lazorbeak

Why does he have to look like a "threat"? He's the WWE champion! He should be dodging contenders and doing anything he can to hold onto the belt; none of that requires being threatening. In fact, the longer he holds the belt and the more he avoids his comeuppance, the more the crowd will hate him and it will be that much more of a pay-off when someone finally takes the belt from him.

And the award for grouchiest old curmudgeon goes to..... Although I have to say, if end zone dances were our biggest failing as a culture, we'd be in a far better society than we're in right now.

They make some good points, including some points that have been made here. I hate that they created a "new guard" of main eventers and basically sat on them until Batista called it a career and now they're left with only Orton and Cena while the other guy they "made" from the same era is off drawing far bigger buyrates in another medium. But even when it was Cena/Orton/Batista as the top 3 names in the company, WWE never really gave them the ball entirely, whether to please workrate smarks or who knows why, so we got 7 years of new guy vs. old guy, "old guy" being a guy who was main eventing before 2001. Now, the old guys are even older and the new guys don't have the experience of carrying big matches by themselves and WWE is suddenly running out of talent at the top. But the article says something like "It’s been a very formulaic year," then provides no explanation of what that sentence means, since they're talking about too much youth movement at once. If anything, this year is a break from formula. Further, the article's complaint has been a feature of wrestling since forever. Heels cheat. Ric Flair in his first title reign defended the title with DQ's and tainted finishes. When The Rock was champ for the first time, he was booked so that he couldn't beat an out-of-shape borderline handicapped man without tons of help. This: Is just how you book heels to make people dislike them. You don't dislike a guy who is just the best and never backs down and will kick anyone's ass: that guy sounds pretty bad-ass. It's why Triple H always got face pops even as a heel, and it's why guys like Lesnar or Cena or Orton were turned face by the crowd. But nobody wants to cheer a coward or a hypocrite or someone who doesn't "deserve" the belt. Also for something that is published (if only on the web), the writing gets bad right here: That's not a Catch-22. It's not even close. Also, "vindictive" should probably be "indicative," as in "indicating." I realize that's nitpicky, but it makes the article look unprofessional to use the wrong term twice in one paragraph. Also while I think Morrison is great and should be a world champion contender, other than being on Raw how is he any better off than he was a year ago when he was getting title shots at Jeff Hardy and looked like he was just shy of the main event? This feud with Sheamus is the most important thing he's done on Raw other than grow a beard. Isn't that pretty much the definition of stalled? But while the article does notice what's going on, I think they're missing the big picture. Yes, WWE has pushed its new top guard as heels, because it is way easier to do that. Triple H, Rock, Kurt Angle, Jericho, Edge, Orton, and even the Undertaker were "undeserving heel champions" at some point. The difference is guys like Swagger have followed up their title losses with completely falling out of the title picture, making their wins look like a fluke, while Kurt Angle went from "cowardly heel champ" to "Steve Austin's goofy apprentice" to "#1 babyface in the company" in less than two years. Giving somebody like Sheamus two title runs, even if he's not booked as the greatest worker ever, makes the fans buy into him, so that when he does turn babyface, he will still be able to hang around the title picture, the same way Orton, Rock, etc., moved into being top babyfaces after being introduced as cowardly but athletic heels. Does WWE need to make some changes? In a word, yes. They need to let go of the Attitude era. It's over. Nobody who was a fan then is going to come back now. It's time to pass the torch. If that means you go through some growing pains, well that's the price you have to pay. In the mid-90's, we went through the same thing with WWF finally realizing Hogan wasn't going to bring in fans from a decade earlier anymore, and going to the most talented workers on the roster for his replacement. It didn't work, and led to a couple of years of struggle, but it ended up launching the company back into national prominence when they let Steve Austin be himself. Do it again. Who knows, maybe R-Truth or Christian or somebody else under the radar will re-invent themselves and become the biggest deal in the sport. Stranger things have happened.

They should've turned Taylor heel and made her into Jeff Hardy's #1 fan in reference to a 2 year old appearance in a magazine for another company that almost no one would get. The only reason I can think of that this didn't happen is that is a 2 year old reference no one cares about, not a 10-15 year old reference no one cares about.

Shanahan only gets the money guaranteed in the contract, not his whole salary. It's almost like that's exactly what I explained.

It depends on the language in the contract, but generally unless the coach is guaranteed their money, they receive money after being fired in expectation damages only until they're able to find another job, at which point, the old employer has no duty to pay. But generally, no, you're not on the hook for that money "no matter what." If I cut Allen Iverson while he has 20 million left unpaid I still owe him that money until he gets signed (and subsequently cut) by the Grizzlies. Again, the exception is "guaranteed" money, which is usually paid in whole or in part up front. The idea behind this philosophy is that being fired doesn't void the contract: however, playing for another team voids specific language in the contract and terminates any obligation to the player. Here's an article about the Shanahan situation: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/If-Mike-Shanahan-stays-quiet-he-ll-get-7-milli?urn=nfl-177594 Note that it says: "As long as he doesn't badmouth the Broncos (and doesn't take another coaching gig), Shanahan will continue to be the highest paid coach in the NFL." Obviously now that he is coaching another team, he's not making that 7 mil. He may still be getting something from the organization from the specific details of his termination, but it won't be his full coaching salary.

