Current WWE

[S.L.L.]

Hey, I finally got my internet connection back! Stupid hurricane. Always trying to mess with my good time. Alright, where were we....

 

Anyway, I find the notion that the WWE dropped the ball in not becoming the Cena Show to be off base, not to mention the notion that adult male fans turned on Cena because he represented morality and authority. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. They hated him because they saw him as a phony, a poser, a soulless corporate creation shoved down their throats.

 

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

The heels [of the Attitude Era] became anti-Austins: conformists whose "moral" behavior mask their true immoral nature, often representing skewed versions of traditional virtues, or characters otherwise bound to the control of society.

Phony, soulless, corporate poseur Cena is exactly the kind of guy Attitude Era fans were taught to hate.

 

Even in the supposed golden age of 2007, there were dark clouds on the horizon. Look at Backlash, the very first PPV after that record-setting Wrestlemania. It did something like 194k buys, which for the time was disastrously low. What made it even more alarming was the fact that it was the first tri-branded PPV.

It was the first minor PPV to be tri-branded. Actually, no...No Way Out was tri-branded that year, too.

 

But that's besides the point. It is true that PPV buyrates dipped slightly from the year before on average. No getting around that. They still made more money than they had the year before, or any year before. So clearly they had something going for them that they maybe could've utilized better.

 

The WWE had rebounded from its 03-04 nadir, but it wasn't on the cusp of bigger things. It wasn't failing to go all-in on the Cena Show that held them back, it was failing to offer something to people who didn't want to see the Cena Show.

You know, I haven't brought it up yet, because I didn't intend to make this thread all about Cena, but it's worth noting that, in addition to not caring about giving us The Cena Show, they also didn't care about giving skeptics a reason to want to see The Cena Show.

 

Before blood was banned from the shows outright, Phil and Tom always used to make this point about how he suffered from never getting to blade in his matches, as that's the traditional way to get a guy who appeals to kids and women to appeal to adult men, too. Blood helped make adult males see Dusty as more than a jive-talking clown and the R'n'R's as more than ugly pretty boys that drove the teenyboppers wild. But WWE usually only allowed for one bladejob per show, and that was always going to go to HHH, because HHH basically spent his entire main event run like he was at pro wrestler fantasy camp.

 

Now, that's just one small detail, and it's one that wouldn't be available to them forever, obviously, but it is endemic of their treatment of Cena in general. It's not just that there's a large portion of the crowd who isn't interested in Cena, it's that WWE isn't interested in making you interested in Cena. I swear, I have never seen a promotion just throw their hands in the air and give up the way they did with Cena. They met the slightest bit of resistance, and they just said "well, that's as big as he'll ever get...maybe we can make it a thing that some of the fans cheer him and some of the fans boo him". And yeah, they can talk all they want to about how "unique" Cena's crowd reaction is or whatever. At the end of the day, it's a monument to WWE's staunch refusal to do anything ever in the 21st century. And, of course they couldn't just not put him in main events anymore, because they had already gotten that far with him, and recharting the course of his career would have also required work. So it just sits there. A half-way built bridge to a future that might have been.

 

Man, that tomk post about the WWE brand taking precedence over individual performers has not aged well at all. You'd have to be out of your mind to watch the past few years and conclude that Cena is just an interchangeable cog in the WWE machine. The current product is more Cena-centric than ever.

I reiterate:

 

1. THEY JUST DON'T CARE

John Cena is the most prominent member of the regular roster. Changing that would require effort, so he will remain in that spot until acted upon by an outside force. There's no more evidence now that they're actually invested in making him a star than they were then. This is just booking entropy, and if anything, it makes it all the more clear that Tom was right - the goal is to maintain status quo, not to create a big money star. The brand, not the wrestlers. And you'd have to be out of your mind to watch them the past few years and see otherwise.

 

This was a point I always struggled to be sympathetic towards. I mean, fan turnover happens. You can't please everybody. As a promoter, I'd be more interested in playing towards a growing young fanbase than a dwindling aging one. I mean, if the new fanbase doesn't actually come, fine. We can abort the plan in the early goings if that's the case. But in 2007, the lights were all green. There was no reason to not at least try.

