Pro Wrestling Discussion Thread **Spoilers Possible**

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

I
But I would have to disagree that Cena has played a role in elevating Barrett, Sheamus and The Miz.
Wade Barrett - Cena never showed any weakness, taking beatings from 8 guys week after week. Sure he joined Nexus for a few weeks but it was a joke, it deflated the Nexus angle quicker than possibly expected. Then he dropped 4,000 chairs on Barrett and he was never heard from again.
Sheamus - Sheamus beat him for the title, but it was staged as a tables match and Cena "accidentally" fell onto the table to lose the title. No heat was transferred.
The Miz - Poor Miz had to practically beg for Cena and The Rock to even mention him during their promos even though Miz was the champ. He'd give Cena 13 minute beatdowns, and the next week Cena would be back joking around, no-selling the injuries and not even expressing any anger over the situation. Cena did not say one time that he wanted the title (because he wasn't going to win). And the only way Miz won is because Rock gave Cena his finisher. It wasn't because Miz was cheating, wasn't because he was evil or tricky, just because he was there. So it didn't elevate him either.

How would you have booked those feuds differently, just out of curiosity? And how would they go in order? If you kept Sheamus at the top, how do you work in Nexus? If you keep the Nexus angle going for 10 million years, how do you work in Miz? Do you give Sheamus the title for a year beating faces clean? Then what? Does Cena dethrone him or do you give someone else a run and keep Cena out of the main event picture forever? Is it just the clean losing thing? If Cena lost clean to Sheamus, and then got it back, and then was destroyed clean by Nexus, but then beat them all, and then lost clean to the Miz, and then got it back, would you be OK with that? (assuming the build-up for all three guys was really strong)? To just have Cena lose clean every time before getting his revenge? What do you do with Sheamus and Nexus after their turn with Cena has past? Where would Nexus be today - still dominating every RAW?

And of those three, Miz is probably in the best shape because he's the only one built up over years. When you put Sheamus or Barrett on top immediately, there's no where to go but down (or as they say on the internet, "buried" - i.e., not in main event PPVs every month any more.) We wouldn't have this Punk/Cena feud right now if Sheamus/Barrett/Miz didn't move on to lower card feuds.

Edit: My biggest problem with the company creatively is the horrid, stiff dialogue. But I really shudder to imagine what peoples' version of "keeping Sheamus strong" the last 3 years straight would have been like. I like the guy, but I don't really need to see him pushed any more than he's been the last few years. And Barrett's worse. I mean really - you want Barrett at the top of shows indefinitely, even now? I like him feuding for the I-C title on Smackdown and running into growing pains as a "leader" (which makes sense since they guy is so green). He'll get main event pushes in the years to come, just not every week.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

How would you have booked those feuds differently, just out of curiosity? And how would they go in order? If you kept Sheamus at the top, how do you work in Nexus? If you keep the Nexus angle going for 10 million years, how do you work in Miz? Do you give Sheamus the title for a year beating faces clean? Then what? Does Cena dethrone him or do you give someone else a run and keep Cena out of the main event picture forever? Is it just the clean losing thing? If Cena lost clean to Sheamus, and then got it back, and then was destroyed clean by Nexus, but then beat them all, and then lost clean to the Miz, and then got it back, would you be OK with that? (assuming the build-up for all three guys was really strong)? To just have Cena lose clean every time before getting his revenge? What do you do with Sheamus and Nexus after their turn with Cena has past? Where would Nexus be today - still dominating every RAW?

And of those three, Miz is probably in the best shape because he's the only one built up over years. When you put Sheamus or Barrett on top immediately, there's no where to go but down (or as they say on the internet, "buried" - i.e., not in main event PPVs every month any more.) We wouldn't have this Punk/Cena feud right now if Sheamus/Barrett/Miz didn't move on to lower card feuds.

Edit: My biggest problem with the company creatively is the horrid, stiff dialogue. But I really shudder to imagine what peoples' version of "keeping Sheamus strong" the last 3 years straight would have been like. I like the guy, but I don't really need to see him pushed any more than he's been the last few years. And Barrett's worse. I mean really - you want Barrett at the top of shows indefinitely, even now? I like him feuding for the I-C title on Smackdown and running into growing pains as a "leader" (which makes sense since they guy is so green). He'll get main event pushes in the years to come, just not every week.

It's not about giving a guy like Sheamus, Miz or Barrett a 3-year run with the title. It's about keeping them around the main event scene. Barrett is a jobber. He has zero credibility, few good victories, and as many PPV wins as Snooki. Sheamus can't even get on most PPV cards these days. And Miz has been getting the crap kicked out of him every week by a guy who was on NXT less than a year ago. Sheamus still has some credibility left, but Miz and Barrett are jobbers. They can't beat anyone.

As for the Nexus angle, I probably would start by not having them get chased out of the arena in the 2nd week by Santino. A win at SummerSlam would have given them credibility moving forward. The WWE tried to make them a threat but they never won. They were a joke. One of the worst stables ever created yet came in with so much buzz. The other option would have been to have CM Punk take over after SummerSlam and have him control all of them. Build a slow break between the members and form the two factions that could have then competed at WM or something. There are a ton of different ways to go with that that didn't involve them getting squashed by Cena constantly.

