Can We Really Complain About Seeing a Match Again?

[Thriller Ant]

I was just reading through the Cena/Batista WrestleMania thread, and most of the replies consisted of the poster saying that they weren't that excited about it because we have seen it before in varying levels of grammatical competency.

When I read this, I thought it was ridiculous to complain about this. WWE presents 3 brand new, nationally broadcasted wrestling programs every week, without even mentioning the PPVs. In order to keep fans happy, they need to put on entertaining matches and storylines throughout the year. With a roster that is only so big, even with guys moving around the card, there are only so many combinations that can be used. In fact, Jericho and Undertaker meeting for the first time after years in the company late last year has become the exception to the over-saturation that is the rule.

I'm not advocating for supporting the overdone feuds (Cena-Triple H, Orton-Triple H, etc.), but are we crazy for wanting/expecting brand new matches all the time?

 

[JJohns]

The problem with a lot of fans is the fact that they would rather see something like Cena vs (Insert name of random midcarder that they think is Main Event Worthy) here. When we finally get it (See Sheamus as WWE Champ) people complain that the only reason that we're getting a new main eventer is because of some outside influence (Triple H's workout partner, secretly having sex with Stephanie, golf partner of Vince). Not everyone can be a main eventer. Because of that, yes, we are going to get Orton vs Cena a million times. This is no different from the era that all the fans would like to go back to, the Attitude Era, where we saw conflicts between Stone Cold and Bret or Shawn and Bret, or Mankind and Taker just about every week. Remember, that back then, the PPV's outside of the Big 4 and the King of the Ring were throwaway "In Your House" Pay Per Views.

 

[SickJames]

Forget those ppl, ppl are stupid and that is what it is you cant be nice about it. Ppl never stop complaining and it's fucking ridiculous.

Cena/Batista is being well put together with shocks and twists. And they didnt give you a match match if you noticed Sunday was a quick spinebuster and Batista Bomb, and Raw was a quickie DQ. They usually dont give away a Mania bout on free TV but doing it right is smart. Now they are 1 and 1 and WM26 is the tie breaker and they havent even had a real lengthy where they are both really going at it like they will at WM26. So they did it the right way

 

[WrestlezoneSavior]

I agree 100% with this posting, I'm personally sick and tired of people complaining about seeing matches too much and everything getting boring, these are also the people who think Cena and Triple H are boring, and Cena with his 5 moves of doom, which is so stupid because watch John Cena he has way more than 5 moves, his gimmick doesn't allow him to do it, but anyways, that's not what this thread is about, Cena vs Orton lasted essentially from Night of Champions to Bragging Rights, which was about 5 PPV's, and it was one of the most entertaining feuds I have watched, we had a Triple Threat, a regular pinfall match, an I Quit Match, an Ironmatch match, Hell in A Cell, and so much more, this was just like the Undertaker-Edge feud back in 2007-2008, and it was amazing, it's better having feuds going on this long, because you can build it up so much, heck you have Randy Orton matches with Legacy attacking for the last 2 years almost and no one is bored of that? even though Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes should be the winners of the "Unable to get a fan reaction" award. I just find it stupid fans keep saying some things are boring? wanna talk boring go watch a Divas Match, oh that's true, bathroom break..

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I was just reading through the Cena/Batista WrestleMania thread, and most of the replies consisted of the poster saying that they weren't that excited about it because we have seen it before in varying levels of grammatical competency.

When I read this, I thought it was ridiculous to complain about this. WWE presents 3 brand new, nationally broadcasted wrestling programs every week, without even mentioning the PPVs. In order to keep fans happy, they need to put on entertaining matches and storylines throughout the year. With a roster that is only so big, even with guys moving around the card, there are only so many combinations that can be used. In fact, Jericho and Undertaker meeting for the first time after years in the company late last year has become the exception to the over-saturation that is the rule.

I'm not advocating for supporting the overdone feuds (Cena-Triple H, Orton-Triple H, etc.), but are we crazy for wanting/expecting brand new matches all the time?

Well, obviously we are looking at an issue that WWE has struggled with for a long time now. And obviously, this leads to a lot of frustration amongst fans.

