The Official WWE Thread, Brother!

[-Raiga-]

Punk's character now (or at least up until the Rumble) was the insecure WWE Champion who felt slighted by WWE and the fans, and who felt he had to prove he was the "Best in the World" by demanding respect from everyone he came into contact with. It wasn't as much an obvious gimmick as SES, but it was a character.

Well, put it this way, he has a character but its just incredibly generic. Even Cena exclaimed after punk's heel turn "I never took you as another guy to say 'I demand respect'".

Anyways, guys, take er' easy on the text. Cena is stale, but he's popular. That's all that needs to be said, no walls of text necessary.

[charizardfan]

Re: the text walls...

I know it's a lot to read, but when someone makes a lot of statements that you want to respond to, it's naturally going to take a lot of words to make that response and then back up your points with a reasoning that makes sense. In the last couple posts, I was responding to a bunch of things, and it's difficult to make a reply without getting long-winded.

Was Sheamus pushed for his first title run because of how good he is over the rest of the roster? what about Ryback's big push? he barely gets any reaction most of the time (take this week's Raw, in his hometown no less) granted the consistency is questionable, but still. Since when did that become an absolute in wrestling?

I wasn't watching WWE when Sheamus became champion for the first time, so I can't give a fair answer for that, but there are always exceptions to any rule. Sometimes WWE sees something in a guy that makes them think he'll become big right away with a push, or they just want to surprise fans with a big storyline twist. But you'll notice that if it doesn't work out, that person is usually depushed rather quickly, and it didn't take long for Sheamus to lose the title. John Cena became WWE Champion in 2005, almost ten years ago, and has stayed at the top ever since. There's a big difference between him and Sheamus and Ryback.

Do you have some kind of WWE brand marketing booklet from where you're getting all this from? Yes I know, he's got the biggest audience. That doesn't make him the best. And I know you're gonna tell me that being popular does make him the best along with selling merchandise, blah blah and I will disagree with you there again because it happens to be subjective.

So let me get this straight... in an entertainment business, the guy who's the most entertaining isn't the best? You might argue that someone like CM Punk is more athletic or technically sound, and that is subjective, but professional wrestling isn't about that. It's theater. It's about who can put the most eyes on the product and sell the most tickets. If John Cena does that the best (not counting The Rock or Brock Lesnar, since they're not full time), then he's the best WWE has.

Hogan pandered only to kids? this I did not know. The obvious problem I have with it is that's his chief demographic and he's supposed to be the face of the company. I don't get why you would want your best guy in a show where people essentially beat each other up to be catering to kids. But that's just me.

Hogan was the guy who used to say, "say your prayers and eat your vitamins". His character starred in an '80s children's cartoon, Hulk Hogan's Rock 'N Wrestling. He referred to his fans as "little Hulkamaniacs". He was a live-action superhero and children loved him.

And this was during a time when pro wrestling was at the highest point in its history. Wrestling was never more successful than when it was promoted to kids (the successes of the late 1990s could never have happened without the children from the Hulkamania period). And the thing about kids is, not only do you get their parents' money now, but because children are impressionable, by hooking them now you make sure they're still a part of your audience 10-15 years from now. And they can introduce their children to wrestling, and the cycle continues. It makes a lot of sense for WWE to market to them.

By putting out John Cena, a hero who children love, not only are they making money off their top guy, but WWE is also building their next audience in the future. Since children love Cena, they can become hooked on the product now and hopefully will stay hooked years from now.

Serious? you think he's better in the ring and on the mic? What about his lame gear and theme song? To each his own I guess. I was hoping for more than just a by the book reading on how WWE operates.

What were you hoping for? I think Cena tends to tell better stories in the ring and that his matches engage more emotion from fans than Punk's matches do, for the most part. I think Cena's had more great matches in WWE than CM Punk has, with a wider variety of opponents than Punk has. I've never seen a Punk match - other than perhaps the one he had with Cena - that's better than Cena's stuff against Edge (Unforgiven '06), Shawn Michaels (Raw '07), Lesnar (Extreme Rules '12), or Umaga (Royal Rumble '07). The mic is a harder area to judge, but yes, I think Cena's overall cut better promos in his career as well.

That's hardly fair considering most of those events can be attributed to Rock and Lesnar as far as buyrates, and the comment you quoted still stands since he wasn't messing around as much as usual against those guys. And it's not just how many you convince, but who you convince.

Rock and Lesnar do deserve a lot of the credit, but neither of them would get those numbers if fans didn't want to see them destroy Cena (who, in his match with Rock, took up the position of the heel). So he should get credit, too. And they're really not the only examples I could have used. Raw's ratings, live attendance, merchandise sales, and pay-per-view buys on the whole went up in 2005 and 2006, when Cena came to the show and became its focus. Yes, he's very convincing even without Rock or Brock.

How exactly is that a knock on Punk? Those guys have been around for longer too. And it sounds like you might have missed this week's Raw because Rock vs Punk is still going even though it will probably get thrown under the bus quickly for Twice in a Lifetime.

