it feels less special today when someone wins the WHC as their first world title? Because of the fact that that belt is treated as being second-rate. You're not the best in the company. It's the same reason why so many Royal Rumble winners go for the WHC and then compete in a lower position on the card: WWE doesn't think you're ready to be 'the Man'. While Ryback lifting the Big Show for the Shellshock would be a great 'Wrestlemania moment', it certainly wouldn't have the cathartic feeling that beating a smarmy, cowardly heel who by hook and crook has held the WWE title for 400+ days would (and even then, it's not like Punk's heel turn has made him wildly hated a la Ric Flair in the 1980s... if anything it's been bungled and mismanaged as much as the face run with the WWE title has been). Long story short: WWE is going to do what it is going to do regardless of the possibilities of fresh main-event talent staring them right in the face, and that will likely mean that Rock and Cena will happen (again) and it will be for the WWE title (just to prove that fans should 100% cheer for him as the conquering hero when they resolutely and resoundingly won't, given the past seven years) while Ryback gets the consolidation prize, the WHC from the Big Show, and CM Punk will likely be on the short end of the stick, despite his 2012 year of success (which to many has meant nothing, so it makes the entire push to get his success meaningless).
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 77,812
|
Post by bob on Dec 26, 2012 22:59:36 GMT -5
Again though, this is arguing as if beating Punk would exist in a vacuum, which it wouldn't if we're discussing a potential Wrestlemania main event title match. There's buildup involved, there's the fact that you wouldn't just pick a green kid fresh out of FCW, you'd pick somebody on the roster who's ready to break out. Rock and Cena have nothing to gain by winning the title. The WWE would have nothing to gain in either of them winning, outside of most likely a one week ratings boost when a bunch of lapsed fans tune in when they hear that the Rock is champ again. WWE has been pretty awful at booking for a long term future, and it's a pity because they do have enough younger (or at least fresher) talent to carry them forward. Well, here's a chance to totally solidify one, to build someone up as the slayer of CM Punk, the guy who even John Cena couldn't beat when it counted most. Yeah, if some random guy, even an upper card guy, ran in and just outright beat Punk out of the blue on Raw it'd be ridiculous and would not make for an automatic rub, but if you can build up a big main event match and feud before doing it, why wouldn't there be a big effect? Who do you have in mind? I personally think Kofi would be perfect for this.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 26, 2012 23:02:42 GMT -5
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. You're actually agreeing with me. I never said Punk isn't important. Beating him is still a big deal but he's not on the level of the other 3 I mentioned. Beating Cena raised him up to the level right below Cena. Before that he was a few notches below. In time, maybe he'll become that invincible-type. Having a young guy beat Punk does mean something but it's not this "huge rub" that the WWE is wasting by having Rock win the title as some are pointing out. I don't think I am. He has a 400+ day title run, beat Cena multiple times, he should be there but isn't according to some. That means it isn't WHO you beat, it's what they do with you after that. Let me go it another way, Benoit beat Triple H for the title at WM but how he was booked made him unimportant and had people wanting his run to end. Sheamus beat Cena twice and it didn't do squat. Jericho beat Austin and Rock in one night and was made a championship pooper scooper, not important. It didn't make them main eventers or any more important. Hogan got his title from Iron Sheik who had is for 28 days and was far from an invincible type, same for Austin taking it from HBK, Cena from JBL or Savage in one night beating Butch Reed, Greg Valentine, OMG and DiBiase. Each guy had a huge build in and WWE followed it up with amazing stories and making those guys the most important guys at that time. WWE gave Punk and good build but forgot the follow up. If they remembered that, there is no reason Punk couldn't be up there with those 4 based on this run.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2012 23:06:58 GMT -5
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. Predicting it won't happen is one thing, stating it as a definitive fact now is a bit much, IMO. Who knows what the future will bring. Cena could take some time off, be on a part-time schedule at some point. It's not impossible that a heel would beat him (especially to build a up a Cena return feud later.) That's just one scenario. I'm not saying it's a definitive fact, but come on. When's the last time Cena lost to someone clean before The Rock? Not to mention the WWE loves booking heels as cowardly weaklings these days. If it does happen sometime next year when Cena has the title, I'll be pleasantly surprised, and will admit I was wrong. But until then...
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2012 23:09:53 GMT -5
Again though, this is arguing as if beating Punk would exist in a vacuum, which it wouldn't if we're discussing a potential Wrestlemania main event title match. There's buildup involved, there's the fact that you wouldn't just pick a green kid fresh out of FCW, you'd pick somebody on the roster who's ready to break out. Rock and Cena have nothing to gain by winning the title. The WWE would have nothing to gain in either of them winning, outside of most likely a one week ratings boost when a bunch of lapsed fans tune in when they hear that the Rock is champ again. WWE has been pretty awful at booking for a long term future, and it's a pity because they do have enough younger (or at least fresher) talent to carry them forward. Well, here's a chance to totally solidify one, to build someone up as the slayer of CM Punk, the guy who even John Cena couldn't beat when it counted most. Yeah, if some random guy, even an upper card guy, ran in and just outright beat Punk out of the blue on Raw it'd be ridiculous and would not make for an automatic rub, but if you can build up a big main event match and feud before doing it, why wouldn't there be a big effect? Who do you have in mind? I don't give a crap, really: I don't watch enough WWE to give you a great answer, but I find it very hard to believe they don't have anybody who could. I understand that Daniel Bryan gets a lot of support, has gotten high on the card, and seems to be turning face soon, so maybe him? I'm sure people who watch with regularity can bounce around some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by cool guy on Dec 26, 2012 23:17:57 GMT -5
I honestly just don't think there's anyone in that "rising star" position to take the title from Punk. I mean, there's Ryback I guess, but I don't like him and I don't want him anywhere near a wrestlemania main-event.
