Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 22:38:09 GMT -5
He beat them as a WWE sports entertainer - one could argue. Like I said, if he would have bridged the gap between an "entertainer" and a "wrestler" - basically saying there's no difference, then that would have been a more interesting choice, but just saying "Whatevers dude, I've won lots of matches" just comes off as name-droppery of the highest degree. By name-dropping he basically didn't address the core concept Bryan was presenting: Cena's not a wrestler, he's a WWE entertainer through and through. Let me highlight two different passages from the promo. "What I have become is a man who spent the last 12 years wrestling around the world" "The difference between you and me is not parody, jack, every one of those matches, I did it while I was holding this. So please, please think I'm a joke, please think I'm a parody, please think I'm going to waltz into Los Angeles on Sunday, just a shell of a man who's a t-shirt, a set of wrist bands and some off the rack set of cargos and a beat up pair of Pumas. Please, please think that about me, because that's what every one of your peers has thought about me and I've beaten them all. All of them. I've wrestled and beaten them all." To say he didn't address the core concept, that he wasn't a wrestler, is just wrong. He did, and he did it well. He didn't have a dance off against CM Punk, he didn't have a poetry slam with HHH, he didn't play Crossfire with Batista, he had a wrestling match. Being an "entertainer" and a "pro wrestler" are not different. If you're a pro wrestler and you're not entertaining, you're doing it wrong. You can't argue "He beat them as an entertainer" any more than you could argue that Bryan won the ROH title as an entertainer. They're not different. Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 13, 2013 22:53:58 GMT -5
Let me highlight two different passages from the promo. "What I have become is a man who spent the last 12 years wrestling around the world" "The difference between you and me is not parody, jack, every one of those matches, I did it while I was holding this. So please, please think I'm a joke, please think I'm a parody, please think I'm going to waltz into Los Angeles on Sunday, just a shell of a man who's a t-shirt, a set of wrist bands and some off the rack set of cargos and a beat up pair of Pumas. Please, please think that about me, because that's what every one of your peers has thought about me and I've beaten them all. All of them. I've wrestled and beaten them all." To say he didn't address the core concept, that he wasn't a wrestler, is just wrong. He did, and he did it well. He didn't have a dance off against CM Punk, he didn't have a poetry slam with HHH, he didn't play Crossfire with Batista, he had a wrestling match. Being an "entertainer" and a "pro wrestler" are not different. If you're a pro wrestler and you're not entertaining, you're doing it wrong. You can't argue "He beat them as an entertainer" any more than you could argue that Bryan won the ROH title as an entertainer. They're not different. Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. I think Bryan's problem is that he's not making that distinction very clear. If he has an issue with Cena not wanting to wrestle for any other company (which is a little vain on his part, but it doesn't exactly make him Wrestling Hitler), he should have been more specific. Otherwise, that could easily be mistaken for the tired old 2006 "dur hur yuo can't wreastlez!" bullhockey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 23:03:34 GMT -5
Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. I think Bryan's problem is that he's not making that distinction very clear. If he has an issue with Cena not wanting to wrestle for any other company (which is a little vain on his part, but it doesn't exactly make him Wrestling Hitler), he should have been more specific. Otherwise, that could easily be mistaken for the tired old 2006 "dur hur yuo can't wreastlez!" bullhockey. Yeah, this new dimension to the match isn't really that strong for either guys to be honest. Plus its not like they're selling it as these two guys hate each other's guts or anything - a lotta "respek" stuff being thrown around, but not full blown GIjoe/Cobra antagonism.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Aug 13, 2013 23:09:21 GMT -5
I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. I think they're trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-Cena fans (70% of the male audience) who seem to truly believe that John can't wrestle at all, like he just walked off the streets into WWE and fumbles around foolishly in the ring (look on pretty much any other forum aside from this one, and in Youtube comments to see what I mean). And they want those fans to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan at Summerslam.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Aug 13, 2013 23:18:47 GMT -5
I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. I think they're trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-Cena fans (70% of the male audience) who seem to truly believe that John can't wrestle at all, like he just walked off the streets into WWE and fumbles around foolishly in the ring (look on pretty much any other forum aside from this one, and in Youtube comments to see what I mean). And they want those fans to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan at Summerslam. Which is a pity, since that segment of the fanbase was going to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan no matter what, and taking this approach just pigeonholes him as another smark darling, when he'd briefly been looking like he could ascend beyond that and actually appeal to a wider audience in a way that CM Punk can't.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Aug 13, 2013 23:29:24 GMT -5