It's not meant to be a knock on Punk. I'm just wondering if he can do what Cena (and The Rock) can, and actually accomplish the same things with people who aren't as great as Cena and Rock are.

So he's been around longer. Pretty much twice as long. Does that make the person who's been around the longest or has had the most memorable feuds the best? I imagine it's pretty easy to look down on the current talent like that when they haven't had the time or the chances seasoned guys like Cena have had.

I'm not looking down on anybody, I'm saying that right now no one is as good as Cena is. Could that change with more time? Of course. But I can't tell the future, I can only speak for the present. And in the present, I believe that John Cena is the best full-time wrestler WWE has, for the reasons presented above.

At the end of the day, I'm still not sold on Cena. I don't care if half the U.S. was tuning in to the show and cheering him on or about his numerous accolades. I watch his segments and matches because they are almost always held above the rest of the roster; not because I like his character, his ability to kick out of multiple wrestler's finishers at once or watching him drop his fist a foot away from his opponent's head while the camera cuts to the other side of the ring.

Not sure why you think I'm trying to "sell" you on Cena. I'm just explaining to you why I believe he's the best today, why he's at the top of WWE and why they continue to push him, and why it's a good idea to do so. I'm a fan of Cena, but I understand not everyone's going to feel the same way.

[flamebeam]

^once again to lazy to quote the whole thing, but there were 2 things you said and stuck out

I think Cena tends to tell better stories in the ring and that his matches engage more emotion from fans than Punk's matches do, for the most part.

that's what you think. i think cm punk tells better stories. maybe he's generic now, but that's because, for the past 6 months, the wwe writers have been writing him that way. imo, for being written as a generic heel, cm punk has done a good job with the overdone role. but don't forget about cm punk in the end of 2011. if the wwe let him be himself, sometimes a face and sometimes a heel, i think he can be just as popular as cena. again, this is imo. i like that cm punk leans on the 4th wall occasionally. let's face the truth: wwe isn't real. john cena and the roster are not leonardo dicaprio or brad pitt when it comes to acting. they can sell it to some point, but i know it's not real. cm punk doesn't hide that fact when he attacks the system of wwe. he talks about fan reactions work and how easy they are to manipulate and he talks about the rock and his bag of tricks and vince and all that, and I like that. i like when the line between truth and fake is blurred. and i like his wrestling style. if i didn't, then i wouldn't like him. it's also why i like daniel bryan and john morrison. cena's style isn't as boring as triple h's, but it's not as good, imo, as punk's. according to you, people get more into cena’s matches because of his storylines. i get into punk's matches more because i like to see him fight. on the other hand, i stop paying attention to cena's matches midway and then start near the end. again, it's all imo, but I'm simply explaining why i like cm punk

I'm a fan of Cena, but I understand not everyone's going to feel the same way.

I'm a fan of cena, too. i like that he's incorruptible babyface. he's the guy we can count on to be the good guy. he has had an impressive 10+ years in the wwe, with many rivalries and amazing victories and defeats and such. and he's a good person at heart. most people over a certain age seem to hate him, and i don't see why that hatred is so strong, because i personally like him. but i still prefer cm punk any day.

and because this was all opinion, I'm not expecting a tsunami-wall of text

[Laser Shuckle]

Re: the text walls...

I know it's a lot to read, but when someone makes a lot of statements that you want to respond to, it's naturally going to take a lot of words to make that response and then back up your points with a reasoning that makes sense. In the last couple posts, I was responding to a bunch of things, and it's difficult to make a reply without getting long-winded.

Lol, I think he knows. now look what you've done. Then again I'm not much better...

I wasn't watching WWE when Sheamus became champion for the first time, so I can't give a fair answer for that, but there are always exceptions to any rule. Sometimes WWE sees something in a guy that makes them think he'll become big right away with a push, or they just want to surprise fans with a big storyline twist. But you'll notice that if it doesn't work out, that person is usually depushed rather quickly, and it didn't take long for Sheamus to lose the title. John Cena became WWE Champion in 2005, almost ten years ago, and has stayed at the top ever since. There's a big difference between him and Sheamus and Ryback.

I'll give you this one.

So let me get this straight... in an entertainment business, the guy who's the most entertaining isn't the best? You might argue that someone like CM Punk is more athletic or technically sound, and that is subjective, but professional wrestling isn't about that. It's theater. It's about who can put the most eyes on the product and sell the most tickets. If John Cena does that the best (not counting The Rock or Brock Lesnar, since they're not full time), then he's the best WWE has.

Maybe you think he's the most entertaining along with the rest of his fans, that just means he entertains the most not that he's the most entertaining. I don't think selling the most tickets makes someone the best overall. And you're really going to generalize and say wrestling isn't about athleticism? Who do you enjoy watching more in the ring: Great Khali or Daniel Bryan?

Hogan was the guy who used to say, "say your prayers and eat your vitamins". His character starred in an '80s children's cartoon, Hulk Hogan's Rock 'N Wrestling. He referred to his fans as "little Hulkamaniacs". He was a live-action superhero and children loved him.

