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

[ZMAN]

I can't help but laugh hysterically at your inclusion of Orton. He's 32 - which is younger than Punk, Sheamus, Cena, and Del Rio. He's only a few months older than Ziggler and Miz. Not to mention he's number 2 on the totem pole.

 

You can sense your hatred of him from a mile away.

 

I never said anything about wrestler's ages. I'm talking about how long they have been with the company. He made his debut at a young age. The guy has been around for ten years now. He's worked with legends, lead a stable, set records, won titles, won RR, feuded with big names, had his WM moment. What does he have left to do at this point? While his ring work is solid, it's nothing to tell your friends about. His promos are generic. His gimmick is fine, but it's the same viper/goofy face thing over and over. His merchandise... what does he sell exactly? generic graphic tee's and RKO necklaces? Really, how much were we missing out on during his suspension/drug violation?

 

I don't care. Sense my hatred all you want. I embrace the hate.

 

 

Same old stuff huh? Let me rattle off a few uppermid/main event stars of the last couple years:

 

Dolph Ziggler (1 time WHC, and MitB holder)

 

The Miz (One of the longest WWE Title reigns of the last several years AND beat Cena at WM)

 

Kofi Kingston (Had a great fued with Orton before being brought back down)

 

R-Truth (His gimmick change propelled him into a feud with Cena, before getting the Kofi treatment)

 

Jack Swagger (Former WHC)

 

Shaemus (3 time and reigning champ)

 

Alberto Del Rio (former champion)

 

Zack Ryder (Was being pushed really hard for a while, with help from Cena. I would say he went at least to UpperMid during that time)

 

Santino Marella (1 man away from winning the Royal Rumble. Then 1 second away from winning in the EC. U.S. Title holder, 2 time former IC Title holder)

 

Dolph - Officially debut in 2005-2006 (4 years after Orton) under a jobber gimmick. Reinvented himself about a year later when he returned as Ziggler, so 2008 was his reset (now 6 years after Orton). So really his career didn't get serious until 2008 since the Spirit Squad and Kerwin White stuff was all treated like fluff. So now he's only about four years into his career as a legitimate superstar in WWE. On top of that, he seems to be evolving and getting better in the ring, so I don't mind sitting through Dolph.

 

Miz - Once again, the guy's career didn't take off until recently. They will need to do more with him if they expect me to give a crap about him two years from now though.

 

The rest of the guys you listed are fairly recent to the company (although I could do without Kofi and Swagger). So I really don't understand your argument here. I don't mind most of the guys you listed since most of them weren't really involved until 2008.

 

Have you guys forgotten how long we've had to sit through Orton? I know it may seem short because of all his injuries and suspensions, but the dudes been around forever. And why? Miz or Dolph can do exactly what Orton does, but better. Except tattoos, they may need to get some sleeve ink...

 

I get why they must have Cena, because he's a big part of the merch sales and ticket sales. But Orton? Which demographic is dying to see Orton and running around in Orton t-shirts?

[Hyde Hill]

Kinda missing the point here guys. It has nothing to do with the talent or even where they are positioned. It has to do with the content, presentation, storyline types and execution, match types and exectution, character types, execution of the characters etc etc. You can have Cena on top and still have a different overall product and feel to the product. You can even do it within a PG setting. The problem is they have devolved for 10 years going further and further into filler and just attention to the top guys and even kid friendlier while the overall presentation etc has stayed the same and isn't in connection with current trends.

 

They are afraid to do any real change because they are scared they will puncture their hard bottom line fanbase ( 3.0 or so) but with the path they are on they are slowly eroding it. While Hogan turn and NWO invasion for instance where marker events they had already changed their product, presentation etc of it before that and intensified that after. Same with the recent Aries win being a marker event for the changed direction, production, storyline style etc in TNA. It was hoped the Summer of Punk 2 would usher in a changed direction overall for WWE and that didn't happen and Punk was quickly made conformist to the current E style character wise eg PG Funk. Now he is more back to Punk being Punk but the product change isn't there and won't happen unless structural change happens. Prolly have to wait until the bottom does fall out due to the slow erosion tactics still ongoing or Trips taking full control as the problems are more structural then anything else.

 

And when I am agreeing with makhai and meltzer ( although he is pretty late in seeing this) you guys should know something is up. Lolz.

