JerryvonKramer

I think there's a big disconnect between people who see Cena as a worker that is better than Bret or even on his level, and others who just don't really see it. I'm in the latter camp. I think Backlund is a much better comparison point for numerous reasons (to Cena that is). Another guy who was not all that special with some awkward aspects to his work, but who was on top long enough and worked enough main events to have great matches to his name. They both worked a style I don't care for too, but that's by the by. Both also champions pushed by the office who weren't accepted by all parts of the audience. I have Backlund in the 90-100 range and if Cena makes it, he'll be right around there for me. But I suspect both will be making way for lucha and WoS guys.

If it just boils down to "you like what you like" why does anyone bother pretending they have criteria or reasoning things out? Whether it be reviewing matches or assessing workers?

I'd like WWF because I have the best CV for booking that promotion in 1983.

Looking vaguely unimpressed.

I'd happily take part. Would be an interesting thing to do.

These shows have been nixed in favour of a set on GWE. I may return to it at some point though it will likely be next year after GWE is over.

Charles, do you really see Cena having the sort of match with Owen that Bret did?

I like Dustin, but I am not as high on him as a lot of people here. Top 10 is crazy talk. I probably don't have him top 50. This is an interesting comparison because Austin had something special. If it's The Natural vs Stunning Steve, I go Dustin. If it's Golddust vs. Stone Cold, I go Austin. I can't really see the argument for going Golddust over Austin, what would people point to? He did have a great 98, but .... Austin!! On balance, I think I'm Austin on this. Both will make my top 100.

The question is less about individual female fans existing and more about, well this: - When do people think wrestling had the most female wrestling fans? - Why do you think those women came to the matches? What was over with them? - Why didn't they stay fans? How long were they fans for? - What do you think would be some ways to get similar fans now?

I've seen lots of Cena matches. The AA seems to account for most of what he does. His portion of that triple threat match vs. Rollins from the Rumble was an example of it. How many AAs do you think Cena has hit just on PPVs in the past two years? I really hate the style. Really do.

One problem with Cena that I have is that 70% of his offense is finisher spam.

No I mean there are currently two other threads focusing on Cena. One just called "John Cena" the other one called Jawwwn Cena. Me and OJ are posting reviews in both of them.

Confusingly, there is a second Cena microscope thread here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/19220-john-cena/page-3&do=findComment&comment=5639633 Can we merge them?

I watched and reviewed one CM Punk vs Cena match which I thought was disappointing relative to the hype around it, see here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/20910-jaaawn-cena/?p=5656302

Bret without hesitation, my hatred of WWE Main Event style is that strong. I Loved Cena vs Brock though.

"I've been listening to you losers boo me for about a decade now. You boo me because I'm rich and you're not. I've made a success of my life, my face is on every magazine, every show poster, every DVD and every ad break. That's because I'm John Cena, and you're nothing but a loser. Oh boo hoo, Daniel Bryan this, Cesaro that. Let me give you a dose of reality, losers, you can go on your internet boards and your Twitter feeds and talk about how the company is screwing this guy or screwing that guy. Did you ever stop and think about why Vince McMahon, the most successful wrestling promoter in history, kept those little guys down and stuck with the most dominant champion this company has seen since Bruno Sammatino? It's because he knows what sells tickets. It's because he knows that my face, my muscles, my matches make money. You can bitch and cry all you want, losers, it's because, simply put, I'm better than Daniel Bryan. I'm better than CM Punk. I'm better than any of these jack off indie flavour of the month Ring of Honour no hope wannabes, and do you know why? Because I define SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. And there comes a point where a man has to say, "enough is enough". I'm not taking this crap from you LOSERS any more. Do you know how much money I made last year? It's more than most of you jealous little nerds will make in an entire lifetime. I'm better than you. All of you. And I've suffered in silence all this time, but no more! You clowns no longer dictate the way I'm received. Boo all you want, because ... You see, I'm Mr. WWE. I'm Mr. sports Entertianment. I can get any amount of tickets in any arena I want. *Camera pans to a whole section of the arena that is currently empty, 100s of fans, school girls, women, kids, start filing in* See, I can bring my people. Go on now, start chanting kids. * The fake crowd starts chanting "let's go Cena lets go! Let's go Cena lets go!" Yeah, I love this. That's what you morons should have been doing all these years. Okay, okay, now let's try this. "Cena! cena! cena!" Come on, CENA! CENA! * the fake crowd start chanting with him, as they do so he starts cupping his ear to them like Hogan* Allow me just to bask in the glory of this moment. It's a moment that not a single one of you losers who have ever booed me will ever experience. It's a moment that very few of those losers sitting in that locker room will ever experience. Because none of them, not one of them, are John Cena. They say everyone should have a dream. I'm telling you shouldn't even dream of being me, because you have ... No chance! *Vince's music hits. "No chance, that's what you got!" Vince comes to the ring and raises Cena's arm as the show finishes.*

