Is the WWE just a grand conspiracy and are we all(IWC) deluded?

[AegonTargaryen]

I was watching Daniel Bryan vs Seth Rollins to determine who goes on to face Roman Reigns at Fastlane and something hit me.

So obviously Daniel Bryan wins the match and goes on to lose to Roman Reigns. Moreover, he sort of shakes hands with him post-match in somewhat of a "I respect you, you've earned it" fashion, if I remember correctly? So basically, Daniel being a company guy did his "job" and tried to "put" Roman "over". It got me thinking.

Let's say hypothetically, Daniel Bryan was healthy and wouldn't be liable to "injure" himself after winning the IC title in the ladder match. Wouldn't they still book him, basically "use" him to put their chosen guy Roman Reigns over?

Don't get me wrong. I know that Wrestling in general and the WWE is about "making money". I also understand the scripted nature of Wrestling, which means that a terrible wrestler can be a maineventer for years while the Daniel Bryans and Eddie Guerreros fight for midcard titles or tag-team titles. But does it justify Bryan having to lose to Roman and saying " I respect you" ? because to me it's more like a slap on my face which says, "Roman Reigns is great".

Sometimes the biggest star or merchandise-seller is a good wrestler and most of the times he isn't the "best" wrestler on the roster, nor the best "overall" performer. I'd like to use the history of the WWE from 1985 up to 2015 as an example.

I wasn't alive prior to 1989 and as a result I know little about wrestling back then, besides the fact that Hulk Hogan ruled the WWF and was champion for years and years, until his departure. May be Randy Savage was to HH what Daniel Bryan is to John Cena, but this analogy isn't supposed to be taken too "literally" .

Now after Hogan's departure, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were "the chosen ones" and I have no issues with that.

Followed by Rock and Austin.

The real problem in my eyes began with John Cena's rise in 2005. IMO, John Cena was a mediocre, if not downright "atrocious" wrestler in 2005, and he is so in 2015. Nothing any of you can say will change that, or change my opinion/conviction. It's almost mathematical...Bret Hart>Hulk Hogan, just as Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar > John Cena. Period. This certainly isn't a John Cena-bash thread, it's just that my main argument is entwined with John Cena and Roman Reigns as the "chosen ones".

Here's an analogy:-

I remember the Kurt Angle-John Cena feud for the WWE championship from Raw in 2005, which not only did Kurt lose but was booked as a "coward heel" throughout it. This gem of a wrestler fucking had Daivari as his own personal referee, for chrissakes.

Inference:-Kurt Angle isn't good enough to carry Raw or the company as WWE champion. He might be the greatest wrestler on the roster but since John Cena sells merchandise and the kids love him, and since Kurt Angle is supposed to be a "heel", he will lose the matches and the feud. Followed by being drafted to Smackdown, and fucking ECW in 2006.

During the 2007 draft lottery, Chris Benoit was drafted to ECW and he had a match on Raw against John Cena which he lost. I vividly remember how Chris extended his hand towards him and they shook hands and it was like, "I respect you John Cena". To me, it just proves that being one of the best technical wrestlers in the world, hell, being one of the TOP 5 doesn't really matter because if Vince Mcmahon says so, you'll have to put a mediocre, awful wrestler like John Cena "over" just like Daniel Bryan did with Roman Reigns. (Please do not involve what Chris would later go on to do in his personal life, as it bears no relation to the argument at hand).

Isn't that what the WWE did with Bryan? Now let's just also use Batista as an example. He was the champion on smackdown in 2005 and he had a match with Eddie Guerrero at No Mercy, which IMO is one of the best matches you'll ever see. I also think Batista always was a superior wrestler to John Cena and I don't have a problem with him.

But where's the logic in using Daniel Bryan, a better wrestler, to lose to Roman Reigns and shaking hands and saying "I respect you" when Roman Reigns downright sucks? I used to believe like some of you here that Roman Reigns has improved. But I firmly believe today that it's BS. There is no fucking improvement, and if there is any, it's really negligible. You know what improvement is? Batista in 2002, being groomed by Ric Flair and HHH, followed by Batista in 2005 both on the mic and in the ring. THAT'S IMPROVEMENT.