There is just no reason for their bookings. They randomly throw guys into the main event scene without any buildup and then crush them down shortly after. Even a guy like Punk who is gold on the mic and has the hottest story in wrestling right now is fighting for the WWE Championship despite coming off a losing streak of like 11 straight PPVs. The guy went over a year without winning a single PPV event and is somehow fighting for the WWE Championship. He's made it interesting with some great promos, but imagine how much bigger it would be if he was made to look good in the ring.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

How would you have booked those feuds differently, just out of curiosity? And how would they go in order? If you kept Sheamus at the top, how do you work in Nexus? If you keep the Nexus angle going for 10 million years, how do you work in Miz? Do you give Sheamus the title for a year beating faces clean? Then what? Does Cena dethrone him or do you give someone else a run and keep Cena out of the main event picture forever? Is it just the clean losing thing? If Cena lost clean to Sheamus, and then got it back, and then was destroyed clean by Nexus, but then beat them all, and then lost clean to the Miz, and then got it back, would you be OK with that? (assuming the build-up for all three guys was really strong)? To just have Cena lose clean every time before getting his revenge? What do you do with Sheamus and Nexus after their turn with Cena has past? Where would Nexus be today - still dominating every RAW?

And of those three, Miz is probably in the best shape because he's the only one built up over years. When you put Sheamus or Barrett on top immediately, there's no where to go but down (or as they say on the internet, "buried" - i.e., not in main event PPVs every month any more.) We wouldn't have this Punk/Cena feud right now if Sheamus/Barrett/Miz didn't move on to lower card feuds.

Edit: My biggest problem with the company creatively is the horrid, stiff dialogue. But I really shudder to imagine what peoples' version of "keeping Sheamus strong" the last 3 years straight would have been like. I like the guy, but I don't really need to see him pushed any more than he's been the last few years. And Barrett's worse. I mean really - you want Barrett at the top of shows indefinitely, even now? I like him feuding for the I-C title on Smackdown and running into growing pains as a "leader" (which makes sense since they guy is so green). He'll get main event pushes in the years to come, just not every week.

Listen, I agree with you about having to move people around the card. Not everybody can main event every night. But even just a few years ago you had 4-6 guys on each brand that could main event on any given night. Right now they're so invested in Cena, that a fluke injury would put the company in a REAL bad position. It's Cena, and then a bunch of guys with little to no credibility. That needs to change. I believe that the majority of your midcard or higher wrestlers should be on some sort of journey, and you tell that story over multiple weeks. If you do that, then the wins and losses don't mean as much. In the past that was Shawn Michaels and Chris Jericho. today it's CM Punk, he's told a LOT of stories over the past 2 years without holding the title.

To answer your question, the 3 guys listed above don't need to go over clean on Cena every week. They need their moments, and they need their moments not to be completely overshadowed and nullified instantly. I know it's the WWE and the good guys win in the end (as they should, it's a kid's show), but if you don't build up the bad guys and create those moments when you really believe they're going to win, then the good moments where Cena overcomes the odds don't mean a thing.

Let's say The Miz. Same situation, only after that 13 minute beatdown, Cena actually limps to the ring the next week. And he's PISSED. He says you got one on me last week, but NEVER AGAIN. And then later in the show you spotlight Miz who has one of those evil smiles.

Or the night after Wrestlemania when Cena comes into the ring, instead of congratulating the Miz and having a big smile on his face, Cena remembers that HE LOST and he was SCREWED out of the title. Then he refocusses on Miz and the hunt begins. Of course Miz is a crafty guy and puts up tons of obstacles but finally Cena overcomes the odds and wins the title. Then it means something.

With regards to Wade, let him talk. Nexus problem was that they were full of jobbers, and that anytime the guys had to wrestle they were exposed. So eventually that angle had to play itself out. But I think they could have gotten an extra month out of the storyline. What if when Cena was forced to join Nexus, they made him take off his shirt and put on a Nexus shirt. That's a defining moment, even moreso than the wristband. You show Cena come to the ring dejected, and he's forced to interfere and cause one of his friends to lose a match. THEN at one point he's about to crack but his friends tell him to make it happen and then he turns the table on Nexus, eating them from within. Those few extra weeks would make a big difference.

That's Cena's problem. Even in the moments designed to be his moments of weakness, he shows no weakness. So when it's time to flip the tables, the crowd isn't emotionally invested. Let's Go Cena / Cena Sucks is not an emotionally invested crowd, that's just a crowd amusing itself.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not about giving a guy like Sheamus, Miz or Barrett a 3-year run with the title. It's about keeping them around the main event scene. Barrett is a jobber. He has zero credibility, few good victories, and as many PPV wins as Snooki. Sheamus can't even get on most PPV cards these days. And Miz has been getting the crap kicked out of him every week by a guy who was on NXT less than a year ago. Sheamus still has some credibility left, but Miz and Barrett are jobbers. They can't beat anyone.

There is just no reason for their bookings. They randomly throw guys into the main event scene without any buildup and then crush them down shortly after. Even a guy like Punk who is gold on the mic and has the hottest story in wrestling right now is fighting for the WWE Championship despite coming off a losing streak of like 11 straight PPVs. The guy went over a year without winning a single PPV event and is somehow fighting for the WWE Championship. He's made it interesting with some great promos, but imagine how much bigger it would be if he was made to look good in the ring.

I couldn't agree with you more here.

You also have to remember that these guys on huge losing streaks totally out of the spotlight are not jobbers. They're your #2 and 3 heels on Smackdown right now. If they're not getting any moments to shine, what's going to happen once Randy Orton is done with Christian? Right now they should be building up Randy's next few contenders to be ready for the next PPV cycle, but it doesn't seem like they've even thought about it.

It's a scary, scary time for the WWE.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

I couldn't agree with you more here.

You also have to remember that these guys on huge losing streaks totally out of the spotlight are not jobbers. They're your #2 and 3 heels on Smackdown right now. If they're not getting any moments to shine, what's going to happen once Randy Orton is done with Christian? Right now they should be building up Randy's next few contenders to be ready for the next PPV cycle, but it doesn't seem like they've even thought about it.

