Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 11:09:44 GMT -5
It's also up to the wrestler in question, and I think people forget that this is arguably the most important ingredient. Commentators can hype Punk's title reign up all they want, but at the end of the day it's a fake title reign in a scripted television show. Few people are going to be any more inclined to buy into a guy who ends it just because he ended it. It's not a waste if Rock beats Punk for the belt because it's all fake, and there's no opportunity to be blown except for perhaps a fun story. Shawn Michaels didn't need to hold the title for a year in order for Austin winning it to matter, because people were already buying into Austin no matter what. The title reign wasn't important, the guy who won the title was important. It's the same for Hogan, Cena, Rock, etc. And the same will apply to whoever the next big star is. If Ryback is going to be the next star on the level of Cena, then it won't matter if he beats Punk and ends the 400+ day title reign. The fans will just be happy if Ryback gets his title. He could win it off a guy that's been champion for one day, one month, or a year and they'll buy into him all the same. That's essentially what I'm saying. Making a new star is like baking a cake. You can't make a cake with just eggs, but if you already have the eggs (Punk's title reign), then there is no point in wasting those eggs and having to go out and buy new one's. Ending Punk's title reign on it's own will not create a new star, but it certainly would help put them over more. This title reign may be scripted, but the writers have scripted it to be important, to waste it on The Rock would be strange to me. It's not a waste, they're just using it for a different purpose, which is to set up a huge match between CM Punk and The Rock and - if Rock wins - a way of turning that into a selling point for a rematch between Rock and John Cena. If WWE thinks they have a legitimate new star in their midst, they know they can put him over in a variety of different ways. Punk's reign isn't really needed to make a new star. To use your analogy - it's not really 'wasting' the eggs, it's just using them for something else.
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Dec 27, 2012 11:12:17 GMT -5
only made it as far as page 2 but maybe the SHIELD comes in and costs the Rock the matchup with Punk (to correct the injustice of some guy who hasn;t wrestled since last year's Mania getting a title shot just "because"). Then they avoid having to do something in the EC saving the Rock til last and whatever.
Cena wins the Rumble demands his title shot vs. Punk, Rock comes out and says he beat punk (via DQ) and Rock beat cena last year so why in the blue blazes does Cena get a shot instead of the Rock? Triple Threat made for Mania. Cena winning the belt without pinning Punk as someone else said gives us more storyline to play off of from there "Cena you knew you couldn;t beat me so you took a shortcut and beat poor out of shape Dwayne instead." or Rock asks for a tiebreaker match since they've both pinned each other once now.
or if they want to avoid Punk/Cena again and give the Rock a goodbye run. Punk retains by beating Cena somehow and gives a "i beat the two biggest legends in the industry today at the same time cause i'm the best in the world!" speech on RAW. Rock interrupts saying Punk still hasn't been able to beat the great one. Match made at next PPV. Cena helps Rock beat Punk cause "Rock's earned my respect and Punk hasn;t" or something Cena-y like that and the two arch nemesiseseses celebrate their new found respectfulness towards each other.
then the Rock can drop the belt to either Punk (obligated rematch) or Cena( who pulls an Apollo Creed "you owe me one" to get a title match) or Ziggler (in a surprise to break out of the Punk/Cena/Rock circle of matches) after a month or two.
|
|
|
Post by flatsdomino on Dec 27, 2012 13:42:59 GMT -5
Slightly moronic but honest statement incoming:
I'll say it right here, if the first (and possibly only) Wrestlemania I'll ever go to ends with John Cena triumphant over the Rock and WWE champion again, as much as I do respect what the guy does in the way of charity work and whatnot, I'm hurling my soda at the dude's head, full force.
Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2012 13:45:34 GMT -5
That's essentially what I'm saying. Making a new star is like baking a cake. You can't make a cake with just eggs, but if you already have the eggs (Punk's title reign), then there is no point in wasting those eggs and having to go out and buy new one's. Ending Punk's title reign on it's own will not create a new star, but it certainly would help put them over more. This title reign may be scripted, but the writers have scripted it to be important, to waste it on The Rock would be strange to me. It's not a waste, they're just using it for a different purpose, which is to set up a huge match between CM Punk and The Rock and - if Rock wins - a way of turning that into a selling point for a rematch between Rock and John Cena. If WWE thinks they have a legitimate new star in their midst, they know they can put him over in a variety of different ways. Punk's reign isn't really needed to make a new star. To use your analogy - it's not really 'wasting' the eggs, it's just using them for something else. But that's the crux of the debate going on here: why make this "new cake" when it has such a minimal payoff? Yes, there'd be a ratings boost when lapsed fans tune in after the Rumble to see Rock with the belt, yes, there MIGHT be a small boost in WM buyrates (I don't really agree with that, but let's just make it a given for argument's sake), but then what? We're back at square one, John Cena is the established mega-champion, Punk is already established, but you've now removed even the possibility of putting over somebody new who could add depth to your main event scene. Why mortgage your future like that for minimal payoffs in the present? I do also want to say I had no intention of arguing that just beating Punk alone would be enough to make a guy a megastar; as I said before, I'm figuring that they wouldn't be silly enough to have a random midcarder beat Punk out of the blue on a given episode of Raw, they'd at least build somebody up to look like a credible threat first. Then again, I'm also reading people saying "there isn't anybody who can do that now", and that's what I was talking about when saying "then it's an enormous failure on WWE's part". The model lengthy title reign in modern US wrestling history is Samoa Joe's 18 month reign as Ring of Honor World Champion from early 2003 through December 2004. During that time Joe was clearly "the man", but as he neared the one year mark the company made a concerted effort to build up new or existing talent to look like major threats to dethrone the long-time champ. Hell, the Joe vs. Punk trilogy is what made CM Punk so visible to WWE in the first place, even though Punk didn't win the belt. ROH also did a very good job in building up Austin Aries, a relative newcomer, as the man who had the capability of finally beating Joe. He didn't win it "out of nowhere"; rather, he had plenty of chances to showcase his abilities, a number of high-interest matches throughout 2004, and was part of the hottest stable in the company at the time, Generation Next. Now, we can't look at WWE and ROH and say every circumstance is similar: ROH never had to put on weekly TV shows in 2004, and WWE has a different format that it operates under, so getting guys over in each company couldn't be done the exact same way. But the guiding principle is clear: if you have a long-reigning champion, it is in your company's best interest to work to build up talent that could greatly benefit from ending his title reign. It doesn't mean you HAVE to have him beat by an "up and comer" all the time (see: all the times guys like Misawa, Kobashi, et. al. traded titles in Japan), but it's a healthy long-term booking decision, and if you're NOT building up potential main eventers then you are REALLY missing the boat in the first place.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,931
|
Post by BRV on Dec 27, 2012 14:11:31 GMT -5
Slightly moronic but honest statement incoming: I'll say it right here, if the first (and possibly only) Wrestlemania I'll ever go to ends with John Cena triumphant over the Rock and WWE champion again, as much as I do respect what the guy does in the way of charity work and whatnot, I'm hurling my soda at the dude's head, full force. Just sayin. My friends and I have all agreed that if the main event of WrestleMania XXIX turns out to be The Rock defending the WWE Championship against John Cena, we're selling our tickets. I have zero interest in spending all that money on tickets, a hotel room, parking, food and drinks to see John Cena walk out of WrestleMania as the WWE Champion, especially if it comes at the expense of The Rock.
|
|
HBL
Unicron
This is what yoga does to you.
