Wait you are using bret hart And 5 moves of doom in the same sequence? are you insane? do you know what wrestling psychology is?? thats the biggest difference in bret hart and john cena have, a man like bret can carry a entire match without his signature spots, and still be a 5 star match, john cena certainly doesn't.
"Super(enter WWE wrestler's name here)" Rant
- Thread starter D-Man
- Start date
Wait you are using bret hart And 5 moves of doom in the same sequence? are you insane? do you know what wrestling psychology is?? thats the biggest difference in bret hart and john cena have, a man like bret can carry a entire match without his signature spots, and still be a 5 star match, john cena certainly doesn't.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
Do you even know how the Five Moves of Doom term originated?
It was a term coined by Scott Keith, a noted pro wrestling journalist, to describe BRET HART's finishing sequence of an inverted atomic drop, Russian legsweep, backbreaker, elbowdrop from the second rope, and Sharpshooter. The order might be different but all these moves appeared in all of Bret Hart's matches towards the end of his match. So I guess Bret Hart is to FMoD as Isaac Newton is to the Newton's Laws of Motion.
As for wrestling psychology, yes I guess I am not perfect but I can understand it a bit. For starters I can understand that having a five moves of doom sequence is an indication of good wrestling psychology. It helps the crowd understand that the end of the match is near and they naturally start popping for all of the moves. It is something evey great wrestler from Bret Hart to Steve Austin to Shawn Michaels and right upto John Cena have been adept at.
Also why would Bret Hart, a master of wrestling psychology, have a match without the signature moves that his fans recognize the most. Now that, would be an indication of bad wrestling psychology.
So let me get this right, if a journalist says something, anything, we have to take it as a fact?? really?, the steel cage match between bret and owen proves that wrong, they take a gimmick match, and they totally go the other way of using the steel cage, unlike the other wrestlers to that day.
The wrestling psychology it's about telling a story, it's about keep the people guessing, it's about making the match interesting, and by doing your five moves in sequence you don't, you need to create a certain flow, then it makes you signature spots all much greater.
Thats the problem with many wrestlers of today, specially the faces, they get beat up by 5 to 10 minutes, then they comeback with their usual spots and win, we need more than that, we need more storytelling, more pace in oder to give a crap about a match.
The wrestling psychology it's about telling a story, it's about keep the people guessing, it's about making the match interesting, and by doing your five moves in sequence you don't, you need to create a certain flow, then it makes you signature spots all much greater.
Thats the problem with many wrestlers of today, specially the faces, they get beat up by 5 to 10 minutes, then they comeback with their usual spots and win, we need more than that, we need more storytelling, more pace in oder to give a crap about a match.
The economy has never had anything to do with WWE show attendances. The fans are voicing their opinions, ratings are down, and we want to keep pulling shit out of our ass instead of accepting the truth. Ok.DirtyJosé;3400058 said:
I'm sorry if I seemed like a crybaby, I guess I just dont share the same scat fetish that you do. Please, I know people like you, you follow people around on a forum and pick them apart specifically because theres something wrong in your head. We get it, you wanna seem all tough and shit.
[/QUOTE]
Oh shit, you called me a chump, I might just slit my wrists. We saw the reports online, WWE did not believe Christian could carry the company, but then again why go by something thats actually reported when we can go by opinion. Of course they're going to push people, its the nature of the show, I'm saying so far the only person whos going to be playing the role of the face of SD is Orton, which is why some people refer to him as the next Super Cena. I dont believe it, but thats what others think.
No, that's not true. We don't NEED more storytelling... you WANT more storytelling. But not every match can tell a novel of a story that you crave. Promotions have an allotted time frame for their television shows, multiple wrestlers they need to get over, and storylines to follow. That means that, somewhere down the line, you've not always going to get that 45-minute, five-star match that you feel EVERY match should be. No one ever thinks about that stuff. Hence, the reason why the IWC is labeled as a bunch of stupid windbags.
That's why go-home, redundant sequences of moves are used in matches. Like it or not, people pay good money for a ticket to see them happen live. Sure, we watch these moves on TV week in and week out. But people pay money to see them happen live; to say "You can't see me" as John waives his hand in front of his face, to cheer when Orton drops to his belly to set up the RKO...
A wrestling show isn't all about YOU. It's about the collective audience. So I guess that means the ones I speak about are hypocrites AND selfish.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
So do you have any other attendance numbers other than the one NXT/SmackDown taping? No? Thought not. Now who's pulling things out of their asses. Attendances otherwise are just fine. SummerSlam was such a sell out that even performers and staff were told they couldn't give out tickets to friends and family. Doesn't sound to me like the fans voicing their opinion on anything but how much they still enjoy the product.
And, rating have been down for years, since 2002, and it has little to do with Cena or anyone else, and more to do with the fact that the little bubble of the 90's had burst. The last hit the ratings took that really mattered was when the Benoit murder/suicide took place.