It's a scary, scary time for the WWE.

Well, Sheamus just destroyed both Smackdown main eventers at their contract signing, so I'd say he (or whoever wins MITB) is next. Sheamus getting that spotlight sure seems like one of those "moments" you're talking about in the above post, it just seems like if he doesn't do the same thing the next week, everyone complains about it. (and in fact the next week, it was a DQ finish with Orton in the main event - anything would have resulted in "burial" complaints unless Sheamus destroyed Orton again....and again the next week...and again the next week....etc...) Cena and Orton are just NOT very well liked among a certain group of older wrestling fans....and yet they're beloved by the younger and more casual fans. It's an interesting problem.

Which is similar to the corner I think the WWE has booked themselves into now with MITB, if Punk is really leaving. I am 100% convinced that there's only 1 finish that will avoid complaints from the usual suspects - Punk winning clean, and leaving the company with the title. Any other finish is going to get a ton of hate. In a way, this angle has gotten TOO over, because the PPV can't possibly end it the way people want if Punk if really leaving.

Barrett's lucky to be a midcarder, he's just not ready. He gets a lot of time on Smackdown still and he's lucky to get it. Cody Rhodes has blown by him in the pecking order. As has Mark Henry, for the moment, who is kind of a polarizing guy, but he's usually over, he's scary looking, and his semi-annual pushes seem like just the right amount of push for him.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

It's a scary, scary time for the WWE.

This thread goes back to 2006 and if you read the first page, or any page after that, people seem to generally hate most of what happens. I think the company will somehow survive.

Edit: It's actually kind of funny to skim the 2006 posts - everybody thinks the WWE is the worst thing ever, and there I am, already, wondering what everyone is complaining about. Now apparently 2006 was a great year in retrospect, so I guess I was right at the time. (But in early 2007 even I seemed to be getting a little bored with the product....until Vince's limo exploded, WWE.com reported him as "presumed dead", and then a week later they had to announce that Chris Benoit was actually dead.....nothing boring about 2007 after that!). And there were posters freaking out that the company was too dependent on Cena - and then he gets injured and has to vacate the title. The company doesn't implode, new plans are made, the fans get a break from Cena, and he gets a huge return pop at MSG at the 2008 royal rumble.....

Also, there used to be a lot more TNA talk than there is now.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

Which is similar to the corner I think the WWE has booked themselves into now with MITB, if Punk is really leaving. I am 100% convinced that there's only 1 finish that will avoid complaints from the usual suspects - Punk winning clean, and leaving the company with the title. Any other finish is going to get a ton of hate. In a way, this angle has gotten TOO over, because the PPV can't possibly end it the way people want if Punk if really leaving.

I agree, the angle is getting way too over if he's planning on leaving, but at the same time Raw only got 2.9 so it looks like it hasn't captured the imagination of the regular Joe fan, just the internet.

I personally think the whole angle is kind of weird, did CM Punk turn face last night? Sure sounded like he did. I guess that sets the table for Alberto to win the MITB and cash it in on him that night. If Punk was playing as a heel Alberto would get cheers which is NOT the reaction they want for him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, Sheamus just destroyed both Smackdown main eventers at their contract signing, so I'd say he (or whoever wins MITB) is next. Sheamus getting that spotlight sure seems like one of those "moments" you're talking about in the above post, it just seems like if he doesn't do the same thing the next week, everyone complains about it. (and in fact the next week, it was a DQ finish with Orton in the main event - anything would have resulted in "burial" complaints unless Sheamus destroyed Orton again....and again the next week...and again the next week....etc...) Cena and Orton are just NOT very well liked among a certain group of older wrestling fans....and yet they're beloved by the younger and more casual fans. It's an interesting problem.

Which is similar to the corner I think the WWE has booked themselves into now with MITB, if Punk is really leaving. I am 100% convinced that there's only 1 finish that will avoid complaints from the usual suspects - Punk winning clean, and leaving the company with the title. Any other finish is going to get a ton of hate. In a way, this angle has gotten TOO over, because the PPV can't possibly end it the way people want if Punk if really leaving.

Barrett's lucky to be a midcarder, he's just not ready. He gets a lot of time on Smackdown still and he's lucky to get it. Cody Rhodes has blown by him in the pecking order. As has Mark Henry, for the moment, who is kind of a polarizing guy, but he's usually over, he's scary looking, and his semi-annual pushes seem like just the right amount of push for him.

Here's the thing. If Sheamus is going to be back in the main event scene, why bury him for months? And if Barrett is not ready, why book him in the main event for most of last year? Everything seems so random. Like they pull a name out of a hat and say "it's R-Truth's turn to lose to Cena" without taking any history into account. They don't appear to plan long term on anything.

Part of it is the lack of a mid-card and belts that mean anything. As you mentioned, Edge built his way up as a tag team guy when the tag belts meant something. People cared about those matches and who held them, now the WWE uses them as a prop and should retire them.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

This thread goes back to 2006 and if you read the first page, or any page after that, people seem to generally hate most of what happens. I think the company will somehow survive.

Edit: It's actually kind of funny to skim the 2006 posts - everybody thinks the WWE is the worst thing ever, and there I am, already, wondering what everyone is complaining about. Now apparently 2006 was a great year in retrospect, so I guess I was right at the time. (But in early 2007 even I seemed to be getting a little bored with the product....until Vince's limo exploded, WWE.com reported him as "presumed dead", and then a week later they had to announce that Chris Benoit was actually dead.....nothing boring about 2007 after that!). And there were posters freaking out that the company was too dependent on Cena - and then he gets injured and has to vacate the title. The company doesn't implode, new plans are made, the fans get a break from Cena, and he gets a huge return pop at MSG at the 2008 royal rumble.....

