|
|
Post by rrm15 on Dec 24, 2009 1:31:12 GMT -5
Dude, if that was true, the business wouldn't have been in a down swing for the last 7 years. Wrestling wasn't going to stay popular forever. It was a fad, plain and simple - it may have been fun to watch for a while but people naturally got tired of it after a few years, just like they did for the Jerry Springer show and all the other 90s icons. I'm not denying a few wrong turns were made, but business simply went back to normal and it would have no matter what; through no fault of Vince. Oh, absolutely. I agree with you 100% on everything you said. Its not Vinces fault entirely wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be and things just naturally happened; but at the same time, you can't say that everything is going exactly the way Vince has planned and that the WWE is infallible either. |
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Dec 24, 2009 1:34:07 GMT -5
So what if he is? ANYTHING is better than John f***ing Cena overcoming the odds month after month Cena said he's not gonna lose another match until he gets his rematch. That means HE'S STILL GONNA OVERCOME THE ODDS MONTH AFTER MONTH BECAUSE HE DOES NOT QUIT!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Jackson "The Cool" Carter on Dec 24, 2009 1:35:16 GMT -5
I just love the total ambiguity of the article.... Editor: "Whaddya got on Sheamus' relationship with Triple H?" Writer #1: "Well...we got a couple of guys saying that Sheamus is a real brown noser." Writer #2: "....but I got a really good source telling me that stuff is overexaggerated." Editor: "So basically we have two relatively different stories about their relationship. Which means that we really don't have a story, but because we put this out there, it will lead to there being a story." Writer #1: "Correct." Editor: "PERFECT! Post that s*** now before someone else beats us to the punch!" you know what makes this better, is if you imagine the editor & 2 writers talking like 1930's reporters  Actually imagine the editor being J. Jonah Jameson. You're welcome  |
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 24, 2009 8:13:31 GMT -5
Wrestling wasn't going to stay popular forever. It was a fad, plain and simple - it may have been fun to watch for a while but people naturally got tired of it after a few years, just like they did for the Jerry Springer show and all the other 90s icons. I'm not denying a few wrong turns were made, but business simply went back to normal and it would have no matter what; through no fault of Vince. Oh, absolutely. I agree with you 100% on everything you said. Its not Vinces fault entirely wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be and things just naturally happened; but at the same time, you can't say that everything is going exactly the way Vince has planned and that the WWE is infallible either. I wasn't saying Vince is infallible, and this isn't a debate in the wider context about whether or not Vince is a good businessman or whatever - even though he clearly is. The debate is whether Sheamus got the title through pure politics (as in, HHH decided to give him the belt because of friendship, regardless of whether it was a good business decision) or whether he got the title through demonstrating that he had the potential to be a main eventer who could make a quick push like the one he received work. The reason I brought Vince in is because regardless of whether or not he is able to turn around the business to make it a fad again, he knows what it takes to make successful wrestlers. If HHH suggested giving Sheamus the title, and Vince didn't veto it, then Vince sees something in Sheamus too, just like HHH does, just like Finlay, Regal, and probably a hell of a lot of other backstage decision makers, otherwise he wouldn't have been given the belt. I have no doubt that HHH liking him helped his rise, but that's because he has demonstrated his potential, not because he has sucked up. Regal is known as an actual friend of HHH, but because HHH doesn't just give title reigns to his friends, because that notion is ridiculous, Regal has never had one. Sheamus more so than any other young guy on the roster looks like he could beat anyone else on the roster up, but not only that. He has a package in that he can talk (he's not like The Rock, but he's not supposed to be, he's supposed to be a Celtic Warrior), and he has a marketable, unique look. It's believable that he can beat Cena because on Raw, we've not seen him do anything but destroy people (on ECW we saw him have more even feuds but they changed his push and thought, I'll bet, that since any new ECW guy that appears on Raw now gets a 'Who?' from the audience that they could change his push without worrying) so it can work. People say they haven't done enough with him, but each week he done something else to show his dominance. There wasn't much more that could have been done in the timespan that he had. He beat jobbers, retired Noble (which did get good heat), destroyed Lawler and Yeaton, won