So WWE is left with two choices:

1) Acknowledge the problem and change the way you do business

2) Ignore the fans as long as you are making profits you are happy with, keep doing business the way you do assuming the fans will still watch regardless, and keep the Roster Split in tact.

It's rather obvious WWE has opted for the second approach to please the Audience of One.

WWE could easily solve this problem by combining the rosters and consistently developing new stars in Developmental and promoting them to the main roster.

Personally, I think WWE are trying to get more longetivity out of their stars and I don't know if that is a good thing in this day and age or not.

Maybe wrestlers (in a wrestling capacity) should only have a shelf life of maybe no longer than 10 years instead of this being around for 15-20 years concept since the fans do get tired of seeing the same people constantly.

If you can incorporate some of those guys into managers, broadcasters, etc. then perhaps that would spare some of these guys, but I really have to question shelf life of today's talents and if that is the main problem here.

Vince may be keeping guys around for just too long: like Undertaker, HBK, and Triple H.

 

[LongHessa]

Amen. I couldnt agree more. People need to just shut the hell up. When the WWE keeps things steady the "smarks" complain that the its predictable and been done. Then if they shake it up with guys like sheamus, bret hart returning, cena/batista title swith, people complain still...so theres no winning. Personally as a wrestling fan I think the cena/batista has been executed well so far and im looking forward to seeing how the Hart/Mcmahon storyline plays out.

 

[GenMe]

When i saw this on the EC that Batista pin Cena i was like shit not again.But i dont mine seeing this match again.I think that after what happend yesterday this feud will began to get better as they get to Wrestlemania.This feud will have alot of up and downs but at last im sure thath they will put on a great match,Im even sure that they will take this match until backlash.

Yeah some of us are like shit we are tired of cena,batista,HHH,HBK the same feuds over and over,But hey we are still here talking about them we are WWE fans no matter what,We dont get the matches that we want,We get what Vince think is good for him not for us.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Well, obviously we are looking at an issue that WWE has struggled with for a long time now. And obviously, this leads to a lot of frustration amongst fans.

So WWE is left with two choices:

1) Acknowledge the problem and change the way you do business

2) Ignore the fans as long as you are making profits you are happy with, keep doing business the way you do assuming the fans will still watch regardless, and keep the Roster Split in tact.


WWE could easily solve this problem by combining the rosters and consistently developing new stars in Developmental and promoting them to the main roster.

Personally, I think WWE are trying to get more longetivity out of their stars and I don't know if that is a good thing in this day and age or not.

Maybe wrestlers (in a wrestling capacity) should only have a shelf life of maybe no longer than 10 years instead of this being around for 15-20 years concept since the fans do get tired of seeing the same people constantly.

If you can incorporate some of those guys into managers, broadcasters, etc. then perhaps that would spare some of these guys, but I really have to question shelf life of today's talents and if that is the main problem here.

Vince keeping guys around for just too long: like Undertaker, HBK, and Triple H.

Sid hit the nail on the head right here. Guys like Triple H and HBK are still good performers (I won't put Taker because he wrestles 5 matches a year and still gets hurt somehow), but they've been around forever and, Trips at least, show no signs of slowing down. Even though they can still work at that high level, this discourages WWE from building new stars. After some time, the older stars need to step aside and allow new main eventers to step in.

 

[NumberOneWrestlingFan.]

Cena and Batista have faught i believe once before, maybe twice. Batista in as real a sense as it can be hurt Cena after that faitful summerslam night. there was no build to that match and both Batista and Cena were Face then. that was then, Batista is Heel and getting better in my book. the No Words Promo and kicking the microphone on Smackdown last week, or the week before Was AWESOME!! Maybe not bowing down 4 times, but He's getting good at being a Heel.

back on track, WWE does in fact over use matches that they deem unworthy. Chris Jericho and Edge hasn't been over done, thanx mostly to Y2J going on sabatical for an extended time. but overall they overuse matches but WHO GIVES A CRAP? theirs new stories to every match. and even if there's not, there's usually some amount of entertainment in every segment on WWE TV if you allow yourself to be entertained. i L(ed)MAO when Big Show tried to knock out the Bull but the Bull moved, that was Hillarious. or when Cena was getting choked in the corner by Batista, the look on his face was PRICELESS.

well i guess i'm done ranting

The ONE and ONLY

 

[JJohns]

Sid, Sid, Sid....what you propose will never work. A wrestler with a 10 year career? Sorry, that will always be the exception. Shawn Michaels is a great example. It took him OVER ten years to win his first WWF Title. With the exception of the 4 years he took off because of his back injury, he's been one of the top performers for the better part of 20 years. He's put on Amazing Matches in 3 Decades.

