Matt D Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Didn't he beat Punk a few years ago with a 'rana to set up the AA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 What's that got to do with anything though? You're saying those things as if it's "only" an indy guy (how is where he came from even relevant to his WWE career or how strongly he can be portrayed?) and "only" developmental, when the entire point is that Owens has been booked as a threat, he's been a dominant champion in NXT and has now come in at Cena's level, beating him clean on PPV in their first match. Cena had to bust out something new to beat him because he LOST to him the first time. Why is this one particular guy forcing John Cena to change his game plan? Because he beat him? Is this supposed to have been built to in a meaningful way? In a year's time when people are complaining about the way they company have handled Owens and the whole thing is a flash in the pan are people still going to say it as a strong narrative? Maybe it's good TV on a week-to-week basis. I don't know. I was kind of asking for an explanation how it's different from Cena vs. Wyatt or Cena vs. Rusev, since you'd think (or hope) that Cena having to bust out new moves would be a bit more memorable than a string of B show matches, but I'm not pretending to be in the loop. then stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's a PPV/special event. They build to it, they treat it like it matters. It's not one of the big 3, but in the context of how WWE presents their product it's an important event, not a B show. As for the "he's a repackaged indie guy," watching the product regularly would reveal that they do not present Owens as such. He's presented as a legitimate tough guy and killer heel. Your comment is more you forming your own narrative. It's a glorified In Your House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlekitten Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 When was the last time one move caused so much controversy? Match was great, might have preferred it to the first. Rest of the PPV was dogshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Personally the WWE can feed the storyline all they want but it doesn't necessarily mean it is logical. Cena lost to Owens in a match where they were doing their finishers a million times. Someone was going to win. To sell the story as if Cena has to bust out a Code Red to beat Owens then sell a look of aghast on his face when it fails makes zero sense when 1. People here are telling us about how the move was a throwaway transitional move in previous matches involving Goldust and Zayn (so my previous argument about it being finisher caliber was off the mark admittedly) and 2. Cena hits the FU to win after all. Again Austin ripped Cena a new one for doing the same thing with the springboard stunner earlier this year. If Cena had beat some jobbers in the open challenge with the Code Red or springboard stunner and then he busts it out against Rusev or Owens for a nearfall and he sells the frustration, that is a whole different thing and would have made a lot of sense. But spamming moves expecting some great outcome only to win by his usual finisher renders the story moot. Even if Michael Cole and JBL (because they are great bastions of storytelling logic after all) try to sell it on us, it doesn't mean it was effective and it comes across differently to some people. It is like if Denver Broncos called a read option keeper for Peyton Manning that gets him pasted 1 yard behind scrimmage, do you honestly pop and go "Damn Peyton is so smart for trying that out?" Or do you go "What the hell was he thinking? Emmanuel Sanders was open for that 10 yard slant!" Cena doing this stuff to no great effect just makes the story stupid and devoid of real smart psychology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Asking Cena not to act like he thought a non-finishing move could win him a match is pretty much asking guys to not sell any nearfalls that don't involve finishers. We all know that only finishers win matches, so why pretend? Why even bother using a non-finisher at all? They never win the match! Just stand there and hit only finishers until someone wins! ...Jesus. The fact that the crowd was losing their shit for all of those nearfalls off random moves says to me that they weren't a waste of time. Anyway, I form more of my own narratives on my blog because my review of the match is now up. I was just going to launch into this big thing about movez to go along with it, but it's almost 2am and it will have to wait for another day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's a PPV/special event. They build to it, they treat it like it matters. It's not one of the big 3, but in the context of how WWE presents their product it's an important event, not a B show. As for the "he's a repackaged indie guy," watching the product regularly would reveal that they do not present Owens as such. He's presented as a legitimate tough guy and killer heel. Your comment is more you forming your own narrative. It's a glorified In Your House. Not in the present day where every PPV/special event is pushed as important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Skinner Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I still don't get the problem that the Code Red is used to get a nearfall by Cena. Not