lazorbeak

Yes, Rock is the bigger star, but really, did Rock lose clean "alot"? I mean I guess it depends on your definition but I wouldn't call the chairman of the company costing you title matches at two consecutive wrestlemanias "clean" losses. Rock was never made to look superhuman but he wasn't taking the fall without some interference or heel chicanery. Austin was even worse, as he was built up as unstoppable and it was years before he'd take somewhat clean losses to anybody. Meanwhile, Cena's doing the same thing. He lost to Miz at Wrestlemania (due to interference), he put over Wade Barrett and Sheamus on PPV matches in 2010. This perception that Cena "never loses" or that this is a new phenomenon among WWE top guys is just ridiculous because frankly, Cena has shown time and again that he is personally willing to put anybody over, unlike previous WWE top guys (Austin, Warrior, HBK), who were incredibly protective of their character and refused to lose unless it was to somebody they rode with or was already so over that they wouldn't lose heat. And no, giving someone else Cena's gimmick is no guarantee that they will "draw." It's been proven time and again that just building somebody up isn't enough. Goldberg's a good parallel but he also won the title only once and was at his peak for maybe two years, maximum, and was unable to carry programs that required him to do anything more than growl and spear people. But Glacier had an undefeated streak. So did Umaga. So did Bobby Lashley. So did CM Punk for goodness sake. So did plenty of other wrestlers. None of them instantly became mega-over franchise guys. Well, except Brock Lesnar, but he got over on his physique and skill as much as strong booking. Also, isn't Cena a "Heyman guy," at least at first? I mean he rose up during that period Heyman was booking in 2002, and worked with Lesnar in April '03. And they built him up really slowly, considering his overness at the time. He was already getting reactions at the same level of Benoit leading into the road to Wrestlemania 20, but they kept him out of the main event by feeding the Big Show to him, and then waiting an entire year for him to win the World title at Wrestlemania 21.

Okay, first off, my point was that to say others didn't use facts was completely false, and that you persisted in saying a weight difference is not a fact showed a major lack of understanding as to what I was even saying. Again, weight is not something you can say is not a fact: it's the definition of a fact. It's like saying a birthday's not a fact. And while yes, it's a fact that those guys you mention were big and were pushed, it's also completely irrelevant to any point that anyone has made. Like I said, everyone has a right to their opinion, even if they use that right to explain why another person's opinion is not supported by facts.

Yuuuuuup. Also I mean that's the reason I used the fact. Saying that a weight difference is not a fact is just a red flag that something has gotten terribly, terribly lost in translation. And I'm sorry, but no, if you think weights are not facts, something's wrong. This is not a "everyone is allowed to feel what they want" situation. A weight difference is a fact. It's pretty much the definition of a fact.

I love the Norman Smiley hardcore angle. I know hardcore wrestling isn't the fad anymore, but I think a variation of it could still be good for a comedy gimmick. Just have a guy (or girl) come out to the ring wearing a bunch of over the top gear and listen to the pop when the babyface pulls off the gear as the heel freaks out.

Wow. Just... wow. No one has said you're not allowed to dislike John Cena. But your other unsupported opinions were disagreed with by people that presented facts, and again, you asked for people to prove you wrong and generally misunderstood what the difference between fact and opinion was while opining that you're just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. Again, everyone else is just as entitled to disagree with you when you say things that aren't supported by "facts" or "reason."

Hence why your opinions were a well-reasoned and intelligent counter (no wonder they were ignored). Because they were based in facts, not asking others to prove that the things you said aren't true or saying (incorrectly) that everyone's opinion is equally relevant because no one is the "owner of the truth" (except, I assume, Ron Killings).

Somebody might need to go back to fact vs. opinion school. HBK's 15 pound weight difference is a fact. Cena's marketability is a fact. Cena being an all-time top draw is a fact. Here's more facts: Cena was WO wrestler of the year in 2007 and again in 2010, in addition to his five straight "most charismatic" awards. These are not opinions.