Counterpoint: the Austin heel turn. Sometimes the fans you've driven away never come back even after you reverse course.

Explain to me how the Austin heel turn was playing towards a growing young fanbase.

 

Oh, and Shawn did play heel against Hulk Hogan.

 

Well, you got me there. Working heel in a deliberately shitty way in order to expose the flaws of your opponent and get yourself over at their expense is still working heel, but it was easier to write "refused to play heel".

 

And Bruno Sammartino sold out the Garden more than anyone else.

Ummm...no. It was Backlund. That's not even up to debate. But even if we artificially inflated Sammartino's numbers so he went over the top, it doesn't change the fact that Backlund's were damn impressive, and if you're going to talk about how a guy can't lead a company into a big money period, comparing him to Bob Backlund undercuts your point pretty badly.

[Matt D]

Now, that's just one small detail, and it's one that wouldn't be available to them forever, obviously, but it is endemic of their treatment of Cena in general. It's not just that there's a large portion of the crowd who isn't interested in Cena, it's that WWE isn't interested in making you interested in Cena. I swear, I have never seen a promotion just throw their hands in the air and give up the way they did with Cena. They met the slightest bit of resistance, and they just said "well, that's as big as he'll ever get...maybe we can make it a thing that some of the fans cheer him and some of the fans boo him". And yeah, they can talk all they want to about how "unique" Cena's crowd reaction is or whatever. At the end of the day, it's a monument to WWE's staunch refusal to do anything ever in the 21st century. And, of course they couldn't just not put him in main events anymore, because they had already gotten that far with him, and recharting the course of his career would have also required work. So it just sits there. A half-way built bridge to a future that might have been.

I didn't see much 2007, but I did see 2010 and it amazed me the way they dealt with Cena in Fall 2010. It'd be little things. Like when Wade Barrett would order Cena to FU Orton, they'd go out of their way to NOT do that. He'd get him up and then Barrett would tell him to put Orton down again so he could do it. I found that really striking and endemic of the entire angle. The way he'll give up title shots to guys like Ryder or Ryback. There are a thousand little things that are completely intentional. They can't not be.

[NintendoLogic]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

The heels [of the Attitude Era] became anti-Austins: conformists whose "moral" behavior mask their true immoral nature, often representing skewed versions of traditional virtues, or characters otherwise bound to the control of society.

Phony, soulless, corporate poseur Cena is exactly the kind of guy Attitude Era fans were taught to hate.

And remaking WWE in the image of this phony, soulless, corporate poseur would have ushered in a new boom period?

 

It was the first minor PPV to be tri-branded. Actually, no...No Way Out was tri-branded that year, too.

Other than Cena and Michaels in the main event, No Way Out was Smackdown-exclusive. And Bad Blood 2003 did a good byrate pretty much exclusively on the basis of being the first brand-exclusive PPV, so Backlash's anemic numbers represented a huge step backwards.

 

But that's besides the point. It is true that PPV buyrates dipped slightly from the year before on average. No getting around that. They still made more money than they had the year before, or any year before. So clearly they had something going for them that they maybe could've utilized better.

It's well-established that WWE has remained profitable largely by developing revenue streams that are independent of its ability to put asses in seats. And I posted a graph in the HOF candidates thread showing that PPV buys declined every year from 2005 to 2010 before a Rock-assisted rebound in 2011.

 

You know, I haven't brought it up yet, because I didn't intend to make this thread all about Cena, but it's worth noting that, in addition to not caring about giving us The Cena Show, they also didn't care about giving skeptics a reason to want to see The Cena Show.

 

Before blood was banned from the shows outright, Phil and Tom always used to make this point about how he suffered from never getting to blade in his matches, as that's the traditional way to get a guy who appeals to kids and women to appeal to adult men, too. Blood helped make adult males see Dusty as more than a jive-talking clown and the R'n'R's as more than ugly pretty boys that drove the teenyboppers wild. But WWE usually only allowed for one bladejob per show, and that was always going to go to HHH, because HHH basically spent his entire main event run like he was at pro wrestler fantasy camp.