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by HBL on Dec 27, 2012 15:12:56 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think that this match should happen solely because it's gonna make money. Obviously that's what matters for most of the part,but wasting the main event spot of Wrestlemania for a rematch like this is a slap in the face to many fans and wrestlers. Of course,some people will still come up with ''Because money!'' and I can't completely argue with that. What I'm saying is,they should consider this long term. Yeah,they're gonna make a good amount of money again,but what happens after that? There are already loads of people complaining and moaning about Cena when he hasn't won ANY title for over more than a year,imagine what the general reaction will be if Cena defeats Rock AND becomes WWE champion at the same time. It might seem like I'm making a way too big deal out of this,but this is how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Dec 27, 2012 15:52:24 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think that this match should happen solely because it's gonna make money. Obviously that's what matters for most of the part,but wasting the main event spot of Wrestlemania for a rematch like this is a slap in the face to many fans and wrestlers. Of course,some people will still come up with ''Because money!'' and I can't completely argue with that. What I'm saying is,they should consider this long term. Yeah,they're gonna make a good amount of money again,but what happens after that? There are already loads of people complaining and moaning about Cena when he hasn't won ANY title for over more than a year,imagine what the general reaction will be if Cena defeats Rock AND becomes WWE champion at the same time. It might seem like I'm making a way too big deal out of this,but this is how I see it. People on the boards like this don't usually like Cena. But on the whole, fans of the WWE would rather watch Cena or Rock with the title than Punk. That's just the facts.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2012 15:53:52 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think that this match should happen solely because it's gonna make money. Obviously that's what matters for most of the part,but wasting the main event spot of Wrestlemania for a rematch like this is a slap in the face to many fans and wrestlers. Of course,some people will still come up with ''Because money!'' and I can't completely argue with that. What I'm saying is,they should consider this long term. Yeah,they're gonna make a good amount of money again,but what happens after that? There are already loads of people complaining and moaning about Cena when he hasn't won ANY title for over more than a year,imagine what the general reaction will be if Cena defeats Rock AND becomes WWE champion at the same time. It might seem like I'm making a way too big deal out of this,but this is how I see it. People on the boards like this don't usually like Cena. But on the whole, fans of the WWE would rather watch Cena or Rock with the title than Punk. That's just the facts. I'm not Cena's biggest fan but I'll say right now that I'd rather have Cena/Rock or whatever than have Cena/Miz again.
|
|
HBL
Unicron
This is what yoga does to you.
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by HBL on Dec 27, 2012 16:29:34 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think that this match should happen solely because it's gonna make money. Obviously that's what matters for most of the part,but wasting the main event spot of Wrestlemania for a rematch like this is a slap in the face to many fans and wrestlers. Of course,some people will still come up with ''Because money!'' and I can't completely argue with that. What I'm saying is,they should consider this long term. Yeah,they're gonna make a good amount of money again,but what happens after that? There are already loads of people complaining and moaning about Cena when he hasn't won ANY title for over more than a year,imagine what the general reaction will be if Cena defeats Rock AND becomes WWE champion at the same time. It might seem like I'm making a way too big deal out of this,but this is how I see it. People on the boards like this don't usually like Cena. But on the whole, fans of the WWE would rather watch Cena or Rock with the title than Punk. That's just the facts. I thought in a way that even people outside IWC would be pissed by it,but yeah,who am I kidding...
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 17:30:00 GMT -5
It's not a waste, they're just using it for a different purpose, which is to set up a huge match between CM Punk and The Rock and - if Rock wins - a way of turning that into a selling point for a rematch between Rock and John Cena. If WWE thinks they have a legitimate new star in their midst, they know they can put him over in a variety of different ways. Punk's reign isn't really needed to make a new star. To use your analogy - it's not really 'wasting' the eggs, it's just using them for something else. But that's the crux of the debate going on here: why make this "new cake" when it has such a minimal payoff? Yes, there'd be a ratings boost when lapsed fans tune in after the Rumble to see Rock with the belt, yes, there MIGHT be a small boost in WM buyrates (I don't really agree with that, but let's just make it a given for argument's sake), but then what? We're back at square one, John Cena is the established mega-champion, Punk is already established, but you've now removed even the possibility of putting over somebody new who could add depth to your main event scene. Why mortgage your future like that for minimal payoffs in the present? I don't see how you can't put somebody new over even without Punk's title reign. There are a variety of different ways to introduce a hot, new talent into the main event. You don't need a long title reign to do it, because there's a belief that if a talent is hot enough, fans will buy into them no matter what they do. You just need somebody good enough. The reason WWE might be (and let's remember - we really don't know 100% what they're going for, Punk might keep the belt in the end) looking to transition the title onto Rock would be because while planning for the future is great and all, the present is just as important, and they still have a $55-$65 show to sell. If (and obviously I don't know whether or not it will, but the logic is sound) Rock vs. Cena II with the title on the line is going to do good business, then they're not really losing much by putting the title on the Rock. In short - the thinking is that whatever new talent may or may not be coming in the future, he can still be put over properly whether or not Punk's still on his title reign. In the meantime, there are still present issues to be considered, such as WrestleMania 29.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 27, 2012 17:47:13 GMT -5
WWE also needs to book for the 8-9 pay-per-views it runs the rest of the year also. Pay-per-views that won't necessarily have the Rock, Brock Lesnar, the Undertaker, or Triple H on them, or, because of injury, people like CM Punk or John Cena too. And let's not forget TV time. Booking decently strong TV for 3-4 months of the year to then let it languish for the next 8-9 months is really dumb. But most fans accept that WWE TV post-April is merely adequate at best, so WWE has no incentive to change the way it runs its programmes.