a Survivor Series match by destroying Finlay, sqaushed Finlay the next night, wins a battle royal featuring Kofi, Orton, Henry etc. Put's Cena through a table, and puts Cuban through a table. They've made his character do a lot so he is believable. He has the size to be believable. He has the unique look to be marketable. And he has the desire to be a success and never stop learning. This board first said they wanted new talent, then now it's 'Yeah, but new talent that has at least established a fanbase first' but I'm gonna say, why? Why can't we have experienced main eventers who have been there a while, main eventers who have worked for a long time and finally just got there, and main eventers who had a quick rise? Why does it only have to be 2 out of the 3? If it's believable, which doing it with Sheamus is, then I don't see why they can't try it out. Part of the mystique now to guys like HHH, HBK and Taker is that they have been around a while, and that earns them continued support through respect. The mystique around Jeff Hardy was that he finally got there after trying so hard, and got to give all his fans that sweet moment. The mystique with Sheamus will be, this early into his run, 'Who is this guy? He must be pretty special to do what he has done this quickly.' so it's just another hook for the audience, a different story they can tell. Most guys will go the route of gradually rising through the ranks, but as long as you don't go overboard on the amount of recent debutants winning world titles, and keep it unique and special, then it can work for the right talent. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tull-eus S. Venture on Dec 24, 2009 8:39:46 GMT -5
Haven't seen anyone mention this, but people are bellyaching about Sheamus kissing HHH's ass?
Didn't HHH do this to Nash and HBK when he arrived in the WWF? Reading through Shawn's book, it sure sounded like he did.
And Nash did the same to Hogan in 99 in WCW, after he realized that Hogan wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Dec 24, 2009 13:13:14 GMT -5
Oh, absolutely. I agree with you 100% on everything you said. Its not Vinces fault entirely wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be and things just naturally happened; but at the same time, you can't say that everything is going exactly the way Vince has planned and that the WWE is infallible either. I wasn't saying Vince is infallible, and this isn't a debate in the wider context about whether or not Vince is a good businessman or whatever - even though he clearly is. The debate is whether Sheamus got the title through pure politics (as in, HHH decided to give him the belt because of friendship, regardless of whether it was a good business decision) or whether he got the title through demonstrating that he had the potential to be a main eventer who could make a quick push like the one he received work. The reason I brought Vince in is because regardless of whether or not he is able to turn around the business to make it a fad again, he knows what it takes to make successful wrestlers. If HHH suggested giving Sheamus the title, and Vince didn't veto it, then Vince sees something in Sheamus too, just like HHH does, just like Finlay, Regal, and probably a hell of a lot of other backstage decision makers, otherwise he wouldn't have been given the belt. I have no doubt that HHH liking him helped his rise, but that's because he has demonstrated his potential, not because he has sucked up. Regal is known as an actual friend of HHH, but because HHH doesn't just give title reigns to his friends, because that notion is ridiculous, Regal has never had one. Sheamus more so than any other young guy on the roster looks like he could beat anyone else on the roster up, but not only that. He has a package in that he can talk (he's not like The Rock, but he's not supposed to be, he's supposed to be a Celtic Warrior), and he has a marketable, unique look. It's believable that he can beat Cena because on Raw, we've not seen him do anything but destroy people (on ECW we saw him have more even feuds but they changed his push and thought, I'll bet, that since any new ECW guy that appears on Raw now gets a 'Who?' from the audience that they could change his push without worrying) so it can work. People say they haven't done enough with him, but each week he done something else to show his dominance. There wasn't much more that could have been done in the timespan that he had. He beat jobbers, retired Noble (which did get good heat), destroyed Lawler and Yeaton, won a Survivor Series match by destroying Finlay, sqaushed Finlay the next night, wins a battle royal featuring Kofi, Orton, Henry etc. Put's Cena through a table, and puts Cuban through a table. They've made his character do a lot so he is believable. He has the size to be believable. He has the unique look to be marketable. And he has the desire to be a success and never stop learning. This board first said they wanted new talent, then now it's 'Yeah, but new talent that has at least