I realize that Wrestling and the WWE are about making money, but what good is it pushing Roman Reigns for years, and overlooking Bryan? And this isn't just about Bryan. I invoked elaborately..throughout this thread, the likes of Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, AND Daniel Bryan. I antagonized Cena and Roman.

Suffice to say, considering John Cena's career, and considering the booking of Roman Reigns in the last 2 years itself...is it wrong to say that the WWE will ignore competent wrestlers like Bryan even if they happen to bring in money? What about Kurt Angle in 2005? (And I by no means am saying Kurt underachieved, quite contrary).

I have already pointed it out, that when the said wrestler is at least competent, like Batista in 2005, I have no problem if he doesn't happen to be the greatest technical wrestler on earth.

But it seems to me that the history of the WWE since 2005, and probably before the advent of Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels as "maineventers" [So basically pre-1995(before Bret and Shawn), and post-2005(since John Cena).],..was a history of pushing the bad/unidimensional wrestler just because he happens to sell merchandise, possess some level of charisma, and may be ably perform 4-5 maneuvers.

Finally, our favourite wrestlers with the exception of Seth Rollins, aren't likely to be pushed to mainevents, until they do something like Punk did in July 2011. I would once again like to emphasize that Roman Reigns was terrible in the ring around Fastlane last year and he is so THIS YEAR. Nothing the WWE does will change that fact, or my opinion. He isn't half as good as Batista was. Period.

Feel free to oppose me, or agree. But do say something about:-

Is the WWE just a grand conspiracy and are we all(IWC) deluded?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

You are deluded. None of the wrestlers you praised are that good at their jobs and none of the wrestlers you derided are that bad.

Vince just wants to help certain guys get further over with a certain very vocal section of the audience and the veteran technical wrestler (technically they are all wrestlers) hand shake method is one way to do that.

You also forgot everything Cena, Stephanie, HHH, Vince, Orton, and Batista did for Bryan to help him get over with another more valuable part of the audience.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

I'll tell you who is deluded, anybody who thinks John Cena isn't a good wrestler. Honestly, when somebody says, "John Cena was a mediocre, if not downright 'atrocious' wrestler in 2005, and he is so in 2015," there's not really much to discuss. You openly acknowledge that the premise of John Cena being terrible is central to the point you're trying to make, whatever that is, and you also say that no matter what you will never change your mind about Cena being bad. So there's nothing to say. John Cena can continue to have classic matches with a variety of opponents who all work different styles and you still will think he's a bad wrestler.

You seem to operate from the understanding that a wrestler's moveset is what makes them a good wrestler, which is of course ridiculous by all standards including those held by people in the business. Even if it that were true, John Cena has one of the most expansive movesets ever if you're just going based on total number of different moves used. But of course you wouldn't recognize that because your mind is made up and performance doesn't seem to actually matter.

You think you know what makes and what doesn't make a good worker but you don't. The term worker refers to working the crowd, which means getting a reaction from the crowd, so John Cena and Hulk Hogan are two of the absolute best workers of all time. Wrestling isn't a sport, it's entertainment, it's about telling a story and creating an emotional connection and an emotional response. And you're deluded for ever thinking otherwise.

Period.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I'll tell you who is deluded, anybody who thinks John Cena isn't a good wrestler. Honestly, when somebody says, "John Cena was a mediocre, if not downright 'atrocious' wrestler in 2005, and he is so in 2015," there's not really much to discuss. You openly acknowledge that the premise of John Cena being terrible is central to the point you're trying to make, whatever that is, and you also say that no matter what you will never change your mind about Cena being bad. So there's nothing to say. John Cena can continue to have classic matches with a variety of opponents who all work different styles and you still will think he's a bad wrestler.
.

DUDE. I used the adjective mediocre alright. I spoke the truth(and hey, truth is subjective, so yeah, sue me for that).

