|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2013 8:08:26 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. We shouldn't drop it. In kayfabe terms that's exactly what it means, and Cena's not really blurring any lines when he addresses that or his constant critics. They're selling it like it's a real match, so Cena's victory list is fair game when someone calls him out as a wrestler. Whether you personally like his character or think he's talented is another matter, but him bringing up his accomplishments when someone questions his ability as a wrestler is definitely fair. That doesn't mean he's not open to criticism, of course, but his response can be "I've been here for 12 years around the world in the most hostile environments wrestling." It's a good response, because it addresses all those criticisms in terms of selling the story. And I think that 12 years is a big reason why we see his matches as mostly the same. Fact is, even really good technical wrestlers could be formulaic, Bret Hart and Steve Austin for example, had their routines that they fell into and didn't mix up all that much. When you wrestle that many shows, you tend to have a routine. No one has completely new matches every week, not even Daniel Bryan. When you've seen a guy for as long as we've seen Cena, wrestling as much as he has, you pick up on all their normal routines. And when they do something new, you notice it. Almost every wrestler has had their 5 (or fewer) moves of doom and anyone being around that long is going to get stale, which is why so many wrestlers don't last that long or take breaks. Cena's not allowed to change it up because he's the top merch mover for the young fans, who WWE want to keep long term, and it's definitely made him more stale. 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. Slight nitpick, Cena lost to Angle in his debut, he just put up a good fight. Beyond that, yeah, he was feuding with pretty high level people from the get go, even though it took him something like 3 years to win the WHC for the first time. But it was still not really an anointing, he wasn't just handed everything. He still had to make a pretty goofy gimmick (given how much of a joke Vanilla Ice was) work.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpo Commando on Aug 14, 2013 8:21:42 GMT -5
We shouldn't drop it. In kayfabe terms that's exactly what it means, and Cena's not really blurring any lines when he addresses that or his constant critics. They're selling it like it's a real match, so Cena's victory list is fair game when someone calls him out as a wrestler. Whether you personally like his character or think he's talented is another matter, but him bringing up his accomplishments when someone questions his ability as a wrestler is definitely fair. That doesn't mean he's not open to criticism, of course, but his response can be "I've been here for 12 years around the world in the most hostile environments wrestling." It's a good response, because it addresses all those criticisms in terms of selling the story. And I think that 12 years is a big reason why we see his matches as mostly the same. Fact is, even really good technical wrestlers could be formulaic, Bret Hart and Steve Austin for example, had their routines that they fell into and didn't mix up all that much. When you wrestle that many shows, you tend to have a routine. No one has completely new matches every week, not even Daniel Bryan. When you've seen a guy for as long as we've seen Cena, wrestling as much as he has, you pick up on all their normal routines. And when they do something new, you notice it. Almost every wrestler has had their 5 (or fewer) moves of doom and anyone being around that long is going to get stale, which is why so many wrestlers don't last that long or take breaks. Cena's not allowed to change it up because he's the top merch mover for the young fans, who WWE want to keep long term, and it's definitely made him more stale. When you say do something new, you can cite the uppercut barrage by Cesaro against Bryan, or whatever the hell Kofi does in a battle royale, but when you talk about Cena, it's a drop kick or a botched hurricanrana. You're absolutely right when you say all wrestlers rely on certain move sets to get them through matches, and focus on ring psychology to get over with the crowd if they're good workers. The difference between Cena and those established wrestlers with so much experience and more importantly, that volume of exposure to lead to that potential staleness is their reliance on those move sets in key moments in a match. You can count with one hand the amount of times Cena did something outside of his move set during a match to change the pace of a match, the off the top rope splash which dropped everyone regardless of whether or not they got hit with it, the drop kick that gave Michael Cole an O face, the Hurricainrana on one of the best sellers in the business currently and still looked terrible. The more we talk about it the more his in ring prowess irks me. How many televised matches has this guy had compared to everyone else in the company? Even if getting