established a fanbase first' but I'm gonna say, why? Why can't we have experienced main eventers who have been there a while, main eventers who have worked for a long time and finally just got there, and main eventers who had a quick rise? Why does it only have to be 2 out of the 3? If it's believable, which doing it with Sheamus is, then I don't see why they can't try it out. Part of the mystique now to guys like HHH, HBK and Taker is that they have been around a while, and that earns them continued support through respect. The mystique around Jeff Hardy was that he finally got there after trying so hard, and got to give all his fans that sweet moment. The mystique with Sheamus will be, this early into his run, 'Who is this guy? He must be pretty special to do what he has done this quickly.' so it's just another hook for the audience, a different story they can tell. Most guys will go the route of gradually rising through the ranks, but as long as you don't go overboard on the amount of recent debutants winning world titles, and keep it unique and special, then it can work for the right talent. -Vince being a good businessman is debatable due to some past decisions (the XFL and Body Building Federations say hello) but since thats not the focus of your post thats another story for another day. -As far as Vince knowing what it takes to be a good wrestler, for the most part, yeah. I like Sheamous and think the WWE wouldn't have pushed him if they didn't have a reason, but at the same time, Vince McMhaon spent YEARS trying to push guys like Billy Gunn and Test who never really caught on on the big scale. ALSO, no doubt Sheamus impressed a lot of people backstage, but I agree with a lot of people in this thread who say that he was hot-shotted into the title picture. Yeah he retired Jamie Noble and it got heat but Jamie Noble hadn't been on TV in months. He got built up for like a month and took the title. As for why we can't have main eventers with a quick rise, in some cases it can work. Sheamus works since he has actually been wrestling for a while and is dedicated to the business, but for the most part it doesn't work because building someone up that fast paints you into a corner later when they don't have anything left to do and have a massive ego. Hello, Brock Lesnar. And yeah Sheamus has a mystique and CAN be used to intrigue the audience...but he hasn't been. He's been on RAW for like 5 minutes the last 2 weeks and is the very definition of a transitional champion. He's just holding it for a while. WWE isn't counting on him to do anything. This is still the DX and Cena show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2009 13:29:20 GMT -5
Sheamus is playing it smart and will likely get far in the world of WWE.
Personally - I don't find him entertaining in the least. His work in ECW was decent - but Golddust should get a lot of credit for making him look great (and a title shot too!).
But the guy worked the system. If he hadn't he'd probably still be on ECW or may have gotten sent back to FCW. But he played it smart and kudos to him for that. He saw what it took to get to the level of guys like HHH and emulated those traits outside of the ring which led him to where he's at today.
Sheamus is savvy - no doubt about it, but it doesn't make me want to watch the product and I suspect the same goes for anyone who isn't already watching the product.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 24, 2009 14:09:47 GMT -5
I wasn't saying Vince is infallible, and this isn't a debate in the wider context about whether or not Vince is a good businessman or whatever - even though he clearly is. The debate is whether Sheamus got the title through pure politics (as in, HHH decided to give him the belt because of friendship, regardless of whether it was a good business decision) or whether he got the title through demonstrating that he had the potential to be a main eventer who could make a quick push like the one he received work. The reason I brought Vince in is because regardless of whether or not he is able to turn around the business to make it a fad again, he knows what it takes to make successful wrestlers. If HHH suggested giving Sheamus the title, and Vince didn't veto it, then Vince sees something in Sheamus too, just like HHH does, just like Finlay, Regal, and probably a hell of a lot of other backstage decision makers, otherwise he wouldn't have been given the belt. I have no doubt that HHH liking him helped his rise, but that's because he has demonstrated his potential, not because he has sucked up. Regal is known as an actual friend of HHH, but because HHH doesn't just give title reigns to his friends, because that notion is ridiculous, Regal has never had one. Sheamus more so than any other young guy on the roster looks like he could beat anyone else on the roster up, but not only that. He has a package in that he can talk (he's not like The Rock, but he's not supposed to be, he's supposed to be a Celtic Warrior), and he has a marketable, unique look. It's believable