every move is presented as a finisher. The AA has been established for over a decade to get Cena wins. Whether it takes one, two, or three, the AA usually gets him the win. The Code Red was used as a new wrinkle in Cena's arsenal and that is perfectly fine, just like how the electric chair facebuster he used was in the same light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Asking Cena not to act like he thought a non-finishing move could win him a match is pretty much asking guys to not sell any nearfalls that don't involve finishers. We all know that only finishers win matches, so why pretend? Why even bother using a non-finisher at all? They never win the match! Just stand there and hit only finishers until someone wins! ...Jesus. The fact that the crowd was losing their shit for all of those nearfalls off random moves says to me that they weren't a waste of time. Anyway, I form more of my own narratives on my blog because my review of the match is now up. I was just going to launch into this big thing about movez to go along with it, but it's almost 2am and it will have to wait for another day. People lost their shit because it was move spamming. When it involves a main event star like Cena who has long been derided as having a limited moveset do you seriously not see why this get pops? Kurt Angle doing a 450 splash knee drop got a pop too but it doesn't make it a good idea. As for losing his shit because of a nearfall, I don't recall Taker losing his shit when the chokeslam gets kicked out of. I don't recall Edge losing his shit when the Edgeomatic gets kicked out of. I don't recall CM Punk losing his shit when the elbow drop gets kicked out of. I don't recall Daniel Bryan losing his shit when the headbutt gets kicked out. And all those moves have been presented as devastating transitional moves and occasional finishes (that they have busted out many times through their careers with as much effectiveness as anything else besides their finishers). Cena losing his shit over a move he has never once established as a move to be feared is just idiocy. But then again if I want to make up a narrative that could make sense, I suppose Cena is just the clueless putz who doesn't understand pro wrestling and coasts on his supreme strength and never die attitude to win. Because he is not clearly getting what makes a move effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Skinner Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Asking Cena not to act like he thought a non-finishing move could win him a match is pretty much asking guys to not sell any nearfalls that don't involve finishers. We all know that only finishers win matches, so why pretend? Why even bother using a non-finisher at all? They never win the match! Just stand there and hit only finishers until someone wins! ...Jesus. The fact that the crowd was losing their shit for all of those nearfalls off random moves says to me that they weren't a waste of time. Anyway, I form more of my own narratives on my blog because my review of the match is now up. I was just going to launch into this big thing about movez to go along with it, but it's almost 2am and it will have to wait for another day. People lost their shit because it was move spamming. When it involves a main event star like Cena who has long been derided as having a limited moveset do you seriously not see why this get pops? Kurt Angle doing a 450 splash knee drop got a pop too but it doesn't make it a good idea. As for losing his shit because of a nearfall, I don't recall Taker losing his shit when the chokeslam gets kicked out of. I don't recall Edge losing his shit when the Edgeomatic gets kicked out of. I don't recall CM Punk losing his shit when the elbow drop gets kicked out of. I don't recall Daniel Bryan losing his shit when the headbutt gets kicked out. And all those moves have been presented as devastating transitional moves and occasional finishes (that they have busted out many times through their careers with as much effectiveness as anything else besides their finishers). Cena losing his shit over a move he has never once established as a move to be feared is just idiocy. But then again if I want to make up a narrative that could make sense, I suppose Cena is just the clueless putz who doesn't understand pro wrestling and coasts on his supreme strength and never die attitude to win. Because he is not clearly getting what makes a move effective. Like you said, those moves were already established as transitional moves, not big finishes, that's why they aren't reacting that way. Cena pulled out a move he's never done before to try to beat Owens and Owens kicked out. Cena pulled out a new trick he thought would be effective and it didn't work, him acting shocked was completely appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Asking Cena not to act like he thought a non-finishing move could win him a match is pretty much asking guys to not sell any nearfalls that don't involve finishers. We all know that only finishers win matches, so why pretend? Why even bother using a non-finisher at all? They never win the match! Just stand there and hit only finishers until someone wins! I see this as a byproduct of the style - when finishers seem to be the only thing that consistently drive these sorts of matches to a conclusion, then the early nearfalls start to become transparent as recovery/rest