The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Arrows]

A good example is something Arrows said, about being beat up for 80% of the match, then coming back and winning makes the other guy look bad. Some other's said they agreed and everyone should read it carefully... as if we should all somehow agree that it's the truth. IMO, the reality of it is that most people "get it", and know that the match was "meant" to make it look like the guy who won, did it by the skin of their teeth. "IF only he didn't make that mistake, he would have won it" bassically. You know how they meant it to look, and more times then not, that's exactly what these "unsmart" fans see it as. Just because they don't say "Heel" or "Face" or use terms like ringwork, doesn't mean they don't "Get it".

 

So they're being paid MILLIONS of dollars a year to _NOT_ be able to do their jobs in a way that put across the story they're trying to tell?

 

Actors would be blacklisted for doing such a horrid job of making something look a certain way.

[SaySo]

So they're being paid MILLIONS of dollars a year to _NOT_ be able to do their jobs in a way that put across the story they're trying to tell?

 

Actors would be blacklisted for doing such a horrid job of making something look a certain way.

 

An actor who brings a company MILLIONS of dollars and does a horrid job will still remain in the company because he brings them MILLIONS of dollars.

 

An actor who doesn't bring a company MILLIONS of dollars and does a horrid job, he will be backlisted and probably doing T&A porn.

[Bigpapa42]

I just watched the Best Of Raw 10 on VHS last night, that is 1998 Jan and Feb. What the hell was Goldust doing at that point. Marlyn Manson-dust and Hunter-Dust

 

Ken Shamrock was immense.

 

The Goldust imitation stuff was great.

 

Shamrock was a great character. Not that a great of an in-ring talent, though. Not poor but just adequate for a WWE talent. Which, I think, highlights the great difference between that era and this - characters. Even low-level talent back then had unique characters. Now, most of the midcard talent are completely interchangeable.

 

 

The things that always bother me when people compare, is they always compare the "Best Of" these era's (much like you, I have found myself doing the same thing) to compare with the "Norm" or even the "Worst" of the current era. It's those one time instances over a period of time that makes the whole era seem so gold and shiny, not the week by week stuff. IF you was to go back (to include people like me that were hooked during the 80's), and watch episode by episode, week by week, in order, you will find that there was just as much bad as there is now, and the fact most didn't look like it the way they do now.

 

Very much. This is something I came to realize with my first WCW project - so much of the show to show stuff that is done really doesn't matter that much. Its throwaway and fans forget in a hurry. And really, the same can be said of the current WWE product. A great deal of what us fans dislike is stuff that doesn't matter, isn't really supposed to matter, and won't be remembered. Not to say that all the problems fit that - many don't. But some do.

 

Another thing that people do alot of (and I'm not innocent either), is compare what they see, and try to believe it looks a certain way to someone that isn't as smart as myself (Smark... whatever you want to think of yourself as). In other words, I don't think it's fair to say "Because such and such happened, fans are going to think "this" way, although I know better because I'm smarter, it's going to look a certain way to their "normal" fans." In reality, it looks the same way to them as it does to me, and they get alot more then people think they get.

 

The term "smark" bothers me a touch because the intended connotation. It infers that the "smark" is indeed somehow smarter than the average fan. To me, the difference between an average wrestling fan and a hardcore fan (those you might term smarks, like most us) isn't that the average fan doesn't "get" all the little things. More typically, its that they don't care. They aren't seeking out rumors or debating things on a website because they just don't care to bother with it to that extent.

 

You can see this with just about anything. Music, movies, TV shows, sports... Pick any half decent TV show and you can probably find a dedicated forum - or at least entire section of a bigger forum - where they discuss and debate every detail of the show. They will break down and analyze absolutely every aspect of it. They may also worry about the business side of the show - the TV ratings, contract status of the actors... Those are things most viewers/fans of the show don't worry about. Breaking down and analyzing every aspect isn't something the average fan does. Its not that its beyond them or they miss all of those - some may, but not all. They just don't bother to go to that depth of fandom with it.

