|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 21:43:30 GMT -5
And it only took Jeff 6 more years to win the World title (even though he did leave less than a year after losing and came back but it still took him about two and a half years after coming back to get the title). He also beat the Undertaker before and after losing to him at Vengeance 03. Beating Jericho at Vengeance 02 probably helped as well as the heel turn. Which is also not relevant to anything at all. Of course it's relevant. If Jeff was a bigger star after the loss to Taker then he should have won the world title. He didn't. He left. He came back and it still took 2 1/2 years. Jeff may have been super over (he was quite over before losing to Taker) but it didn't help him gain anything in the company. How can you (or the other poster) point to losing to Taker as helping Cena after Cena already beat Taker? Beating Taker helps more than losing to him. How can you (or the other poster) point to losing to Taker as helping Cena after Cena beat Jericho? Beating Jericho helps more than losing to Taker.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 21:39:02 GMT -5
A double turn is different than winning in defeat. Of course the loser, who gets turned face, is going to get better reactions and more support because they are now a face. It wasn't because they lost, it's because they are now a good guy. You do not look good losing. You can give it your all and lose but it doesn't compare to actually winning. If Bray taps out, he'll get "You tapped out" chants not "You did your best" chants. There is a world of difference between 'no such thing as looking good losing' and 'not looking as good as the winner.' Of course the loser doesn't look as good as the winner, I never said they did. A great match gets both guys over, that should be the point of every match. Benoit got a standing ovation after tapping out to Kurt Angle at Royal Rumble 2003. Cena lost in about two minutes in one of the Chamber matches (2009?) despite being the champion, but still looked like pre-Crisis Superman because he had to eat three finishers for that to happen. Unless, of course, the heel cheats to win, which gets the heel over as a cheating scumbag and the babyface over as the better man overall. There are tons of ways to look good in defeat. Again, I'm not saying the loser ever looks better than the winner (except perhaps in the 'heel cheating' occasions), just that looking good in defeat is possible. This kind of attitude is what leads to cries of 'burial' from some quarters whenever a guy loses a single match. Even if you do look good losing, you obviously wouldn't look as good as the winner. Maybe that should be the point but companies don't seem to know that. If there is looking good in defeat, Benoit and Cena are two guys that don't/didn't need it. If you make someone look good in defeat it should be up and comers or guys they want to propel not established guys. Yes, the heel can cheat to win but it's not the loss the helps the face. It's the heel cheating that helps. If the heel beats the face after a good showing, it doesn't help. If the heel cheats it can help the face. So the cheating helps the face, not the actual losing.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 21:31:24 GMT -5
A double turn is different than winning in defeat. Of course the loser, who gets turned face, is going to get better reactions and more support because they are now a face. It wasn't because they lost, it's because they are now a good guy. You do not look good losing. You can give it your all and lose but it doesn't compare to actually winning. Yes, you can. Jeff Hardy came out of his ladder match with The Undertaker looking like a million bucks even though he lost. John Cena lost to Brock Lesnar, and the Undertaker and being able to hang in the ring with them is what started his rise to the top. The biggest part is you have to follow up with looking good in losing... or you end up like Damien Sandow. And it only took Jeff 6 more years to win the World title (even though he did leave less than a year after losing and came back but it still took him about two and a half years after coming back to get the title). He also beat the Undertaker before and after losing to him at Vengeance 03. Beating Jericho at Vengeance 02 probably helped as well as the heel turn.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 21:14:57 GMT -5
And he was a heel before then. So unless they do a double turn this time, it won't work. Who has looked good in defeat against Cena? Those are both irrelevant to what I was saying. I wasn't saying they could make Bray win in defeat against Cena, because I'm not sure they can - although I think passing out smiling in the STF is a good way to go if any - you said there was no such thing as winning in defeat, when there clearly is. A double turn is different than winning in defeat. Of course the loser, who gets turned face, is going to get better reactions and more support because they are now a face. It wasn't because they lost, it's because they are now a good guy. You do not look good losing. You can give it your all and lose but it doesn't compare to actually winning. If Bray taps out, he'll get "You tapped out" chants not "You did your best" chants.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 21:02:05 GMT -5
No such thing as winning in defeat. If it existed then Sandow would be riding high. There absolutely is, and this is a bad example. The idea of any wrestling match should be put both guys over more. Most wrestling companies just have no idea how to do it most of the time. Austin lost at Mania 13 but left more over than he'd ever been. And he was a heel before then. So unless they do a double turn this time, it won't work. Who has looked good in defeat against Cena?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 18:45:10 GMT -5
He should buy all the contracts of the guys WWE doesn't use. It'd be like his version of the Million Dollar Corporation.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 17:30:10 GMT -5
Between Sting and Cena? Cena.
If I could pick anybody, it wouldn't be Sting or Cena.
I want Taker to face Orton one more time.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 15:38:58 GMT -5
Cole would be going "Who the hell? That's..that's...oh my god...who the...that's..that's...oh my god..It's Sting!"
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2014 3:46:39 GMT -5
Jonathan Taylor Thomas
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 28, 2014 3:17:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 27, 2014 22:39:58 GMT -5
WWE Championship
John Cena (c) vs Roman Reigns
The Streak
Undertaker vs Randy Orton
Drew McIntyre vs Triple H
Daniel Bryan vs Dolph Ziggler
Cesaro vs Sami Zayn
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 27, 2014 19:17:33 GMT -5
Santino and her go on dates. Santino falls in love. Emma gets down on one knee and proposes. Before he can answer, she low blows him.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 27, 2014 18:30:48 GMT -5
ROB VAN DAM I DON'T CARE ROB VAN DAM I DON'T CARE
Van Stayawayinator Van Dontcomebackinator
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 27, 2014 4:35:53 GMT -5
No such thing as winning in defeat. If it existed then Sandow would be riding high. John Cena himself made his debut by winning in defeat. Because they made a thing out of it. They certainly aren't going to do that for everyone that loses and they certainly can't keep guys from beating top stars and hoping fans will believe they were strong in defeat. What if they did that throughout their history? Had guys who became big 'win in defeat' instead of actually win? What would have happened to Cena and Batista if they had lost at WrestleMania 21? Would the fans still have backed them even though they were strong losers? What if Austin lost to HBK at WM14?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 27, 2014 4:23:07 GMT -5
No such thing as winning in defeat.
If it existed then Sandow would be riding high.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 26, 2014 18:37:56 GMT -5
Also, it will be the first time since WM IX that someone has won the title in a match not set in stone before the show. And who just returned? Hogan's winning the title, brother.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 26, 2014 15:37:22 GMT -5
Phenomenal show. I cannot say enough good things about it.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 26, 2014 15:15:30 GMT -5
They could easily work this into a story line in the future. "Stephanie, remember when you were selling all those shares? Guess who was buying them all up? Guess who is now half owner of the WWE?" That sort of thing. "I bet on a winner. WOOOOOOOO." Ex-wife, "Ric, I get half of your shares in the divorce."
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 25, 2014 22:30:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 25, 2014 20:57:55 GMT -5
First Mercer beats Duke (Droese) and now he's going after Helms.
It better be a winner keeps the name 'Shane' match.
|
|