put on TV that much is not his fault, there should be something to giving the fans more variety as a performer, other guys do it with only a fraction of that exposure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 8:31:54 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 disagree. That's why Bryan brought up the fact that Cena CAN wrestle, but he'd only wrestle for WWE. Whereas Bryan would still wrestle if he got fired by WWE. He's saying Cena isn't a WRESTLER, but a WWE wrestler (which is a very specific type of wrestler in that WWE's brand is specific). Watch Bryan's press conference for Summer Slam on Youtube and he goes into it more: Bryan delineates his POV pretty clearly about how they're basically different types of wrestlers. I think maybe you're missing that key point which shows that Bryan isn't saying Cena can't physically wrestle. Its more layered and nuanced than just "you can't wrestle a match" - its goes BEYOND that.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpo Commando on Aug 14, 2013 8:32:14 GMT -5
Slight nitpick, Cena lost to Angle in his debut, he just put up a good fight. Beyond that, yeah, he was feuding with pretty high level people from the get go, even though it took him something like 3 years to win the WHC for the first time. But it was still not really an anointing, he wasn't just handed everything. He still had to make a pretty goofy gimmick (given how much of a joke Vanilla Ice was) work. You're absolutely right, he took Angle to the edge and Angle got serious and won the match by the skin of his teeth, but it was designed to get Cena over and Undertaker gave him veteran props afterward. I remembered that incorrectly. But yes that rapper gimmick really helped him a ton, it gave all those top guys he mentioned something to bounce off of him and it allowed him to be, as a very green and young wrestler, in the ring with giants at the time and not be seen as out of place. It probably propelled his career a great deal to be given that much confidence by so many guys, and to his credit he handled it seemingly gracefully since he's still in the company in such a high position. That being said we're not talking about that aspect of him, even though it's an important ingredient towards his success, because he had to be given those opportunities first. We're talking (or at least I'm talking) about his identity as a professional wrestler and the idea of him being an entertainer and as such using his out of the ring prowess in the mic and in promotions to get his character over and entertain the fans, instead of in the ring where a professional wrestler would try to entertain the fans with their matches and in ring ability. Hopefully in a match like this upcoming one, with the size difference so evident, we'll see him push Bryan around a bit and rough him up some, which will allow him to avoid some of that staleness, surely they'll work a good match.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 14, 2013 8:45:07 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 disagree. That's why Bryan brought up the fact that Cena CAN wrestle, but he'd only wrestle for WWE. Whereas Bryan would still wrestle if he got fired by WWE. He's saying Cena isn't a WRESTLER, but a WWE wrestler (which is a very specific type of wrestler in that WWE's brand is specific). Watch Bryan's press conference for Summer Slam on Youtube and he goes into it more: Bryan delineates his POV pretty clearly about how they're basically different types of wrestlers. I think maybe you're missing that key point which shows that Bryan isn't saying Cena can't physically wrestle. Its more layered and nuanced than just "you can't wrestle a match" - its goes BEYOND that. I can't miss something that wasn't there. In his Raw promo, not once did Bryan compliment Cena's ability. He never called him good at what he does. He never called him a WWE wrestler, or just a WWE wrestler, he called him a "parody of a wrestler". I'll check out the clip from the Summerslam press conference when I get home from work to see if he's changed his tune from Monday night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 8:47:38 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. Yeah, but like we said, that whole "who beat who" thing is pretty unsteady ground to walk on as everyone's beat everyone if you've been around long enough. Which is funny, when you think about it. Because Bryan clearly sees himself as the superior grappler AND he's more over with the fans right now than Cena is. But like I said, I think what Bryan's talking about is the passion for being a wrestler, not actual physical ability to wrestle. Bryan sees Cena as a WWE product (which isn't far off if you look at his career, not that there's anything wrong with that - plenty of great wrestlers are) who will only wrestle for WWE. He's not a WRESTLER in the sense of the word that he'll do it no matter what/where/how/when - just for the "love of the game." It's like an actor who'll only act if he's getting paid millions and wouldn't otherwise. That guy's not an "ACTOR" - he's a superstar celebrity. (in this sense of the word).