You know who isn't a mediocre wrestler? Bret fucking Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Kurt Angle, and certainly Daniel Bryan. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong because obviously I don't understand wrestling or what makes a great wrestler right? And if you think John Cena belongs in the same echelon as the aforementioned, I'd like to present a picture:- Imagine John Cena is a tomato, and Bret Hart, Bryan, Angle and Michaels are all Apples. Someone puts the tomato amidst apples and expects the world to gleefully embrace the tomato. You're THAT person.

Anybody who says John Cena was/is a GREAT or Exceptional wrestler(use whichever adjective you like) and NOT mediocre, is clearly delusional.

With that being said, I have no problem in admitting that he did give us some good wrestling matches over the years, among which I include the ones with Punk, Orton, and the 3 matches with KO from 2015.

Also, there's more to the world and this thread than John Cena and your being hurt because someone thinks he's mediocre. May be if you actually saw it, or were willing to, you would have contributed something interesting relating to the greater picture I present here. Too bad.

 

[CyberPunk]

I am not sure what the point is. Are you trying to say that Bryan shaking hands with Reigns was a slap to Bryan's face because he is so much better than him? In that case, Triple H, a 13 time WWE champion, losing to Bryan would have been a kick to the nuts for him. It means every time someone loses to someone, it's disrespectful.

No, it doesn't work that way. Wrestlers put other wrestlers over. That's their job. It's called giving the rub. It doesn't matter who's better or worse. Every wrestling promotion revolves around that. And shaking hands to show respect is something that has been used for years, specially when two faces square off. Remember when Cena shook Bryan's hands when Bryan defeated him at SummerSlam? By your definition, Cena must have felt awful, right?

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

DUDE. I used the adjective mediocre alright. I spoke the truth(and hey, truth is subjective, so yeah, sue me for that).
Also, there's more to the world and this thread than John Cena and your being hurt because someone thinks he's mediocre.

I mean you also used the word atrocious, and literally highlighted it in bold when you responded to me, but whatever. I'm not going to argue semantics.

Please explain why John Cena is not a good wrestler. You say that this is jsut some sort of given but I do not accept your premise. Articulate a reason as to why he isn't good other than just saying that he isn't Bret Hart. By the way Bret Hart did the same comeback for his entire career so I can't wait to hear the difference between him and John Cena. Other than that Bret drew less money of course.

Also, there's more to the world and this thread than John Cena and your being hurt because someone thinks he's mediocre. May be if you actually saw it, or were willing to, you would have contributed something interesting relating to the greater picture I present here. Too bad.

There is no greater picture being presented here. You are mad because the WWE doesn't put over the wrestlers you like, even though you concede that Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were the top guys in the company at one point and you also concede that Seht Rollins was heavily pushed this year. And for some reason you think this constitutes a conspiracy.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I am not sure what the point is. Are you trying to say that Bryan shaking hands with Reigns was a slap to Bryan's face because he is so much better than him? In that case, Triple H, a 13 time WWE champion, losing to Bryan would have been a kick to the nuts for him. It means every time someone loses to someone, it's disrespectful.

No, it doesn't work that way. Wrestlers put other wrestlers over. That's their job. It's called giving the rub. It doesn't matter who's better or worse. Every wrestling promotion revolves around that. And shaking hands to show respect is something that has been used for years, specially when two faces square off. Remember when Cena shook Bryan's hands when Bryan defeated him at SummerSlam? By your definition, Cena must have felt awful, right?

Oh no. I have no problem with a wrestler putting someone else "over" and shaking hands after losing to them.

I have a problem with an undeserving Roman Reigns winning, and Bryan shaking hands with him and saying "you've earned my respect, you deserve it".

May be I hate Roman Reigns, but the thread revolves around the contentious issue surrounding Vince/WWE's thinking Roman Reigns deserved to win the Rumble and mainevent Wrestlemania, and Bryan being only so good as to lose to him and himself being unworthy of anything better, like a triple threat match involving him, Lesnar and Reigns for the title.