 

Now, that's just one small detail, and it's one that wouldn't be available to them forever, obviously, but it is endemic of their treatment of Cena in general. It's not just that there's a large portion of the crowd who isn't interested in Cena, it's that WWE isn't interested in making you interested in Cena. I swear, I have never seen a promotion just throw their hands in the air and give up the way they did with Cena. They met the slightest bit of resistance, and they just said "well, that's as big as he'll ever get...maybe we can make it a thing that some of the fans cheer him and some of the fans boo him". And yeah, they can talk all they want to about how "unique" Cena's crowd reaction is or whatever. At the end of the day, it's a monument to WWE's staunch refusal to do anything ever in the 21st century. And, of course they couldn't just not put him in main events anymore, because they had already gotten that far with him, and recharting the course of his career would have also required work. So it just sits there. A half-way built bridge to a future that might have been.

My recollection is the exact opposite. When crowds first started turning on Cena in 2005, WWE went to absurd lengths to try to turn the tide. First, they tried to recreate Austin/McMahon with Cena/Bischoff. Then, when he was getting booed out of the building everywhere they went against Kurt Angle, they did everything they could to get fans to boo Angle instead (having him insult the troops, giving him Daivari as a manager, censoring the "you suck" chants), to no avail. They may have relented eventually, but they didn't initially meet it with indifference.

 

I reiterate:

 

1. THEY JUST DON'T CARE

John Cena is the most prominent member of the regular roster. Changing that would require effort, so he will remain in that spot until acted upon by an outside force. There's no more evidence now that they're actually invested in making him a star than they were then. This is just booking entropy, and if anything, it makes it all the more clear that Tom was right - the goal is to maintain status quo, not to create a big money star. The brand, not the wrestlers. And you'd have to be out of your mind to watch them the past few years and see otherwise.

If only they could do more to show that they're invested in making Cena a bigger star. Like having him in the main event of every PPV where he's physically able to perform despite holding the world title (or any title, for that matter) for exactly zero days during that span. Or having him go over Brock Lesnar when booking logic and common sense pointed in the opposite direction.

 

Are you really arguing that Cena accidentally stumbled into being the guy all the booking revolves around in spite of WWE's best efforts?

 

Explain to me how the Austin heel turn was playing towards a growing young fanbase.

What difference does that make in whether the older fans you've turned your back on will come back?

 

Ummm...no. It was Backlund. That's not even up to debate. But even if we artificially inflated Sammartino's numbers so he went over the top, it doesn't change the fact that Backlund's were damn impressive, and if you're going to talk about how a guy can't lead a company into a big money period, comparing him to Bob Backlund undercuts your point pretty badly.

What numbers are you looking at? Sammartino sold out the Garden 187 times. They were doing monthly MSG shows back then, so it wasn't mathematically possible for Backlund to come anywhere close to that number during his reign. I'm not arguing against Backlund's drawing power in general, mind you.

[Ricky Jackson]

The 187 sellouts for Sammartino at MSG (or other such really high numbers I've seen thrown around) is, as far as I know, an exaggeration. I think the real number is closer to 45 or so, basically the same as Backlund or slightly less. Sammartino may have main evented 187 MSG cards in total, but that sounds high, even though it was over a twenty year period. Sammartino was a super hot draw of course, but you have to consider things like the fact that he stepped down as the main drawing card from 71-73 (Morales) and from 77-80 (Graham and Backlund, before returning for a last hurrah against Larry Z), and that the 65-68 period was relatively cold for NYC, with no TV in the area for a few years and very few sellouts, etc.

 

Edit: Using Cawthon's site, I counted 125 main events for Bruno at MSG between 63-80, with about a dozen or so possible others where he wrestled on a card during Morales and Backlund's runs and I'm not sure what the pushed main event was. I know he also headlined cards during 60-62, usually as Argentina Rocca's partner, that are not listed on Cawthon's site. Anyway, even when taking all that into consideration, there is no way Bruno headlined 187 MSG shows, let alone sold them all out, as a look at the attendance figures shows.