And this was during a time when pro wrestling was at the highest point in its history. Wrestling was never more successful than when it was promoted to kids (the successes of the late 1990s could never have happened without the children from the Hulkamania period). And the thing about kids is, not only do you get their parents' money now, but because children are impressionable, by hooking them now you make sure they're still a part of your audience 10-15 years from now. And they can introduce their children to wrestling, and the cycle continues. It makes a lot of sense for WWE to market to them.

By putting out John Cena, a hero who children love, not only are they making money off their top guy, but WWE is also building their next audience in the future. Since children love Cena, they can become hooked on the product now and hopefully will stay hooked years from now.

Meanwhile they help to alienate the rest of their fan base, a.k.a the ones who actually know better. But I guess trying to appeal to both sides is too much to ask for from them when they are charging 45 bucks every month to watch a still very adult oriented show with a children's character in the main event.

Also Cena is no Hulk Hogan. This is a different era. recycling the same routine has gotten very old for a lot of people. But I guess it's fine because he sells...

What were you hoping for? I think Cena tends to tell better stories in the ring and that his matches engage more emotion from fans than Punk's matches do, for the most part. I think Cena's had more great matches in WWE than CM Punk has, with a wider variety of opponents than Punk has. I've never seen a Punk match - other than perhaps the one he had with Cena - that's better than Cena's stuff against Edge (Unforgiven '06), Shawn Michaels (Raw '07), Lesnar (Extreme Rules '12), or Umaga (Royal Rumble '07). The mic is a harder area to judge, but yes, I think Cena's overall cut better promos in his career as well.

I can't argue with opinion and I've watched him less than you have, but Cena has had more time to build his fan base, wrestle matches and cut promos. Personally I've still always liked Punk more and find him more entertaining.

Rock and Lesnar do deserve a lot of the credit, but neither of them would get those numbers if fans didn't want to see them destroy Cena (who, in his match with Rock, took up the position of the heel). So he should get credit, too. And they're really not the only examples I could have used. Raw's ratings, live attendance, merchandise sales, and pay-per-view buys on the whole went up in 2005 and 2006, when Cena came to the show and became its focus. Yes, he's very convincing even without Rock or Brock.

I imagine that's because he's so unconvincing at being a convincing good guy, if that makes any sense. McDonalds has convinced millions of people to buy their food, that doesn't make it good.

It's not meant to be a knock on Punk. I'm just wondering if he can do what Cena (and The Rock) can, and actually accomplish the same things with people who aren't as great as Cena and Rock are.

I suppose time will have to tell because he definitely hasn't had the same ridiculously generous booking and amount of time with WWE.

[charizardfan]

Maybe you think he's the most entertaining along with the rest of his fans, that just means he entertains the most not that he's the most entertaining. I don't think selling the most tickets makes someone the best overall.

But as I keep coming back to, the talents of a wrestler is based on how many people he can entertain. Because wrestling is about drawing fans and making money. So if John Cena does that the best today (which we can assume based on the fact that WWE still uses him as the face of their company), then he must be the most talented, by definition of what makes a great pro wrestler.

And you're really going to generalize and say wrestling isn't about athleticism? Who do you enjoy watching more in the ring: Great Khali or Daniel Bryan?

Daniel Bryan is more entertaining than Khali is. Bryan has demonstrated the ability to become popular with fans, he can draw fans into his matches, he can sell, and his psychology is good. He can do all of that better than Khali can. If all Bryan had going for him was athleticism, he'd be awful, but that's obviously not the case. Athleticism can certainly help, not saying otherwise, but it's not the end all of wrestling. In the end, what matters is if one can entertain and make fans want to see them win or lose. Look at The Undertaker at WrestleMania 28. He's far from athletic and can't really fly around the ring, but he and Triple H were still able to wrestle a fantastic match.

Athleticism does not equal great wrestling on its own (neither does technical wrestling, for that matter).

Meanwhile they help to alienate the rest of their fan base, a.k.a the ones who actually know better. But I guess trying to appeal to both sides is too much to ask for from them when they are charging 45 bucks every month to watch a still very adult oriented show with a children's character in the main event.

Also Cena is no Hulk Hogan. This is a different era. recycling the same routine has gotten very old for a lot of people. But I guess it's fine because he sells...

No, Cena isn't Hogan (neither are Rock or Austin, for that matter), but the logic is still sound. Other entertainment franchises do the same (would the Transformers movies be so successful without the audience that watched the cartoon in the '80s?). The tobacco industry has made millions with the same principle: market to younger people now, build a loyal customer base in the future.

WWE doesn't try to alienate anyone (the show is rated TV-PG and guys like Rock, Brock, Punk, Orton, etc. are to appeal to the non-Cena demographics of the WWE fanbase), but you have to understand that children are important in a way that older groups can't be. The Attitude Era was marketed primarily to older audiences, and the fallout once those audiences eventually left (after only 3 years) was disastrous.

