And many people in this thread resemble it.
You're terrible at spinning your words.
It's VERY obvious exactly what you said. Just because you got called out on it doesn't make it any less true.
And then smaller and smaller, then bigger and bigger again, then smaller and smaller, now they're getting bigger and bigger...what's your point?
Bullshit. It's because he went against IWC darlings Jericho and Angle, guys who people thought were "real" wrestlers, and they disliked the fact the brawler Cena was beating them.
I was working wrestling forums back in 2005, and that's exactly what happened. They also didn't like him being a white rapper...which leads me to the next point.
He started his championship run as a white rapper, who was just thankful to have a title, to the underdog street style wrestler who took on all comers, to the now experienced pro, who was offering CM Punk "veteran" advice just a couple months ago about what happens if Punk does beat Cena for the title.
Cena has become the experienced confident wrestler, who can "wrestle" with anyone in the company (as evidenced multiple times, including his MITB match with Punk) and has evolved past the young cocky punk kid to the gracious experienced pro.
That's character development. The fact you can't see beyond the fact he wins a lot of matches (which isn't even true anymore, and hasn't been since 2009) shows how little you understand characters. Like I said.
You dumbass, the fact Cena's character makes money IS proof that it works. The WWE doesn't give a fuck people boo him, because they're paying to see him. That's how we know Cena's character works.
Seriously, am I going to have to connect all the dots for you? Do you have the ability AT ALL to think?
I didn't change arguments, that WAS my argument. Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't make it any less true.
You must be joking. You think the WWE just let Punk run out there, completely open the curtain to all the backstage workings, completely break the fourth wall, and talk outside of kayfabe, without having any idea it would create buzz?
You're far stupider than you're accusing the WWE of being. The WWE KNEW it would create great buzz, they're not idiots. If they didn't think it would generate good buzz for the promotion, why would they let Punk do it in the first place? Why would they let Punk do something no one else in the company (besides Triple H) gets to do, if they didn't think they could draw up interest in the promotion? Furthermore, have you checked out the timing of Punk's promo? Do you really think it was a coincidence it happened RIGHT before the PPV held in Chicago? Do you really think it was a coincidence Punk cut that promo during the build towards Summerslam, the second biggest PPV of the year? Do you really think it was a coincidence they let Punk close the show with that promo?
If you REALLY believe all of that, then you have to be the stupidest poster on the forums. It was planned, and the WWE definitely thought it could generate good buzz. It wasn't just a coincidence they let Punk close the show with that promo, just a few weeks before the PPV in Chicago on the build towards the second biggest PPV of the year. The WWE knew what they were doing.
And I've pointed out numerous times the WWE doesn't give a fuck if people boo, as long as they pay money.
If the WWE cared that Cena got booed, why would they put him against Punk and Rock? The WWE isn't stupid, they knew Cena would get booed against those two, but they did it anyways, because it would make money. Cena's character works because it makes money. No one who understands pro wrestling gives a fuck if people boo or cheer, as long as they pay money.
Yes, wrestling caters to children and idiots.
And Cena's character doesn't appeal to children, it appeals to people who have a sense of right and wrong, and the concept of morality. Just because pimply faced teenagers don't, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Cena has fans who are younger, Cena has fans who are female, and Cena has fans who are older and like the ideas he practices and preaches. The only people Cena's character doesn't appeal to are people like you, who have no respect for doing the right thing and standing up for what you believe in.
Which says a whole lot more about you than it does me.
I know exactly why people boo Cena. And I know the myriad of reasons they've been giving for 6 years. And whenever one no longer applies, they move to a different reason.
It's blind hatred. I know exactly why.
No, of course not. I have no problem with people who don't care about Cena, the problem I have is some of the reasons they manufacture.
If you want to say the idea of working hard, doing the right thing and standing up for what you believe in doesn't appeal to you, then fine. No problem there at all. But don't say the character isn't working, because it clearly is.
What is there to say? He's well known as the hardest worker in the company, he's a great ambassador for the WWE, he is great for public appearances because he is intelligent and well-spoken, he's never been in any trouble, never been suspended for drug use, he's there for the WWE every week, he fulfills more Make a Wish requests than just about anyone else in the world. Not only that, his character lives life lessons all people should live, he's a fantastic wrestler, he's made superstars out of many different wrestlers, and he's put on many great matches with many different wrestlers. He makes money for the WWE, so they can stay in business.
What is there negative to say about John Cena. Aside from the fact you don't like his character and the fact he has a character children can relate to, you cannot dispute any of what I said.
Why? If you like the person and think he is a good wrestler, why does it matter if he has a character children can relate to? Corny jokes is not a reason, I roll my eyes sometimes as well, but that doesn't mean I can't be a fan. Why does it matter if he is a character children can relate to?
I was so tempted to erase the rest of this post and just focus on this statement, but there are other things you can learn as well. So I just bolded it instead. I have removed some of the other comments, to try and keep the focus on the main points.
You're not seeing the big picture. If they care enough about him to pay money to see him, why should the WWE change him?
I don't. It has no impact on whether or not I think he's a tremendous wrestling talent, and that turning him heel for no good reason would be a waste of money.
Rey Mysterio is a good guy and a great wrestler, but I can't really stand to watch him. I think Mark Henry has done a phenomenal job, and he's a bad guy. Being a good guy or a bad guy has absolutely nothing to do with it.