I think they're trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-Cena fans (70% of the male audience) who seem to truly believe that John can't wrestle at all, like he just walked off the streets into WWE and fumbles around foolishly in the ring (look on pretty much any other forum aside from this one, and in Youtube comments to see what I mean). And they want those fans to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan at Summerslam. Which is a pity, since that segment of the fanbase was going to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan no matter what, and taking this approach just pigeonholes him as another smark darling, when he'd briefly been looking like he could ascend beyond that and actually appeal to a wider audience in a way that CM Punk can't. I think he has been doing that really well at least starting with the Kane feud but even with the AJ stuff he was this broadly drawn cartoonish buffoon, who also happened to be a really good wrestler. I think there's a case that he's been the goofiest guy on the show that's taken seriously. Now it's like for the past two weeks all of a sudden he's the aloof guy he was in NXT again, except with shaggy hair and a silly beard.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Aug 14, 2013 0:11:13 GMT -5
This was their only good promo of the entire feud. I was sick of how much they acted buddy buddy before they really started insulting eachother on this last Raw.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 14, 2013 2:42:16 GMT -5
I think they're trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-Cena fans (70% of the male audience) who seem to truly believe that John can't wrestle at all, like he just walked off the streets into WWE and fumbles around foolishly in the ring (look on pretty much any other forum aside from this one, and in Youtube comments to see what I mean). And they want those fans to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan at Summerslam. Which is a pity, since that segment of the fanbase was going to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan no matter what, and taking this approach just pigeonholes him as another smark darling, when he'd briefly been looking like he could ascend beyond that and actually appeal to a wider audience in a way that CM Punk can't. One could make the argument that this is why WWE did this. For once, smarks and marks alike seemed to be on the same page, seeing Bryan as the sentimental favorite and obvious underdog. But by proxy of that, WWE realized "where does that leave John Cena?" A guy whom they seem adamant to never change or tweak whatsoever. I think WWE prefers the 50/50 stuff, because in their booking minds, the detractors are looked down on in the narrative. WWE admits they exist, but there's always this undercurrent that those fans only do it out of jealousy, defiance, in support of local favorites, or to just rock the boat -- and not the myriad of other reasons that could exist based on how they book John. In their eyes, Cena is still the good guy, always, cheered heroically by those who know better, and booed by those defiant miscreants giving a bum rap. In the case of Daniel Bryan, like with Rock the first time around, WWE realized that there wasn't really a polar reaction happening with Cena, so their solution, rather than just letting Bryan be embraced and supported on his quest for the gold against a true obstacle, opted to instead manufacture the narrative and rewrite it to slightly discredit and tear down Bryan, and to raise Cena up so they reach their 50/50 status quo. That's likely the reason why, all of a sudden, Bryan is pulling points out of his ass, and Cena is deflecting them. They're purposely weak points. WWE doesn't want a one-sided feel good story. They want a 50/50 battle. They seem to not be able to just let certain guys be the actual HERO of the narrative outside of Cena. You can be equal, but not better. That's always their strange M.O. And it's not John's fault. He just goes with it, 'cause, hey, why not.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 14, 2013 5:38:40 GMT -5
Let me highlight two different passages from the promo. "What I have become is a man who spent the last 12 years wrestling around the world" "The difference between you and me is not parody, jack, every one of those matches, I did it while I was holding this. So please, please think I'm a joke, please think I'm a parody, please think I'm going to waltz into Los Angeles on Sunday, just a shell of a man who's a t-shirt, a set of wrist bands and some off the rack set of cargos and a beat up pair of Pumas. Please, please think that about me, because that's what every one of your peers has thought about me and I've beaten them all. All of them. I've wrestled and beaten them all." To say he didn't address the core concept, that he wasn't a wrestler, is just wrong. He did, and he did it well. He didn't have a dance off against CM Punk, he didn't have a poetry slam with HHH, he didn't play Crossfire with Batista, he had a wrestling match. Being an "entertainer" and a "pro wrestler" are not different. If you're a pro wrestler and you're not entertaining, you're doing it wrong. You can't argue "He beat them as an entertainer" any more than you could argue that Bryan won the ROH title as an entertainer. They're not different. Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan.