[NintendoLogic]

After digging deeper, it seems that the 187 figure is exaggerated. I've seen wildly varying estimates of the actual figure, ranging from the low 40s to around 127. So it's entirely possible that Backlund did record more MSG sellouts than Sammartino. It's not really relevant to the overall argument, so I'll just concede the point.

[Ricky Jackson]

I just saw an opening where I could flex a little of my historical knowledge. Continue with the Cena debate. (For the record, I think it is obvious the WWE has revolved around Cena for 7 years and I really don't see how he has been under-utilized. Often poorly booked, yes, but not held back at all)

[Mad Dog]

I actually really enjoying watching Superstars, Main Event and NXT on a weekly basis. Main Event seems to be never fail for a good match and Superstars and NXT usually manage a good match a week. There's been some really good matches on Superstars over the past couple of months.

[S.L.L.]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

The heels [of the Attitude Era] became anti-Austins: conformists whose "moral" behavior mask their true immoral nature, often representing skewed versions of traditional virtues, or characters otherwise bound to the control of society.

Phony, soulless, corporate poseur Cena is exactly the kind of guy Attitude Era fans were taught to hate.

And remaking WWE in the image of this phony, soulless, corporate poseur would have ushered in a new boom period?

Illustrating how he was more than that may have ushered in a new boom period. THEY JUST DON'T CARE, so they didn't do that.

 

It was the first minor PPV to be tri-branded. Actually, no...No Way Out was tri-branded that year, too.

Other than Cena and Michaels in the main event, No Way Out was Smackdown-exclusive. And Bad Blood 2003 did a good byrate pretty much exclusively on the basis of being the first brand-exclusive PPV, so Backlash's anemic numbers represented a huge step backwards.

So doing the opposite of the thing that gave them a good buyrate gave them a bad buyrate? Gee, clearly that is Cena's fault.

 

No Way Out had some more interpromotional matches than you remember, but was more SmackDown-centric than I remembered, so I'll give you that.

 

But that's besides the point. It is true that PPV buyrates dipped slightly from the year before on average. No getting around that. They still made more money than they had the year before, or any year before. So clearly they had something going for them that they maybe could've utilized better.

It's well-established that WWE has remained profitable largely by developing revenue streams that are independent of its ability to put asses in seats. And I posted a graph in the HOF candidates thread showing that PPV buys declined every year from 2005 to 2010 before a Rock-assisted rebound in 2011.

Explain to me how they were making record money in 2007 without Cena having a hand in it. I'm not seeing it.

 

You know, I haven't brought it up yet, because I didn't intend to make this thread all about Cena, but it's worth noting that, in addition to not caring about giving us The Cena Show, they also didn't care about giving skeptics a reason to want to see The Cena Show.

 

Before blood was banned from the shows outright, Phil and Tom always used to make this point about how he suffered from never getting to blade in his matches, as that's the traditional way to get a guy who appeals to kids and women to appeal to adult men, too. Blood helped make adult males see Dusty as more than a jive-talking clown and the R'n'R's as more than ugly pretty boys that drove the teenyboppers wild. But WWE usually only allowed for one bladejob per show, and that was always going to go to HHH, because HHH basically spent his entire main event run like he was at pro wrestler fantasy camp.

 

Now, that's just one small detail, and it's one that wouldn't be available to them forever, obviously, but it is endemic of their treatment of Cena in general. It's not just that there's a large portion of the crowd who isn't interested in Cena, it's that WWE isn't interested in making you interested in Cena. I swear, I have never seen a promotion just throw their hands in the air and give up the way they did with Cena. They met the slightest bit of resistance, and they just said "well, that's as big as he'll ever get...maybe we can make it a thing that some of the fans cheer him and some of the fans boo him". And yeah, they can talk all they want to about how "unique" Cena's crowd reaction is or whatever. At the end of the day, it's a monument to WWE's staunch refusal to do anything ever in the 21st century. And, of course they couldn't just not put him in main events anymore, because they had already gotten that far with him, and recharting the course of his career would have also required work. So it just sits there. A half-way built bridge to a future that might have been.