Also, there used to be a lot more TNA talk than there is now.

Yes people are very negative in general about wresting. Perhaps they hope it can bring back the exciting times of the past. Who knows.

But Im not sure how you can lose Angle, Benoit, HBK, Edge, Jericho, HHH, Guerrero, Lesnar and some of the others in the past 7-8 years with producing maybe 2-3 new stars(Cena, Punk, Orton) and expect to stay an international company. At some point this math doesnt work out. You need stars to get ratings, you need ratings to stay international, you also need ratings in order for people to help produce new stars. To this point they have stayed international based on past popularity however that is wearing thin.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes people are very negative in general about wresting. Perhaps they hope it can bring back the exciting times of the past. Who knows.

Without going back and rereading the thread, I'm guessing we were complaining about how the roster was aging out and there wasn't a new generation of stars being groomed to replace them. To a certain degree, I think our concerns have been realized.

There is a new generation of talent here and the fans are willing to embrace them, but I think the WWE is still at the "evaluation" phase on them and not ready to push these guys. Maybe that's our problem. We want new stars, we want some of the guys above to be the new stars, but the WWE isn't ready to do it yet.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Part of it is the lack of a mid-card and belts that mean anything. As you mentioned, Edge built his way up as a tag team guy when the tag belts meant something. People cared about those matches and who held them, now the WWE uses them as a prop and should retire them.

It's not like WWE had Cena beat the tag team champions by himself, or anything.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Matthean

It's not like WWE had Cena beat the tag team champions by himself, or anything.

I'm pretty sure I must be the only person that remembers the face main eventers of the past like Austin and Rock clearing rings and destroying everyone. I definitely missed the parts where they were having competitive matches and losing clean to midcard tagteams. Austin in particular, would have outright refused to interact with such midcard scum.

All I'm saying, go back to any year you remember as "great", look back, and you'll see similar internet rants and issues.....but yes, no promotion/year has been able to make everyone look good all the time - with the possible exception of when they used jobber squashes. Maybe that would have worked for Sheamus - have him wrestle nobody but jobbers for a year. But the second you have him interact with real guys on the roster - you're going to have to make choices. Him or Miz. Him or Nexus.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here's the thing. If Sheamus is going to be back in the main event scene, why bury him for months? And if Barrett is not ready, why book him in the main event for most of last year? Everything seems so random. Like they pull a name out of a hat and say "it's R-Truth's turn to lose to Cena" without taking any history into account. They don't appear to plan long term on anything.

They didn't bury Sheamus at all. The world "bury" has become the most overused in the wrestling language. They gave his push to Miz eventually and he was dealing with Daniel Bryan, HHH (who he got to destroy/injure and put out for a year), and winning King of the Ring tournaments and midcard titles. Ya, he lost a bunch of matches in there, but if you want him to run through all those guys undefeated, or with only a spare loss here or there, you're REALLY choosing him over all those other guys and I'm not sure that's the right call either.

I agree Barrett was pushed way too early, but they thought they could protect him as part of a group. It was going to get exposed eventually, and it did, and he clearly didn't end up impressing them. He'll get other chances, but again, I don't believe the answer is him going undefeated, or close to undefeated, with high profile feuds all the time, over the past months or few years since Nexus. What's wrong with him winning the I-C title and feuding with the old Nexus guys who got sick of him? That's exactly where he should be right now, IMO. If he gets better, he'll get pushed again.

You can't have Sheamus, and Barrett, and Miz, pushed to the degree you want at the same time unless they're only dealing with squash jobbers. I don't think the guys outside the main event scene in 1999 or 2003 or 2006 were really booked so strong as you think - those were just usually guys with 15 years experience who were a million times better than Sheamus and Barrett and Miz. But there's no rival territories/promotions any more, so the entry pool is a lot thinner, and they're forced now to push guys who have been in the business just a couple of years . Kevin Nash said it well in a shoot recently - a wrestler really reaches his peak around 35-40 assuming he got into the business in his early 20s. Nash used to get destroyed for his "vanilla midget" comments and such, but Guerrero/Benoit/Jericho wouldn't have worked as main eventers in 1997 when the internet was screaming for them to be going clean over the NWO or whatever. By 2003, they clearly owned their characters and the fans, and they didn't need to be in the spotlight 12 months, 52 weeks a year to maintain their star power. A lot of times, when those guys like Guerrero and Jericho weren't challenging for the world title that month, they were in silly comedy storylines (which would definitely count as being "buried" in today's terminology - Jericho was jobbing to Chyna for god's sake - but those guys still looked like stars, because they were 15 year veterans by then.) But if Jericho won the WCW world title in 1996, anything he did in 1997 would have been considered a burial by your logic.

And the R-truth push makes sense to me, it's a old-timey classic heel formula. The guy is obsessed with the fans liking him, then gets a couple of big wins and flames out. He gets a taste of the top but just misses it. So he snaps, freaks out on John Morrison and the fans, feels liberated, and suddenly isn't worried about catering to the fans, which makes him even more successful. He drops the theme music, the rapping with fans, and suddenly, he's way more successful. It's not an original formula, but it's a good one. (Also, from a business perspective, one of the reason he's getting a big push now is that he's finally able to enter Canada again, for the first time since he got some felonies in his earlier years.) He's also in that 35-40 15+ years experience range now....he's going to seem like a bigger star than Sheamus when he's not in the world title picture, even if he's losing a lot and doing comedic stuff because he's that talented.

