SmackDown Live 8-1-17: John Cena VS Shinsuke Nakamura

Discussion in '[Hidden] World Wrestling Entertainment' started by Jack-Hammer, Jul 25, 2017.

  1. d_henderson1810

    d_henderson1810 Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Oct 12, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Yeah, because paying $9.99 for the Network is so much more costly than getting the match free.

    Maybe when WWE did PPVs and charged $50-60, then a "free" match like this would be a big deal, but when you can pay $10 a month, then it isn't as much of a stretch.

    Also, there are plenty of negatives:-

    -Cena winning will bring about the "SuperCena" chants, the "Nakamura buried" chants, and Nakamura takes a loss on free TV.

    -Nakamura winning hurts WWE's bottom line, since there is less interest in a Nakamura v Mahal main event, then Cena v Mahal. I mean, we are already getting a dud SD Women's Match between Naomi and Natalya, which is underwhelming, so to then have someone who has been on SD for two months fight someone who has gone from "zero to hero" in three months on the company's second biggest show of the year won't get the interest that Cena v Mahal has.
  2. shooter_mcgavin

    shooter_mcgavin Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Sep 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Well for me a monthly PPV is still a PPV and that mentality on not giving way PPV caliber matches on free TV still holds true regardless if it's 9.99 or 49.99.

    The Network may have changed a few things but the old school mentality in programming matches and stories should not.
  3. Jack-Hammer

    Staff Member Moderator

    Mar 26, 2009
    Likes Received:
    From a strictly kayfabe perspective, I wish this was something more on screen authority figures did. I know that kayfabe is essentially dead in terms of what's "real" and what isn't, but there are continuity issues in which kayfabe can still maintain some influence. We've seen quite often, whether it's WWE, GFW/TNA/Impact, ROH, etc. in which the wrestlers come out make a speech and flat out state what their matches are going to be. We often see heels saying something like "I'm not going to defend my title tonight" only for the babyface authority figure to "screw" said wrestler over to the delight of fans by saying he/she will indeed defend his/her title tonight.

    In John Cena's case, again from a kayfabe position, I like that he's going to have to "earn" his shot. If you're going to have on screen authority figures, then have them be authority figures even to people like John Cena.

    Mahal vs. Cena would have appeal to some and for some others it won't just as the same would go for Mahal vs. Nakamura. Cena vs. Nakamura is going to happen and I'm fine with it if Nakamura goes over. If Cena goes over, I'm fine with it as long as Nakamura isn't made to look like a chump. If there's some sort of interference that splits the match into a no contest, I'm fine as long as we get a good match with both guys looking good in it. There are a lot of positives in this in my eyes and this match being on TV rather than a ppv isn't a negative.
    Navi likes this.
  4. Dagger Dias

    Dagger Dias Natural 20
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Sep 22, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I ended up really enjoying the match. I can see where those who think it should have been saved for PPV are coming from. Part of me felt that way too. At the end of the day we're fans of the product and the vast majority of us, as in 99.9% of us, are nothing more than than just fans. WWE gave us a PPV quality match on Smackdown instead of at Battleground or Summerslam. That's ok. Raw and Smackdown need big matches too as others have pointed out. If it was nothing but jobber squashes for the entire 2 hours then Smackdown would suck. Nakamura winning was a nice surprise, though I would have been fine with either result. Definitely one of the best matches on Smackdown television this year so far.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"