My recollection is the exact opposite. When crowds first started turning on Cena in 2005, WWE went to absurd lengths to try to turn the tide. First, they tried to recreate Austin/McMahon with Cena/Bischoff.

 

Running the most obvious, hack-tastic angle in the 21st century wrestling playbook was "going to absurd lengths"?

 

Then, when he was getting booed out of the building everywhere they went against Kurt Angle, they did everything they could to get fans to boo Angle instead (having him insult the troops, giving him Daivari as a manager, censoring the "you suck" chants), to no avail. They may have relented eventually, but they didn't initially meet it with indifference.

My recollections of 2005 WWE have faded a lot, I admit. One thing I remember very clearly about it, though, was that Angle was the classic example of a guy who was "too cool" to meaningfully work heel opposite Cena, a theme that would recur a lot over the next few years. I'll reserve my comments on booking apathy at that point, though. There's probably someone better equipped to discuss it than me.

 

I reiterate:

 

1. THEY JUST DON'T CARE

John Cena is the most prominent member of the regular roster. Changing that would require effort, so he will remain in that spot until acted upon by an outside force. There's no more evidence now that they're actually invested in making him a star than they were then. This is just booking entropy, and if anything, it makes it all the more clear that Tom was right - the goal is to maintain status quo, not to create a big money star. The brand, not the wrestlers. And you'd have to be out of your mind to watch them the past few years and see otherwise.

If only they could do more to show that they're invested in making Cena a bigger star. Like having him in the main event of every PPV where he's physically able to perform despite holding the world title (or any title, for that matter) for exactly zero days during that span. Or having him go over Brock Lesnar when booking logic and common sense pointed in the opposite direction.

Yes, if only they could do more than that, like BOOKING HIM COMPETENTLY. Did you quote what I wrote up there without actually reading it? A sustained main event push =/= investing in making a guy a bigger star. If that sounds bizarre, well, that's because it is. In fact, it's the whole point I've been trying to make in this thread: current WWE is so fundamentally broken, that I can point to a guy who's as established in the main event firmament as Cena is, and say, with 100% seriousness, that they're under-utilizing him. That's how fucked they are.

 

Are you really arguing that Cena accidentally stumbled into being the guy all the booking revolves around in spite of WWE's best efforts?

Are you really arguing that is still such a thing as "WWE's best efforts"?

 

Explain to me how the Austin heel turn was playing towards a growing young fanbase.

What difference does that make in whether the older fans you've turned your back on will come back?

Who the fuck cares? My point here was that if you're forced to choose between a growing young fanbase and a dwindling old fanbase, and you can't get both, you choose the growing young fanbase. If your long-term goal is "reclaim the old guys", you're doing it wrong.

[Mad Dog]

The thing that stands out to me about John Cena is how little they protect him. They do more on a weekly basis to protect Randy Orton, who has failed repeatedly as a main eventer, than they ever have for John Cena. They go to some absurd lengths to protect Orton. Cena will repeatedly get bested by the heel every week, go to the PPV and lose.

[Ricky Jackson]

I guess they feel he doesn't need protecting because he's so over, or something. Really, they haven't protected their top stars in the traditional way since the mid-90s. Austin, the Rock and Undertaker lost way more than Hogan, Warrior or Savage. Even Hart, Diesel and Michaels were protected better. HHH is the exception I guess, but even he has jobbed more than the stars of the past, especially in recent years.

[S.L.L.]

I guess they feel he doesn't need protecting because he's so over, or something. Really, they haven't protected their top stars in the traditional way since the mid-90s. Austin, the Rock and Undertaker lost way more than Hogan, Warrior or Savage. Even Hart, Diesel and Michaels were protected better. HHH is the exception I guess, but even he has jobbed more than the stars of the past, especially in recent years.