The crux is that mediocre wrestlers like John Cena and Roman Reigns will be pushed ad infinitum, and a guy like CM Punk will drop the title to The Rock and eventually just quit, or Daniel Bryan be made to "shake hands" with Roman, who IMO was undeserving last year at Fastlane, and is undeserving this year. But of course, That's WWE.

Why else do you think I speak of a grand conspiracy?

Passionate wrestling fans could be said to be "deluded" because we will keep hoping for something better, but at the end of the day, a John Cena or a Roman Reigns will be inserted into the mainevents.

So yeah.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I mean you also used the word atrocious, and even highlighted it in bold when you responded to me, but whatever. I'm not going to argue semantics.

Please explain why John Cena is not a good wrestler. You say that this is jsut some sort of given but I do not accept your premise. Articulate a reason as to why he isn't good other than just saying that he isn't Bret Hart. By the way Bret Hart did the same comeback for his entire career so I can't wait to ehar the difference between him and John Cena.

I'm refraining from using "good" or "bad" as polarizing adjectives, and may be some one else here must think he's a "bad" or "terrible" wrestler.

When it comes to John Cena, I think he's a mediocre wrestler, from the perspective of pure in-ring skills and not performance which includes elements like "working the crowd" and "getting reactions".

I even think Batista was a mediocre BUT certainly a better wrestler than John Cena.

Why do I think that?

Simple. Not everyone is excellent in the world. If everybody were excellent, we wouldn't need words like mediocre or terrible.

John Cena is mediocre because he doesn't wrestle how Randy Orton, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Benoit, Lesnar, or Bryan do.

John Cena is mediocre because his core moveset sucks, including the 5 knuckle shuffle, the two shoulder knockdowns he does, and that backdrop. It's the most terrible core moveset I have ever seen.

John Cena is mediocre because even in performing those moves, he is slightly rigid and it's not even in his hands because prior to becoming a pro-wrestler, he was a gym rat and basically a muscular freak.

Unlike Brock Lesnar, John's body was already conditioned by years of heavy weight-training to BUILD and expand muscles before he ever got into the wrestling business, and not endurance training which athletes like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar did for years in order to excel at amateur wrestling, besides also lifting weights to build muscles.

Is this sufficient?

So yeah, Randy Orton is fluid, Brock Lesnar wrestles brilliantly, the way he moves, the quickness, the agility..

And need I even say anything about how Kurt Angle or Shawn Michaels used to wrestle in their prime? So there.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

May be I hate Roman Reigns, may be I'm a moron,

Yeah, maybe.

but the thread revolves around the contentious issue surrounding Vince/WWE's thinking Roman Reigns deserved to win the Rumble and mainevent Wrestlemania, and Bryan being only so good as to lose to him and himself being unworthy of anything better, like a triple threat match involving him, Lesnar and Reigns for the title.

We get it. You're mad because a wrestler you like, Daniel Bryan, had to lose to Roman Reigns, who you don't like. By the way before Bryan put over Reigns he also beat Cena clean at SummerSlam and won two matches in the same night to close WrestleMania 30 as the WWE World Heavyweight Champion.

The crux is that mediocre wrestlers like John Cena and Roman Reigns will be pushed ad infinitum, and a guy like CM Punk will drop the title to The Rock and eventually just quit, or Daniel Bryan be made to "shake hands" with Roman, who IMO was undeserving last year at Fastlane, and is undeserving this year. But of course, That's WWE.

Except John Cena isn't a mediocre wrestler by any standard.

Why else do you think I speak of a grand conspiracy?

Because you're a moron.

Passionate wrestling fans could be said to be "deluded" because we will keep hoping for something better, but at the end of the day, a John Cena or a Roman Reigns will be inserted into the mainevents.

Yeah. You and these other "passionate fans" (whoever they are exactly) should stop playing into the hands of this WWE conspiracy and stop watching.

I bet you'll keep watching.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Bryan- Reigns was done in order to satisfy some of the IWC and to view Reigns as "worthy" of that Wrestlemania main event. And there is nothing wrong about that, WWE has the right to push who they think it will benefit product and he was and is worthy of Wrestlemania main event which he has shown by having great match with Bryan and then Lesnar.