I can't argue with opinion and I've watched him less than you have, but Cena has had more time to build his fan base, wrestle matches and cut promos. Personally I've still always liked Punk more and find him more entertaining.

If you find Punk more entertaining, that's up to you and I would never question that, but that doesn't change that Cena is still better at doing his job (entertaining) than Punk is.

I imagine that's because he's so unconvincing at being a convincing good guy, if that makes any sense. McDonalds has convinced millions of people to buy their food, that doesn't make it good.

Actually, Cena is convincing at playing both the good guy and the bad guy and people have paid to see him operate in both elements. And there's a world of difference between brands of restaurants (McDonald's has several advantages over other restaurant chains: it's easily available and widespread, television advertising, the Dollar Menu, etc.) and professional wrestling.

Also, on a completely unrelated note - shame on you for trashing McDonald's. Their breakfast menu is a wonderful thing.

I suppose time will have to tell because he definitely hasn't had the same ridiculously generous booking and amount of time with WWE.

CM Punk has had some very generous booking. I've already outlined all that he's been given over the past couple years, but even before that he was still a prominent fixture on Raw working with top talent. This idea of Punk not being given opportunities is a myth.

[-Raiga-]

Re: the text walls...

I know it's a lot to read, but when someone makes a lot of statements that you want to respond to, it's naturally going to take a lot of words to make that response and then back up your points with a reasoning that makes sense. In the last couple posts, I was responding to a bunch of things, and it's difficult to make a reply without getting long-winded.

No worries, you and I were the innovators of the wall-of-text discussions in this thread remember?

But as I keep coming back to, the talents of a wrestler is based on how many people he can entertain. Because wrestling is about drawing fans and making money. So if John Cena does that the best today (which we can assume based on the fact that WWE still uses him as the face of their company), then he must be the most talented, by definition of what makes a great pro wrestler.

I think what laser shuckle was getting at was that there is a certain point when they are pushing Cena so much he's hurting other's ability to try to entertain. As in, WWE expects a diamond in the rough to show up, but they keep checking the same dirt(cena) expecting it to yield drastically different results. Even when someone does make it make it on to their radar, like ryback/ryder/funkasaurus, they let it go to waste. Or ironically, feed them to cena storyline-wise, like ryder/ryback in this case.

[Platinum fan.]

Sorry to break up the conversation of whatever you guys are talking about but we had a new RAW last night. It was alright...I guess. I only really cared for Mark Henry and Jack Swagger being back. Swagger returned last Smackdown, and continued over to RAW. CM Punk still calls himself the champ, he might as well be. I mean Rock wasn't even there last night so Cena and Punk despite not being champions are still the main event guys who wrestle on TV. The matches of the night were alright. Kane and Daniel Bryan are starting to fight among themselves again, could this possibly mean they'll lose the belts soon to a team like Mysterio and Sin Cara? I think Orton had another match against Wade Barret. I don't remember, I've seen them wrestle so many times now it's hard to keep track. Miz TV was meh until Brock Lesnar came out and destroyed everything. Brock Lesnar was here but the WWE Champion wasn't? It was good to see Lesnar and I figured they won't build Triple H vs Brock Lesnar II until a little later, so there was no build up to that as all. Also was Dolph Ziggler on last night? I didn't get to see all of RAW so I didn't get to if he had a match or if he was even on.

I did enjoy CM Punk vs Chris Jericho though. Two of my faves going at it is always nice. The ending to RAW was again, meh. I hope by the end of Wrestlemania they end the Shield. These guys probably have a future in WWE as there own guys but as a group like the Shield they are boring and I simply do not care for them. I can see at mania Sheamus, Ryback and maybe Randy Orton teaming up to battle the Shield. So overall RAW was just average like always. I was surprised that Rock didn't even send a satellite video since he's suppose to be our WWE Champion and this is suppose to be a new era. Feels a lot like the old one to me.

Oh yeah Big Show and Del Rio's feud contiunes as well. I'm starting to like ADR as a face. It's different but so far I have no complaints on it. It also seems like Rhodes Schoolars broke up. To bad they never won the tag belts before doing so.

[flamebeam]

Sorry to break up the conversation of whatever you guys are talking about but we had a new RAW last night. It was alright...I guess. I only really cared for Mark Henry and Jack Swagger being back. Swagger returned last Smackdown, and continued over to RAW. CM Punk still calls himself the champ, he might as well be. I mean Rock wasn't even there last night so Cena and Punk despite not being champions are still the main event guys who wrestle on TV. The matches of the night were alright. Kane and Daniel Bryan are starting to fight among themselves again, could this possibly mean they'll lose the belts soon to a team like Mysterio and Sin Cara? I think Orton had another match against Wade Barret. I don't remember, I've seen them wrestle so many times now it's hard to keep track. Miz TV was meh until Brock Lesnar came out and destroyed everything. Brock Lesnar was here but the WWE Champion wasn't? It was good to see Lesnar and I figured they won't build Triple H vs Brock Lesnar II until a little later, so there was no build up to that as all. Also was Dolph Ziggler on last night? I didn't get to see all of RAW so I didn't get to if he had a match or if he was even on.