It's not really a matter of wins and losses, though. I mean, on paper, Cena is no less protected than any of the big Attitude Era stars. He's portrayed as an extraordinarily successful wrestler.

 

What he's not portrayed as is a respectable wrestler, certainly not relative to his position. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Cena is the least protected top star in the recorded history of professional wrestling, and second place is so far away from him that I can't even see who it is.

 

Let me put it to you this way:

 

Think back to Mania 23 and the events building to it. Michaels cut a lot of promos about how Cena was a tool, and how much better he was, and how he was gonna beat him. Then comes Mania 23, and Cena taps Michaels cleanly in the center of the ring. After the match, Cena extends a hand to Michaels, but Michaels gives him a dirty look and walks away, and the next night on Raw, Michaels cuts a promo about Cena didn't really win, wasn't the better man, etc.

 

Replace Cena's name with that of any other top face in wrestling history, and the fallout of this is obvious: Michaels is shown to be a whiner and a sore loser, and ultimately turns heel as a result. With Cena as the top face, not only is Shawn not presented as a whiner or a sore loser, not only does he not turn heel, he's not even really presented as being wrong. Cena is presented as someone who merits so little respect from the crowd, that he can beat one of the biggest stars in the company clean as a sheet in the main event of the biggest money show ever in wrestling to that point, and they can turn around the very next night and tell you "he didn't really beat him", and you would be expected to take that claim seriously.

 

All the PPV main event wins in the world are meaningless in the face of that kind of booking apathy. That Cena has become the degree of star that he has in spite of that only serves as a testament to the fact that he probably could have been much, much bigger.

[JerryvonKramer]

I was interested to note that 5 of my friends who only watched wrestling for a year or so during the attitude era, had no clue who John Cena was. They'd never even heard of him.

 

This surprised me a little bit so I asked another group of friends about it (another five people, also not wrestling fans), and none of them had heard of him either.

 

Curious about this I then asked one of my undergrad classes (about 20 people aged 19-20, mostly female), and drew a blank.

 

I was a little shocked at that those results.

 

I also teach a class of American students, again mostly female, and for balance I asked them too and most of them seemed at least to have heard of Cena.

 

Still, I wonder if he isn't as big a star as anyone thinks. He's the top draw at a time when wrestling is mostly anonymous to most people. Cena's mainstream penetration is clearly not on the level of Hogan's or Rock's or even Austin's or arguably even Savage's. That doesn't say a huge amount though, because I'm convinced Ric Flair has never had any sort of mainstream penetration (i.e. he's a massive star within the world of wrestling, but not outside of that bubble).

[S.L.L.]

Still, I wonder if he isn't as big a star as anyone thinks. He's the top draw at a time when wrestling is mostly anonymous to most people. Cena's mainstream penetration is clearly not on the level of Hogan's or Rock's or even Austin's or arguably even Savage's.

I don't think anyone's arguing he's a mainstream star to that level, or even close. In my case, I'm arguing just the opposite - he had the potential to be that kind of star, and they blew it. If I thought he already was, I probably wouldn't be in this thread.

[NintendoLogic]

Explain to me how they were making record money in 2007 without Cena having a hand in it. I'm not seeing it.

You misunderstand my position. I'm not denying that Cena drew tons of money and played a big part in the success WWE has had. It's just that I think his realistic ceiling was significantly lower than you do. Plus, wrestling in America is as unpopular now as it's ever been. Cena's not the main problem, but he's not completely blameless either.

 

Yes, if only they could do more than that, like BOOKING HIM COMPETENTLY. Did you quote what I wrote up there without actually reading it? A sustained main event push =/= investing in making a guy a bigger star. If that sounds bizarre, well, that's because it is. In fact, it's the whole point I've been trying to make in this thread: current WWE is so fundamentally broken, that I can point to a guy who's as established in the main event firmament as Cena is, and say, with 100% seriousness, that they're under-utilizing him. That's how fucked they are.