Wow. First, your statement makes no logical sense at all. I proved myself (and others) wrong? Maybe you just... aren't... getting it? The point is you're giving Cena this hard time assuming he can't do anything you like because he's busy making something profitable. That is a logical FALLACY. Steven Spielberg is an Oscar winning director and a master of his craft who's spent most of his career producing films that are primarily interested in making money. And he works in an industry that isn't descended from carnies hustling people. My point is, Cena chooses to make money and be successful, so to argue that that somehow "proves" that he sucks is incomprehensible. People are disagreeing with you because you're making outrageous points without evidence, doing things like challenging others to prove the things you're saying aren't true, the way debate doesn't work. Everyone has the right to say whatever flat-out crazy thoughts flutter about in their frontal lobes, but unfortunately, they have to deal with people disagreeing with their poorly thought out and unpersuasive statements. Because saying you have a "right" to an opinion doesn't mean every other person on the planet doesn't have the "right" to disagree with you when you don't make compelling arguments. Also, as pointed out recently, Cena has significantly paired down his style because it sells, so your final conclusion is just as poorly thought out and incomprehensible as your opening points. Edit: No, you did not back your opinions with "facts." You made outrageous statements about the guy's ability, his replace-ability, and Vince's love of "big guys." When facts were presented re: his ability, his appeal and merchandising abilities, and his whopping 0" height difference and 15 pound weight difference over "little guy" Shawn Michaels, you said it was up to everyone else to prove you wrong, which, again, is not how you convince anyone of anything. That you don't even understand that this is what I meant is pretty telling.

Completely agreed. Pro wrestling is a work whose ultimate goal is taking money from the audience in exchange for watching people pretend to fight. The best measure of success is that money from the audience. Also Cena works this way and cuts the promos he does because he knows it's successful: he's capable of "better" promos and "better" matches. You just have to look at his early Smackdown work or his OVW work to see he's capable of more athleticism than we see on a nightly basis. But that's not what made him millions of dollars, so why should he do it on a weekly basis? To say that he works this way because he's not talented displays uncanny ignorance of how the business works considering the present context. It's like saying Michael Bay should make "better" movies because you don't like Transformers. It takes a lot of time, money, and effort, to make big dumb action like Transformers, and he's not going to change a formula that results in massive profits. I mean I don't like Bay's work much either, but I get around that by watching something else instead, I don't whine about how he's a talentless moron and anyone could easily replace him as the director of record-breaking blockbusters. Other people have been supporting their reasoning with evidence, while you... haven't. The onus isn't on them to explain why anyone should take the things you say seriously.

Wow there's a lot of ridiculous statements in this thread right now. Yes, who could forget how 6'1", 225 pound HBK proved what a success little guys could be when he became one of the worst drawing champions in WWF history. Meanwhile, that giant, lumbering oaf John Cena, at 6'1", 240 pounds, is only pushed because Vince loves huge guys and is only one of the most successful champions ever and easily their most successful champion in the past ten years. Granted, their style is very different, but I love the idea that HBK is somehow a "little guy" and Cena's a "big guy." Also, the bar comments are about HBK's real life lack of toughness, not how he was portrayed one time on a TV show. The statements about Cena being dead weight or needing to be carried are pretty hilarious, considering he's had excellent matches with Batista, Umaga, Miz, and others who generally aren't considered huge workrate guys. Also one opinion is not just as valid as another, especially when one opinion is backed by mounds and mounds of evidence and one is based entirely on hypotheticals and delusions. Also, totally disagree with Punk being "buried" after his run with Hardy. He was given the ball as a top heel on Smackdown and had high profile feuds with Rey Mysterio and the Big Show, two top names who are both former world champions, then got hurt, and after his injury was immediately plugged into the New Nexus as a top heel, this time on Raw. MVP losing to local talents is getting buried, not Punk losing 2 out of 3 matches to Rey Mysterio.

Yeah nostalgia colored classes must be something else, because there's just no comparison here. Yeah the ROH promo is intense and good, but he looks like an Acting 2 student who can do one thing really well. His promo last night was far more complex and showed a far greater range and depth. Add to that that it was four times as long and in front of a live audience, and there's really no comparison, even before we get past ROH's cameraman trying to huff down the stairs, Colt Cabana's "what face should I be making," and the rest of it just doesn't compare to the live crowd in a well-produced environment.