I did enjoy CM Punk vs Chris Jericho though. Two of my faves going at it is always nice. The ending to RAW was again, meh. I hope by the end of Wrestlemania they end the Shield. These guys probably have a future in WWE as there own guys but as a group like the Shield they are boring and I simply do not care for them. I can see at mania Sheamus, Ryback and maybe Randy Orton teaming up to battle the Shield. So overall RAW was just average like always. I was surprised that Rock didn't even send a satellite video since he's suppose to be our WWE Champion and this is suppose to be a new era. Feels a lot like the old one to me.

Oh yeah Big Show and Del Rio's feud contiunes as well. I'm starting to like ADR as a face. It's different but so far I have no complaints on it. It also seems like Rhodes Schoolars broke up. To bad they never won the tag belts before doing so.

i didn't watch much of raw last night (studying for exams), but i did see the thing between d. bryan and kane. i really hope wwe isn't so predictable that they would break team hell no up and pit them against each other in wrestlemania. and if it's true what you said about rhode scholars, then i am so confused as to what wwe is doing about the tag division, which they were supposed to be trying to improve. i think they need more writers that specialize in the tag team and diva's divisions because they have reached such low points. i guess they're preoccupied with rock, lesnar, hhh, undertaker, and the world titles, but they gotta learn how to balance their effort between all that their roster has to offer

[charizardfan]

I think what laser shuckle was getting at was that there is a certain point when they are pushing Cena so much he's hurting other's ability to try to entertain. As in, WWE expects a diamond in the rough to show up, but they keep checking the same dirt(cena) expecting it to yield drastically different results. Even when someone does make it make it on to their radar, like ryback/ryder/funkasaurus, they let it go to waste. Or ironically, feed them to cena storyline-wise, like ryder/ryback in this case.

Now that I can understand, to an extent. It's a balancing act. On one hand, you want to give your audiences the guys that they tune in/pay for (hence the continued pushing of Cena), otherwise they're not going to want to come back. On the other hand, you want your other guys in prominent spots so that when Cena does inevitably go, or stops making money, there's someone waiting in the wings who can replace him. WWE doesn't always nail it (I don't think Ryder was going to go any higher than where he was, but he could have been a decent midcard attraction), but they do have a group of guys (Sheamus/Ryback/Bryan/Ziggler/Shield) who've managed to get over and can be big players in the future.

[Laser Shuckle]

But as I keep coming back to, the talents of a wrestler is based on how many people he can entertain. Because wrestling is about drawing fans and making money. So if John Cena does that the best today (which we can assume based on the fact that WWE still uses him as the face of their company), then he must be the most talented, by definition of what makes a great pro wrestler.

Well like I said I don't think selling the most tickets makes someone the best. If you want to think otherwise then by all means, I just don't see how that's some kind of indisputable fact.

No, Cena isn't Hogan (neither are Rock or Austin, for that matter), but the logic is still sound. Other entertainment franchises do the same (would the Transformers movies be so successful without the audience that watched the cartoon in the '80s?). The tobacco industry has made millions with the same principle: market to younger people now, build a loyal customer base in the future.

So your gonna question the analogy (also based on principle) to McDonalds I made then make your own comparing it all to horrible movies and tobacco? (Note, I wouldn't call it successful when the director himself apologized for the abomination that was Transformers 2) I'm curious did Hogan get the same split reaction Cena does? I noticed when they had Raw in Vegas and the Cena Sucks chants were quite loud there, he seemed pretty bothered from it. The point was the logic isn't AS sound as nowadays, I just think they can do better instead of hitting cruise control and relying on him so much when he's mostly for the kids.

WWE doesn't try to alienate anyone (the show is rated TV-PG and guys like Rock, Brock, Punk, Orton, etc. are to appeal to the non-Cena demographics of the WWE fanbase), but you have to understand that children are important in a way that older groups can't be. The Attitude Era was marketed primarily to older audiences, and the fallout once those audiences eventually left (after only 3 years) was disastrous.

Well me personally anyway I feel alienated a lot of the time just at the massive amount of advertising and plugging they do, let alone the whole thing regarding the content, booking, etc. the statistics at every damn commercial where they feel the need to brag is a recurring example. this seems to have been compounded ever since they went to 3 hours. I can't say I'm looking forward to sitting down and watching Rock cut a promo only to have it turn into a promotion for his next film either. Now I know you meant that they don't try to make this happen, but still.

as for the rating, they usually don't take advantage of it (to be fair they have been lately, but then again they always kick things up when the returning wrestlers come back) The point was that I think they lean way too much to one side, and Lesnar/Rock are part timers with Orton not exactly the poster boy for the adult demographic either... Maybe if the rumors come true and he does turn heel soon.

If you find Punk more entertaining, that's up to you and I would never question that, but that doesn't change that Cena is still better at doing his job (entertaining) than Punk is.