[20LEgend]

The Goldust imitation stuff was great.

 

Shamrock was a great character. Not that a great of an in-ring talent, though. Not poor but just adequate for a WWE talent. Which, I think, highlights the great difference between that era and this - characters. Even low-level talent back then had unique characters. Now, most of the midcard talent are completely interchangeable.

 

Goldust is always great from the stuff I've seen vs. The Undertaker, and all the way through imitation and Booker T I've always liked him.

 

Shamrock wasn't great in ring but he was TOTALLY believable as a psycho I saw him go crazy on the ref and then Chainz (I think) and 4 guys had to hold him down. It was crazy. Also on that video Steve Blackman was awesome he did a submission in a match where Jackyl was doing a promo troughout and it was pretty cool!

[lazorbeak]

I think the exciting think about WWF in 1998 was the new-ness of it. Austin wins the title in March, and almost every guy at the top of the card not named "The Undertaker" is brand new at that level. Kane was brand-new, Triple H was rising up the card, The Rock came into 1998 as a heat magnet and by September/October was getting cheers about even with Austin's, it was just an exciting time because every top level match-up was fresh.

 

But yeah, I've seen 1998 WWF stuff recently enough to remember a lot of it is junk. TAKA wrestling 10 minutes on Raw in front of a crowd that may be sleeping, the horrid, horrid "brawl for all," everything the LOD did that year. I actually think Cornette's evil NWA stable wasn't such a bad idea, but at the time nobody cared.

 

I think that's one of the big things WWE's forgotten since they have no competition: fresh faces are pretty much essential to the business. A guy that comes to your territory only has maybe a year or two before he should be moving on to the next territory, or seeing him stops being a big deal. When Cena and Batista both won at Wrestlemania the yearly numbers were up, but if they're still around 5 years later, that bump disappears as we've seen everything they can do and we've seen them fight everybody. I mean Cena/Undertaker is the only major feud we haven't seen out of Cena in the past six years, because they had their feud 8 years ago before Cena was a top level babyface.

[Arrows]

An actor who brings a company MILLIONS of dollars and does a horrid job will still remain in the company because he brings them MILLIONS of dollars.

 

An actor who doesn't bring a company MILLIONS of dollars and does a horrid job, he will be backlisted and probably doing T&A porn.

 

On that, I'll /nod, and walk away.

[VTial]

The thing is, "Little Jimmy" that loves John Cena isn't that far away from the fans that watched Hogan back in the day, and it's the same excitement for them now as it was for me back then, and other's during the Attitude era.

 

I think this is my main problem with the golden periods.

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse but this is why I often compare basketball wit pro-wrestling.

 

Almost everyone who have lived through Bird/Magic to Jordan knew the difference between the two eras. This was because they understood that they were getting two quality products. But then some vocal users start trying to rationalize why Lebron is popular and then they come up with this myth that they are the same and then they get picked up by newer fans and a new meme logic is adapted via the combined efforts of apologists and newer users who tried to gather info from older ones and see these kinds of comments.

 

I don't mean to insult you but you are just wrong. Elsewhere someone accused me of being like a smark but I don't think people realized that smarks are the ones who are often guilty of this and who often produce this.

 

Any viewer who has lived through all three times knew that the Attitude era was different from Hogan's era and even more so, Cena's era. Three eras can be exciting but different. I'm not trying to discredit your opinions but come on, if you were a mark in all those periods, you can't say when Cena gets booed and cheered at the same time, it's the same as Hogan channeling the hopes of the crowd. It just farts in any type of logic.

 

They may both be exciting... they may both give you that feeling that there's a crowd praising them...but it's not a case of excitement. It's a case of how and why and what was exciting about them. You see these tons and tons of times. Even at Leno's peak, if you rationalize Leno as Conan to the older audience, you would be wrong. Even at Jordan's peak, the ones who actually watched the games knew that Jordan was great because he was doing something different from Bird and Magic. He wasn't the Bird and Magic of his generation which is why he was exciting. Austin wasn't the Hogan of his generation which is why he was exciting. (You could argue for Goldberg but Austin and Hogan were not the same characters.) It's the same with Cena.