[Teh_Showtime]

Yes because the Bryan/Punk storyline was done SO MUCH with a woman that they both have ties with being the special ref in a WWE title match

 

Oh my God that concept has been beaten to death.

 

And what about attention to only the top guys? Compared to last year even, the tag division is getting actual feuds and time now. The IC title is relevant now (whether you dont want to acknowledge it or not), and matches are both longer and less formula oriented.

 

But please do tell Austin Aries world title win being overshadowed by Aces and Eights is not the same as Punk being overshadowed by Cena vs Johnny.

 

Changing the entire storyline style and product of TNA? TNA's tag division is in worse shape then WWEs at this point and I watch TNA regularly.

 

No denying that WWE could have changed last year (which it DID) but using recent TNA as the shining example is not very smart at all because they are actually worse off in some parts of their product compared to last year.

[Fantabulous]

After reading that list of 'stars', I feel the word has lost all meaning. Then I remember it's from the same well informed individual who told us to trust him about the videos at the start of the year and that they weren't for Jericho.

[Rone Rivendale]

You might want to re-read what I said then. I said those list of wrestlers where people who have been in the UpperMid or Main Event for WWE in the last couple years. Would you argue against any of those? The point was, WWE isn't the 'same old ****' like people make them out to be. They push new stars constantly. Some make it thru and some don't. But Cena/Orton/Punk aren't the only people who have been pushed in the last few years.

 

Oh, and ZMan, Kerwin White was Chavo Guerrero.

[Hyde Hill]

Yes because the Bryan/Punk storyline was done SO MUCH with a woman that they both have ties with being the special ref in a WWE title match

 

Oh my God that concept has been beaten to death.

 

And what about attention to only the top guys? Compared to last year even, the tag division is getting actual feuds and time now. The IC title is relevant now (whether you dont want to acknowledge it or not), and matches are both longer and less formula oriented.

 

But please do tell Austin Aries world title win being overshadowed by Aces and Eights is not the same as Punk being overshadowed by Cena vs Johnny.

 

Changing the entire storyline style and product of TNA? TNA's tag division is in worse shape then WWEs at this point and I watch TNA regularly.

 

No denying that WWE could have changed last year (which it DID) but using recent TNA as the shining example is not very smart at all because they are actually worse off in some parts of their product compared to last year.

 

And again looking at wrestlers and wrestler positions and not the whole product. Its not just about who and what its about how. But I'll guess we have to agree to disagree on that one. But you can not deny that TNA's product as a WHOLE has changed over the last few months. BTW not denying that there are still faults and that WWE isn't trying with the tag division atm.

[bigtplaystew]

 

I kind of like that analogy. One thing I've never really believed is that there can only be "one" at the top. It can be shared, and has quite often. You can have Cena and Punk at the top.

 

Not only CAN more than one guy be at the top, it flat out NEEDS to be. That's what I was saying. Even if you wanna push Cena as your "Superman" type character, there's gotta be more at the top of the card if you want to draw in that wider fan base.

[ZMAN]

You might want to re-read what I said then. I said those list of wrestlers where people who have been in the UpperMid or Main Event for WWE in the last couple years. Would you argue against any of those? The point was, WWE isn't the 'same old ****' like people make them out to be. They push new stars constantly. Some make it thru and some don't. But Cena/Orton/Punk aren't the only people who have been pushed in the last few years.

 

Oh, and ZMan, Kerwin White was Chavo Guerrero.

 

I didn't say Dolph was Kerwin! I said he was involved in the Kerwin stuff, aka Kerwin's body guard.

 

You might want to re-read what I said then. I said those list of wrestlers where people who have been in the UpperMid or Main Event for WWE in the last couple years. Would you argue against any of those? The point was, WWE isn't the 'same old ****' like people make them out to be. They push new stars constantly. Some make it thru and some don't. But Cena/Orton/Punk aren't the only people who have been pushed in the last few years.

 

What? You just said they are people who have been in the upper-main event for the last couple of years, when I'm arguing against guys who have been in the upper midcard-main event for a BUNCH of years. Why would I argue against any of those guys if I am for keeping new talent on TV? When did I say I wanted ADR off TV? Big Show, Kane, and Orton were the guys I named off. All have had 10+ years of main event exposure. What new material could we possibly see from them?