LULZ. It's not you specifically, it's just that it's always the same few dumb people I see from thread to thread spouting off dumb shit. It's ok though, baby. Think what you wanna think. Anyone who really knows me around here is laughing that you think I wanna seem tough and shit.
The reports stated WWE and McMahon didn't feel they could get behind Christian as a top babyface. Nothing wrong with that. Get your own facts straight. And, mind you, right after those reports surfaced Christian went on to have another title reign and headlined two PPV's with top SD star Randy Orton. That doesn't seem like a lack of faith to me. How does it feel to be wrong so often?
There is room at the top of the cards for more than just a top face. So Orton is their focus on SD, and they said as much when they moved him there. To act like they aren't building and focusing on others like you have is foolish. Again, I've given you plenty of examples which turn your shitty argument on it's head. Care to try and talk your way out of it, or are you just gonna keep spouting off nonsense?
SO just because the SD/NXT thing is the only thing we've seen of that nature yet it means that we shouldnt take it into consideration?DirtyJosé;3401095 said:
Why is there this little trend of people kissing Cena's ass online. I have no problems with him but I've actually spoken to people who dislike Cena and have stopped watching WWE and the repetitive nonesense is part of the reason. Its like watching a rerun of the same TV show you liked two years ago. I dont blame anyone for not watching WWE.
No see I dont do it often but sometimes I correct people on here. I do it like I did it in my previous posts. You CONSTANTLY send me pictures of shit. You can do what you like, the mods here wont do shit about it, but dont get defensive when I question your sanity. Some people get in front of a computer and totally forget that theres another human on the opposite end.
And the key words there? "With Randy Orton". Hell even when he was champion Christian still just opened the show. Orton always closed it. If WWE doesnt feel like they can get behind someone then its obvious they cant believe in him carrying the brand.
Really? Because RAW has 2 top faces, Cena and Punk and its doing 10x better than SD.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Take what into consideration? Have you any shred of proof or evidence that it had anything to do with fans rejecting the product? No, no you don't. So you aren't really making a point, just speculating and forcing that speculation to line up with your marginalized views. Come back when you're ready to actually have real talk, not make believe.
I'm sorry, where was I kissing his ass? Oh, I wasn't. I made a valid point about ratings, and you trail off into whiny "everyone kisses Cena's ass, waahh". I'm sure there are people who tune out because of Cena, just as there are many who tune in because of him. Do you have a point here at all? One that doesn't involve "your friends"?
Sorry. Slyfox told you then what you needed to know, not his or my fault that you can't read simple rules and FAQ's and instead demand some sort of internet justice. Nice to know it's working though, thanks for the feedback.
Your original post claimed that Orton was the only guy WWE felt they could get behind on SD, and I have proven you wrong about that. Oh Em Gee, Christian isn't the top face on SD! That wasn't your point. Your point was that, again, they weren't behind anyone else, and you've just sidestepped every point I made to you about how if they weren't behind Christian, he wouldn't have had major PPV spots and the focus of the majority of SD recently. If they weren't behind Henry and Seamus, those men wouldn't be getting the pushes they are getting. If they weren't behind Rhodes, he wouldn't be the IC champ. I've just blown you out of the water, and yet you are trying in vain to make any kind of point.
First of all, Raw usually does better than SD anyway. Second of all, it's hardly established that Punk is a top face. He's a face (kinda) towards the top. He's been de-emphasized since SummerSlam in favor of Cena/Del Rio. And to counter your claims about that, Seamus has likewise been built up as a solid number two to Orton on SD.
Do you have anything remotely logical or relevant to say here, or are you just going to keep railing off because you're mad about a little red rep?
Everybody else understood that the arena being half fucking empty was due to the fans, but make whatever excuses you want.DirtyJosé;3401155 said:
You were the one who said its not "Cena's fault". You also said " I'm sure there are people who tune out because of Cena", a point I made, therefore I made a valid point all along.
I read the rules, and it does touch on people harassing others through the rep system. But its more important to be a cynical deuche on this site than to make any sort of relevant sense which is why you get away with it. I'm sure you send pictures of shit to everyone who you know in real life when they piss you off... oh wait no, you dont, because they'd kick your ass. But I'm on the other side of a computer screen and you're buddies with whoever runs the site so theres not much I can do.
You were the one who wanted to be so anal about my wording. Maybe you should start reading in context instead of taking sentence by sentence and trying to make something of it.
Punk isnt kinda a top face, his shirt is selling like crazy. The fans are cheering him like crazy, hes the 2nd top guy on RAW and thats that.