 

No matter how you try to rationalize this, it's only the smarks in each of us, regardless whether you consider yourself a smark or not that converts this into the same criteria because we see something that's on top that's being appreciated by what we feel is the same number of people. We don't take into account that maybe the WWE just has gotten bigger and most wrestling fans don't have alternatives. That most people are just regular TV viewers. They see the WWE as a brand and not a show where you can switch to ROH, Puro, TNA and to these people if Cena gets pushed, that means Cena is quality so Cena is to be cheered for because he's the main event. Just like any top face that has been pushed by any company on top. Where as Hogan is an outlier in the sense of being "this" but also being above "this". He was Carson to Leno. He was Jordan to the Kobes, the Vince, the Lebrons, the Walt Fraziers, the Sloans, the Barrys... he was not just some guy who was pushed. He was some guy who brought something new to the old but also brought something that the new couldn't replicate and had to be pushed down in our throats to get the masses going.

 

The quality and the value of the modern crowd alone is not electric. Even if you think these are the same wrestlers that were booked in the same way that have the same popularity...guess what? The kayfabe numbers alone are vastly different to even come close to the same excitement.

[Moe Hunter]

Because a retcon of this sort would've been way too obvious, and they're trying to make new stars which would've been completely counter-productive to just slap the belt back on the main man a night later.

 

Not that I believe this botched ending theory anyway. Somehow I think it was legit. If it weren't, it would've probably blown up all over the Internet in reports.

It could easily be done in-story.

 

Cena: "I know I can beat you in a regular fight. I challenge you tonight and I'll pin you 1-2-3, because I know I'm the better man".

Sheamus: "We'll see about that, fella."

 

It's a stronger premise than Rey vs Cena the other week.

[bigtplaystew]

Kinda random, but I've managed to get my grubby hands on all the WWE programming from 1998. Start to finish, all of the pay per views, Raw is War episodes, and Sunday Night Heat (with one or two exceptions). I started watching through them in order. Not quite to WM.

 

Its definitely interesting. I was watching during this period, on a mostly week to week basis, but its odd what you forget and what you remember.

 

I've found myself getting annoyed of late at people who like to paint the Attitude Era as some kind of golden period in pro wrestilng. It was most definitely a good period to be a fan, and there were some things that were much better then. But I think a lot of fans (myself included) have a tendency to remember the good and play down the bad when looking back. So its interesting to watch episodes of Raw is War on a week to week basis, to see what the undercard and throwaway angles were like. I find myself making the inevitable comparison to today... and today doesn't look so bad at all. The current product doesn't look great - and its definitely lacking in certain areas... Yet the actual in-ring wrestling is no worse today, match to match. That's just looking at early 1998, not the entire Attitude Era. But I do find its making me appreciate certain aspects of the current product a bit more.

 

As fond as we remember our Stone Cold beer truck moments... we forget the Godwinns/Southern Justice haha.

 

You have a point though. I definately look back at 1997-2000 ish as the best period of wrestling in my lifetime / awareness period. But the undertaker DEFINATELY curcified stephanie mcmahon.

 

But I still loved the Attitue Era because it's when I was ALL IN on wrestling.

 

I like it today though as much as I ever did. I mean that. Wrestling is pure fun for me.

[djthefunkchris]

I think this is my main problem with the golden periods.

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse but this is why I often compare basketball wit pro-wrestling.

 

Almost everyone who have lived through Bird/Magic to Jordan knew the difference between the two eras. This was because they understood that they were getting two quality products. But then some vocal users start trying to rationalize why Lebron is popular and then they come up with this myth that they are the same and then they get picked up by newer fans and a new meme logic is adapted via the combined efforts of apologists and newer users who tried to gather info from older ones and see these kinds of comments.

 

I don't mean to insult you but you are just wrong. Elsewhere someone accused me of being like a smark but I don't think people realized that smarks are the ones who are often guilty of this and who often produce this.