This reminds me of the poster calling R-Truth a career jobber a few pages ago... just what do you consider the "midcard" if Alex Wright isn't in it? He was a staple of the midcard, working a program with Jericho over the TV title, feuding with McMichael over Debra, programs with Regal and Finlay. Yes, he never got out of WCW's enormous midcard, but to make it sound like he wasn't a midcarder is underselling him by a pretty significant margin. As far as Bagwell, I agree that he was never anything special. Even at the best of times, he was only billed at 6'1 and even back when people liked him his style didn't fit what WCW's heavyweight division was doing; there just wasn't that extra special something that makes him anything more than a US champion type guy for me. Your world champ really should be the best at something, whether he's the best wrestler, has the best promo skills, the best look, whatever, and Bagwell was none of those.

Not sure why nobody else hasn't brought this up, but Bagwell was never the same worker after that injury to his neck and spine. He had to tone down his style and got lazier in the ring. He also seemed to have a big ego. But while I don't think he ever could've been a world champ, he certainly could've been a solid US Title type guy.

Well they'd probably give him a job because he is actually a really solid worker, and ROH tends to like giving chances to guys like that (Jerry Lynn even won the ROH title at age 45). But you're right, the idea of Chavo getting a "run at the top" is pretty ridiculous.

Yes because it's an epic fail if a guy isn't 100% heel at all times. I like it, as it shows continuity. Christian does have a legit complaint, but rather than make a 180 degree turn in character, he's gradually become more and more of a heel throughout the story. I can't stand when a guy goes from high-fiving the audience to permanent frowny-face because somebody told them they're supposed to be a heel. He's getting strong reactions and they could easily go a lot of different directions with this story and beyond. Frankly it's been one of WWE's top angles and it's a shame they've been focusing more on the Raw stuff, which has generally not been as strong. As for Chavo, hopefully he works an actual reduced schedule with somebody, as he's 40 years old and hopefully has a few bucks saved by the past 15 years working in national level promotions.

If he's gone in a month, why did they put him over in a pretty major match on PPV, on a show where Punk, Ziggler and ADR were the only heels going over?

Heel Cena, babyface Orton, based on Cena being resentful that the fans support a psychotic spoiled brat when he goes to every make-a-wish and sacrifices himself non-stop only to get "Cena sucks" chants in parts of the country. I mean it's not super different from Batista/Cena a couple years ago, but there's more real life fodder for it, considering Cena does have a reputation for being a great company man and Orton had a negative reputation for a few years there.

Good thing they're both working as babyfaces on opposite brands then. It's only slightly less of a problem than John Cena's lack of chemistry with Rene Dupree or other guys that don't work for that company at all.

But considering Ryder isn't over now, a silly gimmick is a great way to get him noticed enough to put him in the IC/US title picture, or otherwise establish his name to people out there. A gimmick's job is just to make people care about somebody they don't know yet. Triple H had an incredibly silly gimmick, and when he was over enough that people knew who he was, he dropped all but the name and became himself. But you can't do that until the crowd know who you are.

No idea where you got this idea. I'd guess you're just confusing it with the Eli Manning deal. Saints had the 10th pick in the 1997 draft, and I don't see Manning dropping that far even as a junior.

Honestly I think the Heat are just being out-coached. The Mavs switched to a zone and the Heat made zero adjustments: they didn't put in James Jones or Eddie House to stretch the D, they didn't make a point of attacking on the weakside glass (except for D-Wade), and LeBron looked tired on defense after being on the court all game. That said, Dirk is playing great and I think the Larry Bird comparisons are looking pretty spot-on. I'm really hoping the Mavs can pull this out, and I'm not normally a Mavs fan, having gone to school in San Antonio.