I get booking in the short-term, hey, a million buys for Wrestlemania, that's quite a gain... but at the expense of long-term pain, consistent 150,000 buys for the remaining shows of the year, in an era with stagnant ratings? Okay.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 17:51:09 GMT -5
WWE also needs to book for the 8-9 pay-per-views it runs the rest of the year also. Pay-per-views that won't necessarily have the Rock, Brock Lesnar, the Undertaker, or Triple H on them, or, because of injury, people like CM Punk or John Cena too. And let's not forget TV time. Booking decently strong TV for 3-4 months of the year to then let it languish for the next 8-9 months is really dumb. But most fans accept that WWE TV post-April is merely adequate at best, so WWE has no incentive to change the way it runs its programmes. Unfortunately, none of those other 8-9 pay-per-views are as important (in WWE's eyes) as WrestleMania. There's nothing stopping you from booking for them as well, but WM is given top priority, since it's the biggest, most important, and most expensive show - and the one that captures most of the mainstream attention. It's a balancing act. You need to consider the future, but the present is just as important. Especially when the present considers your most important event, what the rest of the year builds towards.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 27, 2012 17:54:44 GMT -5
It's not a waste, they're just using it for a different purpose, which is to set up a huge match between CM Punk and The Rock and - if Rock wins - a way of turning that into a selling point for a rematch between Rock and John Cena. If WWE thinks they have a legitimate new star in their midst, they know they can put him over in a variety of different ways. Punk's reign isn't really needed to make a new star. To use your analogy - it's not really 'wasting' the eggs, it's just using them for something else. But that's the crux of the debate going on here: why make this "new cake" when it has such a minimal payoff? Yes, there'd be a ratings boost when lapsed fans tune in after the Rumble to see Rock with the belt, yes, there MIGHT be a small boost in WM buyrates (I don't really agree with that, but let's just make it a given for argument's sake), but then what? We're back at square one, John Cena is the established mega-champion, Punk is already established, but you've now removed even the possibility of putting over somebody new who could add depth to your main event scene. Why mortgage your future like that for minimal payoffs in the present? I do also want to say I had no intention of arguing that just beating Punk alone would be enough to make a guy a megastar; as I said before, I'm figuring that they wouldn't be silly enough to have a random midcarder beat Punk out of the blue on a given episode of Raw, they'd at least build somebody up to look like a credible threat first. Then again, I'm also reading people saying "there isn't anybody who can do that now", and that's what I was talking about when saying "then it's an enormous failure on WWE's part". The model lengthy title reign in modern US wrestling history is Samoa Joe's 18 month reign as Ring of Honor World Champion from early 2003 through December 2004. During that time Joe was clearly "the man", but as he neared the one year mark the company made a concerted effort to build up new or existing talent to look like major threats to dethrone the long-time champ. Hell, the Joe vs. Punk trilogy is what made CM Punk so visible to WWE in the first place, even though Punk didn't win the belt. ROH also did a very good job in building up Austin Aries, a relative newcomer, as the man who had the capability of finally beating Joe. He didn't win it "out of nowhere"; rather, he had plenty of chances to showcase his abilities, a number of high-interest matches throughout 2004, and was part of the hottest stable in the company at the time, Generation Next. Now, we can't look at WWE and ROH and say every circumstance is similar: ROH never had to put on weekly TV shows in 2004, and WWE has a different format that it operates under, so getting guys over in each company couldn't be done the exact same way. But the guiding principle is clear: if you have a long-reigning champion, it is in your company's best interest to work to build up talent that could greatly benefit from ending his title reign. It doesn't mean you HAVE to have him beat by an "up and comer" all the time (see: all the times guys like Misawa, Kobashi, et. al. traded titles in Japan), but it's a healthy long-term booking decision, and if you're NOT building up potential main eventers then you are REALLY missing the boat in the first place. really? Cena as the established mega-champion? Even though with the year he's had this past year he could end up jobbing the belt to someone else the next Raw?
