|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Jan 15, 2013 18:07:30 GMT -5
Because I believe his animosity to Rock is real and he cares more about wrestling than money. Don't destroy my illusions.  I'm sorry, all I read was "destroy my illusions".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:46:12 GMT -5
People are freaking out over nothing. never once do they mention mania 29
that selling points area is about things that sell the rumble DVD such as it being the start of the road to wrestlemania. why would they do anything to hype mania 29 in the "selling points" for the rumble dvd
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,544
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Jan 15, 2013 18:57:25 GMT -5
Punk vs Taker Longest title streak vs undefeated streak. I cannot fathom why they would be intent on throwing away such a tremendous money match by not doing this. It makes way too much sense, and frankly, it's the only big match they could do with Taker anyone would care about, since they clearly won't do Taker/Cena. |
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Jan 15, 2013 19:04:54 GMT -5
Punk vs Taker Longest title streak vs undefeated streak. I cannot fathom why they would be intent on throwing away such a tremendous money match by not doing this. It makes way too much sense, and frankly, it's the only big match they could do with Taker anyone would care about, since they clearly won't do Taker/Cena. And, let's be honest, doesn't this sound a lot better than Rock/Cena II? Maybe it's just me... |
|
|
|
Post by Big Kahuna Burger on Jan 15, 2013 19:34:15 GMT -5
Punk vs Taker Longest title streak vs undefeated streak. I cannot fathom why they would be intent on throwing away such a tremendous money match by not doing this. It makes way too much sense, and frankly, it's the only big match they could do with Taker anyone would care about, since they clearly won't do Taker/Cena. There's zero chance of Punk ending the streak and there's zero chance of a guy who works one match a year winning the WWE title. They've fought on TV and PPV several times already. It's not the dream match you think it is. |
|
|
|
Post by DrizzlinShytes on Jan 15, 2013 22:54:33 GMT -5
I just don't see how Rock losing makes any sense. You put the belt on him and get a good Rock run until he puts over Cena. It is predictable because it is pretty much the most logical booking to do. We could Russo it, but heels lose unless they are HHH during that megapush he had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 15, 2013 23:23:33 GMT -5
I cannot fathom why they would be intent on throwing away such a tremendous money match by not doing this. It makes way too much sense, and frankly, it's the only big match they could do with Taker anyone would care about, since they clearly won't do Taker/Cena. There's zero chance of Punk ending the streak and there's zero chance of a guy who works one match a year winning the WWE title. They've fought on TV and PPV several times already. It's not the dream match you think it is. Yes, yes it is, and I'd certainly look forward to it much more than I'd look forward to Rock/Cena II. Hell, the streak isn't the only direction they can go with it: Prior to crowning himself as "Best in the World," Undertaker was, most recently, one of his most resounding losses, with him getting only one victory over him through Teddy Long screwing him. So not only would Punk want to end Taker's WrestleMania streak and continue his title streak, it'd be a way for him to correct his record, so to speak. Not to mention, just because they didn't have chemistry in 2009 doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to pull out a hell of a match this year - four years later. I just don't see how Rock losing makes any sense. You put the belt on him and get a good Rock run until he puts over Cena. It is predictable because it is pretty much the most logical booking to do. We could Russo it, but heels lose unless they are HHH during that megapush he had. ...and who wins from this? Certainly not Cena, he's already good (and if it was that important, why not have let Cena win last year?); certainly not Rock, he's been good since the '90's and he's not even wrestling anymore. The only person it'd benefit is whoever beat Cena, and odds are that'd be some established heel; which looking at the possibilities, is mostly people who've beaten him already, namely Punk and - if they turn him heel - Randy Orton. The only "logical" thing about it is that it's the match that'd bring in the most money. Other than that, it accomplishes nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Jan 16, 2013 8:23:04 GMT -5
Raw has sold out the last two weeks with Rock on it and last years WM did good business its would be stupid for WWE to break from the original plans and not have Rock vs Cena 2 and then sick Punk in a big match with someone like Taker. Punk fans getting upset with the idea of losing to the Rock crack me up since first he's had a massive title run and half that run is due to setting up him losing to the Rock in the first place. Cena hasn't had the title for over 500 days by WM so its fine if he gets a run with the title after booking him into a off year in 2012. It's not so much that Punk is losing the title, it more that, for me at least, he could be losing it to someone who could really use the rub and elevate them. Not losing it to The Rock where it's only going to go to Cena at WM. 3 months wasted IMO. WWE could really have used the next 3 months to get a good story going, ultimately leading to Punk losing the title at WM and giving a deserving Superstar a well deserved push with the title having beaten a 400+ day champion! But when they were pushing Ryback, all anyone could say was that he wasn't ready and was too 'new'. |
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 16, 2013 8:42:27 GMT -5
The only "logical" thing about it is that it's the match that'd bring in the most money. Other than that, it accomplishes nothing. The entire point of wrestling is to make money, and if Rock/Cena II is what's going to do it, then that's what they're going to go with. Because it's what they think will make them the most money for an expensive show that they're trying to sell. Other wrestlers can be built up anytime, provided that they're good enough. |
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 16, 2013 9:08:23 GMT -5
People are freaking out over nothing. never once do they mention mania 29 that selling points area is about things that sell the rumble DVD such as it being the start of the road to wrestlemania. why would they do anything to hype mania 29 in the "selling points" for the rumble dvd I think the thought is to suggest to the DVD retailer that people will be really excited about Wrestlemania, where The Rock and John Cena will collide once again, and that this excitement will make Royal Rumble 2013 a hot selling DVD. I think it's also an education point, giving them tools to help promote the DVD if they're unfamiliar with WWE. Kinda like the exploitips from Box Office:  Too bad WWE won't go so far as to "Hire a motorcyclist to promote the film around town". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 9:13:06 GMT -5
These things don't spoil anything.