that he can beat Cena because on Raw, we've not seen him do anything but destroy people (on ECW we saw him have more even feuds but they changed his push and thought, I'll bet, that since any new ECW guy that appears on Raw now gets a 'Who?' from the audience that they could change his push without worrying) so it can work. People say they haven't done enough with him, but each week he done something else to show his dominance. There wasn't much more that could have been done in the timespan that he had. He beat jobbers, retired Noble (which did get good heat), destroyed Lawler and Yeaton, won a Survivor Series match by destroying Finlay, sqaushed Finlay the next night, wins a battle royal featuring Kofi, Orton, Henry etc. Put's Cena through a table, and puts Cuban through a table. They've made his character do a lot so he is believable. He has the size to be believable. He has the unique look to be marketable. And he has the desire to be a success and never stop learning. This board first said they wanted new talent, then now it's 'Yeah, but new talent that has at least established a fanbase first' but I'm gonna say, why? Why can't we have experienced main eventers who have been there a while, main eventers who have worked for a long time and finally just got there, and main eventers who had a quick rise? Why does it only have to be 2 out of the 3? If it's believable, which doing it with Sheamus is, then I don't see why they can't try it out. Part of the mystique now to guys like HHH, HBK and Taker is that they have been around a while, and that earns them continued support through respect. The mystique around Jeff Hardy was that he finally got there after trying so hard, and got to give all his fans that sweet moment. The mystique with Sheamus will be, this early into his run, 'Who is this guy? He must be pretty special to do what he has done this quickly.' so it's just another hook for the audience, a different story they can tell. Most guys will go the route of gradually rising through the ranks, but as long as you don't go overboard on the amount of recent debutants winning world titles, and keep it unique and special, then it can work for the right talent. -Vince being a good businessman is debatable due to some past decisions (the XFL and Body Building Federations say hello) but since thats not the focus of your post thats another story for another day. -As far as Vince knowing what it takes to be a good wrestler, for the most part, yeah. I like Sheamous and think the WWE wouldn't have pushed him if they didn't have a reason, but at the same time, Vince McMhaon spent YEARS trying to push guys like Billy Gunn and Test who never really caught on on the big scale. ALSO, no doubt Sheamus impressed a lot of people backstage, but I agree with a lot of people in this thread who say that he was hot-shotted into the title picture. Yeah he retired Jamie Noble and it got heat but Jamie Noble hadn't been on TV in months. He got built up for like a month and took the title. As for why we can't have main eventers with a quick rise, in some cases it can work. Sheamus works since he has actually been wrestling for a while and is dedicated to the business, but for the most part it doesn't work because building someone up that fast paints you into a corner later when they don't have anything left to do and have a massive ego. Hello, Brock Lesnar. And yeah Sheamus has a mystique and CAN be used to intrigue the audience...but he hasn't been. He's been on RAW for like 5 minutes the last 2 weeks and is the very definition of a transitional champion. He's just holding it for a while. WWE isn't counting on him to do anything. This is still the DX and Cena show. If you're gonna say it's debatable that a good businessman is a good businessman because of some failures at some point in their career, I don't think you'll find a good businessman at all. He never pushed Billy Gunn or Test to the extent he did Sheamus, so this kind of backs up my point. He never did because they never demonstrated enough to get that kind of shot. When they were given opportunities, they didn't do enough. It happens. Plenty of times they have tried to make something but they just never caught on. Sheamus still has that mystique, if anything not being used too often helps maintain it. It keeps people wondering who he is. Even then, he's still soundly and easily beaten a credible mid-carder in MVP and has a title match next week. What else needs to be done with him actually at this point? It's been 2 weeks. He'll be fine, and in any case the point about a swift rise adding mystique isn't negated by the fact that he hasn't become the focal point of the show yet. The point is you can have different kinds of pushes, gradual ones, or ones like Sheamus got. As long as it's rare it can work. |
|
barley96
Dennis Stamp
This is the biggest Mickie James mark
Posts: 4,170
|
Post by barley96 on Dec 24, 2009 14:29:10 GMT -5
Source: The Pro Wrestling Torch
There are mixed feelings on WWE champion Sheamus among those in the company.
