|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 12, 2013 17:12:24 GMT -5
As much? No, because they don't make people look as weak as Cena does on a regular basis. But yes there would be complaints and justifiably so.
Or not enough
They were automatically lowered in the process of losing to him
Tag teams shouldn't be booked against main event players, but when they are, then yes they should beat them. No singles guy should be beating a tag team unless it's the culmination of a heroic effort and a long storyline that gets everyone over.
|
|
|
Post by JTG Fan on Nov 12, 2013 17:16:41 GMT -5
Another question, if it was Punk or Bryan doing this, would people on the boards be complaining as much? As much, maybe not. Bryan and Punk could use occasional big wins as they are both still rather new to the main event scene. Cena has been doing this for 8 years. People worry to much about burying now. There was no lowering of any tag teams. Tag teams shouldn't beat main event players. This really isn't about tag teams or the tag division to me. It's about 32 year old Antonio Cesaro, a former US Champion and a guy who is about to break out any day now when given the chance, and 31 year old Jack Swagger, a former World Heavyweight Champion, US Champion, and WrestleMania 'main eventer' from this last year, both losing to one guy in a match, being used to put over 36 year old John Cena who has never once slipped out of the main event orbit since 2005. It simply is bad booking.
|
|
bob
Backup Wench
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 80,603
Member is Online
|
Post by bob on Nov 12, 2013 17:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 12, 2013 17:24:07 GMT -5
If I was booking it, I'd have Cesaro and Swagger beat the shit out of Cena and have Zeb tell him that the beatings will continue until he joins them. Zeb can say that Cena is the biggest star in the company and has too much influence over America's youth to avoid their attention. They want him to stand for their true American values (ie: racism/intolerance). Cesaro would be chosen as the main opponent, with Swagger as a silent enforcer. Even if it's just a short term feud with Cena obviously prevailing, they could have got a few good matches out of it between Cena and Cesaro, with Cesaro getting over even by losing if he is shown to be able to push Cena to the limit (which the commentators would emphasise)
But, no, maybe it's better for Cena to make nipple jokes and just beat them
Yeah, go with that
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 12, 2013 17:34:49 GMT -5
It's only "backwards booking" if Real Americans end up in a losing streak. That's not happening because they took a loss to Cena. The casuals won't even remember their loss when they inevitably win again in their other tag matches. The casuals won't even remember Cena beat them, they'll remember that he got beat down by Del Rio afterwards. Casuals remember more than you think. They watch the show as it's presented, and a lot see that two guys can't beat one, and automatically think they're losers. It's all in perception. That's why Shield for example got over. They were allowed to look dominant and won matches against everyone. And now, casuals don't bat an eye when they're in main events; and it meant A LOT when Bryan was the first one to beat them last Summer. I don't necessarily agree with that. Do fans remember earlier this year that Swagger was making Bryan tap out clean in the ring? Do they view Bryan as less of a threat? No Do people remember Cody unable to defeat guys like tons of funk earlier this year? Do fans look down on him for it? No Do people still remember When Fella lost to the Rhodes scholars in a handicap match due to a surprise rollup? People don't use that against Sandow/Cody I think you are giving too much credit to how long fans perception last. Unless the WWE beats Cena wins over the fans heads, I don't think all of sudden that that lost to Cena is going to plague the Real Americans for the rest of their existence. Was it great booking for the Real Americans? Probably not but this low profile lost won't effect how fans view them in the long term.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 12, 2013 18:16:10 GMT -5
Casuals remember more than you think. They watch the show as it's presented, and a lot see that two guys can't beat one, and automatically think they're losers. It's all in perception. That's why Shield for example got over. They were allowed to look dominant and won matches against everyone. And now, casuals don't bat an eye when they're in main events; and it meant A LOT when Bryan was the first one to beat them last Summer. I don't necessarily agree with that. Do fans remember earlier this year that Swagger was making Bryan tap out clean in the ring? Do they view Bryan as less of a threat? No Do people remember Cody unable to defeat guys like tons of funk earlier this year? Do fans look down on him for it? No Do people still remember When Fella lost to the Rhodes scholars in a handicap match due to a surprise rollup? People don't use that against Sandow/Cody I think you are giving too much credit to how long fans perception last. Unless the WWE beats Cena wins over the fans heads, I don't think all of sudden that that lost to Cena is going to plague the Real Americans for the rest of their existence. Was it great booking for the Real Americans? Probably not but this low profile lost won't effect how fans view them in the long term. Ask yourself this: Did it help? Did those wins/losses mean anything, and are any of these people monetary draws now? WWE's booking has an erosion effect on credibility and marketability. Their booking is detrimental in that no one is truly special. (except Cena, who, surprise, is booked strong). Then, if they want a guy to be special, WWE suddenly wonders why he doesn't move business and gives up on him. Obviously, there's exceptions. But can you tell me, honestly, that if guys that were on top in either of the golden ages were booked like WWE does today with others, stop-starting and even-stevening everything, that they'd be as successful? That the road would have been the same? That they'd unequivocally end up anyway as big of stars? I think there maybe a few that might on tenacity alone, but why should that have been the case? The proof is kind of in the pudding. Guys, booked well, were stars. They were special. They're remembered. Guys like Demolition never came close to sniffing a WWE Title, but they were kings of their own world. They didn't lose handicap matches to Andre or Big Boss man who had main events with Hogan. Guys like HBK during his IC level rise wasn't jobbing left and right. Mr. Perfect, was allowed to be undefeated for almost two years. Undertaker didn't have to "pay his dues" first by losing to everyone before he got a shot. Today, outside Cena, no full-timer really is a star (maybe Rey, with his demo). WWE booking is a napsack full of boulders these guys have to haul around and work through. And that's just dumb. There's zero good reason for why they do it. WWE might be the only entertainment business in the world that undermines its stars and attempts to tear them down first before trying to make them marquee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:37:52 GMT -5
I'm tired of people using the supposed mindset of the hypothetical "casuals" to justify questionable booking. You're speaking for others, you're assuming they don't care about or pay attention to anything, and anyway, is that supposed to make people that do pay attention and use logic wrong? People should be rewarded for following the show closely by things making sense, not punished becuase they're not "casuals" that don't understand or care about what's going on.
And as for "if it was Punk or Bryan...", yes, it would still be annoying. Thing is, we don't get that discussion, because they're not beating established top tag teams in handicap matches.
|
|