Pro Wrestling Discussion Thread **Spoilers Possible**

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by molson

They're building towards Cena/Punk at Mania, and it's up in the air whether 'Taker is ready by then.

Punk will get a ton of cheers against Cena, but that's fine and the WWE won't alter booking to avoid that. One of Cena's best runs came when he was booked as a face but the fans treated him as a heel.

I can kind of get why fans still living in 1997 don't like Cena as the main star of a company, but I'm not sure who would be better in that role right now. And I know I've beat it to death here - he is not being booked as a dominant champion and everyone and their mother has has had a world title run at this point. When was the last time Cena even won a 1-on-1 PPV match - Wrestlemania? (I think it was a couple of wins v. Batista, who was leaving the company).

I'm very curious who people think should be given a main event run, but haven't got it because they're being "held down". The knock used to be that Vince only likes "hosses", and "guys he created", and now the belt and the PPV main events have been given to clear non-hosses, and even indy-darlings Vince didn't create. And they're still booking Bryan Danielson, who gets zero crowd reaction, as a strong U.S. Champion/submission machine. (Right, they don't cheer Danielson because Sheamus beat him up once 3 months ago, I forgot that)

OK, that concludes my semi-monthly rant. The product is looking for a younger audience these days and that definitely isn't for everyone, but the cliched paint-by-numbers criticisms don't work anymore, come up with something else.

I was digging Cena/Barrett, and now Cena is back to being a pandering tard, which is on WWE and Cena. I mean, CM Sucks? Seriously? I know it's marketed to kids but Christ.

Cena has to be on WM. He still brings ratings and moves merch. I am just dreading him in the buildup towards WM against anyone other then Taker because it's going to pandering Cena who is not entertaining. If they could keep Cena serious I'd be fine with him in most of these feuds, but once it is all said and done he usually does more harm then good to the guys he is feuding with, which is a product of WWE booking.

Cena, champion or not, will dominate WWE shows and he rightly should, but in the process he makes their new star initiative get stuck in the mud when the entire thing is booked so largely in his favor. So as much as he is valuable, he is also a deterrent. It is in large part because of the booking, but when he is not there things seem to flow a little better for everyone else.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

As for who should be in the main event, obviously somebody can't be made a main event right now. But, the problem is, people haven't been built up for the past couple to five years. John Morrison should be a bonafide main eventer at this point. Evan Bourne was getting a huge response against Orton and was teaming with Cena, then they dropped it before he was injured. Ted DiBiase Jr. was superhot facing off against Orton last year, that was dropped. Same thing with Kofi Kingston. That's just the guys still employed with the WWE.
.

All of those guys have been involved in main event angles and championship matches. If we take the next step and give them all world title runs, and have them all headline PPVs - that's a pretty crowded main event. And the second you give those guys titles and solo PPV main events, they become part of the "problem" and the "establishment" - so who do you have to take their place as hungry upper midcarders on the way up? And how do you juggle 15 "main eventers" across a PPV every 3 weeks or so. Most of them are going to be "underutilized". The internet message boards always want about 10 guys to dominate and have huge runs in addition to the guys who are actually currently on top, and there's just not that much programming to fill. If you think make room by firing Cena, Edge, Orton, ect, that might make some sense, but I think it's a tad soon for that. This isn't WCW in 1998 where you had two 50-year old guys headlining in a steel cage.

I'm not saying the product is perfect. But I look at the list of champions the last few years, the list of PPV main eventers, and I've seen nothing like that in the history of WWE, WWF, or WCW in terms of rotating guys in and out of the main event (and putting guys like Cena and HHH in midcard feuds). I'd say they've done it too quickly and changed up guys too often, to where now pretty much everyone is a "former world champion" - even some guys who have only been in the business a couple of years.

The challenge for the company is how to keep proven commodities like Cena useful for 15+ years, or as long as possible. That isn't easy. Targeting to kids is a great idea because that's when you hook 'em for life. But the adult wrestling fans tend to get tired of a guy on top after about 18 months. So what do you do with them then? The WWE does book them in non-title, midcard feuds to try to elevate someone else (Cena v. Miz, HHH v. Sheamus, many other examples - you NEVER saw those kinds of feuds in the attitude era, Steve Austin would only agree to feud with the Rock/Taker/Vince and that was pretty much it. He certainly wasn't booked with younger guys just out of development). Not sure what else you can do.