Logically speaking no one can be mad over a red rep, its one point. Hell even if I had all red reps, I dont come here for people to like me. I come here to talk about wrestling. The fact that you sent two disgusting photos to me is what bothers me, and that I have to keep wasting my time answering to you. Really, say whatever you want, I could care less. And then you wonder why people look at wrestling fans like immature babies.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Please cite this "everyone else understood" nonsense. The brief article on WrestleZone.com makes no mention of the cause. Also, Toledo, Ohio is a primarily Automotive industry based economy, an industry hit hard in recent years. So, again, unless you have some sort of written manifesto from the folks who didn't buy tickets because of Cena, you really are just speculating and not really making any kind of point.
Me pointing out that a trend starting from before his rise to the top is not his fault is hardly "kissing his ass", it's using information to back up my claims. You should try it sometime.
Not really. Your point was to try and paint a picture where the business suffers with Cena at the top, but you can't back it up at all except with weak claims of "well, my friends said...". Your friends are hardly a major demographic when it comes to the WWE, whereas it's proven that Cena has a major fan base which will pay to see him and pay for his merchandise. So, no, you really don't have a valid point at all.
I'm hardly buddies with the folks who run the site. Again, the answer you were looking for in in the FAQ's, but instead of reading them and learning what to ask for you pop off at the staff after twenty minutes because they didn't immediately jump to your cries. And no, when someone in real life is being as obstinate and ignorant as you are, I will tell them so under no uncertain terms.
Well...
Those were your words, were they not? That was your point, was it not? And I have clearly demonstrated that your point in invalid, that your assessment is inaccurate. Maybe you should use your words better to express what you are trying to say instead of leaving it up for interpretation or changing what you meant to say after someone has called you out on it and proven you wrong. Your fault, not mine. Nice try at ducking the point, though.
Which would make him the number two, because he's not overtaken Cena's spot. He's not in the final matches of the night, he's not in the main event title chase, and he's not the face of the company that Cena still is. Make no doubt about it, I much prefer Punk to Cena, but he's not yet at the point where one could call him THE top guy yet.
Excuse me, Mr. "I'mgonnasaywhatIwantandnotbackitupinsteadI'mgonnacryaboutitandabouthowthestaffhatesme". You don't have to waste your time with me. You can just walk away from it. Of course, you can't, can you? You still feel like you need to have the final word on it. I've come at you with facts and you attempt to refute it with throwing a hissy fit and getting off topic about anything else you can. Just face the music son; you're wrong and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Look I'm not going to play gymnastics on words over and over again. I do feel like I have a need to say something because I'm not the only one who thinks Cena, and I'm pointing out that this is my point. Cena being on top is not the problem, him winning constantly is the problem. Its basic logic. If you watch a fake show and the same person always wins it gets boring. I exxagerated the Orton idea to make a point. Again, you were the only one who felt like being anal about it because you need to disprove me to feel some sort of way about yourself like TWCJ...whatever, pulling words and phrases from here and there and applying your own thought about it. My point is everyone got it except for you, DirtyJose. As far as me being the crybaby, you tell me how i ask one question and hours go by without it being answered, I ask another and in less than a minute I have a mod taking advantage of the opportunity because again it makes people online feel good about themselves. You were so upset about my comments that you took the time to look up pictures of shit and send them to me, how fucking old are you? Nobody has stooped that low in any forum that I've been on, it just shows your level of maturity. People disagree, theres no need to troll them off just because you need to get the last word. Again, you do need to get the last word. Hey, we're all here pretending that we know how to run a business thats run by waaaay more qualified excecutives with years of experience. No everybody is going to think the same way, and unless you are a WWE employee you and certain other members on this forum should really stop trying to speak on behalf of the company.
Of course it's about me, it's about you and others, it's about the audience, if you dont please the audience you lose them, and it's been happening for years. Just look at the declining ratings and tell me with a straight face that there isn't anything wrong with the wrestling product today.
And if you love something you need to be selfish, i love wrestling i would love if it was better, but you can't put your entire industry on the shoulders of the same man for that many years and don't evolve. We "the audience" need and should want a better product.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Only because you can't back up your own words with anything but speculation.
Oddly enough, hasn't Cena lost his last two PPV appearances? Oh yeah, mark it another one wrong for you.
I doubt that highly. I was just the one to call you out on it. Spin it however you like, you tried to make a point and you were wrong. Clearly, WWE has faith and is behind more guys on SD than just Orton. Again, if you can't back up your own words, you probably shouldn't say anything. Especially on a forum designed for debate and discussion.
Again, another answer that's right in front of you. If only you'd quit crying and actually open your eyes.
I don't speak on behalf of the WWE, and I've never pretended to. They're big boys, they can defend themselves if they feel like it. Doesn't mean I'm just going to turn the other way when I see toxic posters like you post what ever you want and expect everyone just to agree with it. Boo fucking hoo, dude, I've called you out and you've failed to deliver. Quit trying to make it something bigger than it is.