Edit: I will be interesting to see Sheamus/Miz/Barrett when they get to 35-40, because unlike the guys that came before them, they've already had main event success in the WWE. Traditionally, guys spent their 20s doing main event stuff in the smaller or rival territories, and Vince would scoop them up when they were already ready to be stars. When the territories died, they slowly built up their own guys like HBK/Hart (who also worked in big angles in other companies before the WWE)....now, they're trying to replicate that early experience by actually giving those young guys in their 20s main event WWE angles right off the bat, a couple of years into the business. It's never been done before. We'll see how it works long term, but one of the obvious downsides is that you have to have a period of falling back to earth after that initial push. That's not a burial though. I'm trying to even think of the guys entering that 35-40 age group now besides R-truth, and the Hardys. A lot of them are dead. There is a gap there.

[tucking fypo]

What are the chances Vince will be involved in the outcome of their match? Someone will get screwed. But I agree with what someone said earlier about WWE putting themselves in a corner to where any outcome that involves Punk not winning the title could cause some real blowback.

[molson]

And I'd finally just add that what the WWE is doing now isn't close to "booking of the fly", or booking without a plan. For an example of that, see 1999-2000 WCW. I'd say the WWE if anything is TOO logical, TOO predictable, and there's not enough chaos. I'll start getting worried when I see First Blood matches ending by submission (and being won by a guy who wasn't in the match when it started), or when the WWE starts running the taped Smackdown segments out of order.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by molson

Also, there used to be a lot more TNA talk than there is now.

TNA (nee Impact) is done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tucking fypo

But I agree with what someone said earlier about WWE putting themselves in a corner to where any outcome that involves Punk not winning the title could cause some real blowback.

With the IWC maybe, otherwise, a few days later nobody will give a shit.

It's become increasingly obvious that no wrestling promotion with a national TV deal gives a damn what the vocal minority on the 'net thinks (and I say that as part of that minority) and that's probably a realistic approach. We're not the core audience, the marks are still the core. It really doesn't take much to make the marks happy (unlike smarks who are hardly ever happy no matter what you do, who you push or how you book).

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

And I'd finally just add that what the WWE is doing now isn't close to "booking of the fly", or booking without a plan. For an example of that, see 1999-2000 WCW. I'd say the WWE if anything is TOO logical, TOO predictable, and there's not enough chaos. I'll start getting worried when I see First Blood matches ending by submission (and being won by a guy who wasn't in the match when it started), or when the WWE starts running the taped Smackdown segments out of order.

I've listened to many interviews with past WWE writers and the recurring topic is that they have a basic plan leading up to the next PPV, and often it will change completely several times before they get there. McMahon will often tell the writing staff to rewrite the episode of Raw at the arena and wrestlers will have to memorize promos just 1-2 hours before the show starts. They really don't think beyond the next PPV because they're so focused on the now ... so unless you're putting together your own storyline with McMahon's permission, don't expect a nice 3-4 month character progression. I do really miss those big arcs like the Megapowers Collide, it just means so much more when you built something over time.

That being said, the "on the fly" is nowhere near as chaotic as the WCW you mentioned. That's just brutal.

TNA is very strange, I think they plan many months in advance, but it seems like it was planned a year in advance WHILE ON ACID. Who would ever plan a secret alliance that consists of Jeff Hardy, Jeff Jarrett and Abyss? That is so wrong.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by tucking fypo

What are the chances Vince will be involved in the outcome of their match? Someone will get screwed. But I agree with what someone said earlier about WWE putting themselves in a corner to where any outcome that involves Punk not winning the title could cause some real blowback.

Montreal Screwjob? I hope not.

I heard a potential DOUBLE money in the bank cash-in. Imagine CM Punk winning the title, someone cashes and CM Punk beats them. He's on his way out of the WWE with the belt, and it's all done. then the other MITB winner comes in and cashes as well to keep the title in the WWE. That would be exciting, but would require a little creative footwork to explain how the Smackdown winner can challenge for the Raw title.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

They didn't bury Sheamus at all. The world "bury" has become the most overused in the wrestling language. They gave his push to Miz eventually and he was dealing with Daniel Bryan, HHH (who he got to destroy/injure and put out for a year), and winning King of the Ring tournaments and midcard titles. Ya, he lost a bunch of matches in there, but if you want him to run through all those guys undefeated, or with only a spare loss here or there, you're REALLY choosing him over all those other guys and I'm not sure that's the right call either.

I agree Barrett was pushed way too early, but they thought they could protect him as part of a group. It was going to get exposed eventually, and it did, and he clearly didn't end up impressing them. He'll get other chances, but again, I don't believe the answer is him going undefeated, or close to undefeated, with high profile feuds all the time, over the past months or few years since Nexus. What's wrong with him winning the I-C title and feuding with the old Nexus guys who got sick of him? That's exactly where he should be right now, IMO. If he gets better, he'll get pushed again.

You can't have Sheamus, and Barrett, and Miz, pushed to the degree you want at the same time unless they're only dealing with squash jobbers. I don't think the guys outside the main event scene in 1999 or 2003 or 2006 were really booked so strong as you think - those were just usually guys with 15 years experience who were a million times better than Sheamus and Barrett and Miz. But there's no rival territories/promotions any more, so the entry pool is a lot thinner, and they're forced now to push guys who have been in the business just a couple of years . Kevin Nash said it well in a shoot recently - a wrestler really reaches his peak around 35-40 assuming he got into the business in his early 20s. Nash used to get destroyed for his "vanilla midget" comments and such, but Guerrero/Benoit/Jericho wouldn't have worked as main eventers in 1997 when the internet was screaming for them to be going clean over the NWO or whatever. By 2003, they clearly owned their characters and the fans, and they didn't need to be in the spotlight 12 months, 52 weeks a year to maintain their star power. A lot of times, when those guys like Guerrero and Jericho weren't challenging for the world title that month, they were in silly comedy storylines (which would definitely count as being "buried" in today's terminology - Jericho was jobbing to Chyna for god's sake - but those guys still looked like stars, because they were 15 year veterans by then.) But if Jericho won the WCW world title in 1996, anything he did in 1997 would have been considered a burial by your logic.

