I only took part because this is the only part I feel that it is where I should throw my International view of Pro Wrestling in here, Being from New Zealand I get to look at the WWE and other promotions outside of New Zealand from the Outside in. The View I see you going Sly is that there is a bias towards the US style of Pro Wrestling which requires a Face/Heel dynamic at its most fundamental level. This is contrasted with Puroresu from what I see when I watch the matches as both Wrestlers are cheered after good series (sets of Moves, couldn't think of a better word there). This seems to be the direction that the US fans seem to be going in as you are getting the face and the Heel getting cheered.
Now to go onto this thing of the 1990 Royal Rumble, I can say pretty confidently that people watching wrestling have grown cynical over the years, this is with world events not Wrestling, you have the same thing now in terms of not replacing the members but you have the event now, you will have a similar response to what the WWE is currently getting, Im going to make a hypothesis here in saying that the fans that have followed since the Hulkamania years have grown up and seen the world as a place where if you "eat your Vitamins and Say your Prayers" you will come out on top. The World has a funny way of beating idealism out of people, this will probably contribute to the overall negative response Cena gets.
But the "John Cena" effect, really it is the "Rocky Maivia" effect, is the result of an unimaginative creative department. Straight laced with no Flaws is boring, Ill use Rhino as an example here as he makes the most sense right now. Rhino is a Face in TNA yet he has a huge character flaw which is part of him in that he is a recovering Alchoholic, it makes Rhino more believable as a gimmick, as he is a person with a flaw. ive gone into great lengths explaining that in an earlier post. Now John Cena as a representative for the WWE he is good, he has no visible tattoos, while it may not be a bad thing to have tattoos, Tattos give a certain air to the person, To borrow the Phrase from US college sport he is an All-American type person in looks, He has no big problems and has caused no controversy except for that stare down with Ron Killings in an airport. He is clean as far as we know of Steroids or HGH.
I still stand by what I have said in that Cena is a stale character with the belt now, I am fine with him chasing the title, as he has a better approach to how his gimmick works when he is Chasing, that is what made the Edge feud work last year, he was chasing it made it more compelling if you look at it from the casual fans Point of View. While people criticize Triple H's near monopoly on the belt, this was when they were trying to build the credibility of a new belt as something that you want to hold. The WWE title that Cena is holding has a very large lineage which includes Bruno Sammartino(11 years) Bob Bucklund(7 years) Hulk Hogan(whatever it is) and Diesel(1 year) then you have a fairly quick succession of change in the attitude era, then you get a bringing back of stability to the belt in JBLs 11 month reign. And Cena's first reign. The Second title reign has led to an over exposure of Cena, this is a negative, I think you said it yourself that Hogan was only ever shown on PPV or SNME, not whatever the TV show was. Another poster in Mean_gene_roberts or something like that describes the Sammartino era, in hat he came on and promoted the town he was going to be having a match in rather than have a match in whatever place he was that night.
The entire point of the parts I took were just a theme I was taking out of what you posted Sly not the actual argument contained within.
I agree with most of what you said. The thing about it is, that American wrestling is not Puro wrestling. It never has been. Obviously, that wrestling appeals to some people here, but, on the majority, it doesn't. So, the need for storylines of emotional value, with face/heel dispositions is still alive and running. I don't think it will ever go away, and even in Puro, they still have some of the rudimentary aspects of that.
As far as your hypothesis, I would rather present a different one. Most of the wrestling fans, who bash the current product, including guys like Cena, started watching wrestling in the Attitude era. Obviously, that doesn't encapsulate everyone, but I think on the whole, it covers a lot of the bashers. Whereas I grew up in the "idealistic" time of professional wrestling.
Obviously, it's different tastes, due to what we remember as children. I just think that the Attitude Era, while great for it's time, is not sustainable. Eventually, what made the Attitude Era great was going to have to end, regardless of who booked and how well they did it. But, what I propose, doesn't. You can do good guy vs. bad guy for decades. They have been. There is no end to that. The Attitude Era is self-defeating, my way of thinking is not.