I simply love how just because I don't agree with you I'm a Cena-ass kisser or a WWE white knight, which simply isn't the case. Both have legitimate shortcomings to criticize, both have issues which could be improved. I walk the middle line; I will debate with people on both sides of the fence. And in this case, I simply call bullshit on your opinion that Cena is bad for business (now who's acting like they know what's good for business?). And repeatedly you have failed to do anything else but cry about it.
Unless you've got something valid to contribute to the conversation beyond whining, I suggest you quit while you're behind. Go start a thread in The Bar Room about me or something if you're really that butt hurt about it. Otherwise, I've blown each and every point you've tried to make out of the water and I really don't think you are capable of undoing that going about it the way you have chosen to.
TL;DR = U mad?
No, because its stupid to defend a point when only one dumbass doesnt get it.DirtyJosé;3402043 said:
I said that Cena has been toned down as of late, but if this was the last two years people would have a reason for calling him SUper Cena.
I said what I said, nobody bitched about it but you, go figure.
Again, another answer that's right in front of you. If only you'd quit crying and actually open your eyes.
I don't speak on behalf of the WWE, and I've never pretended to. They're big boys, they can defend themselves if they feel like it. Doesn't mean I'm just going to turn the other way when I see toxic posters like you post what ever you want and expect everyone just to agree with it. Boo fucking hoo, dude, I've called you out and you've failed to deliver. Quit trying to make it something bigger than it is.
I simply love how just because I don't agree with you I'm a Cena-ass kisser or a WWE white knight, which simply isn't the case. Both have legitimate shortcomings to criticize, both have issues which could be improved. I walk the middle line; I will debate with people on both sides of the fence. And in this case, I simply call bullshit on your opinion that Cena is bad for business (now who's acting like they know what's good for business?). And repeatedly you have failed to do anything else but cry about it.
Unless you've got something valid to contribute to the conversation beyond whining, I suggest you quit while you're behind. Go start a thread in The Bar Room about me or something if you're really that butt hurt about it. Otherwise, I've blown each and every point you've tried to make out of the water and I really don't think you are capable of undoing that going about it the way you have chosen to.
TL;DR = U mad?[/QUOTE]
Lol again, you're projecting your issues on me, I dont have to go run your name around to feel accomplished. So you're a deuche and your on the internet, like the two havent been seen before. I would actually debate my point but I dont think it would make any sense for someone who sends pictures of shit to people. Go ahead, keep doing that on your free time, I'm sure it'll help you find a girlfriend or do something productive for your life. I said Cena winning constantly is a problem, a problem that we havent seen recetly but one that is still fresh in people's minds, thus the "Super Cena" nickname. If you dont get it then you dont, simple as that. The ratings will continue to drop, people will continue to stop watching, and deuches like you that keep saying everything's fine are the catalyst in the issue. CM Punk turned the entire wrestling world upside down by admitting there was a problem, but I guess he gets to do it because he's the almighty CM Punk. If I do it I'm a chump. L-O-Fucking-L. This is why people dont take you internet people seriously. You lose your grip on reality and when you get called on your bullshit you go on some fecal tirade. Its hillarious, I can imagine you with your BITW t shirt in your moms basement searching "shit" and closing the browser every time she comes to check up on you. Grow a pair buddy boy, this isnt your grandpa's WWE. Shit changes, wrestling doesnt give a fuck if you dont get it, WWE notices it was doing something wrong and is trying to change it, you're the only one talking about "uhh unnn".
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
You do the same thing every time you say that Cena has only five moves of doom. You have been using what some random journalist has said as fact for quite some time now. The five moves of doom has nothing to do with a limited moveset, as you seem to be confusing it with. It is about having a finishing sequence and every wrestler has one.
And Bret Hart does multiple FMoD attempts in that match. You don't notice it because of the fact that you cannot even imagine FMoD and Bret Hart in the same sentence.
True.
So let me get this straight. You never got excited when HBK hit the flying forearm. You must have been pissed whenever Austin did the Thesz Press followed by the Mudhole Stomp. You must have torn your hair out in frustration every time Kurt Angle went for the trifecta of German Suplexes.
But guess what, you did not, in all probability. These are the same sequences that have kept you hooked into the match of your favorite superstars for years and years and yet when Cena does it, you boo him and call him stale. How are these moves and their signature finishing sequences any different from Cena's finishing sequence.
Repeating signature moves in matches is a sign of good storytelling and the crowd reaction will always tell you that. Does Cena deliver a Five Knuckle Shuffle to utter silence or utter bedlam?
I never see that happening. In fact, except for a squash match, I have never seen an FMoD sequence finish a match. Usually a move or two is countered in th FMoD and then the heel regains control and there is an extended finishing sequence before the match ends.