 

Now I do believe some of the guys you listed shouldn't be involved in the show anymore due to lack of direction and staleness. Would anyone miss Swagger or Kofi? They were fun to watch three years ago, but clearly they aren't turning into anything big. It just doesn't work for these guys in this era of WWE where TV time is massive.

 

I guess that's just me though. Perhaps WWE is doing it all right and have captivating television.

[ScottMulhern]

It falls apart, right here.

 

If THAT was the role Cena is playing, like people tend to claim, I'd have no problem with the guy at all. It's not. John Cena isn't a hero. He doesn't play fair. What kind of hero, what kind of role model, gets fired from his job, and then shows up the next week to beat the crap out of the guys who were responsible for him being fired?

 

Here, in the real world, that's f'n ASSAULT. You get ARRESTED for that. People DIE when stuff like that happens in the real world.

 

But for John Cena, it's perfectly acceptable, because some stupid 10 year olds like the pretty colors of his t-shirts?

 

Hogan used to do the same things, I'll site one example; the first Survivor Series in which Hogan gets eliminated by count out after shenanigans and gets revenge on Andre The Giant by whacking him twice with his belt.

 

There are hundreds of examples of Hogan doing things like that. One of Hogan's regulary moves was an eye rake.

 

All faces do it, I think by wrestling logic getting revenge by cheating, attacking with foreign objects or interfering in a match is only considered comtemptable when done by a face is when it's to another face, otherwise it's exactly what is said to people in the face of adversity "stand up for yourself". I remeber reading an article a while back about how Rey Mysterio is WWEs biggest heel because he's always doing heelish things. You could make the same argument for any face ever.

[Makhai]

That's true - they'll stick with Cena until he can't perform anymore. But that's actually no different to the rest of the era defining people you've listed. They were all top stars until the moment they left, be it injured, to film movies, or to WCW. And they were the focus of attention until that moment (or at least a focus of attention during the era's when they had more than one top, top star).

 

At the end of the day Cena is easily WWE's most bankable star, who defines the current era. The risk of trying to move onto another era is huge. However, if Cena leaves or picks up a long term injury suddenly the risk is much reduced. Let the new stars define the era, or define a era and let that dictate who is likely to become new stars.

 

The only other way to move to a new era with Cena still around is for WWE to develop a bankable star as Cena, but I can't see it happening. They had the chance with Punk, but despite having the 14th longest reign as WWE Champion it still hasn't pushed him into that bracket (largely due to not being treated as the major attraction, but also due to feuding with wrestlers barely in the Main Event (such as ADR)).

 

I don't think turning Cena heel would start a new era, we would get a show focussed on a heel Cena, and when momentum begins to slip he'd be turned face again. Really, I think the only way a new era starts is for Cena to go on hiatus, or off with a long term injury. And realistically he'll only go on hiatus without an injury.

 

It's a shame, as it isn't Cena himself. We could have a new era with Cena involved, but WWE won't let it develop. I wouldn't like to wish injury on anyone, but for my enjoyment the best thing to happen would be for Cena to retire, WWE to have to do something radical, John Cena to come out of retirement and slip into the new era without defining the era. And the best way for that to happen would be for him to come back as a heel, with other Main Eventers fully established.

 

But, credit to him, Cena is a hardy soul with great powers of recovery. So this won't happen.

 

Turning Cena heel is a good idea, but you're largely missing the point.

 

It's the video packages, and the bumpers, and the structure of every show, the way matches are laid out. I could close my eyes and book RAW next week, and so could you. They've got a formula that divorces any suspense from the show, and makes wrestling a chore to watch. They also do so many cotton candy things that don't net them 1 buy.

 

Like that Stephanie promo being re-aired ONE HUNDRED TIMES! The point was to give Stephanie a chance to piss all over Heyman's face, not to sell an important PPV match. Now I don't even care about that match at all and SummerSlam is 2 weeks away. Way to flush 5M down the toilet, Steph.

 

That's cotton candy booking. Feels good when you watch it. Then you realize you just ate air, and desperately want a sandwich.

 

Which 10 guys have been on top for 12 years now?

 

I was guesstimating but, Big Show, Cena, Jericho, Rock, Undertaker, Triple H, Kane.