You think that ending the Roster Split is going to fix WWE's main event troubles? Combining the World Titles will do that....IF they keep two separate brands. You make one brand, you are not going to have better than a dozen main eventers, you're going to have a small handful. Granted, guys like Rey Mysterio would be better served in the Upper Midcard, but there are guys that should be in the ME that won't under one roster.

You talk about WWE consistently bringing up new talent. They do that better than TNA does right now. Since the creation of the TNA World Title, there have been a total of 5 champions, and only one of them had NEVER held either the WWE or NWA (TNA Era) World Title during that time, for a total of 8 reigns.

Now look at the WWE Title. Same time period, there have been 14 total reigns, 2 of those champions had NEVER won a WWE or NWA World Title prior, and of those champions, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Sheamus, Jeff Hardy and Edge came through WWE Developmental......the only one that didn't was Triple H. (Edge and Hardy came through the Funkin' Dojo when it was the WWE Developmental program).

On top of that, look at the wrestlers that were in both Elimination Chambers, Kofi, Orton, DiBiase, Punk, Sheamus, Cena, Morrison all were developed by WWE.

WWE builds new stars. Don't be surprised in the future, you see guys like Ezekial Jackson in WWE's upper midcard/main event picture.

Or would you prefer to go back to the old days, where for two years, the WWF Main Event scene was Hogan/Savage/Million Dollar Man?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Sid, Sid, Sid....what you propose will never work. A wrestler with a 10 year career? Sorry, that will always be the exception. Shawn Michaels is a great example. It took him OVER ten years to win his first WWF Title. With the exception of the 4 years he took off because of his back injury, he's been one of the top performers for the better part of 20 years. He's put on Amazing Matches in 3 Decades.

You think that ending the Roster Split is going to fix WWE's main event troubles? Combining the World Titles will do that....IF they keep two separate brands. You make one brand, you are not going to have better than a dozen main eventers, you're going to have a small handful. Granted, guys like Rey Mysterio would be better served in the Upper Midcard, but there are guys that should be in the ME that won't under one roster.

You talk about WWE consistently bringing up new talent. They do that better than TNA does right now. Since the creation of the TNA World Title, there have been a total of 5 champions, and only one of them had NEVER held either the WWE or NWA (TNA Era) World Title during that time, for a total of 8 reigns.

Now look at the WWE Title. Same time period, there have been 14 total reigns, 2 of those champions had NEVER won a WWE or NWA World Title prior, and of those champions, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Sheamus, Jeff Hardy and Edge came through WWE Developmental......the only one that didn't was Triple H. (Edge and Hardy came through the Funkin' Dojo when it was the WWE Developmental program).

On top of that, look at the wrestlers that were in both Elimination Chambers, Kofi, Orton, DiBiase, Punk, Sheamus, Cena, Morrison all were developed by WWE.

WWE builds new stars. Don't be surprised in the future, you see guys like Ezekial Jackson in WWE's upper midcard/main event picture.

Or would you prefer to go back to the old days, where for two years, the WWF Main Event scene was Hogan/Savage/Million Dollar Man?

What I am proposing is a couple different scenarios to solve the problem. I am not suggesting to do everything I listed. I am giving a couple suggestions to pick from.

Now, as far as you saying that limiting wrestlers to about a 10 year career and "it would never work" because "it took Shawn Michaels 10 years to win his first title" .... I'm sorry, but that is hardly a reason as to why it wouldn't work.

The reason is because business was done differently back in that time period while he was developing. Monthly PPV's weren't the norm for his career up to that point. They were just experimenting with the In Your House.