Your argument's getting a bit muddled. If you want to argue that they tried to make Cena a bigger star but did it in an incompetent and counterproductive manner, I'd certainly agree with that. But if you're arguing that they deliberately sought to avoid making him a bigger star while putting him in every main event, putting him over everyone on the roster, and cross-promoting him to an unprecedented degree, that's a different story.

 

Who the fuck cares? My point here was that if you're forced to choose between a growing young fanbase and a dwindling old fanbase, and you can't get both, you choose the growing young fanbase. If your long-term goal is "reclaim the old guys", you're doing it wrong.

But if you drive away the latter in an attempt to pick up the former, you risk losing both. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Loss]

Both WWF booms were built on a risk of turning off longtime fans. In both cases, they did alienate the old fan base in favor of a new one. So it's a pretty consistent WWF business model. Cena has become a scapegoat for Attitude Era fans because of the era he represents. I do think WWE genuinely wants John Cena to be their biggest star, but I also think they're very lucky that people still have an emotional connection to him at all, positive or negative, considering the way he is portrayed. He has a superstar aura, which is what has carried him in spite of everything else.

[Sean Liska]

Explain to me how they were making record money in 2007 without Cena having a hand in it. I'm not seeing it.

Plus, wrestling in America is as unpopular now as it's ever been. Cena's not the main problem, but he's not completely blameless either.

 

I see this a lot, but there were no $10 million on-sale ticket days happening in 1994.

[Mad Dog]

To go in a slightly different direction. The Miz and Kofi Kingston pulled a really good match out of their collective asses on Main Event several weeks ago. It was probably the best match I've seen since starting to watch again in August.

 

Rollins defending the NXT Title against Joe Hennig from last month was also really good.

[S.L.L.]

Yes, if only they could do more than that, like BOOKING HIM COMPETENTLY. Did you quote what I wrote up there without actually reading it? A sustained main event push =/= investing in making a guy a bigger star. If that sounds bizarre, well, that's because it is. In fact, it's the whole point I've been trying to make in this thread: current WWE is so fundamentally broken, that I can point to a guy who's as established in the main event firmament as Cena is, and say, with 100% seriousness, that they're under-utilizing him. That's how fucked they are.

Your argument's getting a bit muddled. If you want to argue that they tried to make Cena a bigger star but did it in an incompetent and counterproductive manner, I'd certainly agree with that. But if you're arguing that they deliberately sought to avoid making him a bigger star while putting him in every main event, putting him over everyone on the roster, and cross-promoting him to an unprecedented degree, that's a different story.

I'm definitely not arguing the former, because they're definitely not trying to make him a bigger star.

 

I'm strongly considering the latter, but calling it "deliberate" requires a degree of wrestling promoter mind-reading that I can't quite muster. I'm cynical enough about McMahon and his underlings to think it's possible, maybe even likely. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

 

What I am arguing is this:

 

1. THEY JUST DON'T CARE

2. WHEN EVERYONE'S A SUPERSTAR, NOBODY IS

3. IT DOESN'T MATTER!

 

It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly when WWE's current booking malaise really kicked in, but it seems believable enough that Cena's initial push into a main event spot was a deliberate one. He may have been intended to be a star at first. But if it hadn't kicked in yet, it kicked in not long after, because when he didn't immediately catch fire as a top babyface (and not without justification, I admit), they started going through the motions with his booking, and haven't stopped to this day. They don't care enough to try and get people more invested in his character, nor do they care enough to throw him aside and try someone new. Where you see a guy omnipresent in the main event scene because they're desperate to make him a star, I see a guy omnipresent in the main event scene because he's been established as the default choice, and choosing anything else - or choosing to do anything else with him - would require a level of effort they don't care about exerting. This is reinforced by the internal memo that "it's the brand that draws", so there's no incentive to try anything else anyway. And as a result, nothing that happens matters.

 

Who the fuck cares? My point here was that if you're forced to choose between a growing young fanbase and a dwindling old fanbase, and you can't get both, you choose the growing young fanbase. If your long-term goal is "reclaim the old guys", you're doing it wrong.