points, rather than actual teases to a finish. (The thrill of watching Owens or Cena sit around for what feels like a solid minute with a Very Frustrated look on their face after a nearfall.) It starts to feel a little bit like wasted time. As for the now-apparently-infamous Code Red, I've seen the match and I think the difficulty here is separating out the story of the match (Cena brings a new gameplan to the rematch) from the "flavor" of the match (the PWG-ish finisher spamming, movez with a Z to signify movez for the sake of movez). The story is solid, both in concept and in the structure of the match; I think the quibbling here comes from how that story is delivered in practice because there are many different ways to tell that story and this particular delivery of it isn't necessarily compelling. The Code Red sticks out because that move specifically sort of typifies a negative stereotype of indie wrestling being ostentatious, an idea that this style of wrestling is more concerned with the sizzle than the steak. It's a convoluted move when it is done like it is in this match, with Owens "struggling" (or recovering from a botch) and then, dipsy-doo dunkaroo, magically falling over for the nearfall. It fits the story of the match. I would say that it not only fits the flavor of this match, but the flavor of the previous match. My problem is that I'm not really a huge fan of this style/flavor/whatever and the Code Red exemplifies my objections and concerns with it. I understand that's not going to be the case for everybody and that's cool but, for me, it's distracting in a way that makes the story of the match seem more like an excuse than an enhancing part of the performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's a PPV/special event. They build to it, they treat it like it matters. It's not one of the big 3, but in the context of how WWE presents their product it's an important event, not a B show. As for the "he's a repackaged indie guy," watching the product regularly would reveal that they do not present Owens as such. He's presented as a legitimate tough guy and killer heel. Your comment is more you forming your own narrative. It's a glorified In Your House. Not in the present day where every PPV/special event is pushed as important. Two weeks after the last special event? Cena sure learns new moves quickly. Maybe that was the narrative behind the botch. He hasn't had time to master the all-important Code Red yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Someone tell me how to activate the ignore feature again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Maybe that was the narrative behind the botch. He hasn't had time to master the all-important Code Red yet. Ah ah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 He's an indy guy who went through development, isn't he? Money in the Bank is a B-show. I've heard the talking point that MITB feels like Survivor Series' "replacement" in the "Big 4" PPVs quite a few times. I think most people view it as distinctly bigger than most of the PPVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 MITB is a top 4 PPV of the year simply because the Money In The Bank, for better or worse, is such a key element in the WWE landscape. Before this year, the Survivor Series hasn't had any "stakes" attached to it for what? A decade? I won't check the numbers, but I'd be curious to see whether or not MITB outsold Survivor Series over the past few years too. Only SummerSlam has been presented as important and if pushed to list the reasons for it, "historical legacy" would rank near the bottom. I'm willing to call MITB a "B-show" if we can all agree that there are only two A shows (Rumble and Mania) left and that shows like Battleground and Fast Lane are C shows. If that's our guide, I'd rank MITB just under SummerSlam and I'm not sure I wouldn't put Extreme Rules or TLC above Survivor Series at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 That may have been the case pre-network, but I cannot see how MITB 2015 was one of the biggest shows of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I had meant to post this in the MITB thread, but it somehow ended up in the EC thread. http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/31144-elimination-chamber-2015/?p=5677577 I don't know if I accidentally posted it in the wrong thread or if I initially posted it in the right one and it got moved for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 NL's point is a good one, and one I am probably going to repeat with many, many more words below. Asking Cena not to act like he thought a non-finishing move could win him a match is pretty much asking guys to not sell any nearfalls that don't involve finishers. We all know that only finishers win matches, so why pretend? Why even bother using a non-finisher at all? They never win the match! Just stand there and hit only finishers until someone wins!...Jesus.The fact that the crowd was losing their shit for all of those nearfalls off random moves says to me that they weren't a waste of time.Anyway, I form more of my own narratives on my blog because my review of the match is now up. I was just going to launch into this big thing about movez to go along with it, but it's almost 2am and it will have to wait for another day. People lost their shit because it was move spamming. When it involves a main