Linsolv

I think that both sides of the Cena argument have a point. He's not over with every single Little Jimmy because he can talk or because of his in-ring work or because of his dedication or because he signs autographs. Those things help, but the fact is that he's over because of his push. That's obvious to anyone. Now, the debate is "can anyone get that push and see Cena's success?" Obviously not. Not to that extent. Do I think that CM Punk could be Cena if he were pushed? Maybe. But do I think that... say, The Great Khali could be Cena if only he were pushed? Obviously not. Perish the thought! Cena definitely has every element of what is needed to succeed in some measure, but I can't say that he's the best in the world only because he gets the biggest pop. The crowd will pop for who they want to... to an extent. But beyond that, they'll pop for who they're told to pop for. Which is why R-Truth went from cheers to boos in one month, if you need an example. The fact is, we all know its fake but part of enjoying wrestling, at least to me, is putting that in the back of your mind for a while.

That's a self-sufficient cycle, though. CM Punk is a really talented guy who can stay over despite a losing streak for 6 months, so you should bury him in matches and try to hope he makes it back in promos? If they gave him the Orton treatment, never mind the Cena treatment, for a year then he'd be at least as big as Orton. But he can't get THAT over with the fans because it always comes back to the fact that he can't win a match to save his life by the way he's being booked. People don't pay for a card that they can guess all the matches on.

Basically my thoughts, as well. I'll pay them lipservice and I'll watch their free TV show, but it's not really worth my time to drive for 3-4 hours each way just to see a show and I'm not gonna do that.

I dunno. I forget to watch months at a time. They run big monthly events in addition to their weekly TV show. PPV isn't the right word. Sorry I used the wrong term. I only remember because last year I know they were running an event in July where every match was a cage match. They advertised the crap out of it in their episodes, so even though I have no intention of getting a ride down to Ohio Valley for shows I was more or less aware that the event was there.

http://www.ovwrestling.com/tv They don't put up pay-per-views but the TV is pretty good anyways. You won't get a whole lot of work that's not totally straight singles or tag matches (So don't expect cage matches or stipulation matches), and you won't really get any title matches, but that's par for the course.

Agh! Well, whatever. Blue trunks fellow, impressed me. So did the black trunks fellow, who is apparently Chad Collyer. I just sorta assumed I'd gotten the spelling wrong on it. I thought I'd heard Black had been picked up by the E but I checked in all of one place (some wiki somewhere) and they didn't explicitly say he'd left so I just assumed I'd heard wrong. Ah well. It's not the first time I've looked foolish in that post. And yeah, basically... I mean, thanks, that is kinda what I figured, but I was just curious why some people succeed so smashingly while others who are just as good are not on that level. I wasn't sure if it was just luck or what.

I have a question of sorts. As usual though I need to explain first for no reason in particular. I just started watching ROH again; stopped when I moved to a new cable company who didn't have HDNet and I couldn't follow the show. However, when I say "watching," I'm trying to work my way through their really old stuff to see how they book feuds on only a show or two a month. So I started with the earliest I could find, in 2003. My question is, though, a bit general: Why is it that Bryan Danielson is regarded as one of the best in the world, second maybe to KENTA but that's about it, where Samoa Joe or Paul London or Matt Striker, who I've enjoyed in this show as much as any match I've enjoyed with Danielson are basically regarded as "yeah, they're alright" type guys? I mean I kinda get Striker, in that he immediately went to the E and that can cause a lot of talented guys to be regarded as garbage by the IWC. But Samoa Joe seems to be regarded as someone who can really go and is a really great workrate guy who's taken seriously by basically nobody. Paul London is kinda the opposite, at least in my mind: He's very entertaining on the mic, and he's regarded as a reasonably skilled high-flyer. So... what makes Danielson different, do you think? I don't really like more angles than matches, but I feel similar to what you're saying in that the IWC seems really high on flippy-dippy wrestling, and I'm actually pretty happy to watch the WWE style of wrestling, maybe with more head drops. Honestly my favorite show right now is OVW, which I watch when I remember to on the web. I wish there was some way to automatically download it so I could binge-watch OVW. That said, in my experience, ROH largely delivers matches I enjoy. You've got Tyler Black, who IMO is made for the 'E right now and is basically being booked as sympathetic rather than good. You've got guys like Davey Richards who can do the stiff brawling that doesn't look like garbage. As long as you come into it essentially willing to ignore that you don't know these people like you know WWE or TNA stars, you'll probably like the in-ring action. Beyond that, expect a lot of mic work and comparatively few skits if any.