|
|
|
Post by cahuette on Aug 14, 2013 5:46:08 GMT -5
Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan. Is it me or is "I BEAT EVERYONE" Cena's way to win every argument he's not winning? And yes, I know they have to work within kayfabe, but I'm a bit sick of him going "if you don't beat me you suck and I'm awesome at everything because I win".
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Aug 14, 2013 5:59:52 GMT -5
Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan. I would argue that you made a rather sizable leap in logic to reach that idea. Weird Al does nothing but parodies, does that make the song bad or lacking of merit? No. Does it make the song he parodied bad or lacking talent? No. It simply means he took an existing thing and added a, more often then not, comedy element to it. Bryan is not speaking about Cenas ability in the ring, he's speaking about the character that Cena is. Cena is almost a living cartoon, he's an entertainer, the things that bother him are more character or moral based. Bryans most notable character trait is that he's a nutcase but he's only a nutcase when people doubt his wrestling ability, he wants to prove that he's the best, he's a wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 14, 2013 6:19:37 GMT -5
That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan. I would argue that you made a rather sizable leap in logic to reach that idea. Weird Al does nothing but parodies, does that make the song bad or lacking of merit? No. Does it make the song he parodied bad or lacking talent? No. It simply means he took an existing thing and added a, more often then not, comedy element to it. Bryan is not speaking about Cenas ability in the ring, he's speaking about the character that Cena is. Cena is almost a living cartoon, he's an entertainer, the things that bother him are more character or moral based. Bryans most notable character trait is that he's a nutcase but he's only a nutcase when people doubt his wrestling ability, he wants to prove that he's the best, he's a wrestler. Yeah but see Bryan was implying that Cena doesn't have the credibility Bryan does because he feels he's parody, hence he was attacking his character because of it. Hell, Cena should have pointed out the fact that Bryan became as popular as he is now thanks in large parts due to everything he attacked Cena for. You take away the Yes chants, the comedy sketches, and the beard and Bryan's just a better version of Tyson Kidd
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 14, 2013 6:21:42 GMT -5
That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan. Is it me or is "I BEAT EVERYONE" Cena's way to win every argument he's not winning? And yes, I know they have to work within kayfabe, but I'm a bit sick of him going "if you don't beat me you suck and I'm awesome at everything because I win". In competitive sports, the way you win an argument is by telling your doubters to look at the scoreboard. That is his argument. When Bryan is calling Cena a "a parody of a wrestler", he's saying he can't wrestle, which is why he's an arrogant little prick. Which is why Cena owned him in that segment, because he pointed out he is a wrestler that has beaten opponents a lot better than Daniel Bryan. I would argue that you made a rather sizable leap in logic to reach that idea. Weird Al does nothing but parodies, does that make the song bad or lacking of merit? No. Does it make the song he parodied bad or lacking talent? No. It simply means he took an existing thing and added a, more often then not, comedy element to it. Bryan is not speaking about Cenas ability in the ring, he's speaking about the character that Cena is. Cena is almost a living cartoon, he's an entertainer, the things that bother him are more character or moral based. Bryans most notable character trait is that he's a nutcase but he's only a nutcase when people doubt his wrestling ability, he wants to prove that he's the best, he's a wrestler. This is the first promo of Bryan's I've seen in the build to Summerslam, so maybe he did, but has Bryan ever said anything positive about Cena's ability before? Because if he hasn't, it takes no leap in logic to say when you are calling someone a "parody" of their chosen occupation, its clearly meant as an insult.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Aug 14, 2013 6:42:16 GMT -5
I sometimes wonder if some folks on this forum will ever be happy. I thought the promos were great. I don't care if Cena was saying the same shit over and over again, how many of Flair's promos and Hogan's promos were the same shit over and over again? It's about delivery and charimsa and making the crowd pop.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Aug 14, 2013 6:49:04 GMT -5
