Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 9:25:17 GMT -5
Yet no one complains that Punk is booked like Cena. Punk puts on great matches. Nobody wants to see a guy win constantly at the flip of the 'Superman' switch. And Punk has been beaten down and, in some cases, has to wait until the PPV before he can exact revenge. He's a great wrestler, but he has been knocked down and has to prove himself to be superior than his adversary (see Jericho's taunts). In a lot of Cena's cases, the heel's action is far weaker than his retaliation. Similarly, I had the same problems with Rey Mysterio. You can't call somebody an "underdog" if they win cleanly a lot.
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on May 23, 2012 9:49:37 GMT -5
Hey, I'll happily accept that Rocky lost too often, but at the same time he stayed over as hell, which shows that a character like that CAN take it. The reason why Saint Rock stayed over despite losing is that he was protected by having a character that SHRUGGED off losing. Unlike Cena who has occasionally and effectively shown something resembling fear in the face of his foes irrespective if he stared at the ceiling lights for them all Rock basically did was put down and make fun of opponents even if they got the better of him in the ring and IMO that always made him far from vulnerable. Put Rock in Cena's spot against Nexus for example and no matter how many jobs he would have done against Barrett, Slater etc. all the mass, casual audience, as opposed to the IWC specifically, would remember are the inevitable promos which would consist of him burying and making fun of them.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on May 23, 2012 17:18:06 GMT -5
Punk puts on great matches. Nobody wants to see a guy win constantly at the flip of the 'Superman' switch. And Punk has been beaten down and, in some cases, has to wait until the PPV before he can exact revenge. He's a great wrestler, but he has been knocked down and has to prove himself to be superior than his adversary (see Jericho's taunts). In a lot of Cena's cases, the heel's action is far weaker than his retaliation. Similarly, I had the same problems with Rey Mysterio. You can't call somebody an "underdog" if they win cleanly a lot. sure you can. Rey and Cena etc are the heroes of the story. But saying they're the favorites simply because of the past is like watching a Die Hard sequel and saying "well, John McClaine always beats the villains in these movies so obviously the bad guys are no threat."
|
|
|
Post by mystikz on May 23, 2012 17:30:11 GMT -5
I enjoyed Punk calling Cena out on not being an underdog.
Mysterio is the worst as every match you have to listen to how he's the ultimate underdog but he almost always wins. With Rey it wasn't even believable as with Cena. Rey beating Kane was just absurd.
Rey's character was probably the most stale, I don't miss him at all.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,727
|
Post by thecrusherwi on May 23, 2012 17:51:49 GMT -5
Yeah I think that it has everything to do with people not liking the guys where are winning all of the time.
I've seen people mention they don't like when Cena wins out of nowhere after getting beat down the entire match. You must've hated Hogan and absolutely loathed Steve Austin.
I've seen people mention they don't like predictability. The run to WrestleMania's XIV & XV must've been a terrible bore for you then, because no one in the world thought that Steve Austin was going to lose.
I get that people don't like Cena, but he has actually been booked as a guy who his opponents have a chance to beat one on one. Hogan would need some kind of injury to raise that feeling and Steve Austin was even worse. His first two title loses needed Undertaker AND Kane to team up on him for them to be believeable, at a time when Kane and Undertaker were booked as miles and miles above even the other upper midcarders (Foley, Rock, HHH). His other PPV title bouts wer Austin vs. The Corporation and he damaged them so badly, they felt they needed to combine BOTH huge heel stables and form the Corporate Ministry to keep putting heat on Austin. Austin was booked like God for most of his run.
