Hell in a Cell 2014

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

DANG. My glasses really do suck because not only am I imagining Wrestlemania, but Extreme Rules and Payback as well.

Any other shows you want to ignore while failing to prove your point?

Daniel Bryan didn't beat HHH on those PPV's which is why I didn't bring them up, in fact HHH was only pinned at Payback to an the time well on his way to the top Roman Reigns in a three on one situation. Fact is HHH isn't some guy that's letting anyone hit him week to week.

Any more points you want to fail to grasp while hiding behind things that are getting farther away from the original topic?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Daniel Bryan won the WWE Title in the main event of Wrestlemania with 70,000+ people chanting YES. You are an imbecile.

Because the fans literally forced their hand to do so.

PS. If you can't see the glaring holes in WWE and how they are booking their talent which is affecting business then you are in NO position to call anyone an imbecile.

 

[Alastor]

Dear goodness.

He lost so that Rollins wouldn't beat him clean, thereby giving Rollins a reason to be booed and Ambrose a path to his next feud. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Dear goodness to you too for avoiding the question yet again and trying to act like you are above everyone. Let me put it more simply.

You said Ambrose and Wyatt can be jobbed to each other because they could bounce back based on the strength of their character.

My question is simple, why can't Ambrose bounce back from getting jobbed to Rollins if Rollins is booked to win tonight?

Or have Ambrose beat Rollins clean or is MiTB holder, golden boy with two stooges and improvement in the mic not enough for Rollins to bounce back after a clean loss?

 

[Reflection]

Ambrose can go after Wyatt while Rollins moves up to a bigger feud in Orton.

...and Ambrose is now the second biggest face in the company...

Just one question- Why would Rollins vs Randy be a bigger feud than Rollins vs Ambrose, when Ambrose is the second biggest face in the company while Randy is the third biggest heel (probably fourth after Bray's return)? Is it because of the number of world titles Randy has won/number of years he has spent in the main event? I believe recent trend would be a better yardstick for assessment of how big a star is.
Because Rollins-Ambrose had a long personal history from being brothers to the backstabbing, the fight for the MITB briefcase, and then the cinder blocks incident, while Rollins-Randy has only been about rising tensions and one curb stomp.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

HIAC ppv was horrible. So glad I didnt pay for this ppv. Cesaro/ziggler could of been a great match but it was mediocre. All the matches fell flat.

Only thing good about the ppv was the table/cell spot in the ambrose/rollins match.

Bray ruin a great ending. Never was a fan of his.

 

[klunderbunker]

Because the fans literally forced their hand to do so.

PS. If you can't see the glaring holes in WWE and how they are booking their talent which is affecting business then you are in NO position to call anyone an imbecile.

The fact that you got worked this hard by WWE shows that you have no authority to talk about this sort of thing.

Dear goodness to you too for avoiding the question yet again and trying to act like you are above everyone. Let me put it more simply.

You said Ambrose and Wyatt can be jobbed to each other because they could bounce back based on the strength of their character.

My question is simple, why can't Ambrose bounce back from getting jobbed to Rollins if Rollins is booked to win tonight?

Or have Ambrose beat Rollins clean or is MiTB holder, golden boy with two stooges and improvement in the mic not enough for Rollins to bounce back after a clean loss?

No sarcasm: I don't get what you're asking in the first question.

The answer to the second part is a long answer about face and heel psychology that I really don't feel like getting into now. The short version: a loss for a heel is seen as more devastating than a loss for a face because the fans want to see heels lose. When they get what they want, it's hard to see them get it back again. People don't want to see faces lose so it's easier to build them back up, especially when they have a good character. If you want an example of this, look at Bryan staying popular last year and Wyatt plummeting after losing to Cena.

Just one question- Why would Rollins vs Randy be a bigger feud than Rollins vs Ambrose, when Ambrose is the second biggest face in the company while Randy is the third biggest heel (probably fourth after Bray's return)? Is it because of the number of world titles Randy has won/number of years he has spent in the main event? I believe recent trend would be a better yardstick for assessment of how big a star is.
Because Rollins-Ambrose had a long personal history from being brothers to the backstabbing, the fight for the MITB briefcase, and then the cinder blocks incident, while Rollins-Randy has only been about rising tensions and one curb stomp.

Orton is a higher profile guy. Ambrose was indeed red hot recently but that didn't make him a bigger star than Orton. The fans will be more interested in Ambrose vs. Rollins, but a big win over Orton is going to mean more for Rollins' career. That's why it's a bigger feud for him.

 

[Alastor]

No sarcasm: I don't get what you're asking in the first question.

Rollins wins with no help - Ambrose loses his heat

Ambrose wins - Mr. Money in the Bank loses his heat

Rollins wins with Bray's help - Rollins can brag about winning like a heel should and Ambrose can go on to a new feud with the fans rallying behind him because he got screwed.

Wyatt doesn't have heat to lose right now. You can job either guy because they can bounce back with the strength of their characters. Rollins doesn't have that luxury.

This is the question. Why can Ambrose be 'jobbed' to Wyatt and be able to bounce back but can't do the same with Rollins?

You saying Wyatt has no heat right now is not a good argument since the feud has not even properly been developed yet. IF they build up enough heat for Wyatt in the feud then your answer would be the same based on YOUR logic.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Jesus fucking christ, can we just accept that an Ambrose/Wyatt feud, if handled correctly, could be feud of the year material instead of over-analysing this?