What do you define as a push? Barrett was in the Main Event scene, but he was an utter joke in it. He lost almost every big match and as I mentioned, he has as many PPV wins as Snooki. That's not a push, that's jobbing for someone else. He wasn't great in the ring, but he wasn't bad either. Not much worse than someone like Cena and I think he's really good on the mic. And while Miz held the title, he was booked as a joke. They couldn't even put him over cleanly on a 61-year old announcer. He is the weakest WWE Champion we've had in a long time and now that the run is over, he's a couple weeks away from being buried on Superstars. Neither guy has any credibility at this point which is the entire purpose of a push.

Sheamus is the only one who they pushed well. He had some wins and he had some losses. But then they buried him in the IC scene which doesn't matter and kept him off multiple PPVs.

Originally Posted by molson

And the R-truth push makes sense to me, it's a old-timey classic heel formula. The guy is obsessed with the fans liking him, then gets a couple of big wins and flames out. He gets a taste of the top but just misses it. So he snaps, freaks out on John Morrison and the fans, feels liberated, and suddenly isn't worried about catering to the fans, which makes him even more successful. He drops the theme music, the rapping with fans, and suddenly, he's way more successful. It's not an original formula, but it's a good one. (Also, from a business perspective, one of the reason he's getting a big push now is that he's finally able to enter Canada again, for the first time since he got some felonies in his earlier years.) He's also in that 35-40 15+ years experience range now....he's going to seem like a bigger star than Sheamus when he's not in the world title picture, even if he's losing a lot and doing comedic stuff because he's that talented.

The problem is that R-Truth has been a nobody for awhile. That storyline worked perfectly for Edge years ago when he broke in to the main event scene because he had credibility. He was a huge player in the tag scene, had great mid-card feuds, and just came out on top of one of the most watched feuds at the time (with Matt Hardy). But R-Truth was just another mid-carder with nothing on his resume. It was just random.

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: I will be interesting to see Sheamus/Miz/Barrett when they get to 35-40, because unlike the guys that came before them, they've already had main event success in the WWE. Traditionally, guys spent their 20s doing main event stuff in the smaller or rival territories, and Vince would scoop them up when they were already ready to be stars. When the territories died, they slowly built up their own guys like HBK/Hart (who also worked in big angles in other companies before the WWE)....now, they're trying to replicate that early experience by actually giving those young guys in their 20s main event WWE angles right off the bat, a couple of years into the business. It's never been done before. We'll see how it works long term, but one of the obvious downsides is that you have to have a period of falling back to earth after that initial push. That's not a burial though. I'm trying to even think of the guys entering that 35-40 age group now besides R-truth, and the Hardys. A lot of them are dead. There is a gap there.

It's a problem they have since so much talent has left the organization. It seems like they just throw shit against the wall hoping it sticks. Then bail on that idea in a moments notice and try with someone else. No buildup for these guys, no long term direction. Just pull a mid-carder out of a hat and let him job to Cena/Orton for a few months and hope that makes him a star.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a problem they have since so much talent has left the organization. It seems like they just throw shit against the wall hoping it sticks. ... Just pull a mid-carder out of a hat and let him job to Cena/Orton for a few months and hope that makes him a star.

It's also the same problem that's been around since the bloated rosters of the Monday Night Wars.

Difference is, at least now the main eventers are willing to be in the ring with the midcarders.

[Atocep]

I watched wrestling fairly religiously until around '98 and then I stopped watching until my son got interested in it a couple of years ago. Now I watch every now and then to keep up with the stuff he's telling me.

I've never really watched much WWE. I was a NWA/WCW fan since it was what was on all the time. What I've noticed since I started watching the WWE is the lack of dangerous heels. I grew up watching Flair and the Four Horsemen get major pushes constantly. What was great about a promotion centering around heels was you got really involved emotionally. You either got pissed off because the bad guys won again or you really felt like something great was accomplished when a Ricky Steamboat came along to win the title from Flair.

The WWE really lacks that emotional investment. I don't see it my son, who absolutely loves wrestling but is getting bored with the WWE at the moment. He's 9 and he's figured out he only has to watch the first 15 minutes and the last 15 minutes of Smackdown and Raw to keep up with what's going on. The WWE seems to have forgotten there's a midcard at all. There's no hype for the midcard titles. No one cares. The thing the WCW did really well when it started competing with the WWE in the mid 90s was it pushed it's midcard roster hard and made the entire show interesting to watch. The WWE had a interesting midcard at one point as well. The intercontinental and tag team titles meant something (at least they seemed to). To me the roster right now is bloated with midcarders and upper midcarders and the only thing the WWE does with them is have them wait in line until it's their turn to get a push into the main event. Then when someone's push is done they're buried back down in the midcard until its their turn again.

Cena's character is just stale and boring at this point. My son was a Cena fan up until a year or so ago. Now he wants him to lose. He's the target audience for Cena and even he's bored with him. Cena is in desperate need of a heel turn which would allow someone else step up and be the major face of the franchise for awhile and maybe create some appeal for Cena from a different group of fans.

Maybe my son is different from other fans his age, but he just doesn't have much interest in the product at the moment. He watches the beginning and end of shows on the DVR and checks PPV results online. He hasn't even asked me about getting a PPV in months.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's also the same problem that's been around since the bloated rosters of the Monday Night Wars.

Difference is, at least now the main eventers are willing to be in the ring with the midcarders.