If people don't like who's getting booked to win, I get it. I'm not a huge Punk fan and I'm a little tired of his reign. But these other reasons just don't hold up if you have ever enjoyed the majority of WWE's history.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,164
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on May 23, 2012 17:52:17 GMT -5
For those that are saying Cena and Punk are booked the same lets look at the same PPV two years running: Over The Limit 2011 - Cena walks in as WWE Champion. Cena gets in minimal offence (about 10/90 if I remember correctly) against Miz and his lackey. Cena overcomes the beating of 20+mins like it was nothing in a terribly boring match and makes Miz tap almost immediately. Over The Limit 2012 - CM Punk walks in as WWE Champion. In his match with Daniel Bryan they get in roughly the same offence (I'd say 55-45 to Bryan). Punk eventually rolls Bryan up to only just beat him and sells it like Bryan has almost broken him, to top it all off he taps to Daniel Bryan's submission maneuver as soon as the bell rings. That seems like vastly different booking to me. Now I wouldn't say that Sheamus is suffering from Cena-style Superman booking just yet (although he's certainly heading in that direction) but his character has been wasted. When he turned face to fight Mark Henry way back last year I was really excited by the development. It looked like Sheamus was going to be this absolutely badass face who just beat the everliving s*** out of people who pissed him off rather than your smiley, cookie-cutter WWE babyface who smiles and never gets angry. Fast forward to now and he is generic babyface #109479 so that's why I'm not a fan of Sheamus at the minute. Not because he wins too much but quite simply because he is boring and bland. Punk hasn't cleanly lost in a non-handicap match since Hell In A Cell, Cena lost cleanly at WrestleMania. Don't know what that has to do with my post but I will say that Cena's clean loss was to The Rock. Punk hasn't faced anyone of that star-power in that timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 23, 2012 19:30:11 GMT -5
With Cena, it is so obvious that he'll win 99% of the time that I don't even bother watching the PPVs unless there's another match I want to see. Take last year. Money In The Bank 2011 was one of the best angles WWE ever did, but I'm so used to Cena winning that I didn't bother to watch it. Punk's contract was up, it was common knowledge, and the idea that Punk was actually going to beat Cena was ridiculous. Why would a guy that was leaving beat the guy who never loses? I only found out on the internet the morning after that Punk had won and watched the match later on a repeat. Cena wins that often that I can't be a mark any more with his matches, unless he DOES face someone like Rock. The Rock could lose without it damaging his character. You still knew he was awesome, you still knew he was a threat, and if Rock was facing someone badass, then the match ending was in doubt. And Cena has lost that doubt. I think you're being way too cynical and it's hurting your enjoyment of the product. You're so sure something is going to be a certain way before it even happens, and that completely deprives you of the ability to enjoy it. Because of your cynicism, you actually experienced the disappointment of Punk losing at MITB, when in reality, he won. So your view on Cena becomes twisted and exaggerated. When he wins, you're disappointed twice - beforehand with your expectation, and afterwards when it happens. When he loses, you're still disappointed at least once - beforehand with your expect/assume he'll win. The reality is, he doesn't win 99% of the time, not even close. He doesn't "ALWAYS" win, as you said earlier in your post. He's lost the world title on PPV many times. He's lost many other PPV and TV matches. He's worked with midcarders and divas and has done silly throwaway stuff - he's been booked as much less of a "star" than Hogan, Warrior, Austin, or Rock, who all much more protected in terms of looking silly, interacting with lesser talent, and being treated as above everyone else. I mean, if you watched in the 80s, Hogan and Warrior were booked so much more strongly than Cena. They were too big to even be on TV. There's no way you can be happy with the booking of Cena, it's impossible, because you'll translate the 75% or 80% to 99% because when he does lose, you ignore it or play it down because it doesn't fit your own cynical storyline. And when were all these times when Rock lost clean to heels (the only one I can remember is Lesnar, when he was going off to film a movies)? Where was this match that JBL was on offense for 15 minutes straight against Cena before Cena did one move at the end to win?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 23, 2012 20:31:04 GMT -5
{Spoiler}I think you're being way too cynical and it's hurting your enjoyment of the product. You're so sure something is going to be a certain way before it even happens, and that completely deprives you of the ability to enjoy it. Because of your cynicism, you actually experienced the disappointment of Punk losing at MITB, when in reality, he won. So your view on Cena becomes twisted and exaggerated. When he wins, you're disappointed twice - beforehand with your expectation, and afterwards when it happens. When he loses, you're still disappointed at least once - beforehand with your expect/assume he'll win.