 

Obviously some of those guys are semi-active/retired now. But the fans still leave the light on for them. And in so doing everyone is compare to them.

 

Kinda missing the point here guys. It has nothing to do with the talent or even where they are positioned. It has to do with the content, presentation, storyline types and execution, match types and exectution, character types, execution of the characters etc etc. You can have Cena on top and still have a different overall product and feel to the product. You can even do it within a PG setting. The problem is they have devolved for 10 years going further and further into filler and just attention to the top guys and even kid friendlier while the overall presentation etc has stayed the same and isn't in connection with current trends.

 

This.

[Teh_Showtime]

I was guesstimating but, Big Show, Cena, Jericho, Rock, Undertaker, Triple H, Kane.

 

Kane, Big Show, and Jericho are nothing more than floaters at this point in their careers. Big Show was just in a feud for the IC title, and Kane was even left off a PPV and relegated to pre-show duty. Jericho hasn't won one PPV match since coming back.

 

And that's only this year. Kane and Big Show are only credible main eventers based on their size at this point, which is why they are pretty much midcarders except for 3-4 months of the year when they need a guy to fill out the card.

[Wrestling Century]

I don't think it's okay to present someone as a role model to children, and then have him be the opposite. You're teaching kids the wrong thing, with Cena. It's why Hogan was generally accepted by the ENTIRE world. He actually was a GREAT role model for children.

 

Steve Austin was never presented to children as "This is acceptable". Austin was often arrested. Austin was always in trouble with his boss for his actions. It was presented in an accurate way, as far as I can tell. So again, you're just way off.

 

Not really. Hulk Hogan would always poke his opponents in the eyes, rake their backs and cheat when he was a face, and the announcers would say that he was "giving them a taste of their own medicine". If anything, Cena is a "better" role model, but that's not saying much, because no parent should let their child look to pro wrestling for a role model. A childhood hero that they worship, in the same vein as a child worshipping Superman or Batman would do? Sure. But a role model is something that kids should aspire to be. There's a big difference.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Clearly you guys missed what I meant to say. My apologies for not explaining it well enough.

 

CM Punk being more important than he was last Spring isn't enough to make the WWE interesting again. CM Punk being pushed as the next bad-ass rebel heel for a while would have been. Instead, within 2 months, they basically turned him into a "Glad to be back, thanks for having me!" face that, honestly, ruined any real momentum we had of getting to that next era, which is what we were talking about. Sure, he had an extremely short-lived "feud" with Triple H, but when people were discussing how Punk/HHH could be the next Austin/McMahon, the whole thing was incredibly disappointing, thus losing even more momentum for Punk. Just because he's been WWE Champion for 9 months doesn't mean we haven't taken a step backward.

 

And for the record, I love Punk. Long-time fan.

 

I honestly think that is another problem in itself, when you guys start discussing things that could be bigger than they are. Whoever discussed Punk/HHH as the next Austin/McMahon feud or anything EVEN close.. must have been running on fumes. I'm sorry, and maybe you think I'm speaking in hindsight but, I don't know, personally I never expected all that much from the darned feud. All I could read in forums after that was "disappointment this, letdown that" when it's the IWC building things up bigger than they are, before they even happen. Some smarks are honestly their own victims...

 

Punk only lost momentum by the time Rock came back for the Mania hype, before the focus of the show switched to Rock vs. Cena. And afterwards, Cena vs. Lesnar took the main-event spotlight. Unfortunately, they kept on going with the "Cena first" formula but while I agree the Summer of Punk could've been much more, it already was something enough to propel Punk to a much different level than he's been at, and I dare say, if it wasn't for Punk's success, who knows if Bryan would've even made it as far either, because both of them complement each other so well in the ring it almost looked as some sort of package deal entry in the main-event scene.

 

Steve Austin wasn't being cited as the NEXT BIG ROLE MODEL FOR CHILDREN.

 

He was what we all WISHED we could do. Us GROWN UPS. The ones that GET THE DIFFERENCE.

 

I don't think it's okay to present someone as a role model to children, and then have him be the opposite. You're teaching kids the wrong thing, with Cena. It's why Hogan was generally accepted by the ENTIRE world. He actually was a GREAT role model for children.