I think you have it backwards. If you brought the ROH title to RAW, they'd laugh you out of the stadium. It'd be like trying to buy your ticket with monopoly money. On the other hand, if you brought the WWE heavyweight title to ROH, they'd be crowing about it for years.

I like Booker for the most part. Didn't watch the PPV though.

They hire hack writers who over-tell the story. It's basically like having every match, and the history of the feud behind it, explained by Jerry Lawler (erm... his commentator character, at least. Can't say I know how he really talks.)

I'm getting mildly bored by the constant announcer references to R-Truth as "deranged." He's like ALL conspiracy theorists: he's got some good points and it's up to you whether or not you believe his conclusion. Fact: he's never had a WWE title shot (before last night). Fact: he was always really fan-friendly and it didn't help him get over into the main event. Those two ideas are the basis behind his "deranged" theory, and they're both true. Now, of course, the conclusion he comes to ("ergo, if I treat the fans like crap, that'll be a step in the right direction") is a little silly, even though he was totally right and he got a title shot THE VERY SAME MONTH. Also kinda getting sick of this weird "face turns heel by having the most sympathetic story ever" thing with Christian. In other news, wwe.com is a horrible website and I don't think anyone should ever be forced to read it to figure out what happened at a pay-per-view.

I'm gonna come right out and say it: I want to SEE Barrett v. Taker. I don't think Barrett should take the streak, but I'd really love to see him hit that Wasteland or whatever and have that smug look on his face while he taunts the crowd, only to have Taker get back up.

But they're not going to TURN Cena heel. It's just not going to happen. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but THEY THINK it will really hurt their bottom line to turn Cena. EDIT: I mean, honestly, I'd love to see Cena do a quick turn and then pull back to face but not QUITE as superhuman as he is now. Lash out at the fans, have one quick feud as a heel, and then come out with an apology. But instead of everything coming off as super easy for him, I'd like to see him appear a bit more human.

The real problem with Orton/Cena is, how would you DO it, so that it's not the same as it's always been? One idea I had, though it wouldn't work now because pretty much all of the elements a person would need to really do it are gone (Cena/Orton being on the same brand, Orton being heel). I'd have your usual month or two buildup that you might expect between two of the biggest draws in the WWE. Then have Orton declare that he hates Cena so much he never wants to see him again, let's have a "Loser Leaves Town" match. Then have Cena pick up the win, as usual, and take Orton off TV, off the house shows, etc. Just until the next PPV, where he busts in and wrecks Cena, possibly give Cena's match at that PPV a no-contest, and have Orton introduce himself as the newest member of SmackDown! and move him over to the other show as a heel. OR, you could have him show up at the next PPV wearing a SmackDown! t-shirt, and save Cena from a chair shot or something behind the ref's back, and just leave. Then he shows up on SmackDown!, cuts a promo about how sorry he is and he had a month to really think about what he's done, and he got down on his knees and begged WWE management to take him back, and just put him on SmackDown! because he has professional differences with Cena that prevented him from being his real, mature self. Or something. I just kinda came up with that off the top of my head.

But I mean, he even went to Christian and asked for a clean match last week. That's not heelish. It's almost HUMBLE. (Admittedly, if he was totally a heel for like forever and I'm just seeing a sudden shift, I've only been watching Smackdown for 2 weeks now. I normally can't really pay attention to 3-4 hours of wrestling a week, and I knew the characters on RAW better. But then I thought "but let's watch both anyways I got time.")

Finally got around to watching SD for this week. It isn't too bad, but I do have a few MINOR complaints: 1) Get your Sin Cara out of my Daniel Bryan. I like DB because I like technical. Introducing a flyer actually introduces a thing I will actively not watch. 2) I don't really like where they're taking Tamina. I dunno. Whatever, it's their call. Unsure how I felt about that bit about "LayCool want their gimmick back." Breaking the fourth wall seems inappropriate for WWE. 3) Honestly, Sheamus has looked strong, but not as a heel. He's been pretty reasonable: hasn't cheated, tried to play everything straight... he's more like a [self-assured] face than anything else.

And people like that don't irritate you? Because I know that they irritated everyone else I've ever met.