The problem is that everyone is burnt out on the same guys every week on TV. Orton and Cena have been in the world title mix for almost 7 years each, and have been constantly on TV during that time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's also the same problem that's been around since the bloated rosters of the Monday Night Wars.

Difference is, at least now the main eventers are willing to be in the ring with the midcarders.

While it held some people back, it led to them having incredibly strong midcards. Something the company doesn't have at all. Many of the top stars over the last 10-15 years came from that midcard.

They used to bring a guy up to the main event scene and he had a nice resume. Like Edge for instance. Everyone knew about his epic tag matches, his big feuds with other midcarders. Now they throw R-Truth into a Championship match and no one really knows what the hell he's ever done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by General Mike

The problem is that everyone is burnt out on the same guys every week on TV. Orton and Cena have been in the world title mix for almost 7 years each, and have been constantly on TV during that time.

That's one of the risks when you've got a modern era national promotion (i.e. not like the territory days) and have guys hit the main event level at a relatively young age.

Most of the others roughly in that tier have either aged into reduced schedules (Taker for example), left the business (Rock, HBK, etc), or had prolonged absences due to injury (Trips comes to mind although Cena missed parts of 07 & 08 and Orton missed time in 08 with injuries of their own).

I'm just not sure how you take guys off TV for prolonged periods when they're in their prime and they've been relatively durable unlike some of the others (Batista comes to mind).

[Matthean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2VK6U6YVD

Looks like somebody took note of Cena's trash talking of The Rock. Somebody being The Rock himself.

[Matthean]

The Best and Worst of WWE Raw 7/11

Nice write up on WWE Raw this week.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Mota

I do really miss those big arcs like the Megapowers Collide, it just means so much more when you built something over time.

But did those really build up over time, in terms of the story line? Or was it just spaced out more?

Back in late 80s there were four PPVs and one-hour of TV a week; now I've lost track of how much TV time they're filling in between their monthly (or more) PPVs. So now the same basic ten-step angle plays out in three weeks instead of ten. And I don't know how you get around that as a writer.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But did those really build up over time, in terms of the story line? Or was it just spaced out more?

Back in late 80s there were four PPVs and one-hour of TV a week; now I've lost track of how much TV time they're filling in between their monthly (or more) PPVs. So now the same basic ten-step angle plays out in three weeks instead of ten. And I don't know how you get around that as a writer.

Absolutely, if hogan and savage were on the saturday AM programming every week, and interacting, it would have gotten repetitive in a hurry. Instead, that story only really advanced at ppvs and snme, both of which were very rare. And hogan only wrestled on tv a couple of times a year.

HHH apparently wants to bring back at least some jobber squash matches to help spread things out, but most others are against it.

[Mota]

RoH had an hour of TV a week and about 30-40 shows that were released on DVD, and managed to make an EXCELLENT feud between El Generico and Kevin Steen that lasted almost exactly a year. In my opinion by far the hottest feud of 2010.

They did it by having multiple steps of progression, getting a few other people involved, and not being afraid to just have matches against other guys once in a while without constant interference.

It's still not the amount of TV that WWE does, but they could definitely put together a 6 month angle if they wanted, and planting the seeds for future storylines a few months in advance.

[molson]

Fun little Grantland article on wrestling, MITB, and the impact of wrestling message boards on how we watch the shows.

The Masked Man on John Cena's title match with CM Punk at WWE Money in the Bank - Grantland

[RainMaker]

It might be a work, but I think Miz blew out his knee pretty bad. Took an awkward fall from high up and it didn't look good at all. They carted him off early in the MitB match. Again, I could be a sucker, but it looked really bad and he could be out for a real long time.

Edit: I'm a gigantic mark I'm sorry. He came back out limping heavily. I should have known better, but it looked incredibly awkward when it happened and I didn't see any chance of him not hurting that knee.

[RainMaker]

Also, both MitB matches have been great. Some dangerous botches and huge spots. One of the more dangerous ones I've seen in some time. Sin Cara looks like he was legit hurt in the first one. Kofi almost came down on Swagger's throat from about 10 feet up on a botch. Del Rio has a couple huge gashes on his body and accidentally unmasked Rey.

The crowd is really into it too. Just a solid PPV so far. There was a huge CM Punk chant after the Henry/Show match. Main Event should be incredible.

[RainMaker]

By far the best PPV I've seen in as long as I can remember. Not necessarily the results, but the in-ring action was great, the crowd was incredible, and it was anything but predictable. Just a great event and Raw should be interesting tomorrow.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey32

Looks Like WWE lost two stars tonight. Cena will be fired tomorrow and CM Punk has left WWE with the belt.

Cena is not fired. Punk pretty much exposed the folly in that little stipulation by reminding everyone that Cena has to wrestle the Rock at Mania. I am glad WWE decided to drop that little stip from the match.

Punk did an amazing job and in my eyes has propelled to the level just below SCSA and The Rock. My hope is WWE doesn't do what it does with its new stars (Swagger, Barret, Shemus, Kofi, Miz) build them up and then regulate them to mid card duty.

[Suicane75]

Awesome show. Havn't been on the edge of my seat like that since Benoits Wrestlemania. A lot of really stiff work tonight, and not just the MITB spots. I think Cena may have knocked Johnny Ace back to his Dudes With Attitudes days.

I can't wait to see what they do on Raw tomorrow and it's been a good long while since I could say that.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Noop

Cena is not fired. Punk pretty much exposed the folly in that little stipulation by reminding everyone that Cena has to wrestle the Rock at Mania. I am glad WWE decided to drop that little stip from the match.

Punk did an amazing job and in my eyes has propelled to the level just below SCSA and The Rock. My hope is WWE doesn't do what it does with its new stars (Swagger, Barret, Shemus, Kofi, Miz) build them up and then regulate them to mid card duty.