[Toddzilla]

Agreed. The second Miz drop the title he's off to mid-card wasteland never to be heard from again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Agreed. The second Miz drop the title he's off to mid-card wasteland never to be heard from again.

I hope you're right. That's a guy who I have zero interest in watching & can't for the life of me figure out how he's over with anyone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Agreed. The second Miz drop the title he's off to mid-card wasteland never to be heard from again.

So how would you book Miz right now? Dominant world champion for a year? The internet would turn on him long before that. Slower build towards the main event over the next few years? GLASS CEILING!!

It wasn't too long ago Cena was an internet darling that was being held back. He got to the top young and stayed there (and you complain about that). Same with Orton, Batista, Edge, Punk, the WCW guys who were ACTUALLY held back by WCW (Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho, Booker T, etc) many others, Kurt Angle, Bobby Lashely got to main event his first year before failing drug tests. The WWF in the 80s was Hulk Hogan - maybe Hillbilly Jim or JYD was the #2 face but they certainly never got to do all that much. Look at the WWE over a similar 7-8 year time period now and see the dozens of guys who have been on top.

There's not room to give 15 guys major angles that the show revolves around. People talk about the midcarders having more to do in the 80s - that's because the main eventers didn't wrestle on TV. Steamboat/Savage WERE the TV main eventers of the WWF mid-80s. I don't think you can fairly complain about guys being "underpushed" without also arguing who you would fire to give them the room to book the show around.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

People like you have been complaining like you do since rspw. I find that fascinating.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Bingo. Yes, all those people I mentioned have gotten main event runs - but then disappeared. Just take for example, Kofi Kingston. He gets into a feud with Orton, is over huge after nailing Orton through the table at MSG, is getting big pops, and then is pinned basically clean by Orton (when he was a heel), disappears for a week or two and when he's back is in the midcard again.

If Kingston was given the title then and had been in the main event ever since I GUARANTEE you would be whining about him by now.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

People like you have been complaining like you do since rspw. I find that fascinating.

lol

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, we've seen Orton/Cena, Edge/Cena, Edge/Orton, HHH/Cena, HHH/Orton all a million times on RAW and PPV's.

I think it's at least a year and half since we've seen any of those matches (due party to HHH's injury). Before that, they've happend a lot, which makes sense since they're the biggest stars. How many times do major stars from the same era face each other? If half of those Cena/Orton matches were replaced by Orton/Morrison matches (or whoever), you would have completely burned out two rilvaries intead of one.

These are the PPV matches from 2010 that were either world title matches, the last match on the card, or both. I guess if we take the majority opinion of this thread, we'd take Cena and Orton out of half their matches (or more?) and throw in Kofi Kingston and John Morrison instead. Then there's two more guys you have to find "top guy" time for, when obviously they struggle to juggle all the guys they have already. (And nobody's even mentioned Alberto Del Rio yet, who's pretty over, is getting title matches already, WILL be a world champion/ppv headliner soon - and then will be hated by the internet about 2-3 years after that - unless they can keep him fresh (and beloved by the internet) by "burying him in midcard wasteland" - which has to be the best thing ever for a guy if he wants the internet to like him.

-John Cena defeated Wade Barrett
-Edge defeated Kane (c), Rey Mysterio and Alberto Del Rio
-Randy Orton (c) defeated Wade Barrett
-Kane (c) fought Edge to a draw
-Wade Barrett (with John Cena) defeated Randy Orton
-Kane (c) (with Paul Bearer) defeated The Undertaker
-Kane (c) defeated The Undertaker
-Randy Orton (c) defeated Sheamus
-Randy Orton defeated Sheamus (c), Wade Barrett, Edge, John Cena, and Chris Jericho
-Kane (c) defeated The Undertaker
-Team WWE (John Cena, John Morrison, R-Truth, Bret Hart, Edge, Chris Jericho and Daniel Bryan) defeated The Nexus (Wade Barrett, David Otunga, Justin Gabriel, Heath Slater, Darren Young, Skip Sheffield and Michael Tarver)[
-Kane (c) defeated Rey Mysterio
-Randy Orton defeated Sheamus (c) via disqualification[
-Sheamus (c) defeated John Cena
-Kane defeated Rey Mysterio
-Rey Mysterio (c) defeated Jack Swagger
-Sheamus defeated John Cena (c), Randy Orton and Edge[
-Rey Mysterio defeated Jack Swagger (c), CM Punk and The Big Show[
-John Cena (c) defeated Batista
-The Big Show defeated Jack Swagger (c) by disqualification
-John Cena (c) defeated Batista
-Jack Swagger (c) defeated Randy Orton
-The Undertaker defeated Shawn Michaels
-John Cena defeated Batista (c)
-Chris Jericho (c) defeated Edge
-Chris Jericho defeated The Undertaker (c), John Morrison, R-Truth, CM Punk and Rey Mysterio
-John Cena defeated Sheamus (c), Triple H, Randy Orton, Ted DiBiase and Kofi Kingston[
-The Undertaker (c) defeated Rey Mysterio[
-Sheamus (c) defeated Randy Orton by disqualification[