This is the first promo of Bryan's I've seen in the build to Summerslam, so maybe he did, but has Bryan ever said anything positive about Cena's ability before? Because if he hasn't, it takes no leap in logic to say when you are calling someone a "parody" of their chosen occupation, its clearly meant as an insult. If I remember correctly Bryan hasn't complemented Cenas ability, I could be wrong, though it was strange that Cena spent five minutes last week claiming that Bryan had said he was a bad wrestler. Potentially it was in the script and Bryan just chose not to say it or Cena just kinda went into auto-drive, hard to say. Yeah but see Bryan was implying that Cena doesn't have the credibility Bryan does because he feels he's parody, hence he was attacking his character because of it. Hell, Cena should have pointed out the fact that Bryan became as popular as he is now thanks in large parts due to everything he attacked Cena for. You take away the Yes chants, the comedy sketches, and the beard and Bryan's just a better version of Tyson Kidd Isn't that in part a piece of Cena's gimmick that just isn't handled that well? Cena has always reminded me of a wrestling version of Rocky. Rocky was never the greatest or the most credible boxer, he was a brawler who succeeded because of his heart, his passion and his refusal to ever give up no matter how hard he was rocked. Hell Cena's I Quit matches may as well be Rocky tributes. Whilst, as you point out Bryan did reach a wider appeal when he portrayed a goofier character, that character is still largely based on Bryan being a wrestler, the Yes chants came from Bryan claiming his first world title and shouting that in victory, most of the goofy segments with Kane were Bryan attempting to claim that he was the sole reason they were tag champs. The entire storyline we see now started because Bryan was paranoid that people saw him as a weak link, that he was not as capable in the ring as those around him. The beard? I don't even know dude, I have no idea why the beard is now such a major part of Bryans character, even I can't defend that. I sometimes wonder if some folks on this forum will ever be happy. I thought the promos were great. I don't care if Cena was saying the same shit over and over again, how many of Flair's promos and Hogan's promos were the same shit over and over again? It's about delivery and charimsa and making the crowd pop. I loved the promo, leading up to this the only reason I couldn't see Bryan as a top face that could cover for Cena was that Bryan always looked like he was gonna corpse on the mic. Monday proved me wrong, he brought an intensity on the mic I don't think I've seen from Bryan at the very least since he was holding the MITB briefcase.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 14, 2013 7:06:46 GMT -5
Which is a pity, since that segment of the fanbase was going to be rabidly behind Daniel Bryan no matter what, and taking this approach just pigeonholes him as another smark darling, when he'd briefly been looking like he could ascend beyond that and actually appeal to a wider audience in a way that CM Punk can't. One could make the argument that this is why WWE did this. For once, smarks and marks alike seemed to be on the same page, seeing Bryan as the sentimental favorite and obvious underdog. But by proxy of that, WWE realized "where does that leave John Cena?" A guy whom they seem adamant to never change or tweak whatsoever. I think WWE prefers the 50/50 stuff, because in their booking minds, the detractors are looked down on in the narrative. WWE admits they exist, but there's always this undercurrent that those fans only do it out of jealousy, defiance, in support of local favorites, or to just rock the boat -- and not the myriad of other reasons that could exist based on how they book John. In their eyes, Cena is still the good guy, always, cheered heroically by those who know better, and booed by those defiant miscreants giving a bum rap. In the case of Daniel Bryan, like with Rock the first time around, WWE realized that there wasn't really a polar reaction happening with Cena, so their solution, rather than just letting Bryan be embraced and supported on his quest for the gold against a true obstacle, opted to instead manufacture the narrative and rewrite it to slightly discredit and tear down Bryan, and to raise Cena up so they reach their 50/50 status quo. That's likely the reason why, all of a sudden, Bryan is pulling points out of his ass, and Cena is deflecting them. They're purposely weak points. WWE doesn't want a one-sided feel good story. They want a 50/50 battle. They seem to not be able to just let certain guys be the actual HERO of the narrative outside of Cena. You can be equal, but not better. That's always their strange M.O. And it's not John's fault. He just goes with it, 'cause, hey, why not. They did the same thing with Ryback too. Instead of keeping him a non-nonsense beast who just wanted the title, they had to turn him into a whiner. WWE keeps trying to protect Cena, and to me it seems unnecessary. He's always going to have his fans, and he is good enough at what he does that he'll always be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpo Commando on Aug 14, 2013 7:22:55 GMT -5