No you're completely right. Cena's farewell promo was so good that they could've gotten "we want Cena" chants every night for a month. The demand would become greater for the first month or two to the point that when Cena finally did reappear, the crowd would go ballistic. In the meantime, just have NXT continue to look strong: have Barrett beat R-Truth or somebody on the TLC PPV since he's John Cena's buddy. If this is the feud they want to take into Wrestlemania (and let's face it, it should be, it's WWE's hottest angle of the year), they definitely could have shown more patience in stretching the thing out.

I was going to argue this but there's no question the stats are there for Rivers. The only thing he doesn't have that Brady or Brees has is a team that's going to the playoffs. Or a Super Bowl ring. Not that it's his fault San Diego hasn't been to the dance, but it's harder to argue he's the best when he hasn't proved it on the biggest stage (yet). Manning has fallen off this season, and there's absolutely no question but that Rivers is an elite QB, but personally I'm not sure I'd put him ahead of Brady or Brees just yet. Also I'd put Aaron Rogers in the same conversation with Rivers.

It was on a different brand, but Edge was always built up to be better at head-games and exploiting situations than he was in the ring. His whole feud with the Undertaker was basically him dodging Taker, sacrificing his friends and his wife if it got him out of his comeuppance.

Well, it is a lucha mask, so in that sense they are the same. But yeah, no, not the same mask. Personally, I love this gimmick. It's old-school, it's fun, and it's an "inside joke" that everyone gets. I see where it's not really where you want to take the angle on TV every week, as the angle hasn't been campy and fun to this point, but seriously, there is nothing about Juan Cena I don't love. Also Mr. America was a lot of fun and I won't hear a bad word against it.

The biggest problem with that is I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson gets a suspension, and he's far more valuable to his team than Finnegan is to the Titans. You hate to see somebody get in a player's head like that.

Agree completely. And as many different factors contributed to wrestling's decline through the early to mid 1990's, including aging stars retiring or being phased out (Savage on commentary, Hogan making movies, etc.), a major force was that the product felt dated and out of touch. While pro-USA jingoism was at an all-time high in the 1980's, that formula stopped working after the Cold War ended, so Vince responded by turning Canadians into "evil foreigner" gimmicks. And it didn't get over. What's missing from today is someone with the creativity of a Paul Heyman who can introduce something new to the business that gets over enough to influence WWE. As others and myself have said, WWE isn't going to be the positive change that moves the sport forward into the 21st century, because they don't see any economic reason to do so, even if it would be to their long term benefit.

DJ, that's really only an accurate measure of who is more popular now; just because Cena is more popular in a search engine doesn't mean anything except that right now he's the biggest name in wrestling. But that could end overnight (see: Jeff Hardy). One thing I do agree with ampulator about is that there's a definite change in what it means to be "over" in the traditional sense of the word. Because while Jeff Hardy could return to WWE tomorrow and still get a crowd reaction similar to what he was getting when he left, he's not going to find that anywhere else. Even as late as the 90's, when Hulk Hogan or Savage jumped ship, they brought fans with them. Hardy's fans are WWE fans first, and if he's not on their TV every week they'll cheer for someone else rather than follow Hardy.

Sometimes it's better not to take the bait. He really has been something else. I wasn't a fan until his US title run late last year, but he's really shown he can thrive at the top. Some of his promos have been just amazing.

So, how about that WWE, eh? I hear the Miz is champion! That guy is Awesome!

But you weren't presenting anything to the contrary. I don't see why you think this situation is any different from what happened in the mid-1990's, when we saw aging stars phased out in conjunction with a decline in interest that simultaneously saw the business dry up all over the country. Further, I don't see what that has to do with whether John Cena is a good worker. Again, to work the Bret Hart comparison, Bret's 5 moves may have been more crisply executed, but Cena still draws more money than Hart ever did. If you think things like "facts" make someone a pretentious douche, I don't know what to tell you. Again, this isn't even my argument. They're not my facts. So maybe you should keep that in mind before saying something that makes you look like a joke? Yes Virginia, arguments are won and lost via facts. In any subject. Ever. In the history of time.