Some feel as though his friendship with Triple H has been blown out of proportion, while others accuse him of being a shameless suck-up to him. It should be noted that he trains with Trips while on the road. This really really angers me, and I haven't even been keeping up with the WWE on a regular basis since April or May of this year. I've been reading forever about how WWE uses the same 3 or 4 guys in the main event every week, and now they finally put the title on someone new and has him ease his way into the Main Event scene, yet people seem to find ridiculous excuses why he isn't a "worthy" champion. This excuse that his relationship with Triple H is why he is champion is one of the most idiotic things I've read from wrestling reporters and/or fans in a while. I mean, these days, the WWE is damned if they don't, and damned if they do. I guess there is no pleasing WWE fans. This. WWE is finally doing something good in creating a capable main eventer thats actually *gasp* different from the rest and is accused of only having success by association. The only reason he is "different than the rest" is his goofy look. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2009 14:30:12 GMT -5
This. WWE is finally doing something good in creating a capable main eventer thats actually *gasp* different from the rest and is accused of only having success by association. The only reason he is "different than the rest" is his goofy look. So the only reason he's different is the thing that makes him different? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 24, 2009 15:45:47 GMT -5
When Mr. Kennedy came into the company, he was riding with guys down the card. Batista went up to him and said, you won't learn from these guys, you should ride with Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. So for awhile, he was their driver, and got to pick their brains.
Sheamus is paying his dues. While training with Triple H, he probably also drives him everywhere, as most new guys usually do. He's going up to a veteran and picking his brain.
One could compare this to when Triple H came into the company in 1995 and was carrying bags and driving the Kliq around (at the suggestion of Terry Taylor if I'm not mistaken, I'm not sure where that came from actually). While one could see that as being a suck up, he also got the chance to pick the brain of all these guys, who were top guys at the time, despite their attitude problems. They knew what they were doing. Shawn Michaels was the guy who explained the buisness to Scott Hall when Hall first started out in the AWA.
Here's the thing. If Sheamus was the shits, he wouldn't be in the position he's in right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Dec 24, 2009 17:29:34 GMT -5
Here is my thing with Sheamus:
I don't dislike him but I don't like him either. I want to like him. I was relatively interested in him when he was called up. But I hate that he's WWE champion.
Whether or not he "sucked up" to get where he is has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here. What bothers me is how quickly this happened because to me, while there's obviously plenty of skill and talent there, I have absolutely NO REASON AT ALL to care about him on a main event level yet. That's not my fault, that's WWE's.
I'm not saying "he sucks and should never be in the main event," I'm saying "he shouldn't be in the main event YET." To me personally, I haven't see anything from him that puts him so much more above the newer set of guys that they jumped him right over. In my opinion, he's not any better than The Miz, Kofi, and all the other guys who have been moving at a more normal pace. He's not worse than them either but for him to just go whizzing by them - guys who I've watched longer and quite frankly have grown to care about much more - there needs to be some insanely intangible thing coming from him that I just don't see yet.
The reasoning of "at least there's someone new in the main event" doesn't work for me. That's not the reason or the way you go about making someone a star. And really, when those words are coming out of people's mouths as a justification for the move, what does that really say about everything? You don't sacrifice things like emotional investment and intriguing storylines to build that investment for that. If they wanted someone new and fresh, they could have used a bunch of other people - Miz, Kofi, Morrison, Swagger, MVP - given them a little bit harder of a push and had it make sense. I'd love to care about Sheamus in the ME - if only they'd truly given me a reason to. I want new blood in the main event too, I just want to care about them when they get there.
Honestly, that's the part of this that bothers me most of all - that those guys are still that tier below and Sheamus got to skip that level all together for a reason I just don't see yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Dec 24, 2009 17:32:08 GMT -5
I have to admit it's totally beyond me why Sheamus doesn't make a point of violently headbutting Hunter every time he sees him or attempt to run over his children. His complete failure to slap Steph in the chops at the slightest provocation and intentionally injure guys like HBK and Cena in the ring are baffling too.