Punk has already gone through the humbling process. If they mega push him, then I believe this is his legit chance.

This is a really weird time for WWE. They've done a great job of making us think that Punk is leaving the WWE, and now we really don't know what's going to happen next.

I definitely applaud them for creating an unpredictable environment, but also something that's been built up and makes sense. I've been tough on the WWE when I believe they've gone wrong, but this time I'll give them kudos for pulling off something great (and a fantastic main event).

A good storyline AND a good match, that's all that we can ask for.

[Suicane75]

Observer sight has been down for at least an hour now. That's usually a good indication of A shows interest level.

[SegRat]

Great PPV, however how long until WWE ruin this and go back yo the same crap they have had on tv since the Monday night wars. I give them two weeks tops.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SegRat

Great PPV, however how long until WWE ruin this and go back yo the same crap they have had on tv since the Monday night wars. I give them two weeks tops.

I give it two weeks before the "Superman Cena never loses" whining starts up again....or whenever it is the next time he beats...anybody.

Great show though. Both ladder matches were incredible, especially the Smackdown one. Even after 10 of them they're still coming up with new spots. And pretty much all of the "injuries" were sold really realistically. They really played up the danger of the match, as they've been hyping on the shows for weeks. Sin Cara convulsing was a little much maybe - I don't THINK that's a real injury just because it looked like a completely clean bump on a properly rigged ladder.

I even enjoyed Mark Henry's squash win over the Big Show. It was short, unoffensive, and I'm sure Show's going away for surgery or something, but its not very often in his career he's lost like that, if at all.

Orton was really over in Chicago too - I love angry Orton so much more than methodical Orton. He can't break out the angry shtick all the time, but when he does, he's really good. I also always enjoy the heel-outsmarts-the-face angle. I was waiting for Daniel Bryan to come out there at the end of that match, but I guess he'll say he wants a legitimate championship match. Which probably means he'll be the first guy to lose after winning MITB. But still, good for him, he's officially reached that level where any further losses will be considered "burials", so that's something (though its becoming a crowded group).

Don't know what to make of Punk (except for how incredible that match was)...but I think its fair to say that he's re-signed (or his contract really isn't up until August sometime - which was the original rumor until the WWE fudged it to TONIGHT for the purpose of this PPV). I posted (I think it was here), that he had maybe a 5% chance of winning and showing up on indys with the belt and I'd put that up to maybe 20% now....though if he was going to do pseudo indy-appearances (while really under WWE contract), I bet he'd already have announced the first one on twitter or something by now. I can't wait to see where they go from here. I like how WWE.com followed Punk's lead on completely no-selling the "firing" angle as such things never stick. I hope the buyrate delivers more than the last few tv show ratings did....I'm reading so much stuff about people "buying their first PPV in years" but I still wonder how many PPVs the Punk-crowd buys as opposed to the Cena family-crowd.

[Terps]

From Punk's twitter:

[SirFozzie]

He's not straight edge... Red Bull's not straight edge..

(Yes, I'm kidding)

[molson]

The cold air can't be good for the spinning mechanism

[molson]

TOP WWE SUPERSTAR SUSPENDED FOR WELLNESS VIOLATION
by Dave Scherer @ 9:15 AM on 7/18/2011

WWE has suspended Sin Cara for 30 days due to a failing a Wellness test. That explains the angle that they shot last night.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I hope the buyrate delivers more than the last few tv show ratings did....I'm reading so much stuff about people "buying their first PPV in years" but I still wonder how many PPVs the Punk-crowd buys as opposed to the Cena family-crowd.

I don't think it's a "Punk vs Cena" crowd type thing. I just think this PPV had an interesting build and was unpredictable. I can't remember a crowd that was this amped up before a match either. Made the whole thing feel special. Cena played his role perfectly as well and deserves a ton of credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4psHqrU2e8

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by molson

WWE has suspended Sin Cara for 30 days due to a failing a Wellness test.

Just a reminder: the high-flyers like Mysterio and Sin Cara and Morrison are on steroids, but the heavyweights like Cena and Bautista and HHH are clean.

[SirFozzie]

Look at Mistico/Sin Cara's body.. He's incredibly cut.. and Cena, I can bet he's not, he's really cycled down from his OVW bodybuilder days.

[RainMaker]

He's relatively short though which makes it much easier to maintain a cut body. It's the 6 ft 5 in guys with huge frames that are laughable.

Cena is an avid bodybuilder so I guess I can see it. But it's just so tough to maintain that kind of frame without help, especially on the road.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The rumors about Mistico's 'roid use were quietly out there when his signing was still only being talked about. Not as though the WWE didn't know/couldn't have found out before he was signed.

Meanwhile, several of the dirt sheets say it was indeed an anabolic steroid violation first discovered back in late June but the suspension was held until they had a corroborating source (I'm guessing that means a second test).

At least one of the sites is reporting that he may not be brought back. That would be consistent with the overall disappointment with his performance (they were reportedly on the verge of signing Averno just to bring him in to see if he could help Sin Cara look less lost, so far his best matches have been with Danielson & I'm pretty sure he could make even me look decent).

Seems to me that the wellness violation has been something they've kept in their pocket in case they decided to bail out of the whole situation & I suspect that decision may have now been made.

[RainMaker]

Does Sin Cara's performance in the ring really matter? He seems sort of like a gimmick to sell merchandise. They had his masks and other crap up before he even debuted. I'd think as long as he can flip into the ring and not get anyone killed, kids would still dig him and buy his stuff.

Saw someone joke that they should just put a mask on Justin Gabriel (who was excellent last night) and call him Sin Cara.