It's not looking like you do. Did you actually read what I said? The point isn't who your favorites are, the point is they have enough character that they're somebody's favorite. Do you really not see the difference between the roster you posted and the WWE's current roster? Maybe I need to explain it using the specific roster you gave me (which is not even in the Attitude era). Farooq and Bradshaw- a midcard babyface act featuring two old guys who weren't in great shape, but the APA gimmick was over. Bradshaw also improved tremendously as a talker by having a real character that wasn't "Stan Henson-ish cowboy." Pretty much directly led into his run as a major heel. Steven Richards- too small to be taken seriously as a serious threat, he still managed to generate real heat with RTC. Is there a midcard heel in WWE right now with a look as bad as his that gets the sort of heat he got? Rico was the last guy I can think of who did. Gangrel- his gimmick was that he thought he was a vampire. That's a stupid gimmick, right? But he had a really cool entrance and the crowd loved it, even if in the ring he was a middling worker with a gut. The point is, these guys who were clearly never going to draw huge money were still given identifiable gimmicks and characters that the crowds could either get behind or rally against. I mean think about how much work they put into getting the Tajiri character over, from his interactions with William Regal to his run with Torrie Wilson as his manager: and this was a guy who was about 5'9" and worked a super junior type style; obviously he was never getting out of the midcard. Compare that to Yoshi Tatsu, who is capable of putting on great matches on Superstars, but have they made any effort to explain who this guy is? Does he have a character? Does he have any friends or enemies? Why should anybody be a Yoshi Tatsu fan? And as far as the "if they tried that, they would probably lose money" statement you stick on at the end. Huh? How on earth is building an undercard with recognizable characters that people might care about going to cost WWE money? I'm not saying they need outrageously dumb gimmicks, but at they obviously need more variety in their roster if they want to build guys up. You can have a "****y young heel" gimmick get over only if there's not six more on the roster. I mean CM Punk and the Miz have been so successful because they have built up unique characters based on their real lives that crowds respond to, and they don't look exactly like the last six guys that debuted out of OVW/DSW/FCW/whatever. To see the whole thing in the micro, look at 2001's women division vs. now. You had Ivory as a prudish "anti-diva," Lita as the "alternative" chick who didn't look like a traditional diva but got super over, Trish re-built from her run as Vince's love interest into an underdog babyface, etc. Today, you've got about a half dozen heels whose gimmick is they're conceited and good-looking (the Bellas, Maryse, Lay-Cool until just recently, Alicia Fox), and babyfaces whose gimmick is... they're good-looking and nice (Kelly X2, Gail Kim, Eve). Who gets over in that set-up? It's not surprising that Beth Phoenix gets a bigger reaction than the rest of the division even when she's floating around in character limbo, just because she's unique and the crowd knows who she is, or why Kong got major reactions despite very few people wanting to see her in a magazine. Also, Steph wasn't women's champion during this time: it was vacant after Chyna left. But my point is and has been that the current roster has way too many guys who have no real gimmick: why should I root for anybody not in the top 25% of the card? It's why people on the net get excited about Zach Ryder and a gimmick that is about as far from the main event as it gets: because he's one of the rare guys that has enough character that he stands out. I think they've improved, with guys like Khali providing a fun little midcard distraction, and Wade Barrett, even in his diminished role still has more of a character than most, but there's still plenty of guys who don't really have a character at all.

But everybody has favorites, even kids, even people who barely pay attention. And those favorites are often not based on any kind of wrestling skill. But how does somebody look at Primo Colon and say "he's my favorite wrestler"? I mean he's basically Hispanic Evan Bourne. They're completely interchangeable underdog high-flying babyfaces. And when you have a dozen guys that basically do the same shtick, how does one stand-out from another? In the Attitude era, midcarders who were never going to draw big money like D'Lo Brown, Al Snow, Val Venis, and others had characters that weren't duplicated by five more guys. And they all got over as a result. Basically you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying the problem is that there's only a limited number of "big name" guys or anything like that: I'm saying that the people who aren't big names are given less that makes them stand out and get over in their own right. I think it's great that Santino is so successful at doing what he does, but it's because he's the only guy doing those comedy babyface bits: if we had four more goofy babyfaces going on after him, all miming instruments in an invisible band, they'd all blend together and nobody would get over. And right now, these "extras" as you call them are really bland. I mean Koko B. Ware was somebody's favorite wrestler. He had a big silly gimmick and he lost all the time, so nobody was ever going to confuse him with a main eventer, but he was still over with the crowd. But Kofi Kingston has won the IC and US titles about 5 times each, but what's his character beyond "athletic guy who kicks people a lot"? Rob Van Dam did basically the same bit, but you knew more about his character then "he likes to kick people."

But what do you do with the 75% of the roster that isn't ever going to be on the poster without the occasional silly gimmick? You end up with a roster of 20 ****y young heels and 20 wholesome, nice-guy babyfaces, and none of them get over because they're completely interchangeable.

And it's not like Scott Steiner was going to save up his million dollars and open a successful small business, despite attending a highly educated university. Eventually WCW guys had to bite the bullet and agree to work at a lower base rate with more incentives, something that wouldn't have happened if Vince prematurely brought in a bunch of overpaid, lazy guys who hadn't been relevant in years, if they'd ever been relevant.