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2013 8:52:06 GMT -5
We shouldn't drop it. In kayfabe terms that's exactly what it means, and Cena's not really blurring any lines when he addresses that or his constant critics. They're selling it like it's a real match, so Cena's victory list is fair game when someone calls him out as a wrestler. Whether you personally like his character or think he's talented is another matter, but him bringing up his accomplishments when someone questions his ability as a wrestler is definitely fair. That doesn't mean he's not open to criticism, of course, but his response can be "I've been here for 12 years around the world in the most hostile environments wrestling." It's a good response, because it addresses all those criticisms in terms of selling the story. And I think that 12 years is a big reason why we see his matches as mostly the same. Fact is, even really good technical wrestlers could be formulaic, Bret Hart and Steve Austin for example, had their routines that they fell into and didn't mix up all that much. When you wrestle that many shows, you tend to have a routine. No one has completely new matches every week, not even Daniel Bryan. When you've seen a guy for as long as we've seen Cena, wrestling as much as he has, you pick up on all their normal routines. And when they do something new, you notice it. Almost every wrestler has had their 5 (or fewer) moves of doom and anyone being around that long is going to get stale, which is why so many wrestlers don't last that long or take breaks. Cena's not allowed to change it up because he's the top merch mover for the young fans, who WWE want to keep long term, and it's definitely made him more stale. When you say do something new, you can cite the uppercut barrage by Cesaro against Bryan, or whatever the hell Kofi does in a battle royale, but when you talk about Cena, it's a drop kick or a botched hurricanrana. You're absolutely right when you say all wrestlers rely on certain move sets to get them through matches, and focus on ring psychology to get over with the crowd if they're good workers. The difference between Cena and those established wrestlers with so much experience and more importantly, that volume of exposure to lead to that potential staleness is their reliance on those move sets in key moments in a match. You can count with one hand the amount of times Cena did something outside of his move set during a match to change the pace of a match, the off the top rope splash which dropped everyone regardless of whether or not they got hit with it, the drop kick that gave Michael Cole an O face, the Hurricainrana on one of the best sellers in the business currently and still looked terrible. The more we talk about it the more his in ring prowess irks me. How many televised matches has this guy had compared to everyone else in the company? Even if getting put on TV that much is not his fault, there should be something to giving the fans more variety as a performer, other guys do it with only a fraction of that exposure. I think you've got it backwards. The less exposure means that Cesaro's tricks aren't old yet, not that they're adding new variety to an established move set. Cesaro uppercuts a lot, but he's still new to the company so we haven't seen him play with it in WWE. We've seen Cena play with his moves for 12 years, of course it's going to get old and stale. I agree that he should be able to mix it up more, but I think that's more a much of a problem with how overbooked WWE is, especially on that level. That's why guys like Orton, Kane, and even Sheamus, a relative newcomer, all have really formulaic matches. If they ever do something new, it's drilled in so damn hard that it becomes stale in no time flat. But I just don't think that really plays into the wrestler vs. entertainer argument a whole lot, Cena is a talented wrestler, and he's talented because he can engage just about any crowd even if he's not dropping new moves. He'll never get the universal praise that others do, but the core job of a wrestler is to get a reaction, and Cena does that better than almost anyone else in the company, and has done so longer than anyone else. As far as Kofi goes, I don't really think it's a fair comparison to put what a flier does during a Royal Rumble to what a non-flyer does during a normal match. I get the point, but if we were going to compare Cena mixing it up with someone else, it should be someone like Swagger, who wrestlers that power style and also tends to get stale in WWE booking.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2013 9:00:27 GMT -5