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Not really. I have no problem with Sheamus or Barrett's push. Again, if RAW was doing 7's and the WWE was still doing a million buys for Wrestlemania, I may bitch, but I'd have to accept it was successful. Now the WWE is doing 3's and B-level PPV's are doing under 100k and even PPV's like Survivor Series are only doing 125k domestic. So, this shows it's not just Internet wrestling fans who have an issue with the product.

Outside of the anomaly of the attitude era (which ain't happening again until, at the earliest, the kids they're trying to hook now get to college), the company does great business historically, for a wrestling company. (TV, PPVs, international business, merchandise, house shows). I hate to break it to you, the TV ratings aren't jumping up to 7s again if you book a REALLY compelling Brian Danielson/Kofi Kingston world title feud.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

There's not room to give 15 guys major angles that the show revolves around. People talk about the midcarders having more to do in the 80s - that's because the main eventers didn't wrestle on TV.

This.

There's only so many hours of TV to go around & in a situation like the WWE has with a near monopoly on top names, things get very crowded.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, Austin and Rock and HHH all rose to the main event during another down period by facing main eventers (Bret Hart, 'Taker, etc.) and beating them.

Well, wins and losses don't actually matter in getting guys over. Austin got over more from losing to Hart twice than just about anyone has, ever. That's because both times they made him look like he was a real threat to win. The WM13 clean loss finish did way more for Austin than any screwjob win would have.

That's the trick that guys like Hogan and HHH figured out. You can lose to somebody, but as long as you make them look like a fluke in the process they'll go nowhere. Then you can point and say "See, this guy can't get over, give me my spot back".

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, they might jump up to 4's and buyrates might break 100k if people actually cared about angles and feuds and believed stips would be adhered too.

Sure, if people cared more about angles and feuds, and if booking was better, business would be modestly better. I'm only arguing that inserting "midcarder X of the month who is underutilized" is not the answer. And that spreading the "top guy" scene EVEN THINNER, (when the main event scene is the thinnest its EVER been) is most definitely not the answer. The company has plenty of creative problems but glass ceilings/guys being held down/stars are too old/nobody gets a chance are definitely not among them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I hope they handle Miz the right way but I'm sure he'll spiral off into the vortex as soon as the writers don't have anything else for him.

What's the "right way" to book Miz the next year or two? Does he hold the belt the whole time, what opponents do you book him against?

[Neon_Chaos]

RAW is only watchable because Santino is the f'n man.

COBRA!

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Stay consistent with him. Don't have him lose the belt and suddenly drift off into nowhere and let all his heat just slowly fade away. It's really not that difficult to keep heat on a guy even if he loses a feud or a belt. The WWE way, for entirely too long now, has been to give the big push and then cut someone's legs out from under them.

This.

Anytime you have a heel with a catch-phrase, you pretty much have a bankable guy you can turn face. He's good with the mic, and he's decent in the ring.

And he's got a built-in feud with John Morrisson right now... which might go all the way to Mania... without the belt of course.

I don't think The Miz is going to be disappearing in the midcard any time soon.

Because he's The Miz, and he's... AWESOME!

[SirFozzie]

Give me a break, HiFi: Nexus was overpushed, there was no way that they should have been feuding at the level with Cena. The fact that it went as long as it did was Cena lifting Barrett and crew UP, not keeping them down. This is nothing more then warmed over "HHH/Hogan/etcetera is popular for a long time, so I hate him" stuff to me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Stay consistent with him. Don't have him lose the belt and suddenly drift off into nowhere and let all his heat just slowly fade away. It's really not that difficult to keep heat on a guy even if he loses a feud or a belt. The WWE way, for entirely too long now, has been to give the big push and then cut someone's legs out from under them.