The business has changed and because monthly PPV's ARE the norm, things have to move at a much faster pace then they did back in the day, otherwise fans will become bored quickly. And they have.

This in turn requires accelerated career growth for those that have potential to keep fresh faces in the Main Event.

So yes, if we are going to keep the Roster Split in tact, this seems like it would make more sense to me, to keep constant fresh faces moving up the ranks at an accelerated pace. This will result in more fresh matches and feuds due to the accelerated growth and reduction in shelf life with the performers.

Or, if people would like to end the roster split, then career growth can be kept at a traditional slower pace, since guys will be kept around longer. However, since the rosters would be combined, viewers are less likely to get bored with the matches and feuds between competitors. There is less likely to be recycled feuds in this fashion.

As far as your comments pertaining to the old way of doing things with Hogan and company on top ... I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that in this day and age UNDER ONE CONDITION: that being the monthly PPV's would go away and we would go back to quarterly PPV's and bring House Shows back to greater prominence. Since that obviously is never going to happen, it's a moot point. However, in theory, no I wouldn't have a problem with it if WWE conducted their operation differently.

 

[CH David]

Well, for those people complaining about how Cena vs. Batista at Mania is going to be a repeat of Summerslam 2008, I have to kindly remind you, BATISTA IS A HEEL!!!!!! He is more sadistic now than he was as a face. So it isn't going to be the same exact match, as Batista will now be looking to inflict pain on Cena and not just beat him.

As far as seeing matches again, I personally don't care. If it is a long drawn out feud, you know what, as long as I find it entertaining, go crazy. I enjoyed the Orton and Cena feud, so I didn't mind that it went where it did. However, look at it this way, seeing matches again, after a while, is a nice refresher. Look at CM Punk and John Morrison. They had what I thought was a good feud on ECW, and then had some matches last year that were very good. Did people complain about those? Well they might have, I didn't pay attention.

When it comes to always wanting new matches and feuds, it all depends on who and how the story is going to play out. We can't have Evan Bourne look like a legit contender against a wrestler such as Sheamus when he was the champion. Sheamus had to look like he could crush him and he did.

I'll bring up the subject I touched on in your Random Title Matches thread, Thriller. Back in 2002, Undertaker had a solid feud with the Rock and Kurt Angle on Smackdown going. But on Raw, as the Undisputed Champion, there was something else going on. He had a little side feud with Jeff Hardy. This culminated in their Ladder match on Raw. If an element can be added, such as a Ladder match, a mini feud with Evan Bourne could have been possible with Sheamus. I will always advocate for small little side feuds during long and drawn out ones. It takes away the focus of the drawn out ones, but also adds intrigue to the contender, and credibility to the champion. Looking back, Jeff had no shot at winning the title, but as a youngin, I thought he was going to after his chairshot on Taker. If you can add suspense like that, where even the underdog can win, hell why not go for it.

 

[UseYourBrain]

It's not just about the same old matches, it's about the same old EVERYTHING.

There are two camps of people complaining: The ones who genuinely want the product to be better, believe it can, and remember when it was and the ones who will complain no matter what.

A lot of industry insiders agree that pro wrestling today is boring and repetitive. That doesn't make them "whiny babies". It's the truth. They know exactly what they're talking about and they are right to say it.

The problem is that when wrestling goes and does something special for the fans (like HBK vs. Taker 2, Bret Hart's return, etc) some of them go and complain even more. Those are the ones I get irritated with. Everybody complains but so few stop to think about the bigger picture and unfortunately most of them just plain DONT CARE. Wrestling is generally pretty terrible right now. The Cena's and the Batistas are nowhere, NOWHERE near being as entertaining as the Piper's and Jake the Snake's were... and those guys weren't even champs. That's the sad truth with wrestling today. The new guys aren't as witty, aren't as charismatic, and just plain don't seem to try to get "it" anymore. Yelling doesn't make you charismatic. "Never giving up" used to mean finishing a match with a broken leg or a broken neck. Now, people say Cena is tough and "never gives up" because he makes a comeback and wins the match he was scripted to win. They don't get it and don't seem to be true students or natural-born entertainers but it's for one simple reason: They don't have to. They're making money and the WWE marketing machine is taking care of their lack of abilities. They will edit out the boos, book you to win, and script you to look like a great guy no matter how clueless you might really be. We know the WWE is like a factory line now, whereas in the old days they took the best of the best from each territory. Bottom line: It's not as great as it was and it's much more geared toward children and slightly dumb people these days (for the most part).