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 27, 2012 18:01:33 GMT -5
The ratings/attendence thread shows what's happening pretty well. Wrestlemania buyrates are up, but live show attendance and ratings are down over 10%. And as it doesn't look like there will be any major changes in the format of the WWE, likely because Vince doesn't think that putting all his focus on one show a year affects the rest of the product negatively, I expect this same trend next year.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Dec 27, 2012 18:57:10 GMT -5
That's cool
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2012 19:12:29 GMT -5
But that's the crux of the debate going on here: why make this "new cake" when it has such a minimal payoff? Yes, there'd be a ratings boost when lapsed fans tune in after the Rumble to see Rock with the belt, yes, there MIGHT be a small boost in WM buyrates (I don't really agree with that, but let's just make it a given for argument's sake), but then what? We're back at square one, John Cena is the established mega-champion, Punk is already established, but you've now removed even the possibility of putting over somebody new who could add depth to your main event scene. Why mortgage your future like that for minimal payoffs in the present? I do also want to say I had no intention of arguing that just beating Punk alone would be enough to make a guy a megastar; as I said before, I'm figuring that they wouldn't be silly enough to have a random midcarder beat Punk out of the blue on a given episode of Raw, they'd at least build somebody up to look like a credible threat first. Then again, I'm also reading people saying "there isn't anybody who can do that now", and that's what I was talking about when saying "then it's an enormous failure on WWE's part". The model lengthy title reign in modern US wrestling history is Samoa Joe's 18 month reign as Ring of Honor World Champion from early 2003 through December 2004. During that time Joe was clearly "the man", but as he neared the one year mark the company made a concerted effort to build up new or existing talent to look like major threats to dethrone the long-time champ. Hell, the Joe vs. Punk trilogy is what made CM Punk so visible to WWE in the first place, even though Punk didn't win the belt. ROH also did a very good job in building up Austin Aries, a relative newcomer, as the man who had the capability of finally beating Joe. He didn't win it "out of nowhere"; rather, he had plenty of chances to showcase his abilities, a number of high-interest matches throughout 2004, and was part of the hottest stable in the company at the time, Generation Next. Now, we can't look at WWE and ROH and say every circumstance is similar: ROH never had to put on weekly TV shows in 2004, and WWE has a different format that it operates under, so getting guys over in each company couldn't be done the exact same way. But the guiding principle is clear: if you have a long-reigning champion, it is in your company's best interest to work to build up talent that could greatly benefit from ending his title reign. It doesn't mean you HAVE to have him beat by an "up and comer" all the time (see: all the times guys like Misawa, Kobashi, et. al. traded titles in Japan), but it's a healthy long-term booking decision, and if you're NOT building up potential main eventers then you are REALLY missing the boat in the first place. really? Cena as the established mega-champion? Even though with the year he's had this past year he could end up jobbing the belt to someone else the next Raw? I have no idea what point you're making. John Cena is the established mega-face of the WWE, and putting the belt back on him at the biggest show of the year, against the Rock, would be a loud, ringing affirmation of the status quo and Cena's status as the figure who cannot be topped in the company. He's already the focus of the company without the belt, regardless.
|
|
Totorob101
Hank Scorpio
Glob Glob Glob
Posts: 5,576
|
Post by Totorob101 on Dec 27, 2012 19:33:17 GMT -5
Rock and Cena make me embaressed to be a wrestling fan. Rocks time has passed and he comes in one or two times a year stealing the spotlight from up and coming talent while Cena...well we all know what hes like. I feel bad for Punk if he has to drop the title to either of these two clowns.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 27, 2012 20:25:13 GMT -5
really? Cena as the established mega-champion? Even though with the year he's had this past year he could end up jobbing the belt to someone else the next Raw? I have no idea what point you're making. John Cena is the established mega-face of the WWE, and putting the belt back on him at the biggest show of the year, against the Rock, would be a loud, ringing affirmation of the status quo and Cena's status as the figure who cannot be topped in the company. He's already the focus of the company without the belt, regardless. in April it will be 18 months since John Cena's last title reign. CM Punk as champ is the status quo now.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 27, 2012 21:21:20 GMT -5
Cena's still clearly the 'main character' though, and has been since 05; belt or not.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2012 22:08:24 GMT -5
Cena's still clearly the 'main character' though, and has been since 05; belt or not. Exactly; with or without the title, the company seems petrified to even begin thinking about life after Cena.
|
|