That's not very specific. Would you consider his "legs cut out from under him" if he holds the belt a few months (average title reign length these days), and then he feuds with John Morrison, and then Kane, and then Edge? There's about 10-15 guys who drift around at that upper level and he'll definitely be facing those guys. Is that enough, or does he need to headline every PPV? (which would defnitely hold back a lot of other guys).

If you pick Miz as your guy you're building around, that's fine, but then you can't build around everyone else too. The WWE picked Miz, Sheamus, and Punk to hold onto those initital pushes they got, and allowed Kingston and Jack Swagger to slip a little (but not really that far). You guys are saying that all 5 should have maintained their top-level push (and Nexus, and Evan Bourne I guess, Bryan Danielson probably too). That's not practical. You're going to have to make hard decisions on some guys. You can't push everyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This.

There's only so many hours of TV to go around & in a situation like the WWE has with a near monopoly on top names, things get very crowded.

Don't they have like 5 hours a week? That's plenty of time to build a mid-card. The WWE has chosen not to. They've chosen to turn the lower belts into an afterthought. To book the majority of the undercard the week of a major PPV.

They book around the top 2-3 stars because they have to. They spent the last half decade telling everyone that no one else mattered.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They book around the top 2-3 stars because they have to.

It's a closer to a dozen now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the "right way" to book Miz the next year or two? Does he hold the belt the whole time, what opponents do you book him against?

The thing with Miz is that I think he's a perfect midcard talent. He should be a guy who leads the US/IC Championship division for years. But since the WWE doesn't have a division for that, they sort of have to use him in the main event scene.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a closer to a dozen now.

Who are the dozen? It's booked mainly around Cena and Orton right now. Undertaker when he's healthy, but that's not often.

[molson]

Try booking a PPV card with 2 world title matches, and then only 4-5 other matches, across both brands. You're going to have to leave out a handful of either proven draws and/or "underutilized" midcarders. And a bunch of the guys you do use will be relegated to matches which are only the #4 or #5 biggest storyline in the company, or will be packed together in some kind of 6-way match (which have been very popular lately as the WWE struggles to find room for everyone).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the "right way" to book Miz the next year or two? Does he hold the belt the whole time, what opponents do you book him against?

You can't let him hold it long because the WWE is not setup for long heel runs. Since a heel can never beat a guy like Cena clean, there are only so many PPVs you can get away with interference, DQs, etc before it gets old.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

If you had bothered to read you would see it's not about who, but how, the next feud(s) goes. If he continues to be the chickenshit heel who can't ever beat anyone by himself, then yes, that is cutting his legs out from under him. If he loses feuds to all three, then yes, that is cutting his legs out from under him.

If those guys are filtered out in distinguishable feuds, with Miz emphasizing/adding different attributes to his character, then they've done well and should be able to push him back up top if necessary. I'll be stunned if the 2nd one is what happens.

Like I said, if you want to book your company around Miz, that's fine, but then you can't build your company also around your 5 other midcard favorites and the current established guys who are proven draws. And then if he's the center of your company - he's Cena and you'll be back here whining about him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Like I said, if you want to book your company around Miz, that's fine, but then you can't build your company also around your 5 other midcard favorites and the current established guys who are proven draws. And then if he's the center of your company - he's Cena and you'll be back here whining about him.

Who are these established draw? WWE ratings and PPV buys are shit. They've been top heavy for awhile too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who are the dozen? It's booked mainly around Cena and Orton right now. Undertaker when he's healthy, but that's not often.

They're the two biggest stars on on one of the WWE's shows, but they don't even appear on the other one, and neither of them are even champion at the moment. Nexus, Miz, Sheamus, Punk, get plenty of time in the top angles, (and Morrison and Kingston get a lot time every week).

On Smackdown (which I don't watch as often) there's Edge, Undertaker (when healthy), Kane, Mysterio, a quickly rising Del Rio, Big Show, Swagger that all kind of drift around the top angles, and then guys like McIntyre and Rhodes just below who get TV time every week.

If you have a problem with Cena or Orton as the top two guys, suggest who you'd want to replace them in those spots. And if you want to move Kingston up to that "top 6" on RAW, suggest who you want to drop down into true irrelevance. There's not room for much more than 6 guys to have really important storylines on a two hour weekly show. Maybe you can stretch it to 8, or even 10 (which they try to do with the I.C. and U.S. title scenes), but I think that's the absolute limit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

How the fuck is not shitting on a young talent equal to booking around them? It really shouldn't be that hard to keep someone looking like a viable threat even when they aren't being pushed to the top. One of the big reasons why WWE is in a steady decline is the idiotic concept that you book around 2-3 guys and fuck everyone else until you need them and have to scramble to make them seem legitimate.

