Is anyone else confused in the Cena/Punk angle?

[Lord Awesome]

I wouldn't call them assholes, although some of the fans certainly are. If you're someone that's ever attended a live WWE show and tried to enjoy yourself, there are often fans that make it hard to do that because they're trying to act like idiots. I was at a WWE house show in Lexington last year and a guy jumped the railing and streaked around the ringside area with "Cena Sux" spray painted across his ass while his dumbass friends were there at ringside cheering him on like he'd done something amazing. While that's an extreme example, some fans are more concerned with trying to come off as edgy by cheering for heels and booing bad guys, the traditional foundation upon which wrestling feuds are built upon, or ragginga bout this or that instead of actually trying to enjoy the age old story of good against bad like fans of past generations.

I don't think Vince caters to them so much as he simply pushes some of the more common hot buttons of smarks to get a rise out of them. You know why WWE started selling anti-Cena shirts? Because there was a demand for them. It wasn't something that WWE set out to do or started, but it was an opportunity and they made the most of it. Contrary to what some want to believe, not all WWE fans hate John Cena. Not all of his detractors are grown men and not all of his biggest fans are women & children. I've been to shows, and I've seen on television, people participating in the "Cena Sucks" side of the famous duel chant while wearing John Cena gear. I've seen grown men wearing Cena Sucks shirts chanting "Let's Go Cena" while 12 year old boys wearing Cena hats chant "Cena Sucks".

Sometimes, quite frankly, it is the fault of the fans. What's ultimately happening in this feud is the bread and butter of pro wrestling feuds for generations. If you were to eliminate Miss Elizabeth as a factor, then the 1989 feud of Hulk Hogan and Macho Man Randy Savage, culminating at WrestleMania V, was built almost exactly like Punk and Cena. Even though Savage was champion, Savage saw that Hogan was still portrayed as the bigger star, which he was. It was part of a string of frustrations that ultimately boiled over. Savage was suspicious that Hogan was trying to make a move on his girl and, in his mind, abandoned him to get demolished in a tag match against Big Bossman and Ahkeem. Is that exactly what happened? Of course not, but perception's a whacky thing. Ignoring the legit personal issues between Bret Hart & Shawn Michaels and leaving it strictly kayfabe, there were a lot of similarities to Punk and Cena. Two guys that were at the top, had respect for what the other could do but didn't really like one another. These are only a couple of examples.

Sometimes creative does screw up, there's no denying that. Sometimes wrong choices are made, wrong guys get pushed and angles take place that really shouldn't have. At the same time, sometimes it really is the fans as they're too busy condemning something often times without even giving it a chance. If you sit and nitpick at everything, you're bound to find something to complain about.

I don't agree with this at all and I think it's a cheap cop out to say that fans are being rebellious. I'm not a Cena hater but I hate Khali so I'll use him as an example. If I'm at a live event and Khali comes out, I will instantly boo him. It doesn't matter if he is a face or heel, the fact is I don't find him entertaining. Hell, he could come out and completely destroy another wrestler I don't like and I will still boo his ass. The bottom line is fans will cheer who they like and boo who they dislike.

The fact that fans still cheer Punk is a fail on WWE's poor writing. They were able to turn DB heel by having him respond "no" to the yes chants. Yeah there are people who chant no and buy no shirts but they are a small minority. Another example is Chris Jericho who always gets cheered where I'm from (Canada) even though he's heel. So he turns on his home country and promptly gets booed.

The problem with Punk is he became mega popular when he started his anti establishment gimmick and as a result turned face. His current heel persona isn't far enough removed from that. He hasn't done anything to piss off the fans he initially gained.

Further more, WWE hasn't explained why John Cena keeps getting rematches. Cena wasn't in the title chase until he won at MITB. He cashed it in and lost at Raw 1000. Why does he get rematches? If Dolph cashes in his and loses, does he get a rematch?

The problem here is it flys in the face of the whole concept of MITB. Even so, WWE could give us an explanation but they don't bother. They expect us to just blindly accept it. This is lazy and just spitting in my face as an intelligent human being. Don't give me that Punk hasn't pinned Cena clean stuff either. He doesn't have to, he's the Champ. The fact that Cena is getting unlimited rematches only proves Punk right which makes it even harder to take him serious as a heel.

As a side note, for the people asking why Rock gets a title shot. It's because he won in one of Wrestlemania's main event matches. That and he hasn't lost against the Champ 3 times in a row.

 

[WrestlingFan97]

This whole thing (not specificly his current feud with John Cena) reminds when Steve Austin turned heel back in '01. There was no need for it. No one wanted to boo him and it just didn't work or make sense on any level. He was a badass who never backed down from a fight. Just like CM Punk who was a fighting champion who never backed down from a fight. Well, they turn Austin into a cowardly chickeshit who always ran away. Now they're doing it CM Punk who complained about being in a triple threat when he didn't have a problem with a few months before. It's a half-baked turn that wasn't needed just like Austin in 2001.

 

[Mustang Sally]

From my perspective it doesn't make sense simply because I'm not entirely sure why they are feuding, other than for the title. Punk has been talking about respect, and Cena has been saying he should earn it, but the problem I see is that the feud doesn't feel personal at all.

Makes me think of the Prince and the King. The Prince (Punk) is waiting impatiently for his chance at being King, yet he knows it won't happen until the King is gone, by fair or by foul. Meanwhile, the King (Cena) is indulgent as he rules supreme, allowing Prince Punk to mouth off all he wants, certain he can hold off any challenges from the Prince, even as he permits his heir apparent some small victories; it amuses King John to do so.

Essentially, Prince Punk's problem is that he and King John have been on the same side, at least until recently. If the feud hasn't seemed personal, it's because the King and Prince have both been good guys. In an effort to become more aggressive, Prince Punk hasn't been able to do too much to a fellow member of the Royal Family, so he's been doing evil deeds to everyone else in his efforts to forge his own destiny.....ah, verily.

In order to make the feud more personal and intense, Prince Punk needs to fully become a bad guy, which will finally put him in direct confrontation with King John. The Prince is doing everything he can do achieve this, including attacking King Jerry of Lawler, an act that became even more dastardly in view of the ills that later befell King Jerry.

The essence of pro wrestling is good vs. evil. Every bad dude needs a good dude to contrast the evil in him. One or the other had to turn; I thought it was going to be King John......but the McMahon fiefdom thought otherwise. So, fine.....it's Prince Punk as the evildoer. The stage is set, the swords are drawn.....now, they'll build to what we thought was coming in the Summer of Punk-2011.

Forsooth.