Hell In A Cell 2012

[tigerpride]

They didn't even have a fucking story either. I mean, I don't watch Smackdown to be fair

There absolutely was a story. Del Rio injured Orton and put him on the shelf and Orton wanted revenge. It's simple pro wrestling booking. That's your fault, not WWE's fault

[MikeCampbell]

You're a visionary and stuff, but talking about smark point of views the way you did is so behind-the-times that I expect you to be listening to a Staind CD and sticking out your tongue and screaming "Whazzzzaaap?" while posting it from your 56k modem.

Loss just described me at age 17

[Matt D]

I haven't seen this big a divide between people here in ages.

[El-P]

You're a visionary and stuff, but talking about smark point of views the way you did is so behind-the-times that I expect you to be listening to a Staind CD and sticking out your tongue and screaming "Whazzzzaaap?" while posting it from your 56k modem.

Loss just described me at age 17

 

Between this stuff and the Nova joke the other day, you're so dating yourselves people.

(I loved my 56k modem. It was so quick and smooth)

[anarchistxx]

I really don't see how having Ryback win the belt would affect ratings. His segments haven't exactly seen spikes in the viewing figures, and although he has seemed pretty over at times, he hardly got a superstar reaction last night. There were almost as many 'Goldberg' chants as there were 'Feed Me More' pops.

 

No one man is going to change the ratings around dramatically - Rock, Cena, Austin, Undertaker, Triple-H, Vince, none of these big stars have contributed a huge jump in ratings in recent years. Rock/Cena at Wrestlemania is a marquee match sold well, true, but that is pretty unique as a dream match with a long build featuring a guy who hasn't worked for eight years, on a show that sells a massive number of buys whatever the card. The product itself needs to change considerably for a shift in the ratings, there is not an overnight solution. There also needs to be a change in perception of wrestling in order to increase the demographic. It's hardly disastrous right now though, despite what people say. The boom years may just have been an anomaly, a unique occurrence of wrestling being a fad. They seem to be making plenty of money now, so they can't be too worried.

 

I thought the finish was alright in all honesty, and Ryback still came out of it looking like an unstoppable monster. Punk isn't getting nearly enough credit for carrying him like he did last night, making him look absurdly strong at the expense of his own character. As people have pointed out, it really isn't good to have someone who is over on the basis of being undefeated, certainly not unless you are committed to a long term booking plan, which WWE certainly isn't. Ryback can't talk, looks cartoonish and has flavour of the month written all over him - it would be short sighted, short term panic booking if he won. Him winning and then working The Rock at the Rumble like some have suggested is a stupid idea to say the least; Rock has had one match in nine years, it's unrealistic to expect him both to carry Ryback and to take a lot of his powerful offence and make it look smooth.

 

As for the show itself, it was pretty average. Couldn't care less about Del Rio and Orton has lost his mojo so I drifted in and out of it. Everything else was pretty unmemorable, except for the stretch of Show/Sheamus which was fun as hell but would have been crucified if it had involved Kurt Angle - stuff like the KO Punch and Brogue Kick have been protected to hell, yet here they are up within a few seconds of being hit with them. The main was just about there, the aftermath could have done with some blood maybe. I also thought they should have done a worked bump off the cell like they did with Rikishi in 2000 - Ryback military pressing Punk off the top would have been an awesome image, even if the landing was obviously protected.

[Victator]

There is looking like a chickenshit heel and looking like a bitch. Last night Punk looked like a pure bitch. Which damages the belt, damages the roster and damages the company because a bitch has been champion for so long.

 

There is no way Flair or Savage would have agreed to that finish to that match. Look at Savage's 89 matches with Warrior and Flair with Sting. They may have put the other guys over, but they got in significant offense.

 

If they were going to do that type of finish, they should have given Punk more offense. Something to show why he is the World Champion.

 

It would have helped Ryback to show he can overcome real adversity and is not a super cheap video game boss with dumb A.I.

 

Punk came out of the match looking terrible and Ryback is about the same.

[anarchistxx]

There is looking like a chickenshit heel and looking like a bitch. Last night Punk looked like a pure bitch. Which damages the belt, damages the roster and damages the company because a bitch has been champion for so long.

I think bland, barely over guys like Jack Swagger, Miz, Dolph Ziggler et all having title reigns did a lot more to damage the belt than a typical screwy finish. Having a title that was lost every time through a Money in the Bank cash in damaged the belt - "you don't have to be good to win this title, you just have to wait until the champion has been laid out and get lucky". If anything this shows how desperate Punk is to retain the strap. Ryback's anger at the end showed how devastated he was to have been robbed of his chance to be champion.