It's like when they advertise wrestlers appearing at a house show 6 months from now. The main event match advertised will be something like "Sheamus vs Mark Henry for the title!" simply because Sheamus had the title at the time and Mark Henry was being pushed. Then the match comes around and one or both guys aren't even in the title scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by BatPunk on Jan 16, 2013 12:55:56 GMT -5
It's not so much that Punk is losing the title, it more that, for me at least, he could be losing it to someone who could really use the rub and elevate them. Not losing it to The Rock where it's only going to go to Cena at WM. 3 months wasted IMO. WWE could really have used the next 3 months to get a good story going, ultimately leading to Punk losing the title at WM and giving a deserving Superstar a well deserved push with the title having beaten a 400+ day champion! But when they were pushing Ryback, all anyone could say was that he wasn't ready and was too 'new'. Maybe not a Ryback. But more like a Daniel Bryan or a Cody Rhodes or a Dolph Ziggler. Someone who's busted their arse for years and could really benefit from a huge WM win over Punk. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 16, 2013 13:03:31 GMT -5
These things don't spoil anything. It's like when they advertise wrestlers appearing at a house show 6 months from now. The main event match advertised will be something like "Sheamus vs Mark Henry for the title!" simply because Sheamus had the title at the time and Mark Henry was being pushed. Then the match comes around and one or both guys aren't even in the title scene. Yeah, it's still a bit early to say one way or the other. I'm still not a fan of the idea of having Rock vs. Cena II since Cena pretty much HAS to win, but let's just wait and see first. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 15:10:17 GMT -5
Because I believe his animosity to Rock is real and he cares more about wrestling than money. Don't destroy my illusions. I'm sorry, all I read was "destroy my illusions".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 15:30:35 GMT -5
The only "logical" thing about it is that it's the match that'd bring in the most money. Other than that, it accomplishes nothing. What do you think WWE sets out to accomplish with Wrestlemania each year? And Rock-Cena 2 is logical on every level. It's obviously logical from a financial perspective to do a rematch of the biggest match of all time. It'll be logical from a booking standpoint if Rock wins the title and Cena earns a title shot to get past the "once in a lifetime" thing and create what would be the biggest WWE title match in over a decade. It's logical from a non-kayfabe view since anyone who isn't a diehard Cena hater will admit that ultimately today's top star should be the one to ultimately come out on top in any rivalry with a part-time former top star. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Jan 16, 2013 16:41:05 GMT -5
But when they were pushing Ryback, all anyone could say was that he wasn't ready and was too 'new'. Maybe not a Ryback. But more like a Daniel Bryan or a Cody Rhodes or a Dolph Ziggler. Someone who's busted their arse for years and could really benefit from a huge WM win over Punk. Ryback wouldn't benefit? He's been wrestling for as long as Ziggler. Why not him? |
|
|
|
Post by BatPunk on Jan 16, 2013 17:37:15 GMT -5
Maybe not a Ryback. But more like a Daniel Bryan or a Cody Rhodes or a Dolph Ziggler. Someone who's busted their arse for years and could really benefit from a huge WM win over Punk. Ryback wouldn't benefit? He's been wrestling for as long as Ziggler. Why not him? I agree he would benefit, but because of the above reason, most fans consider him 'too new' |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Jan 16, 2013 20:38:53 GMT -5
I don't get it though. He's hot now. Why not strike the iron? It's not like he's a Drew McIntyre or Cesaro level of over where nobody cares.
|
|
|
|
Post by BatPunk on Jan 16, 2013 21:31:03 GMT -5
I believe they should strike while the iron's hot. But not with the WWE Championship. Let him continue to destroy people and give him an IC or US title run as well as giving Ryback more experience having Big Time matches and then a run with one of the big titles at a later date. WWE can still push him to the moon while giving him more time and more chances to grow as an entertainer. Have him do a series of matches with Big Show or Kane and show off some impressive power while working with some veterans to shine.
Just not one of the big titles just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jan 27, 2013 23:22:19 GMT -5
So can we finally say this was a major failure on WWE's part?
|
|