 

Any viewer who has lived through all three times knew that the Attitude era was different from Hogan's era and even more so, Cena's era. Three eras can be exciting but different. I'm not trying to discredit your opinions but come on, if you were a mark in all those periods, you can't say when Cena gets booed and cheered at the same time, it's the same as Hogan channeling the hopes of the crowd. It just farts in any type of logic.

 

They may both be exciting... they may both give you that feeling that there's a crowd praising them...but it's not a case of excitement. It's a case of how and why and what was exciting about them. You see these tons and tons of times. Even at Leno's peak, if you rationalize Leno as Conan to the older audience, you would be wrong. Even at Jordan's peak, the ones who actually watched the games knew that Jordan was great because he was doing something different from Bird and Magic. He wasn't the Bird and Magic of his generation which is why he was exciting. Austin wasn't the Hogan of his generation which is why he was exciting. (You could argue for Goldberg but Austin and Hogan were not the same characters.) It's the same with Cena.

 

No matter how you try to rationalize this, it's only the smarks in each of us, regardless whether you consider yourself a smark or not that converts this into the same criteria because we see something that's on top that's being appreciated by what we feel is the same number of people. We don't take into account that maybe the WWE just has gotten bigger and most wrestling fans don't have alternatives. That most people are just regular TV viewers. They see the WWE as a brand and not a show where you can switch to ROH, Puro, TNA and to these people if Cena gets pushed, that means Cena is quality so Cena is to be cheered for because he's the main event. Just like any top face that has been pushed by any company on top. Where as Hogan is an outlier in the sense of being "this" but also being above "this". He was Carson to Leno. He was Jordan to the Kobes, the Vince, the Lebrons, the Walt Fraziers, the Sloans, the Barrys... he was not just some guy who was pushed. He was some guy who brought something new to the old but also brought something that the new couldn't replicate and had to be pushed down in our throats to get the masses going.

 

The quality and the value of the modern crowd alone is not electric. Even if you think these are the same wrestlers that were booked in the same way that have the same popularity...guess what? The kayfabe numbers alone are vastly different to even come close to the same excitement.

 

Just a FYI, I'm 44 years old, and I lived through all three era's. I'm just alot more objective then most people my age. I don't see the cup as half empty, as it's always half full to me. My biggest time was during the 80's, Hulkamania, I was at the first Wrestlemania, something I had no idea was going to be a yearly thing at the time. I felt the electricity, I seen Muhammed Ali live for the first time in my life (I was a huge fan of his). My favorite wrestler was Jimmy Snuka, etc... This is when I loved wrestling, couldn't wait for the next Piper's pit.... stuff like that.

 

I can also say that when I go back and watch this stuff, there is only really.... A handfull that was actually all that electric. Yes, the whole Wrestlemania thing felt larger then life, and it felt like the biggest thing on Earth to me, but when I watch the old shows, when I see the whole cards, as I see it now... I realise I wasn't all that into every little thing that was going on. I wasn't necessarily paying that much attention to all the title's. The thing is, I only really had a handfull (perhaps a dozen) wrestler's that I actually kept up with, and forgot half the other's that were around on the same show, at the time.

 

I can look at number's, and see how "Popular" things were at different times, but all in all, nothing has changed to the extent as some would have me believe. I've been just as guilty as anyone else in believing these things, but when I look back at them, I have to admit that it wasn't like that show after show, or even PPV after PPV. There were definately electric moments, as you describe, but they weren't on a weekly basis, as much as my memmory of that era would want me to believe.

 

I wasn't trying to compare one wrestler to another, I was trying to compare new fans to older fans (when they were new fans). I'll just put it like this, I have friends that have kids, and I have my kid (who will be 21 in december). No matter what I youtube for them, no matter what I bring up... it's not going to compare to the things they feel are "electric" or exciting... the reason being is because they weren't there for that, but are here for this. IS it exciting to see the Rock? Sure... But most the kids talked about how he fell when he tried to jump off his back onto his feet, moreso then about how good he was on the mic.