Also the face doesn't just get beat up and then come back to win the match. There are multiple comeback attempts by faces which are cut off by heels who then control the match. Also like I stated earlier, even FMoD moves get countered and in big matches there is some even an exchange of finishers or lots of nearfalls which result from the FMoD moves which keep the match interesting.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
LULZ, sure ok. I don't really see anyone else agreeing with you on this, I haven't read anything about some big deal being made about it. It's ok; I understand how you'd rather just say it and have it be so instead of having to prove what you're talking about like a mature adult.
Perhaps if there were a string of such shows, you'd have a point. Perhaps if there was a bigger deal being made about one show being low in crowd volume like that, MAYBE you'd have a point. But it's not that way, so you really don't have a point.
You said if the same person ALWAYS wins it's boring, did you not? Cena DOES NOT always win. Again, you fail at even knowing what you yourself have said already.
It's not bitching, it's proving you wrong. Spin it however you like, it's still called being wrong.
You: WAAHH WWE DOESN'T LIKE ANYONE ON SD BUT ORTON!
Me: What about Seamus, Christian, and Henry?
You: WHA?! I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, NO ONE ELSE TOLD ME I WAS WRONG YET!!
Me: Why not back up your claims then?
You: NOO! I DIDN'T SAY THAT! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
So now, three or four exchanges into this, you're ducking debating your own points simply because you are butt hurt about rep. That's some cowardly childish shit right there.
Also, you can't spell for shit.
Got one, thanks.
I have a nice career, again thanks.
And I've asked you to explain how it is a problem beyond quoting some dumb ass friend of yours. Hey, I've got friends too. We watch Raw together most of the time. And guess what? Some of them like Cena! Some of them, dare I say it, even watch simply BECAUSE OF Cena! OMG! I know, right! Strange!
I'm sorry, has the WWE's rating hit anything lower than their average for the last 5 years? Again, is this a statement you are just pulling out of your ass or can you actually back it up? The answer is it's fresh out of your ass because you can't back it up. It's been proven a hundred times on these forums and elsewhere that the biggest ratings drop WWE took was back in 2001/2002, and then again after the Benoit Murder-Suicide, events Cena had nothing to do with. Other than that, they've been fine. People have not stopped watching in the ways you play them up to. Are you going to back up your argument, or are you going to cry again?
Here, let me show you how to do it:
tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com said:
Well, look at that. Not only is Raw in the top 5 among cable shows, but it's beating out shows like Jersey Shore and True Blood. Yup, people are definitely NOT watching Raw, right? Face it, the numbers don't lie. Besides a slump after the Benoit nonsense, Raw has been doing as well as it's always been doing since 2001.
First of all, due to his position I'd take Punk's word over yours any day of the week. Second of all, you have to take that kind of stuff with a grain of salt. They push someone like Punk because they know fans like you are going to resonate with it, and it'll keep you hooked. Hey, look at that, WWE changing a little bit to keep babies like you happy. And still you bitch about it, like it's not enough for you. The show isn't built entirely for people like you. That's kinda the point of this thread. More people are just fine with the way things are. WWE will toss you and I a bone in the shape of Punk, but at the end of the day you must be brain dead to think that they have any kind of serious problem on their hands. They are doing just fine regardless of what you think.
You're not an internet person?
I was never called out on any bullshit. I dare you to go back and find something I stated that was inaccurate. Go on, chump, you know how. You're the one turning this into anything but what it is; you getting trumped on the dumb shit you spout thread after thread. You are ducking the issue and it's hilarious.
Plus, way to go using the same played out used up insult every butt hurt dweller on the internet has used since the beginning of time.
The 1-2-3 Killam
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Just because the action of "hulking up" has been around forever, doesn't mean I have to enjoy watching John Cena turn a perfectly good match into a predictable one simply because of the ending. I've never been a fan of Hulk Hogan matches, for the same reason I'm not a fan of John Cena matches. The two are both icons who I respect and whose promos and character I can get on board with, but 9 times out of 10 I'd rather fast forward through their matches to see the inevitable conclusion and the ending segment to take us off the air.
When placed with the right people ANYBODY can have a great match. I know Cena has it in him to be a great wrestler, and to do what he does takes incredible skill and charisma. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to hate watching his matches. I don't believe that makes me a hypocrite. I acknowledge that the concept has been around for decades, the formula can and has been recycled, and that it's not necessarily the fault of the wrestler. But that doesn't mean I need to sit back and say "oh my gosh, watch this... he's going to miss that short clothesline and get hit with the set-up for the five knuckle shuffle! This is SO awesome!" Because it's not. Every damn time somebody goes for a short clothesline and misses. It makes the opponent look like a fool, because you'd think after 148 other people failed to hit John Cena with a short clothesline, somebody would try something DIFFERENT!
I get your point. The Cena-style character is a product of the industry, and not of the wrestler. But I'm going to keep calling him Super Cena when he hulks up for his finish, and there's really nothing you can do about it. Sorry if that's not ok with you.
