I wonder if most of the anger towards WWE in regards to who should be pushed, would not be an issue if kayfabe wasn't dead. The problem with wrestling, as opposed to every other sport, is that we know that the results are predetermined. The problem with this is, that no-one is ever looked to have "earned" their spot at the top, and people complain about how their favourite deserves to be there instead. Knowing that wrestling is scripted is like finding out that Santa isn't real. It destroys your innocence and faith somehow. If wrestling fans never knew that wrestling was "predetermined", then I think there would be less complaining, or,at least, the complaints would be different. It is like following an NFL side. Your side might not make the Superbowl, and while you hate it, you have to accept it. It might be that the team doesn't have the players, or other reasons. So, you might want your favourite team to succeed, but you have to grudgingly accept that they aren't good enough. But wrestling is different. Because it is all based on pushes. So, no-one ever really is on top because they are the best, but because they are the most marketable. So, many of you don't respect John Cena or Roman Reigns, because they haven't "earned" their pushes, whereas someone like Dolph Ziggler, who doesn't come out on top that often, is seen as being "held down", rather than being kept down because of whether he is good enough or not. Sports results are facts. Wrestling results are opinion-based. Another example. Roger Federer is considered the best tennis player in the world, maybe ever, because he wins the most Grand Slams. It isn't because someone decided that, but because, when up against everyone else, he often comes out on top. He "earns" his success, and gets respected because of it. No-one says "I'm sick of tennis pushing Federer and burying everyone else. Player X, who is my fave, (but #135th in the world) should be pushed to the top instead, and Federer should agree to lose to him. This is why people don't respect Cena or Reigns. Because they haven't "proven" that they are the best, only according to Vince McMahon, whereas Ziggler, Shinsuke, Bobby Roode etc are the "best" according to the fans. There isn't grudging acceptance because, when up against everyone else, Cena and Reigns are at the top because they are "better" at wrestling than anyone else, but due to booking. Sometimes, I wish we didn't know that the truth. That way, you would have to accept the fate of some of your faves, as you would think that maybe they aren't at the top because there are others better than them. You would also see Cena and Reigns not as "Vince's" boys, but as greats of the sport, because they are on top by beating everyone legitimately (I would be interested, if wrestling was real, who would be on top, and who wouldn't). There then wouldn't have the anger at WWE that exists, nor the endless posts hating on Roman Reigns, because, in any other sport, you would just have to like or lump that Roman is better than your fave. We wouldn't have the words "pushed", "overpushed", or "buried" in wrestling venacular. Vince might have thought that it was clever to clue everyone into what they always suspected- that wrestling results are "determined". But it is like a magician revealing how they do their tricks, it takes away from the performance. Maybe a lot of the heat would go out of wrestling if we were none the wiser. Maybe sometimes, ignorance is bliss.