 

Steve Austin was never presented to children as "This is acceptable". Austin was often arrested. Austin was always in trouble with his boss for his actions. It was presented in an accurate way, as far as I can tell. So again, you're just way off.

 

Man you're taking this "role model" thing too deep. There are moments in Cena's career where they tried likening him to more than one demographic, y'know. He's had those little badass fits every now and then, such as his 06 summer feud with Edge, him snapping on Regal after Orton kicked his dad's head in, him going H.A.M on Batista, the Nexus ambush and more.

 

Doesn't change how effective of a role model he's been, esp with the things he does off camera. All those Make-a-Wish foundations, the cheesy-ass video packages they've shown in his feud vs. The Rock and on EVERY god darned WrestleMania for the past 4 years... the kind of material which would make a hipster barf if he watched all of those in a row. Seriously, the occasional ambush won't revoke Cena's role model card.

[lazorbeak]

The years 2000 to 2002 never existed I take it. I know that Austin was hurt, and movies were to be made and what have you. It doesn't really matter if they were or weren't, my point is that you can have more then one guy at the top, although someone is always going to be more popular or what have you then the other. I'm strictly talking solid main event potential... HHH, HBK, Cena, Undertaker, etc. These are all guys that could Main Event if needed, and usually come through. OF course Hogan was bigger then Savage, I'm not saying they were even, only that either one could have been the center of the show without worry of low ratings and whatever else they worry about.

 

Wait, what? Brock Lesnar debuted in April of 2002. There was no time the three of them were all on the active roster, and my point was that the only reason Rock became the #1 name in the company was Austin was gone for extended periods of time.

[Makhai]

Wait, what? Brock Lesnar debuted in April of 2002. There was no time the three of them were all on the active roster, and my point was that the only reason Rock became the #1 name in the company was Austin was gone for extended periods of time.

 

Brock was Vince's vanity project. They tried to job everybody to him for months. Remember the reason Austin retired? They wanted to job him to Lesnar in a King of the Ring Qualifier....

[lazorbeak]

Oh no question, Brock was pushed to the moon and stars, but the idea that the three of them were concurrently equally big names at the same time while on the same roster is pretty much the opposite of what happened. If anything, Brock and Cena (and Orton and Batista) were rushed into the positions they were (Cena less so, other than the move to Raw), because of a vacuum of top names on the day-to-day roster, not some desire to share the spotlight.

[djthefunkchris]

Wait, what? Brock Lesnar debuted in April of 2002. There was no time the three of them were all on the active roster, and my point was that the only reason Rock became the #1 name in the company was Austin was gone for extended periods of time.

 

It doesn't matter, wasn't my point really.... just having Rock and Austin on the same roster is enough for the point made.. and wasn't even my point to start with. I honestly don't understand why this happens as often as it does, but my whole post before was in response to another post, where he brought up Punk saying he was the Batman to Cena's Superman, etc... Go back and read that post and meanwhile I'll try to fill you in here.

 

I said I liked that statement, and that it made sense to me. There have been many times more then one person was able to main event successfully, a PPV or TV show, without the worry of loss of viewers. It's happened many times in the past, including the last decade.

 

Far as the Batman to Superman statement is concerned, I agree you have to have different types at the top as well, to get more people involved... Everyone doesn't like the same "type" of person, and having different personalities at the top of the card is the only way to get more people's interest. Basically, you want people to debate over who is better... Punk or Cena, Orton or Sheamus, etc. You will never get anyone that everyone likes, so you have to do this... It's been done, and it will continue to be done.

 

Now, if you want to debate me about the time Austin and Rock was on the same roster, and how Austin was definitely more over then Rock... Realize to me it's not the point... No one will be perfectly "equal", or seen as equal even if they are. They both could headline without the other one involved is the point. One leaving does not make the other one "more over". Austin could have come back and sat right back down where he left off.

[bigtplaystew]

If WWE wants to gain mainstream popularity they have to start to appeal to a more mature audience without alienating their younger crowd. Wrestling needs to be "cool" again if they want that. And I don't think they have to go backwards and go all "attitude era" on us either.