If you wish clarification, let me know. Actually, it would make a great thread.
I m gonna beg to differ on that Sly using your own logic.(being hypothetical and summarizing something you posted previously) Cena=talented because of his ability to make money.Fans *DECIDE* to spend their money on his merchandise .Some fans even *DECIDE* to cheer for him.He makes so much money that wwe decides to keep him in the spotlight. So then are you telling me that if Cena made no money and go no reaction from the crowd he would have a spot in the wwe?
Yes. See Tommy Dreamer.
Guys play other roles in wrestling companies, that help them earn their spot on the roster. There are other things guys do that makes them valuable. But, the WWE decides if they are valuable. The WWE decides who "earns their spot".
Are u Jim Cornette? IF you want to be surrounded by people who remember what wrestling is supposed to be like defect to the NWA.
See: my post to Shadowmancer.
And, if you think being compared to Jim Cornette is an insult, then I don't know what to think.
What wrestling is supposed to be like? Slyfox, shame on you! Your past page or so of posts have been absolutely ridiculous! I expected more from you!
How can you justify that we, as fans, are obligated to cheer for the face only? How can you justify that we, as fans, have nothing to do with who is on top in the WWE? Please tell me, I'm dying to know!
Last I checked, we were the ones who put Stone Cold, The Rock, HHH, Mick Foley, Undertaker, and countless others to the top! The reason that they were on top was because the fans made their voice heard and put them on top. The WWE responds to what the fans want, because if they didn't then they wouldn't have a show!
Explain what you mean to me, please. I don't get it.
Make a new thread for it. I'll be happy to share.
And Slyfox, if you read this, plz... calm down. Replying to every single response to your posts makes you look like some sort of radical. Now, I agree with your basic arguements, and most people don't. It's expected, look at the poll. I used to love some of your retorts. But, dude, even the cena fans are getting tired of you. You're making us look bad.
This thread has gotten WAY off track. Let's stop insulting each other, and get back to the basic discussion... What do you think of John Cena and why?
'Nuff said
Excelsior!
I won't lie, I enjoy the debates. I enjoy taking the time to dissect each and every line I feel is inaccurate. And, the only reason people are getting tired of me, is because I'm the one who is doing most of the defending for Cena. Not saying that is a bad thing, or an attack on everyone else, but it's true. On another forum I post at, I used to do the same thing there. Now, there are a couple other guys who defend Cena, so I don't have to jump in near as much.
While I'm pretty sure that Slyfox is more then capable of handling himself with some of the bashing he has received, I'm putting an end to it. Too personally call the man out is getting you an infraction from this point on. I don't mind the wit and sarcasm, but come on, I think people are starting to take this a little bit too personal.
Haha, I do appreciate. After defending Cena for over a year now, I'm pretty used to it, and most stuff just rolls off me. But, you're right, it doesn't mean that it needs to happen. It's not really good debate and doesn't need to be said. And that includes me as well.
Anyways, onto this new Face/Heel topic. I don't get this argument what so ever. Why, as a paying fan, do I not have the right to boo the hell out of somebody I don't like? It's my money, I have the right to boo someone out as much as you have the right to get angry at me booing someone.
This would make a great thread.
And as far as the Spiderman stuff goes, some of the better Spiderman, and comic book storylines in general, are the ones that blur the line between hero and villian. The battle within gets peoples attention. A hero that has flaws is the most interesting character of them all. People don't root for Spiderman to get killed, because Spiderman has more too his character then just being a hero. Spiderman struggles with being a hero and being himself, struggles with blurring the line of his own code of morals, or stepping over his self created morals to get the job done. Should he not kill the bad guy, even though if he doesn't the baddie will kill hundreds of more? People relate to not that situation, but making tough decisions. With John Cena, he's just too one dimensional, that I've lost interest in it, and the company as a whole.
When John Cena has flaws, people bash him for that too. "He sucks at kicking Regal's ass." "His angry promos suck"....etc. Cena bashing goes beyond the surface. Regardless of what Cena does or says, he is going to get bashed. To that end, he is Triple H of 2003 and 2004.