 

It's like the MITB match between Cena and Punk..> I have yet to see anyone admit what happened in that match, here. I seen it hinted on, but no one wants to suffer the consequences of saying how Cena was able to hide Punk's flaws in that particular match (there, I said it). I can't stand Cena's character anymore, and I certainly hate the way most of his match's go (Always getting his butt beat throughout the whole match, then coming back at the end). I would definately book him differently, and I do believe the way his match's go, is one of the biggest things that bother's me.

 

But I'm from the past, and I'm going to remember the best of the past, and compare it to the "norm" of today. That's just the nature of how things go. You remember the whole time period of those era's as "Electric", but in all honesty, although there were definately "Electric" moments, they weren't the "Norm" of the whole time period. To me, Taker versus HBK was "Electric", in both Wrestlemania's. To me Taker vs. HBK when HBK kicked up at the same time Taker sat up in the Royal Rumble, was an "Electric" moment. To me John Cena vs HBK (Both match's) was electric. To me John Cena and Kurt Angle battle rapping was electric, as well as his things with RVD, Big Show, and various other's. Lately, to me the Punk vs. Cena thing is electric, and Punks off the cuff promo that started it all was beyond quite alot of things I think were Electric from the past.

 

I could give you a ton of things from the past as well... Snuka in Piper's pit.... Hogan slamming Andre, Austin and the beer truck, Austin and Tyson, Hogan vs The Rock, etc. It's in the eye of the beholder, and I feel I always remember things "better" then they actually were... All I have to do is watch a "Full" show to realise that.

[VTial]

I can also say that when I go back and watch this stuff, there is only really.... A handfull that was actually all that electric. Yes, the whole Wrestlemania thing felt larger then life, and it felt like the biggest thing on Earth to me, but when I watch the old shows, when I see the whole cards, as I see it now... I realise I wasn't all that into every little thing that was going on. I wasn't necessarily paying that much attention to all the title's. The thing is, I only really had a handfull (perhaps a dozen) wrestler's that I actually kept up with, and forgot half the other's that were around on the same show, at the time.

 

I can look at number's, and see how "Popular" things were at different times, but all in all, nothing has changed to the extent as some would have me believe. I've been just as guilty as anyone else in believing these things, but when I look back at them, I have to admit that it wasn't like that show after show, or even PPV after PPV. There were definately electric moments, as you describe, but they weren't on a weekly basis, as much as my memmory of that era would want me to believe.

 

Kayfabe has changed. That alone blows things apart. Then there's the internet. Again, mind blower. Changed everything from the exposure of smaller companies and added everything from it being easier to follow the storylines or knowing more about your favorite wrestlers.

 

I'm not saying any era is golden or perfect. I'm saying because some vocal oldies "look back" they create this mythology that it wasn't as special as it was.

 

The fact that you're looking back with newer knowledge is already working against your brain in the same way that your favorite toy as a kid will never compete with most of your recent videogames even the bad ones unless you hold some nostalgia or sentimental memories from it.

 

What's worse is that a group tries to present this impression as truth and many newer members pick up on this and they try to "youtube" the old videos and they end up getting the same vibe and in turn created an apologist mythology that was never there.

 

This:

 

I wasn't trying to compare one wrestler to another, I was trying to compare new fans to older fans (when they were new fans).

 

...is pretty much what I'm saying also. When I bring up someone like the Ultimate Warrior or Hulk Hogan or anyone else, I'm not talking about the man alone in the same way when people bring up Jordan, they don't simply talk about the basketball player alone. They bring up his fundamentals, his uniqueness, his energy at the time, how he created the marketing for him and it wasn't like the revision that he was overtly marketed like the young stars today, etc. In every famous human being there are always the legendary acts, the historical clues pointing out to the truth and the popular myths accepted and rationalized as facts of him. All these combine into symbols that can mean something beyond just individual to individual. It can deal with how some new fans to older fans compare them (when they were new fans).