 

Kurt Angle retained the title through luck, outside interference and whatever from October 2000 to February 2001. Every match he was in he looked like a bitch. Didn't damage him, didn't damage the strap.

[Victator]

Didn't damage him, didn't damage the strap.

I disagree, I think it did significant damage to Angle and to a lesser extent the belt. I think it is the first big sign that WWF booking was going south. He also was never made to look as useless as Punk did last night. He would get his share of offense in on guys like Rock, Austin, Undertaker and Triple H.

 

As for bringing up Swagger and Miz. Both of those reigns did damage to the belts as well. That is part of the reason Punk has had the belt for so long, to restore credibility to the belt. Which last night flushed away nearly a year of work.

[blueminister]

There is no way Flair or Savage would have agreed to that finish to that match.

Outside of a handful of notable exceptions, I don't think talent disagreeing with finishes is an issue with WWE booking -- and at any rate the idea of Randy Savage, the guy who agreed to lose a Royal Rumble by being press slammed over the top rope out of a pin attempt calling shenanigans over a flash screwjob finish that keeps the face comparatively strong is hilarious.

[Victator]

Not after being dominated the entire match. No way he would have agreed with that.

 

In fact that Rumble is a perfect example. He was allowed to show a lot of heart and hit his finisher.

[blueminister]

Ryback wasn't dominated the entire match and the announcers' messaging heavily implied that he was about to finish Punk and win the title.

 

It may be instructive to watch Shamrock get treated like garbage by DX at the main event of IYH:D-Generation X just to be reminded what the needless devaluation of someone with tons of superstar potential for the benefit of an overindulged heel actually looks like. Surprisingly, it looks nothing like a hot new face scaling the cage to slam the top heel and beating his chest like King Kong.

[NintendoLogic]

Everything else was pretty unmemorable, except for the stretch of Show/Sheamus which was fun as hell but would have been crucified if it had involved Kurt Angle - stuff like the KO Punch and Brogue Kick have been protected to hell, yet here they are up within a few seconds of being hit with them.

The trading of finishers came at the end of the match, and both guys sold like they'd been hit by a devastating finisher. Kurt Angle would've kicked out and gone back about his business so the match could continue for ten more minutes.

[Victator]

Ryback wasn't dominated the entire match and the announcers' messaging heavily implied that he was about to finish Punk and win the title.

I was not talking about Ryback, I was talking about how Punk was treated. How could you have missed that?

[blueminister]

Ryback wasn't dominated the entire match and the announcers' messaging heavily implied that he was about to finish Punk and win the title.

I was not talking about Ryback, I was talking about how Punk was treated. How could you have missed that?

 

Sorry, your phrasing was vague and I thought you were responding to my point instead of going on with your "cowardly heel ill-served by cowardly screwjob finish should revolt against his employers" thing.

[Gregor]

Not after being dominated the entire match. No way he would have agreed with that.

 

In fact that Rumble is a perfect example. He was allowed to show a lot of heart and hit his finisher.

How is any of that vague? Unless you're Vince McMahon and intolerant of pronouns, it's pretty obvious what he was talking about.

 

I also don't see how it's anything but a response to your post that immediately preceded it.

[blueminister]

How is any of that vague? Unless you're Vince McMahon and intolerant of pronouns, it's pretty obvious what he was talking about.

 

I also don't see how it's anything but a response to your post that immediately preceded it.

I don't see what it has to do with you and I'm fascinated by your "vague phrasing actually isn't vague, because Vince McMahon hates pronouns" theory but I assume when I'm talking about Savage as one of the top faces of the roster agreeing to an absurd finish to put over a heel and he replies with Savage being kept strong in that instance it is perhaps not 100% crazy bonkers to infer that he's making a correlation between Savage and Ryback.

 

At any rate me failing to give Victator posts a close reading is definitely the most absurd thing in a thread in which it is suggested that CM Punk should pick a fight with booking over a finish that already benefits him because of the sterling example set by two wrestlers who in their time agreed to worse finishes.

[Victator]

Ha, main eventer vetoing a shitty finish is hardly picking a fight. That shit happens all the time.

 

Please cite a worse finish Flair or Savage agreed to in the 80s. Or in Savage's case a worse finish period. If you think that match benefited Punk at all, you must be drunk. Punk came out of that match looking like a bitch.