No, because Cena sells merchandise, sells out house shows, makes people buy PPVs, etc. is why there is no reason to change him.
Take Coca-Cola for example. They had a very successful product, and then tried to create New Coke. They lost a TON of business, and had to scrap New Coke and go back to Coca-Cola Classic. The point is changing a moneymaking product is silly.
But you're saying the business should make a decision based upon how you're viewing it as an individual fan. That doesn't make sense. You can't want the WWE to make a business decision because of your fan perspective. Thus, your fan perspective is pointless to discuss, and we should be discussing the business side of it, not your personal preference.
In that whole post you could not give one SPECIFIC example of how it would freshen things up. That's what I was talking about. You don't have the first clue how it would help, you only look at the here and now, and pay absolutely zero attention to the big picture. But when you get to the specifics, you'll see it won't change a damn thing. When you actually sit down to write a show, what's going to be different about it? We've seen the cowardly heel a million times, Henry is the dominant heel, Ziggler and Del Rio are already playing the "I'm a cool heel"...what would Cena do that would be unique and different? Would he go Hollywood Hogan style? Nope, because we've already seen that, and it wouldn't make any sense anyways.
The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. You see Cena's character similar to a large flood, and yet you're trying to use a band-aid to fix it. Leave the booking and writing to the WWE, who are obviously much better equipped to handle it.
Cena may very well turn heel. I'm sure somewhere down the line it'll happen. But it has to make sense. There has to be a reason, beyond "well half the audience is booing him". There has to be a reason for it, something which only a heel Cena could pull off.
And there has to be someone who can step into his place, to play his rival as he's doing it. And right now, they don't have that person. If you could put Punk's promo ability together with Orton's body and wrestling style, then you'd have the perfect protagonist for a heel John Cena. But Orton can't wield the mic, and Punk is a smaller guy who doesn't have the "kickass" offense necessary to go against a heel Cena. Punk is more of the HBK style, takes an ass whipping, and then overcomes it.
The only ones who really could be a suitable foil for a heel Cena would be Triple H or The Undertaker, and neither of them are regulars anymore, and neither would benefit from the program with a heel Cena, which you undoubtedly would want to capitalize on.
I have no problem admitting I'm a Cena fan, but you don't seem to understand that has nothing to do with this conversation. I was a fan of Shelton Benjamin, but the guys was completely average in the ring, and wretched behind the mic. I still liked watching him work, but he wasn't very good.
Look up the word "objective". That's what I am. When you understand the definition, get back to me and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.
Until someone can take his place as a top draw, it will continue to happen.
Yes, but Cena has been in the main-event longer than Austin was (because of Austin's injury) and there have been two world titles to pass around, not just one. Additionally, Austin had The Rock who could draw just as well as he could, Cena doesn't have anyone who can draw as well as he does.
You can't compare wrestlers with title reigns.
This looks like the ramblings of a mad person. While your partner may not be very knowledgeable about wrestling, at least he can post intelligibly.
I've been working this thread (and the one before it) long before you two ever signed up. If anyone is trolling here, it's you.
Okay, but you don't understand the point.
If smarks cheer him, then what is gained? If we turn him heel because people are booing him, would we turn him back face because people are cheering him? What have you gained by turning him heel?
That's the point. If you turn Cena heel, and these people cheer, you've gained nothing. Thus, it's not stupid to point it out, and I think you owe some people an apology.
You've been, by far, the most reasonable Cena basher in this thread lately, I'm hoping you'll understand what I'm getting out. It's also why you've been given the most respect in this post.
Yes, and new kids take their place. And since wrestling is like the cigarette business, once you've hooked the new fans, you've got them. And since most wrestling fans leave wrestling by the age of 25 anyways (until they have kids), why would you cater to the fans who are going to leave in just a few years, when you can cater to the fanbase who will be paying you money for the next 15?
You might think my statement is inaccurate, at which point I will simply direct you to the Attitude Era. They catered to the older fans, and when those fans left, there was no one to replace them. Which is why you saw ratings go from the 6s in 2001, to the low 3s in 2004. Their ratings were literally cut in half.
Actually, this isn't nearly as true as the raw numbers would indicate. First off, there's worldwide economic struggles, and ALL business have having problems. Second of all, since the WWE upped the price of their PPVs, they might be getting lower buyrates, but they're actually making roughly the same amount of money.
So that statement really isn't as true as it might look.
Again, a byproduct of a terrible worldwide economy.
Only because of Chris Benoit.
In 2006, Raw averaged a 3.9 rating. In 2007, before Benoit's murders, they were averaging a 3.9. After Benoit's murders and the steroid scandal which happened about a month later, the rest of 2007 averaged a 3.3. Which is roughly where they have been ever since.
If you visit our General Wrestling forum, I have a zip file full of all kinds of information, including WWE financials. If you look at the spreadsheet for their financials, you'll see the WWE profited more in 2010 (in the middle of a bad economy remember) than in any year since the Attitude Era. They PROFITED $53.5 million dollars last year, in a bad economy. And they've done nothing but go up since Cena entered the main-event.
That's how Cena is good for business. I expect the 2011 year to go down, but again, because of the economic crisis we had just a few months back.