Who are they shitting on again? Kingston? He's on TV every week. It's true that the show doesn't revolve around him. But you can't revolve a two hour show around 10 guys. If you want him to be #1, OK, but then Miz isn't. If you want him in that top 6 or so, you gotta drop someone else.

[molson]

In the late 90s WCW, you could say, "why is Brutus Beefcake still getting a ton of TV time at the expense of someone else". But now, you guys claim that Orton and Cena are OK and top, but you also want to add about 6 other guys to the top. Maybe the main event for RAW could be a 10-man tag every week.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

They're the two biggest stars on on one of the WWE's shows, but they don't even appear on the other one, and neither of them are even champion at the moment. Nexus, Miz, Sheamus, Punk, get plenty of time in the top angles, (and Morrison and Kingston get a lot time every week).

Nexus didn't even appear on Raw last week and their "leader" has been absent for the past two. Sheamus hasn't been in a real feud in months, Punk has been injured, and Miz is feuding with a 65 year old announcer.

Originally Posted by molson

On Smackdown (which I don't watch as often) there's Edge, Undertaker (when healthy), Kane, Mysterio, a quickly rising Del Rio, Big Show, Swagger that all kind of drift around the top angles, and then guys like McIntyre and Rhodes just below who get TV time every week.

Smackdown is a joke. Sorry, but their Championship matches are the midcard of most PPVs. Their ratings are horseshit and no one cares about it.

Originally Posted by molson

If you have a problem with Cena or Orton as the top two guys, suggest who you'd want to replace them in those spots. And if you want to move Kingston up to that "top 6" on RAW, suggest who you want to drop down into true irrelevance. There's not room for much more than 6 guys to have really important storylines on a two hour weekly show. Maybe you can stretch it to 8, or even 10 (which they try to do with the I.C. and U.S. title scenes), but I think that's the absolute limit.

I don't have a problem with Orton or Cena. I have a problem with them not allowing anyone to be legitimate contenders. How they are so scared to have anyone win cleanly over Cena or Orton. Miz is a joke as champion because they won't let him win cleanly over anyone. He can't even get a clean win over Jerry Lawler.

Would it have killed the WWE to have Sheamus win over Orton once cleanly? Or Barrett get a win over Cena in a normal fashion? Does the company collapse if this happens? Or maybe people actually think that someone can beat those guys and tunes in to see what happens. Because right now I can tell you everything that will happen with Miz. He'll win the next couple PPVs by DQ or other shenanigans before losing to Orton or Cena. At some point, the face has to face some adversity on their way to the top to make it interesting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

In the late 90s WCW, you could say, "why is Brutus Beefcake still getting a ton of TV time at the expense of someone else". But now, you guys claim that Orton and Cena are OK and top, but you also want to add about 6 other guys to the top. Maybe the main event for RAW could be a 10-man tag every week.

No, I want someone else to be credible on the show.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

It really shouldn't be that hard to keep someone looking like a viable threat even when they aren't being pushed to the top.

And yet you can't seem to describe how it would be done for more than say, 6 people at a time. (They tried to keep Sheamus a threat after he lost the title but destroying Daniel Bryant, a guy WAY down on the roster, and you guys had a problem with that too).

There you had maybe the #3 star on RAW, a real fresh new guy. They tried to "keep pushing him" by destroying people, and everybody bitches. (And actually, didn't everyone in this thread bitch when Sheamus won the title in the first place?)

Is it possible you maybe should just watch something else?

[SirFozzie]

RainMaker: It's because the Miz is what they call a chickenshit heel champion. Chickenshit Heel Champions do not get clean wins, because it incites the fans further that "In a fair fight, X would have won!" leading to the point that the Chickenshit Heel Champion gets put in a situation where all his tricks can't help him, and the face will get his chance at JUSTICE. it's basic booking 101 stuff.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And yet you can't seem to describe how it would be done for more than say, 6 people at a time. (They tried to keep Sheamus a threat after he lost the title but destroying Daniel Bryant, a guy WAY down on the roster, and you guys had a problem with that too).

There you had maybe the #3 star on RAW, a real fresh new guy. They tried to "keep pushing him" by destroying people, and everybody bitches. (And actually, didn't everyone in this thread bitch when Sheamus won the title in the first place?)