A few people here suggested Punk squeaking by at the Rumble, and then a Punk/Rock/Cena main event at WM where Cena pins Rock to win. I honestly can't see a single thing wrong with that. Cena finally gets his win over Rock, and Punk's historic reign is ended without him even being involved in the decision, setting up a match at Extreme Rules.
Isn't that literally the whole point of booking? To provide a satisfying and climactic ending while still leaving a path to keep telling the story?
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 26, 2012 23:20:34 GMT -5
You're actually agreeing with me. I never said Punk isn't important. Beating him is still a big deal but he's not on the level of the other 3 I mentioned. Beating Cena raised him up to the level right below Cena. Before that he was a few notches below. In time, maybe he'll become that invincible-type. Having a young guy beat Punk does mean something but it's not this "huge rub" that the WWE is wasting by having Rock win the title as some are pointing out. I don't think I am. He has a 400+ day title run, beat Cena multiple times, he should be there but isn't according to some. That means it isn't WHO you beat, it's what they do with you after that. Let me go it another way, Benoit beat Triple H for the title at WM but how he was booked made him unimportant and had people wanting his run to end. Sheamus beat Cena twice and it didn't do squat. Jericho beat Austin and Rock in one night and was made a championship pooper scooper, not important. It didn't make them main eventers or any more important. Hogan got his title from Iron Sheik who had is for 28 days and was far from an invincible type, same for Austin taking it from HBK, Cena from JBL or Savage in one night beating Butch Reed, Greg Valentine, OMG and DiBiase. Each guy had a huge build in and WWE followed it up with amazing stories and making those guys the most important guys at that time. WWE gave Punk and good build but forgot the follow up. If they remembered that, there is no reason Punk couldn't be up there with those 4 based on this run. Yes you are agreeing with me. I'm not saying Punk couldn't be on that level, I'm saying he's not and it's partially because of the booking. But it's December 26 and the Rumble is in a few weeks. What's done is done and we can't go back in time and have Punk be booked as invincible to get him on a HHH/Taker/Cena-level. At this point in time, Punk losing the belt to Rock won't kill dead any big rub that he could be giving to someone else, or that the person couldn't get just as easily by beating Punk in a short reign, or beating Rock or Cena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 23:51:34 GMT -5
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. Triple H and Shawn Michaels put over Cena in consecutive Manias. At some point, he's got to do that for someone else. He did it for the Rock, but if no one else beats Rock, Rock just takes all that heat to Hollywood and it does nothing.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 27, 2012 3:15:41 GMT -5
I don't give a crap, really: I don't watch enough WWE to give you a great answer, but I find it very hard to believe they don't have anybody who could. I understand that Daniel Bryan gets a lot of support, has gotten high on the card, and seems to be turning face soon, so maybe him? I'm sure people who watch with regularity can bounce around some ideas. Even if Punk loses the title at WrestleMania to a new guy, it'll AT MOST be the 3rd highest match on the card, maybe 4th behind whatever Rock, Cena, Lesnar, and Undertaker do. If you did Cena vs. Rock, Triple H vs. Lesnar, and an Undertaker match, CM Punk becomes #4. I like Punk but I've wanted his title reign to end for about 200 days now. I like him better as a heel too, but his reign doesn't mean much to me. Besides, what exactly is so great about a run that consists of 4 months of unclean finishes and literally 1 clean win in a nontitle match against 1 of the 3 top babyfaces?
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,121
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 4:32:53 GMT -5
If you're going to put a new guy over as your new "face of the company", it should be against the guy who was in that spot before you. Ryback (for example) would probably get a greater rub defeating John Cena, WWE's biggest current draw, the undisputed top guy in the company, and the focus and poster boy of WWE than he would CM Punk. 400+ days as champion is great and all, but beating him isn't going to mean that much if you're in the 3rd biggest match at WrestleMania while the majority of the fans are looking forward to the "real" stars (Cena, Rock, 'Taker, HHH, Brock). It's like Ryback said in an interview: everyone sees Cena as the guy, and he wants Cena's spot. Not Punk's.
I don't see why the length of a title reign is so important in a fake sport that some guy is going to get this magical huge rub for ending it. Shawn had only been champion for a few months before Austin beat him. Find a star who makes you money and who you already know is the future star who's going to lead your company, and you put him over Cena clean. It doesn't matter if Cena had been holding the belt for one month or one day, that's still worth a lot more than ending Punk's fictional title reign.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 27, 2012 4:58:07 GMT -5
I'm just looking forward to some good matches, to be honest. If Cena wins at WrestleMania, at least it will be funny watching him get booed out of MetLife Stadium for beating Rock.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 27, 2012 6:56:37 GMT -5
Of course Rock is okay with it. Yes, Rock, that well-known win-grubbing scumbag. Also, predicting this now: The Rock stops Ryback from winning the TLC match, so that he can face Punk for the title in revenge for that clothesline at Raw 1000.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Dec 27, 2012 8:13:16 GMT -5
I personally think Kofi would be perfect for this. *Nods* Ive been saying that
|
|