 

Also please use more sarcasm.

[Gregor]

I don't see what it has to do with you and I'm fascinated by your "vague phrasing actually isn't vague, because Vince McMahon hates pronouns" theory but I assume when I'm talking about Savage as one of the top faces of the roster agreeing to an absurd finish to put over a heel and he replies with Savage being kept strong in that instance it is perhaps not 100% crazy bonkers to infer that he's making a correlation between Savage and Ryback.

 

At any rate me failing to give Victator posts a close reading is definitely the most absurd thing in a thread in which it is suggested that CM Punk should pick a fight with booking over a finish that already benefits him because of the sterling example set by two wrestlers who in their time agreed to worse finishes.

You'd have to be trying to misunderstand what he was trying to say to not know whom "he" was referring to.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with me. It just struck me as an unnecessarily dickish response. If someone's posts aren't worth "close reading," why would you even deign to respond to them at all?

[goodhelmet]

I want to get back to the idea that this was WCW-level booking. I don't think you guys remember WCW main events very clear. I just looked up the results of every WCW PPV from 1998 and exactly one had a truly satisfying finish that did not have some type of beatdown, interference, celebrity, swerve, turn on tag partner or a lackluster match. Most of them were downright horrid... Sting-Hogan, Giant & Sting vs. Outsiders, Savage vs. Hogan Cage Match, The two celebrity tags, the worst Wargames of all time, a shitty World War 3 battle royal with an overbooked DDP-Bret Hart match, and the end of Goldberg's run with a tazer. This isn't even discussing the undercards where 3 or 4 of the PPVs of the year could be candidates for Worst PPV of all time. I didn't even pick 1999 or 2000 which are even worse.

 

Guys... this is not WCW. To claim otherwise is just ignorant.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I'm going to go ahead & go out on a limb & suggest that anyone disagreeing with me didn't actually pay for the show. And no offense, but if you stole the show, just read results of the show, or didn't watch the show, you're going to have a different mentality than someone that paid fifty bucks to watch it.

I paid for it, and obviously I enjoyed it.

 

Edit:

Question for Johnny: when was the last time the WWE did something that upset you?

I know I said never, but I just thought of one. When HonkeyTonk Man beat Steamboat for the IC title. I was 16 and it actually upset me and pissed me off.

[blueminister]

If you think that match benefited Punk at all, you must be drunk. Punk came out of that match looking like a bitch.

Punk shows ass to Vince McMahon and gets punched out by Bret Hart. If you don't see "looking like a bitch" in service to a larger goal as consistent with his status-obsessed character as it has been promoted post Rock-lariat, then you don't get CM Punk the wrestling character, are actively ignoring what's best for CM Punk the guy who gets paid to wrestle, and your ideas of what benefits him are irrelevant.

[Victator]

Your defense of shitty booking is more shitty booking.

[sek69]

Here's a question I've not seen addressed anywhere: Since the buyrate for Summerslam came in, it's been assumed that it's a given WWE will at least offer Brock another deal. So why don't they take a page from pro sports and extend a guy before his current deal ends so they don't have to worry as much about wasting his dates.

 

Don't get me wrong, I personally feel that keeping him limited also lowers the odds of a "Goldberg in a wig" type skit with him, but if they feel that hamstrung about it there's ways they can resolve it.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Ok, does anyone REALLY still think this

 

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

 

"ruined" Goldberg in WWE?

[Dylan Waco]

I want to get back to the idea that this was WCW-level booking. I don't think you guys remember WCW main events very clear. I just looked up the results of every WCW PPV from 1998 and exactly one had a truly satisfying finish that did not have some type of beatdown, interference, celebrity, swerve, turn on tag partner or a lackluster match. Most of them were downright horrid... Sting-Hogan, Giant & Sting vs. Outsiders, Savage vs. Hogan Cage Match, The two celebrity tags, the worst Wargames of all time, a shitty World War 3 battle royal with an overbooked DDP-Bret Hart match, and the end of Goldberg's run with a tazer. This isn't even discussing the undercards where 3 or 4 of the PPVs of the year could be candidates for Worst PPV of all time. I didn't even pick 1999 or 2000 which are even worse.

 

Guys... this is not WCW. To claim otherwise is just ignorant.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

 

Saying "this can't be a WCW type of thing because WCW did shitty finishes/main events more often" is not an argument against that angle/finish being shitty.