When placed with the right people ANYBODY can have a great match. I know Cena has it in him to be a great wrestler, and to do what he does takes incredible skill and charisma. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to hate watching his matches. I don't believe that makes me a hypocrite. I acknowledge that the concept has been around for decades, the formula can and has been recycled, and that it's not necessarily the fault of the wrestler. But that doesn't mean I need to sit back and say "oh my gosh, watch this... he's going to miss that short clothesline and get hit with the set-up for the five knuckle shuffle! This is SO awesome!" Because it's not. Every damn time somebody goes for a short clothesline and misses. It makes the opponent look like a fool, because you'd think after 148 other people failed to hit John Cena with a short clothesline, somebody would try something DIFFERENT!
I get your point. The Cena-style character is a product of the industry, and not of the wrestler. But I'm going to keep calling him Super Cena when he hulks up for his finish, and there's really nothing you can do about it. Sorry if that's not ok with you.
People decide on a point of view first and decide to accrue evidence later; this isn't exclusive to WrestleZone, it's not exclusive to the IWC, and it's not even exclusive to the internet.
What I assume nobody has pointed out - because I'm a busy man and I don't have time to read the whole thread, despite the fact that I'm not wearing any trousers - is that "hulk-ups" are actually more commonly inverted these days. That is to say, Orton/Cena/Kofi have begun their comeback sequence but have it interrupted. The most recent example, and one that people might actually take note of, is Punk kicking Cena in the head before the Five Knuckle Shuffle at Money in the Bank. This inversion was itself inverted at SummerSlam, when Cena caught Punk's leg and put him in an STF.
The best matches are all about establishing audience expectations, then upsetting them. Keep in mind that wrestling fans are actually rather slow creatures and will often buy anything once that adrenaline starts a-pumpin'. I've never said anything like that before, but strangely that's what I've always thought but never said. Weird. When was the last time Randy Orton actually hit the RKO after taunting for it? Actually, Heath Slater fucks this example up because he's a useless ginger nonce. Prior to Heath Slater, I think the last time was probably somewhere around 350 BC. Wait, no, my palaeontologist friend, Dick Shiner, is telling me that there's fossil evidence that tyrannosaurus rex was actually made extinct by a taunted RKO. That's a ways back, huh?
Get your laughing gear round that.
What I assume nobody has pointed out - because I'm a busy man and I don't have time to read the whole thread, despite the fact that I'm not wearing any trousers - is that "hulk-ups" are actually more commonly inverted these days. That is to say, Orton/Cena/Kofi have begun their comeback sequence but have it interrupted. The most recent example, and one that people might actually take note of, is Punk kicking Cena in the head before the Five Knuckle Shuffle at Money in the Bank. This inversion was itself inverted at SummerSlam, when Cena caught Punk's leg and put him in an STF.
The best matches are all about establishing audience expectations, then upsetting them. Keep in mind that wrestling fans are actually rather slow creatures and will often buy anything once that adrenaline starts a-pumpin'. I've never said anything like that before, but strangely that's what I've always thought but never said. Weird. When was the last time Randy Orton actually hit the RKO after taunting for it? Actually, Heath Slater fucks this example up because he's a useless ginger nonce. Prior to Heath Slater, I think the last time was probably somewhere around 350 BC. Wait, no, my palaeontologist friend, Dick Shiner, is telling me that there's fossil evidence that tyrannosaurus rex was actually made extinct by a taunted RKO. That's a ways back, huh?
Get your laughing gear round that.
boywithbluehanger
I have to poop.
The biggest gripe I've had with the SuperCena talk is that when Sheamus was making his way into the WWE full time and got his immediate push, we all finally got what we've been looking for: A guy with a comparable physical stature, a believeable gimmick, a sellable WWE in-ring ability/style and was clearly confident over a crowd of heelish boos. He unfairly beat Cena once, and then FAIRLY beat Cena the other time!
I thought that was the official end of SuperCena and I was happy but unfortunately the IWC still found reason not to embrace his push and we were back to square one w/ Cena. So I think the IWC dropped the ball when that happened. Otherwise we'd have at least 3 continuous "supers" in Orton, Cena, and Sheamus. As we did in the AE with The Rock, SCSA, and Triple H.
Sometimes the WWE throws us a bone and we dig our own graves.
I thought that was the official end of SuperCena and I was happy but unfortunately the IWC still found reason not to embrace his push and we were back to square one w/ Cena. So I think the IWC dropped the ball when that happened. Otherwise we'd have at least 3 continuous "supers" in Orton, Cena, and Sheamus. As we did in the AE with The Rock, SCSA, and Triple H.
Sometimes the WWE throws us a bone and we dig our own graves.