The part where Cena just said I've wrestled legends and beat them all should pretty much end all the silly "he's a bad wrestler" promos. 'Limited skills and ablilities', and he still kicks everyones ass. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're aware of what the world is saying about you, how you're part of "the problem", how you have a limited move set, how your character is stale and all these things, and then say you've beaten a bunch of guys better than you are, because really, you didn't really beat them. The WWE, who has been molding you since you started as the prototype, booked them to lose to you and even though they outperformed you, so you still got credited with the W. That's the only problem I have with Cena's promo, he bleeds reality with kayfabe and it leaves his opponent having to not say what is reality, that even though Cena has worked with the best, he never put on a match the way they could and he never will, because he's just not that good a wrestler to do it. Daniel Bryan is, and the difference between the two is clear, Cena achieved as an entertainer and was handed a ton of breaks, and Daniel Bryan, despite his stature, deserves to be there because of his wrestling. CM Punk made this very clear during the promo they had for Summerslam last year too, he's the hyena and Cena is the lion, and he had to fight for opportunities Cena was simply given, with his white rapper gimmick but really his size, which he used in order to become a body builder first, not a wrestler. Other than that I thought the Cena promo was great, I do like the angle he took about being who he is, but he's done that before. The rest is really people here trying to put something on Cena that he doesn't deserve to have. Which is the moniker of being a wrestler and a top one at that, because he's not, and he's said so before, he's an entertainer. He crapped on Chris Kanyon for that very thing on the Howard Stern show years ago. I thought in that regard, Daniel Bryan said what he needed to say without actually saying something that would get him in trouble, that in this business, there are wrestlers and there are entertainers. Cena is the top entertainer, Daniel Bryan wants to be the top wrestler. That part of the promo resonated very well I think, whether or not it did with most fans, I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2013 7:34:28 GMT -5
Oh I definitely agree they're not mutually exclusive and you have to have one to have the other, but I think the crux of the argument revolves around the idea that Cena is a WWE entertainer first and a wrestler second, whereas Bryan sees himself as a wrestler first and an entertainer second. Cena said it himself - he'd never wrestle anywhere BUT for WWE. I seriously doubt Bryan's argument is that Cena can't actually, physically wrestle - I mean, that doesn't make sense on any level kayfaybe or otherwise. See, I had a problem when Cena said that, and I liked that he didn't go that route again. But the notion that being an entertainer and being a wrestler are different things is a bad distinction to me. You said it yourself, they aren't mutually exclusive. Being a pro wrestler isn't more about being able to do a textbook sharpshooter than being able to cut a good promo, or knowing an octopus hold vs. resonating with the fans. It's all the same package, and if someone greatly understands the technical aspect but can't connect with the crowd, they're not a good pro wrestler. Even many of the notably "non-charismatic" guys (Benoit, Storm, etc) were charismatic, they just weren't as adept at cutting promos as their peers. Cena addressed that distinction well, because for all the talk about how he's entertainer and not a real wrestler, he's still beat everyone in the company at wrestling. The part where Cena just said I've wrestled legends and beat them all should pretty much end all the silly "he's a bad wrestler" promos. 'Limited skills and ablilities', and he still kicks everyones ass. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're aware of what the world is saying about you, how you're part of "the problem", how you have a limited move set, how your character is stale and all these things, and then say you've beaten a bunch of guys better than you are, because really, you didn't really beat them. The WWE, who has been molding you since you started as the prototype, booked them to lose to you and even though they outperformed you, so you still got credited with the W. That's the only problem I have with Cena's promo, he bleeds reality with kayfabe and it leaves his oppoenent having to not say what is reality, that even though Cena has worked with the best, he never put on a match the way they could and he never will, because he's just not that good a wrestler to do it. Daniel Bryan is, and the difference between the two is clear, Cena overachieved and was handed a ton of breaks, and Daniel Bryan, despite his stature, deserves to be there. CM Punk