Matt D

It's going to take a little bit of getting used to (and to figure out what site to go to directly instead of just the landing page). I was still having trouble with my tablet (and it's an older tablet so that's probably on me). I think I've got it now that I figured out I need to turn the thing around a couple of time to access search/video. I didn't get to the end of the process last night because I needed the PC to reset the password. I'll test it full on tonight. It did work fine on my phone, though. I'm pretty sure a "Recently Added" section has to be coming.

He should be a heel for less than a year. He should be dominant. He should steamroll people.

I guess I was just saying he would have had opportunities, ten years of opportunities (and in that regard, we ought to look at Hogan from 82-99 or so, right? Not just from 84-93). Then it comes down to this: Would Cena have become just another guy eventually if he had turned or is there something innately special about him that would have allowed him to be able to make the most of that opportunity, and come out of it with even a broader appeal?

On the one hand, I'll buy an argument that he only has his longevity due to this weird twist of fate (along with his ability to wrestle as an Ace of course and his workaholic attitude and the make-a-wish stuff). On the other, who else were they going to push? I think he gets pushed consistently either way, especially during the years and years of a split brand.

Could he have been a potentially bigger draw as a singular entity over the last many years if they turned him for a while ten years ago?

Pretty soon it'll be how much people spend on gacha in the mobile game.

This plus expanding and running a lot more international shows. WWE reached the saturation point in the US a long time ago which is why they've been constantly breaking into new markets every year for the past decade as opposed to doing a few Euro tours, Canada, and a Japanese tour. I don't know that turning Cena would or wouldn't have made more or less money. I'm not arguing for it either direction. What I am saying is that WWE not going with "wrestling 101" booking when it came to Cena sure worked out pretty well for them, and there's no reason to think it won't work out with Roman as well. Actually, isn't what you're saying that they found ways to deal with the dwindling returns of not picking up new US fans? You can't say this is the saturation point when we've seen booms before. And they had to find ways to deal with the dwindling returns because Cena WASN'T bringing in the same amount of fans as stars of previous generations, right? So obviously, while they've managed that shortfall by tapping new markets and finding new revenue streams, maybe it didn't work all that well for them because they had to do so in the first place?

Controlled for inflation? I don't know. It's like blaming Sting for 1992. Sure, you can do it, but it's not the whole picture. Plus we're dealing with a counter-factual. Could he have drawn more if they turned him? I think so. You don't. Neither of us can prove it. Do we think that there was a boom at any point in the period after 2001? It sure doesn't feel that way. Are they just better at getting money out of a smaller pool of people?

Which is not at all how WWE has operated for years, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to suddenly start back up. Wrestling 101 says you turn John Cena when crowds were booing him 3 months into his title reign. Instead, the hate got worse and worse and worse and yet Cena became the biggest star the industry had produced since Rock and Austin, and he's ended up making the company more money than anyone. Has he?

Wrestling 101 is 95% of the time just simple logic and coherence.

Do you think they've properly utilized that data to maximize their profits?

How do you know they didn't create that portion to a large extent by not listening to the fans? Vince sure as hell isn't going out there and shutting his eyes and listening. (Unless he really is blind!)

It's happened throughout wrestling history. The whole Eddie Graham idea of "listening to the crowd." Heel gets familiar enough with the crowd that he starts to get over with pockets as a face and that pressure builds up. There are generally cool elements to being a bad guy, especially a tough/edgy bad guy. He goes babyface. It's pro wrestling 101. I absolutely think that Cena would have ultimately been more over with everyone as a babyface if he spent a year as a heel at some point. I think it would work with Reigns. I especially think it would work with Reigns because 1) He's become an extremely good pro wrestler, 2) he'd make a great heel right now because he has so much to be resentful about and 3) he can portray the exact sort of heel that would get him over huge as a face with all facets of the audience after a certain point. We've basically already seen that. I get that you're annoyed with people or whatever, and I'm sick of explaining to people why Reigns is actually a really good pro wrestler and having them not even want to engage on the conversation, too, but that doesn't mean that a heel turn wouldn't make him a bigger face in the end. It absolutely would. I don't think the Cena Sucks/Let's Go Cena stuff has actually been a boon to business relative to what something more definitive could have done. I honestly don't.

I tend to look for meaning in matches. For resonance. For weight. Selling is the language of imparting meaning on actions in wrestling. It's the way to show the audience that something matters. Consistent selling over multiple matches is a big part of that. Symbols are defined over time and that shapes how they are utilized. That said, no two matches are the same and no two stories need be the same, and it is situational. It's not a one-size fits all.

Alexa killed it in that opening segment. It's something we've seen a bunch of times before in one permeation or another but that's rarely worked as well as that one did. She's the most nuanced one dimensional character ever.

He should do whatever makes him money in the long term no matter where the idea comes from. Also, the idea is simple logic and following the formula he used with Rocky in 98 anyway. You deal too much with these people, I think.

The idea is to get him cheered later. Recapture the "Coolness," so that when he turns face again he's doing double the merch numbers.

I see it as a loss leader that exists solely for me to get to watch wrestling that I want to see that there's no way in hell I'd be able to see otherwise, the likes of which absolutely does not exist outside of MAYBE the Portland footage (And even then we don't get the big Tuesday shows) due to a genie's wish that I forgot I made. Only crazy people take impossible gift horses for granted.

I don't get why they don't just turn Reigns for 9 months or whatever. He'd be bigger afterwards.

It's also the individual attributes that people value. Offense or bumping over selling. Workrate and cardio over character. Etc.

I get where you're coming from, but maybe you should Get the F Out and go with Ace instead of Face? I think a prerequisite of being a good in-ring face is to get the crowd behind you and while he did it against Brock and Sheamus...

There's a 15 year age difference between them, right? That threw me. I had no idea they were brothers until this thread either. I mean, I probably knew that at some point, but I could also list all the Kings of England from William the Conqueror on and I can't do that anymore either.

It's fun for what it is.

The best comparison would be mid-late WWF Hogan, I'd think, where people paid to see not a variation, but an exact iteration. The difference is in the length of the carbon copy finishing stretch. I don't think there's anything else in wrestling quite like what Guerrero does. It's stock footage, but something like four or five minutes of it. It's like watching Rocky Horror Picture Show and singing along to the same thing you've seen a hundred times as opposed to seeing Bruce Springsteen in concert where you get most of the big hits and the same encore every time but the set list will be at least a little different. I'm not sure I entirely even criticize it (as I do with others) so much as remark upon it as distinct and unique enough that it hampers attempts at comparative ranking.

Maybe he'll learn what pro wrestling is actually about by watching all of this instead?