The reality is, he doesn't win 99% of the time, not even close. He doesn't "ALWAYS" win, as you said earlier in your post. He's lost the world title on PPV many times. He's lost many other PPV and TV matches. He's worked with midcarders and divas and has done silly throwaway stuff - he's been booked as much less of a "star" than Hogan, Warrior, Austin, or Rock, who all much more protected in terms of looking silly, interacting with lesser talent, and being treated as above everyone else. I mean, if you watched in the 80s, Hogan and Warrior were booked so much more strongly than Cena. They were too big to even be on TV.
There's no way you can be happy with the booking of Cena, it's impossible, because you'll translate the 75% or 80% to 99% because when he does lose, you ignore it or play it down because it doesn't fit your own cynical storyline. I could get picky over your choices of phrasing here since you've kind of put a few words in my mouth, but that seems pointless. One thing I will say is it wasn't me that cited the JBL example, because I wasn't even watching in 2004/2005 when Jibbles was champ but what I have seen of that reign suggests to me that JBL wouldn't have dominated ANYBODY in ANY match, because he played a chickenshit heel. As for Rock losing clean to heels, a quick scan of his title history has brought me nuthin' other than Brock, like you said, so I'll withdraw that remark, but at the very least, I found numerous occasions of people successfully screwing Rock over, something which for a long time barely happened at all to Cena. I am not a Cena hater, I am indifferent towards him. I freely admit, if Cena won all the time and I enjoyed his matches, I'd care a lot less. But I don't generally enjoy his matches, it takes someone I care about on the other side of the ring or some kind of gimmick match for me to actually want to see the match happen. So without being interested in the actual match itself, the only relevant part of it to me is the result. And as such, I am not disappointed twice by his matches, I am indifferent towards them too, because I just don't care about his storylines, although I admittedly undersold him on the way into MITB 2011 because I didn't think he'd have a good match with Punk - certainly not one THAT good. I watch the product for other people, angles and matches generally speaking. I wasn't giving a reason why I personally dislike Cena, I was giving what I perceived the problem to be for a lot of other people and occasionally for myself when he happens to end up in an angle featuring someone I like. As for my own cynical storyline, you're doing basically the exact same thing that you're accusing me as doing. Austin was booked stronger, I'll give you that one. Austin never lost. It was pretty ridiculous, and my favourite run of Austin's was his heel one in 2001 when 1. he could wrestle much more interesting matches and 2. if he did win, it'd be generally in a screwy finish. Rock might have been booked stronger overall, but it certainly took a whole lot less for him to lose than it did Cena, generally speaking, until relatively recently. Comparing Cena vs. Rock or Brock to Cena vs. Orton is comparing apples and oranges. Rock and Brock are something completely different and what made Cena/Rock exciting was that whoever lost, it made some sense and made no sense all at once. That was the excitement. Nobody needed Rock to win to go home happy, the spectacle was already there and the doubt was back, because how could they make Rock lose his first Mania match in eight years, but how could they put a part-timer over their top guy and etc. etc. Similarly, comparing Hogan and Warrior to modern booking isn't fair either. They were too big stars to even be on TV, yeah, but the industry's changed. Big stars are on free TV now, that's the way it is and won't change. DDTs used to finish matches too, but that doesn't happen any more either. But then to use Hogan and Warrior for a comparison, they had way fewer appearances and title defences in the amount of time that Cena would've done, and that's part of what makes people sick of Cena. Hogan might overcome ridiculous odds, but he'd do it a few times a year. Cena, in the same time frame, would be doing it monthly, and on Raw half of the time as well. The point I've been trying to make this whole time is that while, yes, Cena is nowhere near as untouchable as he used to be, because he's become 'the guy who wins' he'll never get rid of that tag and it takes something special to really make it seem like he could lose. This should be a good thing. He should be used as someone who a victory over can really mean something. Credit to WWE, when Cena loses, it usually matters. Cena losing to Rock mattered, as the culmination of a huge angle... or rather it should've done but then they fed him straight to Brock. I WISH Cena was treated as the kind of star that Warrior and Hogan were, because then his matches and by extension his wins and losses would mean a hell of a lot more. And I wish I was entertained enough by him to enjoy him being treated as an Austin level star.
|
|