 

When something is bigger than itself, there's no explaining it. You can only present the flaw in someone's mindset for how they deluded themselves into thinking it's the same. I and no one can bring up a youtube video to tell them how the times was. Not even watching every match can explain that moment.

 

Finally:

 

It's like the MITB match between Cena and Punk..> I have yet to see anyone admit what happened in that match, here. I seen it hinted on, but no one wants to suffer the consequences of saying how Cena was able to hide Punk's flaws in that particular match (there, I said it). I can't stand Cena's character anymore, and I certainly hate the way most of his match's go (Always getting his butt beat throughout the whole match, then coming back at the end). I would definately book him differently, and I do believe the way his match's go, is one of the biggest things that bother's me.

 

I don't get the relevance of this post. You already said you weren't comparing one wrestler. So why analyze this now?

 

If you want to bring it as a showcase for why people overrate certain events and underrate certain events. No problem.

 

However you putting this as a part of your reply to me makes no sense.

 

In summary, I don't doubt you are sincere with your feelings, just remember that as much as there can be nostalgia - there can easily be people who unconsciously revise the events that take place in their head. I may be a little too harsh in calling these people apologists but there's no way to explain it otherwise besides calling it faulty memory and that's more insulting to the rationale of any person. We all want to interpret our memories. We all think we know how to perfectly simulate our memories and compare it with the events of today. Many of us even want to justify mediocre or stupidity as progress. It doesn't change the fact that the facts are too different nowadays. Too big and too different of events to even claim both are remotely the same.

[FINisher]

It's like the MITB match between Cena and Punk..> I have yet to see anyone admit what happened in that match, here. I seen it hinted on, but no one wants to suffer the consequences of saying how Cena was able to hide Punk's flaws in that particular match (there, I said it).

 

You sure that wasn't a typo there? Cena hiding Punk's flaws? Err. What?

 

What the Punk/Cena match did was expose Cena's lack of wrestling skills. He blew way too many spots and also since the match wasn't his usual 'Getting beaten for 20min then make a Superhero comeback and win' it clearly disturbed the pace of the match aswell as Cena's timing since Cena had to actually think.

[Self]

Punk wasn't blameless in that match. He messed things up too. The more babyface he gets, the more high kicks and springboards he attempts, the worse he tends to look.

 

Also, Cena impressed me with some of his chain wrestling in that match. He wasn't a wizard, don't get me wrong, but he did some grappling. Kudo's.

[Hive]

Punk wasn't blameless in that match. He messed things up too. The more babyface he gets, the more high kicks and springboards he attempts, the worse he tends to look.

 

Also, Cena impressed me with some of his chain wrestling in that match. He wasn't a wizard, don't get me wrong, but he did some grappling. Kudo's.

 

As much as I dislike Cena, I'll have to agree with this. Cena had one of the best matches I've personally seen him have, while I've seen Punk a lot better than what he delivered here in terms of fluid in-ring work and botch-free spots. He still did good though, but I agree that he blew just as many spots as Cena in that particular match. Doesn't matter though, it was the story that made the match what it was - not so much the in-ring work.

[Fantabulous]

Cena hid Punk's flaws? That's a good one. I'll have to remember that if I ever need a good laugh.

 

They both blew spots but they were going so long, and I think it showed that they're best matches from a quality standpoint are probably ones kept to around twenty minutes; less time to do more moves means less botches.

[Hive]

They both blew spots but they were going so long, and I think it showed that they're best matches from a quality standpoint are probably ones kept to around twenty minutes; less time to do more moves means less botches.

 

I agree. The reason they often had much longer matches back in "the old days" was that they didn't incorporate as many "spots" as they do nowadays, but just did old fashioned chain wrestling and rest holds much more.

[Fantabulous]

I agree. The reason they often had much longer matches back in "the old days" was that they didn't incorporate as many "spots" as they do nowadays, but just did old fashioned chain wrestling and rest holds much more.

 

It wasn't just that that. They did more ga-ga between the spots and holds. A lot of little things that you just don't see in WWE these day.