That being said, there are still people who will complain no matter what. Push Helmsley, they'll want Orton. Push Orton, they'll say he's better when he's chasing the belt than as the champ. Make him heel, they want him face. Make him face, he's cooler when he's heel. "We're glad Kofi's getting a push" turns into "Does anybody else think Kofi is boring?" These people are products of the age of the easy-access, know-it-all, internet generation... and I'm one of them. We think we're smart. We're not. It's pretty disrespectful of the REAL workers when you get down to it.

 

[X]

I'm right there with you Thriller, specifically in regards to how everyone is bitching and complaining about HBK and Undertaker facing off at Wrestlemania again. It literally boggles my mind how these people don't want to see these two legends square off on the biggest stage of them all again. They say "It won't live up to last year's match"...so? It doesn't need to, the HBK-Taker feud has spanned over a decade and every one of their matches has been great, I have no doubts in my mind at all that their Wrestlemania rematch will be no different at all. Like I just could NOT believe how many people are bitching about getting to see an awesome match at Wrestlemania again. The fuck do you people want? Would you rather have another boring McMahon-special triple threat? I wouldn't. Wrestlemania is looking STACKED and HBK-Taker is going to be a great damn match, I really don't get why everyone is shitting themselves because they already saw a great match between the two. Like, are they only allowed to have one good match together and then never work together again?

 

[mm1160]

WOW! lots of anger kicking around in here. Everyone is entitled to one's opinion. If someone is tired of seeing same old...so be it. it's just an opinion. I myself really didn't want HBK/Taker again, or at least a better story line than what everyone in here saw coming (interference in chamber). As far as cena/atista...it's just who got choesen for this spot, no more no less. I just think Big Dave and Cena are two of the stiffest workers out there...neither has a big arsenal of moves to work with.

 

[JJohns]

What I am proposing is a couple different scenarios to solve the problem. I am not suggesting to do everything I listed. I am giving a couple suggestions to pick from.

Now, as far as you saying that limiting wrestlers to about a 10 year career and "it would never work" because "it took Shawn Michaels 10 years to win his first title" .... I'm sorry, but that is hardly a reason as to why it wouldn't work.

The reason is because business was done differently back in that time period while he was developing. Monthly PPV's weren't the norm for his career up to that point. They were just experimenting with the In Your House.

The business has changed and because monthly PPV's ARE the norm, things have to move at a much faster pace then they did back in the day, otherwise fans will become bored quickly. And they have.

This in turn requires accelerated career growth for those that have potential to keep fresh faces in the Main Event.

So yes, if we are going to keep the Roster Split in tact, this seems like it would make more sense to me, to keep constant fresh faces moving up the ranks at an accelerated pace. This will result in more fresh matches and feuds due to the accelerated growth and reduction in shelf life with the performers.

Or, if people would like to end the roster split, then career growth can be kept at a traditional slower pace, since guys will be kept around longer. However, since the rosters would be combined, viewers are less likely to get bored with the matches and feuds between competitors. There is less likely to be recycled feuds in this fashion.

As far as your comments pertaining to the old way of doing things with Hogan and company on top ... I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that in this day and age UNDER ONE CONDITION: that being the monthly PPV's would go away and we would go back to quarterly PPV's and bring House Shows back to greater prominence. Since that obviously is never going to happen, it's a moot point. However, in theory, no I wouldn't have a problem with it if WWE conducted their operation differently.

If they ended the roster split, do you HONESTLY believe that they would keep around THAT MANY wrestlers. The only reason the roster split even happened was because when World Wrestling Federation Incorporated purchased the assets pertaining to World Champion Wrestling from AOL-Time Warner, they also picked up the contracts of MANY of it's performers. This was one of the main reasons why guys like Brian Kendrick and Bryan Danielson were released back in the day. There were just too many mouths to feed to have one "WWE" Brand.