Oh, and plan with Bryan post IC title win was to have him defend title on Smackdown as Cena did to RAW. Dont think he would go near mainevent soon because he has just comed back from injury and was liability in terms of health. Which has unfortunatly proven right because he was injured again soon.

 

[klunderbunker]

Closed, if nothing else due to the amount of posts Renaissance reported complaining about people criticizing whatever his theory is.

Also closed because I lost track of whatever nonsense he was talking about ten seconds in.

 

[Navi]

You can't even begin to put the two of them together. When Cena debuted against Angle he wasn't over. He got himself over after going out time and time again and proving himself, also changing his gimmick helped. I believe it was when he won the US title at Mania, is when he was really over and the push started. He hasn't disappointed us in almost 12 years on the roster.

In contrast Roman Reigns yea won the tag titles with Rollins, but he didn't put in the effort that Cena did in order to get the initial push. In other words McMahon saw him as being cheered at the Rumble two years ago as a reason to go with him. If he had really looked at it like everyone else did, he would have seen that Attila the Hun would have received the same cheers that Reigns did. The fans didn't want Batista to win, so it didn't matter who was in the final two.

That's what started us down this road and the Reigns push. I do believe he would have been pushed eventually, but that cheer at the Rumble put him on the fast track, and I wish it hadn't happened, because it's hurt him. In over a year of trying to get his guy over, by using everyone they can, he is still in the same position he was last year.

He might be Vince's Chosen One, but he isn't the fans, and the more they try to push him out there, the more fans will push back. I like Reigns and wish it had happened differently, but we are were we are, and it's seriously time to stop, stand back and have a look at what's happening. Other good wrestlers are being ignored to focus on Reigns and that shouldn't be happening. Let the fans go to Reigns on their own, you can't tell people what and who to like.

I'm afraid that now Reigns is truly Cena 2.0 there is nothing else they can do for him. He will always get the cheers and boo's wherever he goes. I'm reading comments from fans that used to like the guy, but now they are sick to death of everything revolving around him, and more and more will eventually turn away from him. It's time for Vince to stop thinking about his own ego and start thinking about the fact the product is going to hell in a handbasket because of it.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Closed, if nothing else due to the amount of posts Renaissance reported complaining about people criticizing whatever his theory is.

Also closed because I lost track of whatever nonsense he was talking about ten seconds in.

Closed?

Oh I hurt Mr. Authority's sentiments.

Just because you don't understand or appreciate something doesn't mean it's "nonsense".

But since you're an online Authority, you can get away with it can't you?

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

When it comes to John Cena, I think he's a mediocre wrestler, from the perspective of pure in-ring skills and not performance which includes elements like "working the crowd" and "getting reactions".

Wrestling is fake. Everything is a performance. You basically just said, exlcuding the entirety of what wrestling is about, John Cena isn't good a wrestling. It's a work. It's fake. It's a performance. Working the crowd and getting a reaction are literally the only things that are relevant.

John Cena is mediocre because he doesn't wrestle how Randy Orton, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Benoit, Lesnar, or Bryan do.

How do they wrestle? Lesnar, Orton and Bryan all have vastly different styles. There is no common thread connecting these people. Also, "He doesn't wrestle like my favorite guys" isn't a fucking argument you idiot.

John Cena is mediocre because his core moveset sucks, including the 5 knuckle shuffle, the two shoulder knockdowns he does, and that backdrop. It's the most terrible core moveset I have ever seen.

Austin's core moveset was the Stunner and punching people. Is Austin mediocre? Also John Cena has a comeback sequence because he's a babyface. Every babyface in the history of wrestling has a ceomback sequence. Heels getting heat and babyfaces mounting comebacks are where the drama in a wrestling match comes from. Again, it's a work, it's entirely about telling a story and an emotional investment. Bret Hart had a comeback (russian elgsweep, atomic drop, elbow from second rope), Shawn Michaels had a comeback (flying forearm, atomic drop, scoop slam), Hulk Hogan had a coemback (hulking up, three punches, big boot). Babyfaces have comebacks.