[bigtplaystew]

I think he must have meant Cena. You guys know that Punk doesn't get his butt kicked then fight his way back and that's not what happened at MitB. Before MitB Punk was booked pure heel and usually did the whoopin. I can't recall a Punk match that describes this while people on this very thread have been spending the last several days screaming about how all John Cena ever does is get destroyed and then do the 5 moves of doom and come back unscathed (like many big faces throughout wrestling history but John Cena is the one taking the heat for it right now).

 

 

At MitB the match went back and forth beautifully and was, in my opinion, a highlight in Cena's career over the last two or three years. It's one of his best matches. The same can be said for Punk. I got no problem with Punk's ring work normally but that was one of the biggest matches of his career and he stepped up and ran with it. I don't think this angle could have been nearly as interesting as it has been if that match wasn't as fantastic as it was.

[Teh_Showtime]

It has made Cena actually work in all of his matches since too. Like against Mysterio and Swagger. I am enjoying his ring work more than ever right now.

[Fantabulous]

What the Punk/Cena match did was expose Cena's lack of wrestling skills. He blew way too many spots and also since the match wasn't his usual 'Getting beaten for 20min then make a Superhero comeback and win' it clearly disturbed the pace of the match aswell as Cena's timing since Cena had to actually think.

Cena just isn't a smooth worker. He can do plenty of 'moves' but he tends to look clunky when doing them. And we'll not even bring up his god-awful punches.

[Teh_Showtime]

he has a nice gutwrench suplex though.

[bigtplaystew]

So if Cena was as horrible as some of you are saying at MitB... why was there internet buzz all over the place about how it was a great match?

 

Is it possible that you are the problem? That you can't put aside your Cena hate for one friggin match that the rest of the world enjoyed?

 

Not to mention... some people keep breaking down this Cena match with the utmost care in their criticism. For someone you hate so much you clearly watch all of his matches with keen eyes.

[djthefunkchris]

Cena just isn't a smooth worker. He can do plenty of 'moves' but he tends to look clunky when doing them. And we'll not even bring up his god-awful punches.

 

I remember a match on RAW a while ago, that he had someone in the corner and I guess he was supposed to look like he was going all out with punch's....... We all started laughing, because he was swinging like a little kid (or girl for that matter), and it looked really bad. I've seen this from him a few other times as well. Yeah, going to have to say his punching needs alot of work, especially when he's supposed to be doing a flurry.

 

@VTial: I tend to bring up other things in my posts, and I forget to say "Not meant as a reply to the quoted", and I should remember. I have to say I agree with you on alot of your posts..... For example: As big as Wrestlemania felt to me, I couldn't here myself yell when Hogan come out. I mean, the noise was so loud, for almost the entire match, that we (my friends that went with me, and myself) couldn't talk to each other at all, unless we were doing some form of made up sign language. I walked away from that spectacle thinking I seen real magic.

 

So yeah, I can agree with alot of what your saying. I can't think of ANY other time that was even close to that... unless it involved Hogan. I wasn't a Hogan fan, but I couldn't help cheering for him *and Mr. T, at Wrestlemania.

[Arrows]

So if Cena was as horrible as some of you are saying at MitB... why was there internet buzz all over the place about how it was a great match?

 

Is it possible that you are the problem? That you can't put aside your Cena hate for one friggin match that the rest of the world enjoyed?

 

Not to mention... some people keep breaking down this Cena match with the utmost care in their criticism. For someone you hate so much you clearly watch all of his matches with keen eyes.

 

One match, in which both men botched stuff, might I add, doesn't make someone great.

 

It's not the first GOOD match Cena's had. He just can't carry the noboby scrubs they throw him against each month to great.

 

HUGE difference between having someone like CM Punk/Shawn Michaels to work with, and having someone like R Truth.

 

Btw, third man(rumble winner) for BD/Punk at Mania? Evan Bourne.

[bigtplaystew]

Evan Bourne title push would be awesome.