Yes I know, he sells more seats... If that's all you want to go off of then yes I suppose that would make him the best entertainer.

Actually, Cena is convincing at playing both the good guy and the bad guy and people have paid to see him operate in both elements. And there's a world of difference between brands of restaurants (McDonald's has several advantages over other restaurant chains: it's easily available and widespread, television advertising, the Dollar Menu, etc.) and professional wrestling.

Still not convinced most of the time, regardless of how many people have paid to see him.

Also, on a completely unrelated note - shame on you for trashing McDonald's. Their breakfast menu is a wonderful thing.

I wasn't trying to trash them. Hell I eat McDonalds too. I was just saying, they aren't really serving up restaurant quality meals left and right either. And yet if you wanted to just go off of sales and outreach, their food could be considered great.

CM Punk has had some very generous booking. I've already outlined all that he's been given over the past couple years, but even before that he was still a prominent fixture on Raw working with top talent. This idea of Punk not being given opportunities is a myth.

He has, but not on the level that Cena has or for nearly as long. by ridiculous I meant like what they've been doing the past several weeks slotting Cena in the main event over Punk when he's feuding with the Rock no less...

I think what laser shuckle was getting at was that there is a certain point when they are pushing Cena so much he's hurting other's ability to try to entertain. As in, WWE expects a diamond in the rough to show up, but they keep checking the same dirt(cena) expecting it to yield drastically different results. Even when someone does make it make it on to their radar, like ryback/ryder/funkasaurus, they let it go to waste. Or ironically, feed them to cena storyline-wise, like ryder/ryback in this case.

That's part of my issue with him, you put it in a better way then I probably could have.

Anyway I got a good laugh out of Punk's promo on Raw "That's not Paul Heyman, That's Paul Giamatti." good stuff right there. And it's great to see the Hall of Pain back. I actually enjoyed Mark cleaning house over Lesnar destroying the Miz, although both were fun. Swagger getting hot and bothered with the announce team and then having them still put him over was interesting. I like his new look. Also anyone else actually warming up to Brad Maddox a bit?

Only thing that was off was them booking the Shield like that. Cena: "The Sheild has been unstoppable" then they end up hastily retreating at the end.

Great idea...

[-Raiga-]

Anyway I got a good laugh out of Punk's promo on Raw "That's not Paul Heyman, That's Paul Giamatti." good stuff right there.

Twas the highlight for me too. Plus the idea of vince paying for a CGI paul heyman was more entertaining then it should have been.

[Armando Payne]

I wonder if Bane (Maddox because he randomly did a Bane impression whilst talking about justice) will show up in Superman (Cena), The Juggernaut (Ryback) & Superboy Prime(Sheamus)'s corner against The Joker (Ambrose) & Co. in the EC, considering all 4 of them hate The Shield.

[charizardfan]

Well like I said I don't think selling the most tickets makes someone the best. If you want to think otherwise then by all means, I just don't see how that's some kind of indisputable fact.

Because everything a wrestler does is done for the sole purpose of getting fans to want to see them. That's the reason that they're even there in the first place, to provide entertainment that we'd pay for.

How else should their talents be judged?

So your gonna question the analogy (also based on principle) to McDonalds I made then make your own comparing it all to horrible movies and tobacco? (Note, I wouldn't call it successful when the director himself apologized for the abomination that was Transformers 2) I'm curious did Hogan get the same split reaction Cena does? I noticed when they had Raw in Vegas and the Cena Sucks chants were quite loud there, he seemed pretty bothered from it. The point was the logic isn't AS sound as nowadays, I just think they can do better instead of hitting cruise control and relying on him so much when he's mostly for the kids.

Those examples were to show how successful marketing to children is, not a question of quality (like your McDonald's example). There's a difference between the two. Quality in wrestling can't be compared to quality in foods or movies, but business strategies can.

And yes, Hogan did get mixed reactions, particularly after going to WCW. Really you'll find that plenty of guys in the Hogan/Cena spot (Rock, Michaels) have had periods where they went through a part of the audience getting tired of them. It's a consequence of all the programming WWE does. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin is the one exception to that rule I can think of, and then only because he missed a lot of time due to injuries.

Well me personally anyway I feel alienated a lot of the time just at the massive amount of advertising and plugging they do, let alone the whole thing regarding the content, booking, etc. the statistics at every damn commercial where they feel the need to brag is a recurring example. this seems to have been compounded ever since they went to 3 hours. I can't say I'm looking forward to sitting down and watching Rock cut a promo only to have it turn into a promotion for his next film either. Now I know you meant that they don't try to make this happen, but still.

I agree with a lot of that, in that the self-promotion and advertising gets to be a bit much, but I'm not sure what any of it has to do with John Cena.

He has, but not on the level that Cena has or for nearly as long. by ridiculous I meant like what they've been doing the past several weeks slotting Cena in the main event over Punk when he's feuding with the Rock no less...

If you go through the first couple years of Punk's history, and the first couple years of Cena's, you'd find that Punk received more generous booking from the beginning.