But if you drive away the latter in an attempt to pick up the former, you risk losing both. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Or in other words....

 

 

What was it that I said in my first post in this thread?

 

What I'm getting at is that there's something about this topic that makes people squeamish. I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason, people don't want to look too hard at what's wrong with WWE in the past 5-10 years. They don't want to talk about real problems.

This response, more than anything, points to why this might be the case. Maybe the reason we look for quick fixes that address surface-level issues rather than attacking real problems is because attacking real problems means WWE making major changes on a level we're not all comfortable with. Maybe we'd rather have a WWE that will never be wildly successful, important, or even good again, but will at least be stable, rather than one that changes drastically, but - whether that change pans out for them or not - leaves a large chunk of us behind.

 

So I guess the moral of the story is that we and WWE deserve each other.

[Tim Evans]

To go in a slightly different direction. The Miz and Kofi Kingston pulled a really good match out of their collective asses on Main Event several weeks ago. It was probably the best match I've seen since starting to watch again in August.

 

Rollins defending the NXT Title against Joe Hennig from last month was also really good.

 

Main Event is my new favorite WWE show. You get at least one long match and one shorter match but it's not a squash. I really enjoyed Ziggler vs Miz. Only problem with Main Event is the commercial breaks. It's worse than a CMLL show in that department.

[NintendoLogic]

Explain to me how they were making record money in 2007 without Cena having a hand in it. I'm not seeing it.

Plus, wrestling in America is as unpopular now as it's ever been. Cena's not the main problem, but he's not completely blameless either.

 

I see this a lot, but there were no $10 million on-sale ticket days happening in 1994.

 

So they've managed to preserve Wrestlemania's value as a special attraction. What about the other 364 days of the year? For that matter, how did the last Rock-less Wrestlemania do?

[El-P]

WrestleMania's drawing power the last few years is arguably based on brand and nostalgia : Flair's last match, Shawn's last match, Rock coming back, Rock coming back again, Taker's yearly epic which soon be his last too. Soon they'll run off of old guys from the late 90's, and it will only depend of the WM brand self-hype.

[cm funk]

The thing that stands out to me about John Cena is how little they protect him. They do more on a weekly basis to protect Randy Orton, who has failed repeatedly as a main eventer, than they ever have for John Cena. They go to some absurd lengths to protect Orton. Cena will repeatedly get bested by the heel every week, go to the PPV and lose.

Cena losing frequently is a pretty new development, and it's mostly been against Punk

 

Other than Punk, who they've invested heavily in, what heels have gotten over at Cena's expense?

 

Miz beat him at WM, but that was entirely focused on The Rock. Rock beat him at WM, but it's The Rock.

 

When he was programmed with Barrett and Nexus he never lost clean.

 

I don't see the case for Cena not being protected. He never loses to anyone beneath him. They're very selective about who, when and how he loses.

[cm funk]

Also, Orton has done a lot more jobs to guys lower on the ladder than him. This past year or so he's been less pushed than ever

[FLIK]

To go in a slightly different direction. The Miz and Kofi Kingston pulled a really good match out of their collective asses on Main Event several weeks ago. It was probably the best match I've seen since starting to watch again in August.

 

Rollins defending the NXT Title against Joe Hennig from last month was also really good.

 

Main Event is my new favorite WWE show. You get at least one long match and one shorter match but it's not a squash. I really enjoyed Ziggler vs Miz. Only problem with Main Event is the commercial breaks. It's worse than a CMLL show in that department.

 

Haven't seen the Kofi match, has Miz ever had a better match then the one with Ziggler this week?

 

Don't know how long it's going to last but i'm gonna attempt to start watching WWE regular again via the stuff I can find online so I can skip commercials and other crap I have no interest in like the Vickie/AJ/Cena angle.

[Mad Dog]

Hulu is a good option. They chop Raw up but the other shows are intact. As I said earlier, I watch Main Event, Superstars, NXT and some Smackdown. I tend to avoid Raw and I'm pretty happy with the product.