He wasn't the #3 guy on Raw. He had maybe one clean win over Cena and that's it. Beating up Jamie Noble and Santino doesn't make you a viable threat.

As I said before, it's the same formula. Heel wins belt in controversial fashion. Wins the next few PPVs by DQ or interference. Then eventually loses to Orton or Cena. Maybe just one time we can have a guy like Sheamus win a feud.

Originally Posted by molson

Is it possible you maybe should just watch something else?

Perhaps, everyone else is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nexus didn't even appear on Raw last week and their "leader" has been absent for the past two. Sheamus hasn't been in a real feud in months, Punk has been injured, and Miz is feuding with a 65 year old announcer.

Smackdown is a joke. Sorry, but their Championship matches are the midcard of most PPVs. Their ratings are horseshit and no one cares about it.

I don't have a problem with Orton or Cena. I have a problem with them not allowing anyone to be legitimate contenders. How they are so scared to have anyone win cleanly over Cena or Orton. Miz is a joke as champion because they won't let him win cleanly over anyone. He can't even get a clean win over Jerry Lawler.

Would it have killed the WWE to have Sheamus win over Orton once cleanly? Or Barrett get a win over Cena in a normal fashion? Does the company collapse if this happens? Or maybe people actually think that someone can beat those guys and tunes in to see what happens. Because right now I can tell you everything that will happen with Miz. He'll win the next couple PPVs by DQ or other shenanigans before losing to Orton or Cena. At some point, the face has to face some adversity on their way to the top to make it interesting.

If your problem is just that you'd like to see more clean matches, I don't really disagree with that. I think there's a lot more clean matches in the midcard then there's been in the past, and the WWE has never had a lot of clean matches in the main event.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

RainMaker: It's because the Miz is what they call a chickenshit heel champion. Chickenshit Heel Champions do not get clean wins, because it incites the fans further that "In a fair fight, X would have won!" leading to the point that the Chickenshit Heel Champion gets put in a situation where all his tricks can't help him, and the face will get his chance at JUSTICE. it's basic booking 101 stuff.

I understand that, but every heel Champion is a chickenshit in WWE.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He wasn't the #3 guy on Raw

So who was the #3 guy?

I'm pretty sure Sheamus did beat Cena clean for the title (though it was a table match). And Cena didn't get the belt back from him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So who was the #3 guy?

I'm pretty sure Sheamus did beat Cena clean for the title (though it was a table match). And Cena didn't get the belt back from him.

There is no #3. It's Orton and Cena and then everyone else kind of just falls into a big pool. I don't know if I'd call Sheamus win "clean" to get the Championship, but his two title defenses after ended in DQs. Would it have killed them to have him pin one of those guys cleanly and up his credibility a bit?

I guess that's my problem. WWE builds up their heels by having them squash jobbers, not by having them actually win against legit competition. Cena and Orton are over enough where they can lose a PPV cleanly every once in awhile.

[RainMaker]

Miz can't even beat Lawler cleanly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Except that none of their heels get clean wins over top tier talent, ever.

I seem to remember HHH getting quite a few clean wins and that going over GREAT on the internet.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Miz can't even beat Lawler cleanly.

If they have a clean match where Miz's rival (not Cena or Orton by the way) doesn't get involved, Miz will win. I would expect to see that in the next week or two.

I can understand people getting annoyed with Lawler wrestling in consecutive weeks, I think that's totally fair. But I always got annoyed when they would build up the one-shot "legend match" when you knew the legend was going to look strong for 2 seconds and then lose. Lawler has done that match 20 times in the last 10 years, Sgt. Slaughter did it a bunch of times, mick foley did it when he came back a few times (including one awesome match with Randy Orton before this formula got stale). Here, keeping up the trend of somewhat non-traditional booking in late '09 into 2010, Lawler actually is taking part in a storyline. I hope it doesn't go on any longer, but at least its different.

My biggest problem with WWE creatively the last few years has been predictability, the way shows end, the way feuds are setup. This year has been different. This will be the most wide open Royal Rumble since they went to the "winner gets a title shot" format. You really have no idea who they're going to put the belt on. It would have shocked nobody if Alberto Del Rio won the title at the last PPV. Yes, you can assume that most matches will involve some kind of shenanigans - but this is pro wrestling. If you want serious competition there's MMA. The attitude era had almost no clean finishes (unless you count brawling outside the ring for 20 minutes, guys throwing each other through announce tables, strangling each other with microphone cords "clean")