made this very clear during the promo they had for Summerslam last year too, he's the hyena and Cena is the lion, and he had to fight for opportunities Cena was simply given, with his white rapper gimmick but really his size, which he used in order to become a body builder first, not a wrestler. Other than that I thought the Cena promo was great, I do like the angle he took about being who he is, but he's done that before. The rest is really people here trying to put something on Cena that he doesn't deserve to have. Which is the moniker of being a wrestler and a top one at that, because he's not, and he's said so before, he's an entertainer. He crapped on Chris Kanyon for that very thing on the Howard Stern show years ago. I thought in that regard, Daniel Bryan said what he needed to say without actually saying something that would get him in trouble, that in this business, there are wrestlers and there are entertainers. Cena is the top entertainer, Daniel Bryan wants to be the top wrestler. That part of the promo resonated very well I think, whether or not it did with most fans, I'm not so sure. I just hate this notion because it acts like Cena hasn't worked hard for what he's gotten. Cena's probably the hardest working guy in the company, and he wasn't brought in on a golden chariot and anointed the next WWE champion by the ghost of Vince McMahon Sr. And if we're going to go the "WWE booked them to lose to him" argument, then that exact same thing applies to every single pro wrestler in every single match since pro wrestling became scripted. Cena is not any different than Daniel Bryan in that regard, because Bryan didn't win shoot fights while Cena was being a pro wreslter.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Aug 14, 2013 7:39:12 GMT -5
Was Cena really handed stuff in the beginning?
He was like 4th or 5th on the 'future of the company' totem pole behind Lesnar, Orton, Jindrak and even Batista. The white rapper gimmick was pretty much a jobber gimmick akin to what 3MB is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpo Commando on Aug 14, 2013 7:44:46 GMT -5
And if we're going to go the "WWE booked them to lose to him" argument, then that exact same thing applies to every single pro wrestler in every single match since pro wrestling became scripted. Cena is not any different than Daniel Bryan in that regard, because Bryan didn't win shoot fights while Cena was being a pro wreslter. Then lets drop the idea that just beating someone means you outperformed them, and that just because he did win those matches against legendary wrestlers means he deserves to be in the discussion with them as in ring performers, because he surely doesn't and after 12 years, it's safe to say he never will. Daniel Bryan has proven that he can go in the ring on part with those guys, the innovative moves, the complexity of the matches and all the things that are often considered to be requisites to being considered a good wrestler, things Cena does not do, and if he's ever done, done with much help. The idea of Cena bringing it up that he beat those people leads to that criticism, not me harboring some antagonism towards the way he was brought up or the probable opportunities he's been given. I would never question how hard he's worked, I imagine he worked very hard to be capable in the ring, but 11 time champion means you're open to all criticism about every facet of your professional life. He's, like it or not, the face of this industry because of his image, not the total package. His persona has been the same for many years now, almost all his matches are the same, and the few times there's an alteration everyone goes nuts because they didn't expect it, that's called setting the bar low and manipulating expectations, Pavlov would be proud. Cena did work extremely hard to get where he is, but he proves that in order to make it to the top, you have to get over with the fans and with the brass. He did both those things and that's why he is where he is, not because of his technique in ring. When you talk about wrestling in professional wrestling, that's what you mean, not shoot fighting, this stuff has been fake fighting for so long you should know better than to presume that's what they, or I, was talking about. Was Cena really handed stuff in the beginning? He was like 4th or 5th on the 'future of the company' totem pole behind Lesnar, Orton, Jindrak and even Batista. The white rapper gimmick was pretty much a jobber gimmick akin to what 3MB is doing. The way I understand it, after he debuted, beating Kurt Angle, it was his white rapper gimmick is what reinvented himself in the company. He had that ruthless aggression gimmick that didn't go anywhere and the rap gimmick is what gave him the incredible amounts of microphone time before the matches, which eventually got him to the US title, and then to the WWE Title. He feuded with big time guys during that entire run. To suggest he was just a 3MB caliber jobber I think is very inaccurate.
|
|