Once again, I'd agree that's a problem but it's not COLE's problem. He's dull and ineffective as a face, he shouldn't be the lead commentator. He's highly effective as a heel.

I could only think of two upper-midcarders who I felt had hit the ceiling in a sense: Ziggler and Swagger. And Ziggler seemed to be on an upswing. (Not that there aren't more, but I just didn't want to open my list because I was lazy at the time and am lazy now)

Smark is simply a term I used to describe someone who discusses the theory of wrestling, especially outside of the context of wrestling-as-business. If someone's sitting there telling me about X-Pac heat, or talking about how good a match was, they're probably a smark. It's not the only indicator, of course. Like I said, I often disagree with the general population I've seen around the IWC on what "good" wrestling is. IWC seems to like a lot of PWG, Dragon Gate, etc. I like OVW, King's Road, and sometimes even WWE style. But I am perfectly willing to admit that Big Show is, realistically, a big draw. So's Rey Mysterio. But I don't like them. I don't like their look. I don't like their wrestling. Does that make me a smark? Yeah. I'm making judgements based on the product, not on the business. So I wasn't using Smark as a term for "person who disagrees with me," I was using it as a term for "person who should be able to put themselves above the emotional roller-coaster the show is trying to present." So, for me, as a SMARK, when Cole came out and gave his "interview" where he asked how it was looking up into heaven and knowing he'd let his mother down, I felt bad but I recognized it as an action designed to get my goat, and my goat was not gotten as a result. Aye... now there's the rub. However, I can't blame Cole for doing his job. If Jack Swagger can't get over as a heel, can Michael Cole be blamed for that? I mean, I guess in theory DB not getting over, Cole can be blamed for, because he's burying Bryan on commentary. But Cole doesn't sit there insulting Swagger.

I don't mind Cole. I'm a little bored by him. However, when I go looking for wrestling opinions online and I find a smark declaring that Cole went too far in mocking King's mother, then that's called heel heat and the only reason that smark hated it is because they can't see the forest for the trees. When NXT season 1 started, I wished that Cole would go away. I wished Lawler would go away. I like Booker T on commentary, but otherwise I hated their commentary team then and I hate it now. Except that now, when Cole stands up and says "Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your attention please: I've just received an email from the RAW general manager," the audience gets SUPER PISSED. That's called heat and it's good. There's a whole world out there beyond the tip of your nose, and beyond your preferences. I hate flippy wrestling. I hate PWG, CHIKARA, EVOLVE, and Sin Cara. Give me IWA Mid-South any day of the week. But PWG has a big fan base out there, so I don't go around declaring it's worthless; I just don't buy their DVDs. So you don't like Cole. Well, he's gets more boos than Punk, or Sheamus, or Rhodes or Ziggler. He's sitting on heat on par with The Miz, maybe Alberto del Rio—I really can't remember the reactions del Rio gets because I like him. He's got literally no heat with me. If he turned face right now I'd only be displeased because they'd give him a Mexican Cena persona. That's the difference between del Rio and Cole: one I like, and the other I hate. Spoiler warning: One of them isn't doing their job as a heel.

I might be the only one, but I love Michael Cole. He's got SO MUCH HEAT. I think he's right around the Miz as possibly the top heel in the company.

Yeah, times have changed. However, using the old style of Cena promoing and then mostly filler, given their talent pool could easily put on matches like... Borne v. Ziggler (Mid, UMid) Riley (W/Miz, until recently; that'd be how you'd mix Miz in) v. Danielson (Mid, Mid) DiBiase v. Riley (now that's he's face) etc. There's a lot of potential quality there. If you start ignoring disposition, you have a TON of room for storyline potential without touching the main event (one that I really wanted to put above is DiBiase v R-Truth, with DiBiase looking down on Truth both for his race and for his rapper gimmick—Racism is srs bidness—but now Truth is a Conspiracy Theorist instead of a rapper of the people). Then you could occasionally have a squash match (Miz v. Masters, to prove that Miz v. Danielson or Miz v. Del Rio, Miz could beat their ultimate submission) or a no-contest between superstars (Miz v. Cena, with Riley attacking Miz after 5 minutes and getting match cancelled, to use a current idea)

But it's pretty obviously not a suplex. To anyone with eyes.

Is it just me or did Cole comment on Swagger's "Gutwrench suplex?" Is 'powerbomb' now a no-no word, or is Cole just that awful at remembering words?