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. Yeah, but like we said, that whole "who beat who" thing is pretty unsteady ground to walk on as everyone's beat everyone if you've been around long enough. Which is funny, when you think about it. Because Bryan clearly sees himself as the superior grappler AND he's more over with the fans right now than Cena is. But like I said, I think what Bryan's talking about is the passion for being a wrestler, not actual physical ability to wrestle. Bryan sees Cena as a WWE product (which isn't far off if you look at his career, not that there's anything wrong with that - plenty of great wrestlers are) who will only wrestle for WWE. He's not a WRESTLER in the sense of the word that he'll do it no matter what/where/how/when - just for the "love of the game." It's like an actor who'll only act if he's getting paid millions and wouldn't otherwise. That guy's not an "ACTOR" - he's a superstar celebrity. (in this sense of the word). See, if they went to make that distinction, then I would agree, but Bryan went on at how he was a parody of a wrestler, not that he was just a WWE wrestler, which is why Cena's response even made sense. If Bryan's argument was that he was only a WWE wrestler, it'd have been an entirely different promo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 9:03:18 GMT -5
Yeah, but like we said, that whole "who beat who" thing is pretty unsteady ground to walk on as everyone's beat everyone if you've been around long enough. Which is funny, when you think about it. Because Bryan clearly sees himself as the superior grappler AND he's more over with the fans right now than Cena is. But like I said, I think what Bryan's talking about is the passion for being a wrestler, not actual physical ability to wrestle. Bryan sees Cena as a WWE product (which isn't far off if you look at his career, not that there's anything wrong with that - plenty of great wrestlers are) who will only wrestle for WWE. He's not a WRESTLER in the sense of the word that he'll do it no matter what/where/how/when - just for the "love of the game." It's like an actor who'll only act if he's getting paid millions and wouldn't otherwise. That guy's not an "ACTOR" - he's a superstar celebrity. (in this sense of the word). See, if they went to make that distinction, then I would agree, but Bryan went on at how he was a parody of a wrestler, not that he was just a WWE wrestler, which is why Cena's response even made sense. If Bryan's argument was that he was only a WWE wrestler, it'd have been an entirely different promo. I know what you mean, though he did bring that point up the previous week, but he should have reiterated it again in this promo just for clarity's sake. By "parody" of a wrestler - I took it to mean just that - a WWE only guy. I mean, WWE doesn't help things by demanding everyone be called "Superstars" instead of "wrestlers" and what they do is "sports entertainment" not "wrestling."
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 14, 2013 9:22:46 GMT -5
Not to say that Bryan doesn't deserve to be where he is, but trying to imply he's more deserving than Cena because "he can do things in the ring Cena can't" is kind of odd to me given that physically Bryan and Cena are completely different animals. One focuses on power and big spots, one focuses on speed and submissions, but they're both adapt at putting on great matches. Bryan trying to work a strong man match like Cena would be laughable, and Cena trying to ping pong around the ring and throw out hold after hold (which he often does anyway against certain guys) would be just weird looking.
That's why the "wrestler/entertainer" divide is dumb to me, because it essentially boils down to some people maybe prefering Bryan's style of ring work over Cena's. Neither man is exactly what you'd call "limited" out there.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 14, 2013 9:45:24 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. I do agree that they want a 50/50 dynamic here, but the thing is, this is clearly meant more to benefit Bryan than it is Cena. WWE wants Bryan to be even more over than he is, so they have him throw out (spoiled, let's be fair) red meat to the anti-Cena base because hey, worked for Punk and Rock, right? Unfortunately, that means Bryan has to peddle obvious BS in order to pop that segment of the crowd, but hey. Cena's not meant to be the hero here, Bryan is. Once again, he's being pigeonholed as the corporate friendly divisive figure who caught the lucky breaks, because WWE seems to be afraid to tell the truth and insert the fact that Cena is a great wrestler who busted his ass into the canon- assumably because they think it would cool off a possible hot crowd. And that makes no sense, because Cena/Bryan could obviously sell itself. Keep in mind, Bryan's still a babyface, so WWE clearly wants some of the crowd to buy into the nonsense he's spewing. If they were really interested in protecting Cena, Bryan would be talking Cena up and showing respect for him. This feud should have been on much friendlier terms between them, with Bryan praising Cena's accomplishments and abilities in order to make it seem like an even bigger deal if/when he beats him for the title.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 14, 2013 9:56:50 GMT -5
And again, that would be another example of a WWE superstar throwing red meat to a certain base, in this instance Cena towards his detractors. The guy knows damn well he doesn't have a limited moveset, he just wanted to get a reaction out of the crowd. And if he still doesn't consider himself a top-tier wrestler off-screen, then I think he's either the most humble man in the business or just hopelessly delusional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 10:26:54 GMT -5
You know all those people that chant "You can't wrestle" at Cena? They will be among the people cheering for Bryan.