If the Brand Split were to end, do you realize how many guys will be out of a job. The Brand Split is the major reason why guys that would have been considered borderline in the past are actually part of the roster. The Brand Split is the reason why there are guys in WWE named Kofi Kingston and Evan Bourne, instead of having independent guys named Kofi Mensah and Matthew Korklan.

Keeping the Brand Split, as derided as it is amongst the smarks, not only is good for WWE's bottom line (more house shows, more international tours, more stars to market) but it's also been good for the wrestling "industry". Look at the indies that book guys and market them as "Former WWE Superstar", there would be even less of them around.

Like I said earlier, the only way that you're going to rectify the Main Event Picture is combining the World Titles. You combine the roster, the wrestlers in WWE are the ones that will take a major hit.

 

[MizMark]

WWE could easily solve this problem by combining the rosters and consistently developing new stars in Developmental and promoting them to the main roster.

But combing the two means on both RAW and Smackdown(still using NXT as a development) then the spotlight would be on the same wrestlers as such. Like if Cena was the champ, he'd appear on both shows in a prominent way. How it is now allows for two top Champions, allows for more superstars to get air time. Otherwise, Cena, Orton, Batista, Edge, Jericho, HHH, Michaels, Taker will hog the spotlight/ME picture and there would be no way that any young talent gets near the ME scene for sometime. How it is now is perfect, you have two rosters and two shows, which maximises the chances of developing new stars. Like I said, make it into one roster and you have so many guys ME guys that will feature on both that the likes of Miz, Swagger, Kofi, Morrison, Sheamus etc. will hardly get any airtime.

Maybe wrestlers (in a wrestling capacity) should only have a shelf life of maybe no longer than 10 years instead of this being around for 15-20 years concept since the fans do get tired of seeing the same people constantly.

If you take out all of the big names after 10 years then you lose some audience, not to mention alot of other things that I will mention later in this post. How many attitude era guys are still around? Hardly any, so take them away and attitude era fans won't relate to the current product as much as they do now.

Can I also point out that you love TNA and it's 50+ wrestlers. A post yesterday said you enjoyed the whole Band/Hogan thing. Those guys have been around 20-30 years, how can you justify this current post when you yourself enjoy watching wrestlers who have been around for 20-30 years, and have demanded the spotlight for that amount of time too? Seriously, that is such a hypocritical stance.

If you can incorporate some of those guys into managers, broadcasters, etc. then perhaps that would spare some of these guys, but I really have to question shelf life of today's talents and if that is the main problem here.

So even though Orton has been in the WWE nearly 10 years, as has Cena, in 1/2 years we should make them into announcers/broadcasters? LOL, what a bizarre point, you take the biggest draw in the company, the biggest merch seller, the biggest draw, the face of the company and 'retire' him because he has been around 10 years. It's no wonder that you're just a forum mod and not involved in wrestling.

Vince may be keeping guys around for just too long: like Undertaker, HBK, and Triple H.

What?! So you want WWE to get rid of three of their biggest stars and draws? This is the most idiotic thing you've ever posted. HBK, Taker, HHH are the reason that alot of people watch WWE, they have worked damn hard to be where they are right now, and all 3 of them are way over with the crowd. If you replaced them with Kofi, Swagger and MVP for example ratings and buyrates would be down, and the product would suffer. I can't even begin to start and say how wrong it would be to do that.

 

[mm1160]

It's fine having two world champions...I don't think that's a problem at all. My beef is having one guy (the Miz) having three belts. That's just BS. Do you have so little regard for anyone else out there that you can't put the tag team belts on a real tag team. They just throw guys together and bang..they win a title. If you have two world titles, there is no reason you can't keep the tag belts seperate too. WWE has buried the tag teams so that the belts mean very little at this point. They have enough wrestlers to start to revitalize the tag teams again.

 

[manmagoonbt]

One of the biggest problems currently with wrestling is the Internet Wrestling Community. Everyone has a voice and in there head are stuck on what they want to see.

Everyone wants new stars pushed, but the only want a certain few pushed. If someone like Sheamus gets pushed he is hated just cause there is a link to HHH. The IWC hates anything that involves HHH. If someone is remotely linked to him, they hate them.