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Having Bray go after Ambrose easily increases Dean's star potential......

 

[Poop Master Flex]

The fact that you got worked this hard by WWE shows that you have no authority to talk about this sort of thing.

It's obvious WWE didn't plan out what happened with Bryan, it's obvious it wasn't the direction they were going to go. From HIAC to EC he wasn't even feuding with The Authority, maybe that would be easier to believe if he had some interaction with them during that span of time.

You know who has no authority talk about this sort of thing? It's the guy who blindly hands over his money and turns on WWE programming every week even though the product isn't good. I barely watch it and when I do I certainly not going to watch it on TV or pay for it, not until they can start delivering, once they do I will happily hand over my hard earned money.

The fact of the matter is we keep going off topic, back to the ending to HIAC I still believe it was a bad ending. Just because you can dig up some logic as to why they did it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad ending that hurt the angle. At least on my end it didn't make me want to see Ambrose vs. Wyatt, it didn't make me see Rollins in a higher light, it didn't make me want to turn on RAW, if anything it made me NOT want to turn on RAW. Outside of Lesnar this was the only feud that got me at least somewhat excited about the product and to be honest, I feel like I got screwed by that ending.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's obvious WWE didn't plan out what happened with Bryan, it's obvious it wasn't the direction they were going to go. From HIAC to EC he wasn't even feuding with The Authority, maybe that would be easier to believe if he had some interaction with them during that span of time.

You know who has no authority talk about this sort of thing? It's the guy who blindly hands over his money and turns on WWE programming every week even though the product isn't good. I barely watch it and when I do I certainly not going to watch it on TV or pay for it, not until they can start delivering, once they do I will happily hand over my hard earned money.

The fact of the matter is we keep going off topic, back to the ending to HIAC I still believe it was a bad ending. Just because you can dig up some logic as to why they did it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad ending that hurt the angle. At least on my end it didn't make me want to see Ambrose vs. Wyatt, it didn't make me see Rollins in a higher light, it didn't make me want to turn on RAW, if anything it made me NOT want to turn on RAW. Outside of Lesnar this was the only feud that got me at least somewhat excited about the product and to be honest, I feel like I got screwed by that ending.

I'd point you to In Your House: D-Generation X. Austin had a quick feud with the Nation to bridge the gap between his big feuds and keep him fresh. Same idea here.

So what you're saying is that as someone who does watch every week, I'd know a good deal more about what's going on and its trends? Glad you agree with me.

Actually me bringing up such logic DOES prove my point more than yours, which is basically "I don't like it because I say so."

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I'd point you to In Your House: D-Generation X. Austin had a quick feud with the Nation to bridge the gap between his big feuds and keep him fresh. Same idea here.

Austin wasn't feuding with Vince at all until after he won the title and I don't recall Austin losing a ton of momentum due to dumb booking like Bryan did with The Authority. In the 1st month of the Bryan feud he was beaten into dust and lost almost all of his momentum in that time, everything after that was essentially trying to catch up to where they were before Bryan feuded with The Authority in the first place. When the booked Austin it wasn't counterproductive, with Bryan it was. You can do pretty much anything in wrestling and get away with it if its well executed.

So what you're saying is that as someone who does watch every week, I'd know a good deal more about what's going on and its trends? Glad you agree with me.

I'm saying you're someone who relies on wrestling as its your main source of income therefore you will blindly kiss its ass even when it sucks. I'm saying that you are the type who will just throw your money at WWE no matter how shitty it gets.

Actually me bringing up such logic DOES prove my point more than yours, which is basically "I don't like it because I say so."

Logic and good are 2 very different things KB, something you have great difficulty comprehending. Sometimes you got to give the fans what they want and you got to give it to them while they are still invested, people wanted to see Ambrose finish Rollins based on how the feud has went up to this point only to get screwed by the ending when quite frankly the same thing could have been accomplished with a definitive ending to the feud. They could have given the people what they wanted and push Wyatt vs. Ambrose at the same time. I don't think Rollins would have lost much at all losing to Ambrose last night and even if he did you could have gotten it all back in 5 minutes tonight on RAW. Ambrose vs. Wyatt would sound good if Wyatt wasn't completely cooled of over the last 6 months but because he was, it feels like a step back for Ambrose not a step forward.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not reading all that. Try again.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I'm not reading all that. Try again.

So you got nothing to say so you try to save face, got it!

 

[The Butcher]

Anyone who is looking for an opinion about the main event finish from knowledgeable sources that is more in line with our consensus, listen to last night's Live Audio Wrestling. Agnew, Lovranski, and Pollack all hated it, and Pollack does a good job of explaining why they should have gone with a clean finish. They also talked with Meltzer, as per usual, and he thought that Ambrose needed the win, and WWE could have waited until tonight to start the Ambrose/Wyatt feud.

And, in defense of KB, the statement he made that sparked all of this included the word "almost." He wasn't saying that the ending of the match was the best possible finish, just that it made sense.

 

[Wolf Pac]

Don't care about who won, I'm just shocked that we saw the first "thrown off the Cell" spot since Armageddon 2000. How I've missed them so much.

Why did Cena need to beat Orton to become #1 contender for the title? He was the #1 contender already.