 

CM Punk made that analogy in an interview he did with a NY DJ. He felt he was Batman to Cena's Superman. And that the right stories those guys could coexist, and occasionally clash, and appeal to everyone. I think for the most part, that's what we've been getting. I just think they've watered down Punk a little too much and are now getting back to the more interesting character we've seen in him.

[eayragt]

Turning Cena heel is a good idea, but you're largely missing the point.

 

It's the video packages, and the bumpers, and the structure of every show, the way matches are laid out. I could close my eyes and book RAW next week, and so could you. They've got a formula that divorces any suspense from the show, and makes wrestling a chore to watch. They also do so many cotton candy things that don't net them 1 buy.

 

Like that Stephanie promo being re-aired ONE HUNDRED TIMES! The point was to give Stephanie a chance to piss all over Heyman's face, not to sell an important PPV match. Now I don't even care about that match at all and SummerSlam is 2 weeks away. Way to flush 5M down the toilet, Steph.

 

That's cotton candy booking. Feels good when you watch it. Then you realize you just ate air, and desperately want a sandwich.

 

I disagree on part. All the recaps and social networking is annoying to me, but I can see why its there - its not for me, its for the casual or new fan. I can fast forward through the recaps and tout videos, and ignore Twitter comments. Sure, I'd like another midcard match in there instead, but that's a minor change. And as for booking to a formula, wrestling has always been booked to a formula, but it doesn't mean that there aren't surprises on there.

 

I was talking about more fundamental era change. Turning Cena heel doesn't do that on its own. Giving the McMahon Helmsley's less air time is a minor step. Showing less recaps and ignoring Twitter doesn't do that. This was my point.

 

Without an era change, I think we're 90% as good as we're ever going to get (largely due to the successful elevation of Punk and Bryan). I want to see what's beyond the next 10%.

[djthefunkchris]

I don't really think they have ever "Planned" an era change... They just evolve and it gets a name placed upon it as if some sort of era change occurred. I mean... I don't think they were aiming for "Attitude Era" or "Golden Age" or "Pioneer Era" etc.

 

They just evolve, and it gets labeled as such... Like the "PG Era". Only because they say they are PG it gets the PG name, although they've been PG through most of their history excluding the "Attitude Era". You could name the 1950's to 1970's the same thing, as they were basically "PG" during that time.

 

I understand the concept, but in all honesty, I don't think we will know it's a different era til' we are well into it.

 

My opinion... TNA, ROH, CHIKARA, and others are our best chance of a change in era. One of these smaller promotions are going to do something that catch's on in a big way, although on a smaller scale. When they catch everyone's eye with it, that's when WWE will adopt it into their own development and evolve with it. I feel that it's been happening with people like Punk and Bryan, through ROH more then any other promotion right now.

 

Right now, I could call it the "Indie Era" of wrestling, and be more correct then the "PG Era", because of the multitude of Indie Wrestling promotions around the world. A person making a TEW mod could name it "The Rise of The Indies!" and try to make the indie circuit as real as possible. If anyone desires to do so, feel free to do it and name djthefunkchris as your inspiration!!!

 

Anyways, my point is that we could be halfway through an era, and we wouldn't realize that fact til' we look back at it historically.

[Teh_Showtime]

Like the "PG Era". Only because they say they are PG it gets the PG name, although they've been PG through most of their history excluding the "Attitude Era".

 

Thank you so much for this

 

I never unerstood how going back to what the business has been based on for decades is a new era

[milamber]

Can you dig it, sucka? Didn't see that coming.

 

Sheamus v Tensai - Pretty brutal match. I think Tensai's underrated. He's a great jobber to the main eventers and upper midcarders. Why was this the opener?

 

Cesaro v Santino - Fun match with Cesaro getting the rub. Let's see them go at it at SS.

 

Bryan's new No! No! No! shirt = $$$

 

Bryan/Miz/Ziggler v Christian/Kane/Jericho - I used to skip through these non-tag team tag matches, but just like on the last Raw this one was good. Bryan getting in the fan's face afterward was gold.

 

Mahal v Ryback - I like Mahal trying to outsmart Ryback instead of taking a beating.

 

AW on SD! No suspension then? Can't remember a tag team getting as much heat as PTP for some time. Using singles matches to build up tag teamers is also a good idea.

 

Orton v ADR - It's only the main event because Mr RKO is still more important than the World Heavyweight champ. At least SD didn't finish with a tag match.