People don't understand that WWE has done this with every top babyface pretty much since the beginning of its existence. It's not just Cena and Orton who have babyface comebacks. Austin, Rock, Hogan, Taker, Michaels and many others did the exact same thing. WWE is a face oriented company and thus they are going to make their babyfaces look strong. That's how you keep the fans coming back, after all. The comeback is designed to pop the crowd and as long as they sell the moves while they're happening and shortly afterward, they're doing fine.
I'm willing to bet at least one of them does the same thing on a pretty regular basis. Unless you just don't like any faces.
Just out of curiosity, who are your favorite wrestlers?Mike "The Kid" Killam;3402452 said:
I'm willing to bet at least one of them does the same thing on a pretty regular basis. Unless you just don't like any faces.
xoxo French Kiss xoxo
Pourquoi?
I've been thinking a lot about how much steam the Great Khali has lost over the past few years.
When he debut he was huge, 7 foot 350+ pound monster of a heel that was a wrestling god in the ring.
He's put on 5 start matches with Taker, Big Show, Henry, and Batista.
He was the innovator of the Punjabi Prison Match, the most innovative match the WWE has seen since Chris Jericho brought us Money in the Bank
He's been reduced to tag team jobber crap recently. Well he had been in a ditch long before that with the Khali kiss cam, and the dancing Kahli gimmick, but lets get this monster back to monster status. He's never had a bad match in his entire career. He's a former WHC, and if you ask me he's due for another run as he's a cornerstone of Smackdown without him the whole show would go down the crapper.
When he debut he was huge, 7 foot 350+ pound monster of a heel that was a wrestling god in the ring.
He's put on 5 start matches with Taker, Big Show, Henry, and Batista.
He was the innovator of the Punjabi Prison Match, the most innovative match the WWE has seen since Chris Jericho brought us Money in the Bank
He's been reduced to tag team jobber crap recently. Well he had been in a ditch long before that with the Khali kiss cam, and the dancing Kahli gimmick, but lets get this monster back to monster status. He's never had a bad match in his entire career. He's a former WHC, and if you ask me he's due for another run as he's a cornerstone of Smackdown without him the whole show would go down the crapper.
Sin Jackal
Occasional Pre-Show
Actually TC, I couldn't frickin stand Stone Cold Steve Austin for the exact same reason I dislike both Cena and Orton right now. He always won almost every single match that he did not "get screwed out of", and even won handicap matches over half the time, even won matches where other people interfered, and even won 3 on 1 attack events. Hell, they would even go a step further and run in Stone Cold to ATTACK three people at once. . .and he'd STILL win.
So no, I did not "cream all over myself" when it happened back then either. I have never liked it. I also cheered for Ultimate Warrior to beat Hogan too, because Hogan was that annoying "always wins" guy as well. And this is even when I was a tiny little kid. . .I didn't even like that crap THEN. I also never liked The Undertaker. . .for the EXACT same reason. Or Goldberg. Again, exact same reason.
If WWE never does superhero wrestler gimmicks again, it won't be too soon. No wrestler should magically be immune to losses unless "screwed" out of a match. That is a sure fire way to make a boring product. At least let the top heels be able to defeat them without having to severely cheat. It makes WWE a lot more interesting. When a heel appears capable of legitimately beating a face, the matches have a lot more drama and are less predictable. For example, Orton vs Christian. . . we all knew who was going to win that shit and it ruined the entire fued.
Again to prove my point. . .last night on Smackdown when Mark Henry brought a chair into the ring, you could see the look of fear on kids' faces in the crowd. They thought for sure Mark Henry was going to break Orton's leg. That's what I'm talking about. . .when a heel appears legitimately capable of beating/hurting a top face, it's MUCH more interesting than Orton and Cena just running roughshod over everyone without fail.
So I disagree. . .the "Super----" term isn't annoying. It perfectly describes a shitty product idea. To steal an analogy I saw someone use in another thread, look at movie sales for Superman, and for Batman. Superman movies barely get anyone going to see them, and Batman movies have always thrived with huge sales. . .and have only gotten even more viewers as of late. He is a more believable superhero who has faults and is vulnerable. People like Hogan, Cena, Orton, Stone Cold, Undertaker, etc. ..that's just totally boring. Period. They need to lose more to be more appealing.
So no, I did not "cream all over myself" when it happened back then either. I have never liked it. I also cheered for Ultimate Warrior to beat Hogan too, because Hogan was that annoying "always wins" guy as well. And this is even when I was a tiny little kid. . .I didn't even like that crap THEN. I also never liked The Undertaker. . .for the EXACT same reason. Or Goldberg. Again, exact same reason.
If WWE never does superhero wrestler gimmicks again, it won't be too soon. No wrestler should magically be immune to losses unless "screwed" out of a match. That is a sure fire way to make a boring product. At least let the top heels be able to defeat them without having to severely cheat. It makes WWE a lot more interesting. When a heel appears capable of legitimately beating a face, the matches have a lot more drama and are less predictable. For example, Orton vs Christian. . . we all knew who was going to win that shit and it ruined the entire fued.