In the years up until his first WWE title win, Punk got: to appear on a brand run by a man who ensured he'd be well taken care of (Paul Heyman); he was on a six-month undefeated streak; won the ECW title within a year of his debut; won the Money in the Bank briefcase twice; won the World Heavyweight Championship three times; got to make his pay-per-view debut, teaming with D-Generation X, in a city where he'd already have an established fan base (Philadelphia); and worked with top-name talent (Jeff Hardy - who he got to retire, The Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Big Show, Randy Orton, John Cena). There are only a handful of guys who got that much in such a short period of time.

And Cena got to main event over Rock/Punk twice, and that was (1) to do the "everyone in the Rumble brawls" bit that they do every year and (2) on an episode of Raw that Rock wasn't even on. Rock and Punk not only main evented two Raws out of three in the Rumble lead up, they dominated the advertising, and they main evented the pay-per-view itself. The only other times they didn't main event were on SmackDown, and the post-Rumble Raw where Brock Lesnar returned.

[Cancer0081]

I wonder if Bane (Maddox because he randomly did a Bane impression whilst talking about justice) will show up in Superman (Cena), The Juggernaut (Ryback) & Superboy Prime(Sheamus)'s corner against The Joker (Ambrose) & Co. in the EC, considering all 4 of them hate The Shield.

your analogy, while clever in a sense, doesn't make sense at the same time. especially throwing in a Marvel character with a bunch of DC characters.

[flamebeam]

In the years up until his first WWE title win, Punk got: to appear on a brand run by a man who ensured he'd be well taken care of (Paul Heyman); he was on a six-month undefeated streak; won the ECW title within a year of his debut; won the Money in the Bank briefcase twice; won the World Heavyweight Championship three times; got to make his pay-per-view debut, teaming with D-Generation X, in a city where he'd already have an established fan base (Philadelphia); and worked with top-name talent (Jeff Hardy - who he got to retire, The Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Big Show, Randy Orton, John Cena). There are only a handful of guys who got that much in such a short period of time.

let's break this badboy down, shall we?
•from what i remember, raw and smackdown were the big boy brands, while ecw was the pipsqueak excuse to promote new superstars. so the achievements cm punk has had while being an ecw superstar are comparable with mid-card success

•in the weeks leading to mitb match in 2007, people were wondering it edge would be able to win it twice and, thus making history, instead, edge was the first person to cash in 2 briefcases. Kennedy was the first mitb not to cash it in. cena was first mitb winner who didn't win his title match. kane has the shortest time for a mitb possessor. ziggler will probably have it for the longest time. the wwe has been interested in making trivial history out of mitb since its inception. so it makes sense that they would have a "first person to win mitb twice" guy. and they chose him i guess because he was a popular mid-carder in 2009

•i can't say anything about dx seeing as i don't remember that

•jeff hardy is a bad example because that was after cm punk cashed in mitb. every mitb winner has a rivalry with big people
-okay, so he retired him, but that was just to push cm punk as a heel

•after the Hardy fiasco, he had the undertaker rivalry. at this point he was one of the main heels in smackdown. it's not as if he was given this spontaneous opportunity

•rey mysterio is a bad example because it's rey mysterio. he's not the same guy who miraculously won the royal rumble and later the triple threat WHC match. the wwe doesn't take him seriously, and he's pitted against random people all the time, just a bad example altogether

•i don't remember the big show rivalry, if that was after "pipebomb '11" then it's a bad example

•randy orton, was that when orton attacked punk and took him out of the scramble match?

•john cena was after "pipebomb". bad example

yes, there are only a handful of people who get stuff like this. it's like a test. cm punk was a good ecw superstar and got promoted to raw. he was a good mid-carder and was awarded mitb. he a got a taste of the world title picture and did good enough that the wwe promoted him to a top mid-carder. they also wanted a "1st person to win mitb twice" guy, so they awarded it to punk. they challenged him with a heel turn, and he met their expectations by becoming one of the main.heels of smackdown and wwe. but his gimmick became stupid, so then he was forced to pick up the pieces of the nexus. then everything changed that one monday night when he told the world how he felt about vince and the wwe. new nexus was dropped. and he became a star.

he advanced because he has the talent and charisma that others don't have. but his history in the wwe isn't as generous as you claim. right now, his hard work has placed him as the #2 superstar in the wwe, and i think the only reasons why he's not #1 is because people pay to watch cena valiantly win (if you're a kid) or miserably lose (if you're an attitude fanboy), because he is responsible for the majority of the pg audience, and because he's easier for vince, the wwe board, and the writers to manage and communicate with over the loose cannon known as cm punk

[Laser Shuckle]

Because everything a wrestler does is done for the sole purpose of getting fans to want to see them. That's the reason that they're even there in the first place, to provide entertainment that we'd pay for.

Or maybe to put on a good show for the fans who do happen to be watching.

How else should their talents be judged?

Ring skills, charisma, all the other details that get glazed over. If you think Cena has it all then fine, I just find fault with saying he's the best they have just because a lot of people buy into him.