It's the kind of thing appealing to a lot of people that boo Cena, calling him a phony, not a real wrestler. Regardless of the strides he has made in his workrate in recent years.
Note how much the crowd liked it when he insulted Cena as a wrestler.
It doesn't have to make perfect sense.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,644
|
Post by The Ichi on Aug 14, 2013 10:57:53 GMT -5
I used to argue until I was blue in the face that the WWE doesn't even bother reading message boards, but this feud has proven me wrong.
This feud is a message board argument condensed into a tv storyline.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Aug 14, 2013 11:32:36 GMT -5
Or, Cena will win and, they'll have arguably one of the best on the planet endorse Cena as a "real wrestler". Ughhhhhhhhh What's the problem with Bryan gaining respect for Cena? I mean, Cena is already top 5 right now and it would make little sense for Bryan of all people to validate him but I don't see the problem with mutual respect. Cena doesn't have to win to gain mutual respect from Bryan, he would just need to have an incredible match with him, which we know he is capable of doing. Infact he could actually beat Bryan without proving that. But for Bryan to prove his point and prove Cena wrong, he simply has to win. All Cena winning proves is Bryan just isn't good enough and it makes Bryan look weak. It seems like you get that Cena doesn't need to beat Bryan, so I am just saying how Bryan can win and respect Cena.
|
|
|
Post by Loser troll. Please ban me on Aug 14, 2013 15:14:13 GMT -5
If I watched anything involving Cena, I might be more miffed.
I don't recall Bryan ever being a strong mic worker anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 17:28:01 GMT -5
The whole concept of "wrestler/entertainer" is far too kayfabe breaking. It kills the logic for the nitpicky fans, and confuses the other fans, while calling attention to the pre-determined nature of things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 17:31:57 GMT -5
The whole concept of "wrestler/entertainer" is far too kayfabe breaking. It kills the logic for the nitpicky fans, and confuses the other fans, while calling attention to the pre-determined nature of things. Yep. You can get away with it if you tread a very thin line, but this feud definitely hasn't. It doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 14, 2013 17:43:17 GMT -5
The whole concept of "wrestler/entertainer" is far too kayfabe breaking. It kills the logic for the nitpicky fans, and confuses the other fans, while calling attention to the pre-determined nature of things. I'd like to add that in kayfabe terms, Bryan is a bigger "entertainer" than Cena is while Cena hasn't been an "entertainer" since 2005.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Aug 14, 2013 18:19:51 GMT -5
The whole concept of "wrestler/entertainer" is far too kayfabe breaking. It kills the logic for the nitpicky fans, and confuses the other fans, while calling attention to the pre-determined nature of things. I'd like to add that in kayfabe terms, Bryan is a bigger "entertainer" than Cena is while Cena hasn't been an "entertainer" since 2005. That's what makes this whole comparison so absurd to me. The guy who has this comedy beard/haircut and has spent the last year hugging it out, making it through anger management, screaming NO!!! and going psychotic with insecurity over whether he is or is not the weakest link now represents pure wrestling, while Cena who has been low key for a real long time represents ostentatious showmanship? It's like the whole angle revolves around the internet consensus on Bryan Danielson and John Cena in 2007, which wasn't even really accurate at that time, let alone in 2013. If they had left that out of it, and the McMahon's out of it, and built the feud around another moment from the past, YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN ME!, this would be so much more fun. I do find, though, that as Raw recedes into memory and Summerslam approaches I'm getting pumped for this match regardless of the unnecessary trappings that surround and dilute it.
|
|