[Teh_Showtime]

You now remember Sheamus pinned Randy Orton twice before he got suspended

[shawn michaels]

The following post would say otherwise:

 

 

 

I could give two craps about how much you dislike Cena, but I do dislike it when people say I am wrong when I am just stating my opinion on something where there are no facts that cannot disprove my opinion.

 

Back on topic, from what I have read online and yes I know it might not happen, the plan is to have Punk hold onto the championship until Royal Rumble where he will lose the title to the Rock. Setting up Rock/Cena II for the title at Wrestlemania.

 

I am not sure I like them putting the title on the Rock but it will be at the Meadowlands so and it is Wrestlemania so I guess they have to put on the biggest match possible.

 

You really chose a bad post to quote. I really don't see how that helps you. You keep forgetting that when i say "It's wrong", it's a matter of speach. People never seem to understand my ironies, regularly forget the fact that english isn't even my 1st language and then start an argument with me when i wasn't even attacking them in the first place. I'm actually one of the few people who agrees with you. An opinion is an opinion. We don't need to back it up because it is what it is. And educated remar, and observation, or a point being made in an argument (or an argument itself), that's different. But backing up the fact we like/hate something? That's outrageous. So i'm with you on that one. Unfortunately, a lot of people here want people to back up everything they say, when there's no need of that.

 

I remember that i had a lof of heat when i said there's a lot of people that can do what Cena does. I didn't mean it like it sound it, but i never really explained what i meant. What's the point anyway? Sometime a guy jsut can't have a CASUAL CONVERSATION with some people in here....you know, as opposed to ARGUMENTS, where you are expected to back up stuff. Heh, i'm done with this. Anyway, BHK there was really no need for you to "attack me" (figure of speach) like you did. i wasn't even posting for you at that time. Still, this was fun to write.

 

As for the 3h Raw's, it will be something gradual, so we will have to wait and see. Buuuut from what i've seen from RAW 1001, they didn't start in the best way. And TOUT? Really? I'm willing to start a pool to bet on how long before that becomes another failure for them. I mean...TOUT? Jesus Christ. And even if it doesn't, finacially, we are already bored by it since they began showing it on RAW. That can't end up well.

[eayragt]

I don't really think they have ever "Planned" an era change... They just evolve and it gets a name placed upon it as if some sort of era change occurred. I mean... I don't think they were aiming for "Attitude Era" or "Golden Age" or "Pioneer Era" etc.

 

They just evolve, and it gets labeled as such... Like the "PG Era". Only because they say they are PG it gets the PG name, although they've been PG through most of their history excluding the "Attitude Era". You could name the 1950's to 1970's the same thing, as they were basically "PG" during that time.

 

I completely agree. As I said, era's are defined by people, and WWE doesn't voluntarily stop using Austin or Hogan or Cena as the main, they have to for one reason or another. Then the next man comes along, and you have to make sure your product and booking style works primarily for the main man.

 

Thank you so much for this

 

I never unerstood how going back to what the business has been based on for decades is a new era

 

Why not? This is the default era. Booking 101 wrestling superman style. Just because it's been done before doesn't make it not an era. Unless if we're not in an era we're eraless. Is it that much different to the Hogan era? Nope. Is WWE always like this? Nope, just most of the time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think for business reasons WWE are fundamentally doing the right thing, booking the show around their biggest draw, superman Cena. Sure, I'd like other people to be booked with more importance (and a whole lot of other minor stuff like less 1 minute squashes of Santino), but I can see why they're doing it.

 

However, I would prefer something else. I don't matter to the WWE as I bring in almost no income to them (I do subscribe to Sky Sports in England, so I give them a very, very small amount of money each year). Lots of us would prefer something else, but again, we don't bring in enough money to the WWE compared to their core demographic. The only way I think we will get this is for Cena to leave for a long period of time, as I don't think there's anyone to fit into the Superman role, so my opinion it would be worth trying something different, to make best use of the talent available.

 

I'm not a Cena hater - he's fantastic for the WWE. I don't think what's happening now is any different from wrestling to the 80's. If my use of the word "era" offends you replace it with something else. I would just like WWE to fundamentally book differently. I would call that a different era, you might call it something else. That's fine.