Those examples were to show how successful marketing to children is, not a question of quality (like your McDonald's example). There's a difference between the two. Quality in wrestling can't be compared to quality in foods or movies, but business strategies can.

I don't see how your analogy is any better, but ok. I was making a point based on principle.

I agree with a lot of that, in that the self-promotion and advertising gets to be a bit much, but I'm not sure what any of it has to do with John Cena.

Obviously it doesn't. You made a comment about them not trying to alienate the fanbase and I made an honest reply. that's it...

If you go through the first couple years of Punk's history, and the first couple years of Cena's, you'd find that Punk received more generous booking from the beginning.

In the years up until his first WWE title win, Punk got: to appear on a brand run by a man who ensured he'd be well taken care of (Paul Heyman); he was on a six-month undefeated streak; won the ECW title within a year of his debut; won the Money in the Bank briefcase twice; won the World Heavyweight Championship three times; got to make his pay-per-view debut, teaming with D-Generation X, in a city where he'd already have an established fan base (Philadelphia); and worked with top-name talent (Jeff Hardy - who he got to retire, The Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Big Show, Randy Orton, John Cena). There are only a handful of guys who got that much in such a short period of time.

And Cena got to main event over Rock/Punk twice, and that was (1) to do the "everyone in the Rumble brawls" bit that they do every year and (2) on an episode of Raw that Rock wasn't even on. Rock and Punk not only main evented two Raws out of three in the Rumble lead up, they dominated the advertising, and they main evented the pay-per-view itself. The only other times they didn't main event were on SmackDown, and the post-Rumble Raw where Brock Lesnar returned.

I'll admit it's nitpicking at this point, but it's still ridiculous to see him getting the spot over Punk/Rock when he's not doing nearly as much storyline wise. But I'm sure it can be easily chalked up to Cena being "the guy" etc.

At this point I'm done with the back and forth, I think this is as close as I'm going to get with what I originally asked for.

[celestial phantom]

Hm, after last nights raw, it's not really a hassle for me to keep watching lately for raw being 3 hours. Decent range of matches, story line progress, and things happening on raw last night. However, I still find that there are too many filler parts of videos and vignettes lately hyping stuff. Like if it's before commercial or something I don't care as it gives me a reason to keep watching what's next, but just a bunch of recaps/videos that I don't care for make my attention not as focused. If they cut some of those for more in ring action I'd be happier.

Overall last night had some pretty interesting things happening. Two great matches that involved Ziggler v. Kane and Bryan v. Jericho with SD EC implications on the line. Mostly squash matches with Del Rio v. Sandow, Khali v. Henry, Swagger v. Ryder, Tensai/Funk v. Colons, and Team Superman v. 3MB and a DQ finish for Miz/Rhodes. Barrett v. Kofi was a good, albeit short match between the two, but involved past matches between the two being brought up and added overall to it being a nice little match for television. I have to admit Kofi can make a lot of guys look good in matches he has. Regardless of him ever pushing the main event, he'll always be a credible midcard guy that wins over will make you look good.

The one thing I loved about last night was the crowd, Tennesse was red hot last night and we saw what a wrestling crowd should be with involvement from the fans. They were red hot for jericho v. bryan, kane v. ziggler, the shield and team superman segments, Punk/Heyman/Rock, and were good for the sandow/rio segement before the match. Also Cody's Mustache I think got a reaction too (news has yet to get back to me on this one). That is what made the show so watchable last night. The shield had a great promo against the problem of team superman, team superman did their usual routine but the crowd ate it up. They finally go edgy a bit with people by bringing back an old school guy in Zeb Coulter aka Dutch Mantel. I don't know much about the guy but my dad told me stories of him years back when he was growing up with wrestling and I vaguely remember Dutch Mantel among names but I remember him from a wrestling card. After that promo they better follow up with something with Zeb and Swagger, because this could lead to some big things for him if they are willing to let a promo like that happen. Overall it was a great episode and I can't wait for the EC this sunday. So much hype it better be something to watch.

[Laser Shuckle]

I liked the Coulter promo and Henry inducting Hornswoggle into the Hall of Pain.

Seems like They are setting up Swagger to clash with Del Rio now.

[psychonerderer]

wow. I have no idea why there is a WWE thread here, but I think the ref is going to allow this. I've missed the past couple months cause my computer forgot what the internet is. The PS3 I'm on cant play anything but youtube. Can't wait for Chris Hero to show (if he hasn't already). Anywhoooo RVD RVD TNA TNA!

[flamebeam]

Anywhoooo RVD RVD TNA TNA!

hmm... I think you're looking for “The Official TNA Thread, Sister?" Thread that was started by larvitar503

anywhoooo i didn't see much of raw but it didn't seem like much was going on. it seems like they really rushed the royal rumble and elimination chamber PPVs. i guess the point is to have a lot of weeks to promote wrestlemania. so I'm hoping the little effort used for these 2 PPVs will be made up in wrestlemania