ECW was a show that showcased nothing but new talent, people hated it. The fact of the matter is the WWE is a huge corporation that is successful. They know that 85% of the people that watch there shows want to see HHH< HBK, Taker, Batista, Edge, Jericho, Big Show and of course CENA.

The IWC hates Cena but the WWE doesn't care because people actually give them money to see him.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

There are times when a match just doesn't need to be done again. Orton-HHH and Cena-Orton for example, but in the Cena vs Batista case, I just don't see what there is to complain about in terms of repetiveness. These two have faced off twice on PPV, to the best of my knowledge. Once at Summerslam 2008 and again at Elimination Chamber. This encounter can't even be compared to the previous two. Summerslam 2008 was based around two of WWE's biggest faces going head to head and their match at Elimination Chamber was purely a squash match for storyline progression.

This match is much bigger and very different. Not only does it tie in directly with the McMahon-Hart feud, but Batista is a heel now. Not to mention that this is a WWE championship match at Wrestlemania. It will have a completely different feel to it. Anyway, even if Cena vs Batista this time was similar to their previous match, it's hardly been done to death. Anyone bitching about this match being overdone are just annoyed that Cena vs Batista is headlining Wrestlemania.

I also want to quickly agree with Mr Eko's post on HBK vs Taker. I have to admit at first I was one of those people unsure if they should repeat the match. However, that's in the past now and I am really looking forward to the match. Once again, this is not a feud that has been done to death and with the stipulation involving HBK's career, it feels different and more important than last year's match. Like I said, there is sometimes a situation where a particular match is over done, but that is not the case with this year's Wrestlemania matches so far.

 

[CH David]

It's fine having two world champions...I don't think that's a problem at all. My beef is having one guy (the Miz) having three belts. That's just BS. Do you have so little regard for anyone else out there that you can't put the tag team belts on a real tag team. They just throw guys together and bang..they win a title. If you have two world titles, there is no reason you can't keep the tag belts seperate too. WWE has buried the tag teams so that the belts mean very little at this point. They have enough wrestlers to start to revitalize the tag teams again.

What are you babbling off topic about? So the US Champion can't be a double champion? Wah wah. You also contradicted yourself. They throw guys together, yet you say they have enough wrestlers to revitalize the division. Uhh, who? Legacy, Cryme Tyme, The Hart Dynasty, and The Dudebusters. Wow what a great assortment of teams. Everyone else, has been thrown together. If you want a legit tag division, make legit tag teams.

I just don't get why people get pissed when there are money matches going on. Cena vs. Batista is going to help make bank at Mania. So is HBK vs. Taker. Those matches are huge, regardless if they are rematches or not. But I guess the same people who complain about the Cena vs. Batista match, would be the same ones that would complain about a Cena vs. Punk feud, because they have had matches before. Seriously, it is going in a certain direction. Shut up and go for the ride.

 

[JackBurton]

No matter how you wanna splice, spin or twist this subject - we fans are responsible for this situation. We have become spoiled. Prior to the Monday night wars we rarely got to see star vs star on TV. Obviously because ratings became a huge issue during the mid to late 90's both WWF and WCW had to break with tradition and give is a reason to watch one show and not the competition. So they started presenting matches on TV that traditionally you would have to pay to see.

Lets be honest, none of you would accept a return to that tradition. None of you would be receptive to the idea of TV matches being a star vs a development guy - be honest. This is one issue that neither TNA or WWE can win with. If you they go left everyone will say they should have went right and vice versa.

The real question is;

Would you be willing to accept a company attempting to reset the business as a whole? I honestly would - but that's just me because I hate the fact that everyone comes off the top, throws 100 punches a match or hits as many clothes lines.

 

[ccotreau1]

Well, obviously we are looking at an issue that WWE has struggled with for a long time now. And obviously, this leads to a lot of frustration amongst fans.

So WWE is left with two choices:

1) Acknowledge the problem and change the way you do business

2) Ignore the fans as long as you are making profits you are happy with, keep doing business the way you do assuming the fans will still watch regardless, and keep the Roster Split in tact.

It's rather obvious WWE has opted for the second approach to please the Audience of One.