I think that most women probably find the idea that every storyline must end in a fight a bit boring. As well as the idea of resolving conflict through violence. I think wrestling is "about masculinity" in a way. I don't think women try to prove themselves through prowess in quite the same way as men do. Magnum vs Tully as a narrative doesn't work if you swap them with two women. The entire storyline is bound up with what it is to "be a man". I think narratives centred around what it is to "be a woman" wouldn't necessarily culminate in a fight. I mean it is possible, you can get women who want to prove themselves in ways you'd think might be stereotypically masculine, but these women are mostly outliers who will be viewed as such by other women. But I think the idea of open physical violence is too crude and unsubtle. Female conflict happens all the time but it tends to be dirty looks and layers of indirect communication, not fighting. I don't know if you can get wrestling over with the female audience if "the match" is still the central thing. I think you might get women into it through the excitement of attending the live event or through a storyline that resonates, but never through the match itself. Am I wrong?

Magnificent show cover Kelly.

Akeem = funniest character of all time. Edit: video here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cir5h_wwf-royal-rumble-1989-the-twin-towers-interview_sport

From the disc and a half I watched of 80s lucha, I preferred him to El Canek.

Did any of them have the spot where the midget either crawls through Dick Worlhe's legs or climb on his back? There seemed to be a lot of standard ref-midget comedy spots that played up the idea of "those little mischievous imps".

I've talked about this before, but I want to mention it again. I think fans praise storytelling too readily and too easily. Coherence and logic alone don't necessarily make something compelling. Narrative alone is not something to be praised. I sometimes get the Impression that people will add a couple of stars just for the mere presence of narrative, and by the same token punish a match heavily if they perceive that coherence or storytelling are missing. Two things on this. First, I think sometimes narratives are there but they aren't always obvious and don't always take the same form. I've talked about Sing and Luger vs. The Steiners before on WTBBP, as well as a few other Steiners matches where this is the case. Storytelling doesn't always have to take the form of limbwork or focusing on the same body part. Sometimes it can be a case of a team underestimating another team. Sometimes it can be a case of two powerhouses going at each other and reaching a stalemate. There are occassions where the bombfest IS the best and most compelling narrative for the context and the match. Second, I think people are really inconsistent with it and play favourites. I don't think Stan Hansen and Brock Lesnar are subject to a lot of the criticisms that are thrown at, for example, The Steiners, but I think they can sometimes be guilty of similar things. All the talk about logic and storytelling can be swept aside in an instant if Dory's face looks bored. Jerry Lawler is praised for his structure and formula work, while Hogan is criticised for working essentially the same formula. People say "I don't really care about moves", but for some reason the ability to throw a great punch is praised to the hilt, while the ability to throw suplex variations is undervalued. I am not having a go at anyone in particular, but I do think there are systematic biases at play and the root cause is this undefined idea of "storytelling" which has some basic assumptions at its core. I think it is undertheorised, and underdeveloped as a mode of criticism.

I'll have to remember that one next time people are ragging on Dory. Can you explain the finish to the Satanico match at all? The one with the chicken dance? Found it totally weird.

I much preferred the Casas bout from 92 and thought Dandy showed a lot more personality in that one too. The Azteca match and why people think it's a GOAT contender are a total mystery to me.

I feel vaguely responsible for the "Good Ol' Will from Texas" tag. I like seeing our guys do "outside dates".