You'd almost think he doesn't want to get fired or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by seamonsters on Dec 24, 2009 17:39:51 GMT -5
I can't blame people for questioning why he has the belt. It's really hard to see what main event qualities he offers in that position. But if this story is true. It's messed up that Trip's has so much pull that he can orchestrate who gets the belt. If he has that much pull - why hasn't he got the belt himself? William Regal was one of the groomsmen at Triple H's wedding - if triple H has that pull, why hasn't Regal had a run with the title? Michaels is Triple H's best mate (and taught Triple H everything he knew about politics) - why hasn't he had the title in seven years? Something I think has been missed since Sheamus got his push is that unless I'm mistaken, Vince McMahon himself has Irish heritage which no doubt has influenced him with this experiment. Despite his work both in and out of the ring, I find it difficult to believe it's without coincidence that Dave Finlay is also so highly thought of when guys like Dean Malenko and Mike Rotunda are still in reasonable shape at a similar age whilst employed as agents. This isn't a defence of Triple H just another reason why Sheamus is being inflicted on everyone. Malenko and Rotunda might still be in a reasonable shape for their ages, but their injuries over the years stop them from working a schedule - Finlay's don't. Finlay is also one of the most respected guys in the business. |
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Dec 24, 2009 19:47:05 GMT -5
"Look here fella...can I take your bags to your locker room, sir?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 24, 2009 19:53:48 GMT -5
this is gonna be a moot point once supercena takes the title at the next ppv (The Rumble?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2009 20:28:42 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with sucking up to your boss.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Dec 24, 2009 20:39:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Dec 24, 2009 20:43:13 GMT -5
this is gonna be a moot point once supercena takes the title next week. Fixed. I don't care about Sheamus in the Main Event because...well I just don't care. It can work, but they're doing it at a time where everyone, writers and talent, half-ass everything because its the holidays/end of the year, so he's being booked half-assesd. If Sheamus loses the title next week cleanly in a competitive match and again the rematch which is also a competitive match at the Royal Rumble...what makes him different from Jack Swagger? He won a Battle Royal? So did Zack Ryder, but you don't see him main eventing (not yet anyway, the future bro). He won a title match? He won his title match by the guy looking like he tripped off the top rope, which doesn't prove that you can actually beat a main eventer. tl;dr version: Sheamus should have come out the night he won the title and crushed a semi main eventer. But since WWE is on cruise control, he's done nothing to prove he belongs in the "upper echelon", as Cole put it. If he beats Cena cleanly, then I could buy it. But now he just seems like a fluke champion so that Cena can get the belt back and the WWE Universe can leave the decade on a happy note, and they didn't feel like using a guy like Kofi or Miz they actually have foreseeable plans for. |
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 24, 2009 20:49:21 GMT -5
this is gonna be a moot point once supercena takes the title next week. Fixed. I don't care about Sheamus in the Main Event because...well I just don't care. It can work, but they're doing it at a time where everyone, writers and talent, half-ass everything because its the holidays/end of the year, so he's being booked half-assesd. If Sheamus loses the title next week cleanly in a competitive match and again the rematch which is also a competitive match at the Royal Rumble...what makes him different from Jack Swagger? He won a Battle Royal? So did Zack Ryder, but you don't see him main eventing (not yet anyway, the future bro). He won a title match? He won his title match by the guy looking like he tripped off the top rope, which doesn't prove that you can actually beat a main eventer. tl;dr version: Sheamus should have come out the night he won the title and crushed a semi main eventer. But since WWE is on cruise control, he's done nothing to prove he belongs in the "upper echelon", as Cole put it. If he beats Cena cleanly, then I could buy it. But now he just seems like a fluke champion so that Cena can get the belt back and the WWE Universe can leave the decade on a happy note, and they didn't feel like using a guy like Kofi or Miz they actually have foreseeable plans for. This is a good point. It's almost like Punk's first title reign, where he basically looked like he got lucky in winning the title (Punk after Batista beat the crap out of Edge, Supercena's trip off the ropes for Sheamus) and isn't even the focus of the show. One segment of that dumb DX skit lasted more than all of Sheamus' time on Raw as champion. He's not getting main event reactions? Well it'd help if you'd build up the champion instead of John Cena, who God knows needs all the building up he can't get since he's hasn't been shoved down our throats for the last few years (and this from someone who doesn't really mind Cena). Seriously, if anyone thinks Cena's not getting the title back hasn't watched much WWE. Might not be next week, but his guarantee not to lose until he wins it shtick makes it a lock. |
|