WWE could easily solve this problem by combining the rosters and consistently developing new stars in Developmental and promoting them to the main roster.

Personally, I think WWE are trying to get more longetivity out of their stars and I don't know if that is a good thing in this day and age or not.

Maybe wrestlers (in a wrestling capacity) should only have a shelf life of maybe no longer than 10 years instead of this being around for 15-20 years concept since the fans do get tired of seeing the same people constantly.

If you can incorporate some of those guys into managers, broadcasters, etc. then perhaps that would spare some of these guys, but I really have to question shelf life of today's talents and if that is the main problem here.

Vince may be keeping guys around for just too long: like Undertaker, HBK, and Triple H.

Unless you keep these guys on 1 show for a long time (HBK, Undertaker) and don't have them appear on the other show (except lately with Taker coming on Raw to confront HBK), the feuds become old, if you were to switch these 2 and just these 2, which I don't see happening, you could see multiple different feuds, like Taker vs Cena, Taker vs HHH, Taker vs Orton (again) and HBK vs Batista, HBK vs Jericho (again) and HBK vs Edge. Granted you could get more feuds out of it, but just switching HBK and Taker around would freshen up feuds a little bit.

 

[Super Crazy]

Honestly, I don't see why people complain, as the feuds/matches aren't always about the wrestling. For me a huge part of feuds is the build up and promos, which brings me to my point. If a match or feud has a new and different twist on it then the last time, that changes it, giving you a reason to tune in. Let's have a look here :

Cena vs Batista I :

The match took place under the premise that it was the meeting of the two colossus' of the WWE, Batista and John Cena. The crowd's fan favorites meeting in the ring one on one for the first time. It was also a face vs face match , ultimately to see who the better man was.

Cena vs Batista II :

Batista turned heel, and focused on gaining a world title. Cena came out and defended Bret Hart, and sided with Hart the following weeks. One night Batista came to the ring and helped Mr. McMahon belittle Bret. Once Cena came down to the ring, Batista who was leaving, decided to turn around and attack Cena. Batista's payment for helping McMahon came at Elimination Chamber when he allowed Batista to face Cena for the newly won championship, which Batista won within a matter of minutes. Now Cena is pissed for being screwed by McMahon and assaulted by Batista, while Batista continues to play mind games by not speaking on his actions, ducking between the ropes to avoid attacks in the ring, etc.

Either way you at look it, the premise on which these two men are meeting is totally different then it was at Summerslam in 2008. So to all the fans out there who are complaining because of it being the same match, look at the story behind it, and then maybe you'll see the difference.

 

[LSN80]

I think the problem is that no matter what WWE does, the IWC will bitch and moan. They're not happy no matter what. While I think Vince is a control freak and has "his guys" in the main event, I still don't think it's a major problem, nor something to complain about.

Take Cena-Batista part 2 for example. I've seen alot of whining that people don't want to see Cena-Batista Part 2. That bugs me to no end. "But we've seen it before" people will say. In reality, they really haven't. It's much different.

Last time they faced off, both men were the top two faces on Raw, and were fighting without a title at stake. This time around, Cena is the face, and Batista the heel. Cena is also fighting for Batista's title, and they've interwoven the Hart-McMahon issue into it. And people still aren't happy.

I get that people are sick of seeing "Vince's guys" such as HHH, HBK, Cena, Orton and a few more in the title picture and facing each other time and again. Problem is, who takes their place? There's nobody that really comes to mind that's ready to main event a PPV.

It's not like WWe isn't trying either. They put the WWE title on Sheamus or 3 months. They moved Kofi into the semi-main event in his feud with Orton. CM punk is a four time champion. These are all still relative newcomers to WWE(Im not counting their time in ECW). Christian is coming to Raw, and should help be another new face. But most of the up and comers simply aren't ready to main event ppv's.

So what do we get? Recyclyed matches from years past. And that's not a bad thing. The build toward Wrestlemania shows that. It's been phenomenal, subtracting the God-awful Jerry springer hosted Raw. It's not like these guys cant still get it done in the ring.(talking to you, TNA) So no, I see little reason or justification for people complaining about PPV matches.