Also let's really take a look at Cena's moveset. Here are a list of his commonly used moves on wikipedia.
Attitude Adjustment
STF
Protobomb (also known as "that backdrop")
Cenacanrana (hurricanrana)
Diving leg drop bulldog
Dropkick
Emerald Flowsion
Five Knuckle Shuffle (Running delayed fist drop, with theatrics, sometimes diving from the top rope)
Half nelson dropped into a neckbreaker
Multiple suplex variations
Belly-to-back
Fisherman
Gutwrench
Side belly-to-belly
Vertical, sometimes while delaying
Running leaping shoulder block
Running one–handed bulldog
Sitout hip toss
Sitout powerbomb
Spinebuster – 2002–2005; used rarely thereafter
Springboard stunner – 2015–present
Sunset flip powerbomb – 2015–present
Throwback (Running neck snap to a bent–over opponent) – 2002–2011
Tornado DDT

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Just because you don't understand or appreciate something doesn't mean it's "nonsense".

Sweet irony.

Just because you don't appreciate the way John Cena or Roman Reigns wrestle doesn't mean they are terrible wrestlers.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

John Cena is a great wrestler. You can't deny that; it's a fact.

Roman Reigns is a pretty good wrestler and is improving.

Daniel Bryan had his moment at WM30, so he didn't need it last year.

What was the point of your post? It was just a bunch of ridiculously false points that weren't related.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Okay now here me out. Listen, the word conspiracy is a bit strong here.

You're actually saying that the WWE won't push the fan favourites, but instead will push their own guys. Wrong. WWE will push the guys that bring in more money. Roman Reigns sells merch, that's why he's in the main event scene right now. Dean sells merch, that's why he's a co-main event/upper midcard champ.

You argue about Roman Reigns/Daniel Bryan. I think you're forgetting the fact that Bryan defeated Orton, Batista and Triple H in one night. I think that you also forget that Bryan was in for a lengthy run as a World Champ back then.

I guess your Roman/Bryan arguements has roots from the 2015 Royal Rumble. Yeah I wanted Bryan to win back then as well, but WWE is a company and they must invest in their future.
You people seem to forget that Brock Lesnar's contract was set to expire by Wrestlemania 31. Which means that at the time the Royal Rumble winner had to be a guy that was to beat Brock Lesnar. You're telling me that the WWE should have Bryan, who just returned from a career ending injury, beat Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania? Thank god that didn't happen, since Bryan got re-injured.

Roman was the best pick back then as much as everyone hated it. Actually not the best, but one of the best. Dean was also a nice fit.

WWE didn't ingnore Bryan. His injuries fucked him up.

Your Kurt Angle rant now.
By 2005, Kurt Angle was a 4-time World Champion. That meant something back then. Plus he had a hell lot other accomplishments in his back. Yeah, Kurt didn't really deserve the booking he got in 2005, but he was a main event player for like 5 years and the WWE were looking to bring in a new era, that's why Cena defeated Kurt.

Plus Kurt Angle had a lot of neck issues which really made him injury prone and exhausted and all that exhaustion led him to WWE having to send him to ECW in order to tone down his schedule, but the end result was Kurt leaving for TNA.
Reason Kurt Angle never became #1 guy? Again, neck issues. Plus Kurt Angle never actually reached a long-running connection with the fans like Cena, Austin, Rock or many other greats did.

You then bring in Punk, like what happened in 2011 was all Punk's work, when in reality it was a work and not a shoot and Cena had a lot of say in it. It was Cena who came up with the idea of feuding with CM Punk in a similar way he feuded with Y2J in 2005, before his contract expired. The angle was all a work. So technically, it was WWE who pushed Punk. Of course there's that 434 days reign as a champion, that probably won't be surpassed for the next 20 years, so yeah, he really didn't get a push at all.

I want you to name one wrestler more worthy than Roman Reigns that deserves to be in Roman's shoes from the current roster.