1. It's not my definition, so I really don't care. 2. If you disagree with what that other guy said, you're disagreeing with a lot of people who actually know something about the business and have gone on record as saying drawing money = being a good wrestler. It's what the fake sport is predicated on. As I said a post ago, I can only hope that the Scott Keith star-rating-itis goes the way of the dodo. 3. The fact that something is subjective doesn't mean that someone can't have an opinion that is unsupported by reasoning, data, or common sense. Since PH's opinion is supported and ampulator's not only has no support but is flat out ignoring data that contradicts his opinion, I don't see this as being much of a "discussion."

Sorry, Ampulator, you lose this one. You said no one can convince you that Cena is a good worker (despite throwing your hands up as to how he produced very good matches with guys like Umaga), and Hilton followed that up with a reasonable defense, namely, that in a worked sport, getting people to pay to see you is the DEFINITION of being a good worker. Making Cena one of the top workers of the freaking decade. And no amount of nit-picking that his 5 moves aren't executed as crisply as Bret Hart's five moves is going to make an iota of difference to the fact that he gets people to pay to see him. And you followed that up with something about how you're one of the last of your kind. If "your kind" is workrate obsessed smarks who poo-poo everything WWE does because it doesn't fit your taste in product, good! Because those so-called smarks have a rudimentary understanding of how the business works, make heroes out of guys that have never, ever made money at a job where making money is the goal, and otherwise go around acting personally offended that they don't get to watch "3 star" matches on free TV, despite the fact that nothing like that has ever existed in the history of professional wrestling. It's a fake sport about human drama, not what moves you're allowed to do. If you don't understand that, maybe a) don't watch, and b) please stop talking about it.

If Miz's win didn't convince people that WWE's audience still has a healthy number of marks, nothing will. And the idea that these marks are so workrate obsessed that they're going to turn from the product if a match isn't great is just preposterous. Remember how we all turned on Hulk Hogan after he had a bad match with Andre? There is no question but that Wade Barrett is ready to be champion. Beyond having a great look that reminds me of a less bulky Triple H circa 1996, he's got charisma that is off the charts for a rookie. He's generating some of the best heat of any guy in the company, and has been for months. Beyond which, with two brands and two top titles, being champion today isn't the same pressure to produce it was 20 or even 10 years ago. I mean Orton and Batista were champs on Raw last year without main eventing pay per views because Hardy was the hottest act in the company at that point. Two years ago Punk's title reign saw him main event exactly zero pay per views, to the point that he was taken out before a main event that he was actually scheduled in. And like you said, as much love as we have for guys like Triple H or the Rock for their role in the Attitude era, neither was anything that special in the ring. Rock was very athletic and could generate more heat with his facial expressions than just about anybody I've ever seen, but his offense never looked amazing and actually became more limited as he started working longer matches; when he was an upper midcarder he still did flip-around DDT's and Samoan Drops and other big athletic spots, but as he transitioned into a main eventer, he dialed those back, the same way Cena and every other WWE main eventer dials back their offense to fit the main event style.

The only way that belt could be any gayer is if it featured the two grapplers from the NWA logo naked on the back. Also it needs more unicorns.

He got the belt on his way out more as a thank you for his work more than anything else. My point is ROH wasn't his first or most notable priority at the time of his feud with Joe, so it wouldn't have made sense to give him the belt at that point. My point has nothing to do with Joe being over, it's that why would you take a guy who has a pedigree from another promotion and is featured nationally in a supporting role and say that he's better than your home-grown star? It just makes your company look amateurish.

It's not always about who is the better wrestler. Punk was working dates in TNA and had been IWA:MS's biggest name for awhile by the time he feuded with Joe. Joe on the other hand had worked in California for an indy that was all but dead (UPW) and in Japan, but had really no other major North American commitments. It would have been bad booking to put Punk over Joe when two nights later he's just standing behind Raven or headlining for another promotion.

Sheamus already being a world champ would tend to work against this premise, though. It's still far, far easier to push a big guy as a credible threat. Luke Gallows is really the only surprising big man release. He actually reminds me of a young Glenn Jacobs in that he has decent skills and charisma but doesn't immediately have that look that screams "future champ."

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I guess it's a hard thing to play off if the guy doesn't have a legit MMA background to begin with. When they brought Shamrock in, he was at the height of his MMA fame and a world-ranked competitor. It's tough to say "Hey, here's Johnny Cagefighter, the baddest man in MMA"...ok, so why is he not competing in MMA then? <p> </p><p> Maybe it's just a lack of someone who can do the job? I think if you had a current MMA heavyweight who had everything that Shamrock had back in 96 and was willing to walk away from the game, WWE would be all over him. Chael Sonnen would be perfect, but is probably too small.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Bob Sapp was a HUGE missed opportunity, considering he did some work in Japan and became a household way in that embarrassing Mr. T/Hulk Hogan way.</p>

Kind of surprising that Jillian Hall got released; she's one of the few solid hands among the divas, and could always be counted on to make less experienced girls look good. Hope she ends up somewhere where she can show some of her actual talent though.