Again to prove my point. . .last night on Smackdown when Mark Henry brought a chair into the ring, you could see the look of fear on kids' faces in the crowd. They thought for sure Mark Henry was going to break Orton's leg. That's what I'm talking about. . .when a heel appears legitimately capable of beating/hurting a top face, it's MUCH more interesting than Orton and Cena just running roughshod over everyone without fail.
So I disagree. . .the "Super----" term isn't annoying. It perfectly describes a shitty product idea. To steal an analogy I saw someone use in another thread, look at movie sales for Superman, and for Batman. Superman movies barely get anyone going to see them, and Batman movies have always thrived with huge sales. . .and have only gotten even more viewers as of late. He is a more believable superhero who has faults and is vulnerable. People like Hogan, Cena, Orton, Stone Cold, Undertaker, etc. ..that's just totally boring. Period. They need to lose more to be more appealing.
If you don't like the top face being immune to clean losses then you've been watching WWE out of what, sadomasochism for the past three decades? It seems just investing in a gimp would give you a similar satisfaction and, frankly, be a bit of time-saver.
Don't get me wrong; I definitely think WWE could benefit from being less conventional. I don't mean TNA-style, "spin Vince Russo around, beat him with a shoe and then ask him what his latest idea is" unconventional, but some genuine surprises are always nice.
That said, if people in this thread so vehemently detest this style of wrestling but have stayed watching WWE for this long, I can only express my surprise that you don't simultaneously watch a John Cena match while *********ing with sandpaper.
Don't get me wrong; I definitely think WWE could benefit from being less conventional. I don't mean TNA-style, "spin Vince Russo around, beat him with a shoe and then ask him what his latest idea is" unconventional, but some genuine surprises are always nice.
That said, if people in this thread so vehemently detest this style of wrestling but have stayed watching WWE for this long, I can only express my surprise that you don't simultaneously watch a John Cena match while *********ing with sandpaper.
Trill Co$by
Believes in The Shield!
So this whole "Super Cena" "Super Orton" and now for some reason "Super Punk" shit has really started to get to me. Why exactly do they have to be Super? Because they're the people that WWE wants to put full confidence in? Because the WWE knows those people can sell tickets and put on excellent matches? Or maybe it's because they "win all the time"?
That last one is the one that truly irritates me if for no other fact that Cena, Orton, and CM Punk this YEAR have put over more people than anyone else has in WWE.
Cena: CM Punk (early with New Nexus), The Miz, R-Truth, and CM Punk (again)
CM Punk: Orton (early with New Nexus), Alberto Del Rio, Zack Ryder (involuntarily), and Awesome Truth
Orton: CM Punk & New Nexus, Christian, and now Mark Henry
How that makes them "super" when they lose to those people above is beyond me, but for some reason the fact that they're the faces of the company seems to bother people... and what's worse is that the same people calling them "super" are the same ones that were dying and begging for them to be in the main event. Why now do you decide to hate CM Punk, Orton, and Cena? Why didn't you hate Orton when he was in Evolution, or Cena when he rapped? And why didn't you hate CM Punk when he started in ECW?
Seriously, if anyone can give me a legit reason why they're supposedly "Super" and "always winning" then I'll gladly rethink the whole thing, but the fact remains that in this year alone, I hardly see anything Super about them.
That last one is the one that truly irritates me if for no other fact that Cena, Orton, and CM Punk this YEAR have put over more people than anyone else has in WWE.
Cena: CM Punk (early with New Nexus), The Miz, R-Truth, and CM Punk (again)
CM Punk: Orton (early with New Nexus), Alberto Del Rio, Zack Ryder (involuntarily), and Awesome Truth
Orton: CM Punk & New Nexus, Christian, and now Mark Henry
How that makes them "super" when they lose to those people above is beyond me, but for some reason the fact that they're the faces of the company seems to bother people... and what's worse is that the same people calling them "super" are the same ones that were dying and begging for them to be in the main event. Why now do you decide to hate CM Punk, Orton, and Cena? Why didn't you hate Orton when he was in Evolution, or Cena when he rapped? And why didn't you hate CM Punk when he started in ECW?
Seriously, if anyone can give me a legit reason why they're supposedly "Super" and "always winning" then I'll gladly rethink the whole thing, but the fact remains that in this year alone, I hardly see anything Super about them.
772Attitude
I See So Much Potential
LMAO you mean you don't get it? Once a superstar reaches ME level as a face they automatically turn super. The IWC want's a face ME to lose every single match because we love heels so much. You shouldn't really let it get to you though. I mean whenever John Cena or Randy Orton wins against a mid carder there burying them. People really think Cody Rhodes has a shot against Randy Orton, but when Rhodes loses then we IWC will start the Super Orton Chants. Same will go for John Cena.
Similar threads