event star like Cena who has long been derided as having a limited moveset do you seriously not see why this get pops? Kurt Angle doing a 450 splash knee drop got a pop too but it doesn't make it a good idea. As for losing his shit because of a nearfall, I don't recall Taker losing his shit when the chokeslam gets kicked out of. I don't recall Edge losing his shit when the Edgeomatic gets kicked out of. I don't recall CM Punk losing his shit when the elbow drop gets kicked out of. I don't recall Daniel Bryan losing his shit when the headbutt gets kicked out. And all those moves have been presented as devastating transitional moves and occasional finishes (that they have busted out many times through their careers with as much effectiveness as anything else besides their finishers). Cena losing his shit over a move he has never once established as a move to be feared is just idiocy. But then again if I want to make up a narrative that could make sense, I suppose Cena is just the clueless putz who doesn't understand pro wrestling and coasts on his supreme strength and never die attitude to win. Because he is not clearly getting what makes a move effective. At this point I kind of have no idea what you're trying to argue. Cena shouldn't have used the Code Red? He shouldn't have sold the Code Red as a nearfall? Again, he should what, not try to get over a nearfall as important? Not use any new moves? Not expect to win with anything other than a finishing move? Honestly you seem to be way overreacting to a random move getting a nearfall at the death of a match. It's a pretty common thing to happen in like general wrestling history so I really just don't understand why you're so fixated on it. It's not like it didn't work for the match, it popped the crowd because it was cool and different and they reacted to the nearfall so clearly they bought it as something. It's not like it didn't fit the story of the match for reasons already gone into. It may have been sloppy but I mean fuck, it's John Cena, that's part of his charm at this point. I honestly don't see what your problem is, other than "People didn't like Kurt Angle doing a 450 Splash that one time", which I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with anything. I'm not sure if the people who aren't completely au fait with current WWE are aware of how long Cena has actually been doing movez. It's been touched on, but I want to fully explore it because I can see how it doesn't completely make sense without having the full picture. In the last few years Cena has basically been re-inventing himself as an indy-style worker, adding wacky movez to his arsenal (springboard Stunner, tornado DDT, the half-Nelson neckbreaker) and going heavy on the high-end offense in big matches. Not only that, even more crucially to the current discussion is that Cena's go-to gameplan when he's being tested in the ring is to bust out wacky new moves to try and win. You can actually trace it all the way back to the Punk series. In their 2011 matches they both knew each others games so well and had counters for everything, that whenever they wrestled again (NoC 2012, Raw 2013) both guys resorted to busting out entirely new moves, because they were the only thing that would surprise the other guy. Cena against Punk busted out a baseball slide, the crossface, a Batista Bomb...he even hit a tope on Punk once! And look at how those matches ended. The finish in 2012 was Cena hitting an Avalanche German off the ropes and they did the double pin, and as someone already said above, 2013 ended when Cena confused Punk with the Cenacanrana to set up the final FU. Both new moves that he busted out to great effect (besides the part where he accidentally pinned himself I guess). But he learned from Punk that when all else fails, the element of surprise works. And other guys along the road have challenged Cena in the same way. Bryan did at Summerslam, those guys threw many bombs at each other and couldn't finish, and Cena tried new things and new counters (powerbomb, blocking the Frankensteiner by dropping into the Ganso Bomb, a puro-style forearm cutoff of a tope), and so did Bryan and in the end HE hit an entirely new move to get the win - the Knee That Beat John Cena. Surprise works. So when we come to now and the Owens matches, and in these matches Owens proves himself as a guy who won't go down to what usually works for Cena, so Cena, naturally, starts busting out some new moves to try to put him away. Because that's what he does when confronted with this problem. And that went twofold for the second match because Cena lost to this guy the first time and was searching for a way to beat him, to the point where they came right out and said "Cena is going to be trying new things in this match". Like it or don't like it, whatever, but it was a perfectly logical thing to do and consistent with Cena's in-ring evolution of the past half-decade. Cena adapts. NL said it in his mislaid post, this is what WWE in-ring style is slowly turning into. With the influx of name indy alumni in prominent positions (Rollins, Ambrose, Owens, Cesaro, Harper, Zayn, Bryan...) big matches have tended towards bigger bombs, more high-end offense, more 00s indy trends like topes and flying dropkicks and striking battles and movez with a Z. This is what matches look like now. And Cena, as basically the old guard now doing battle with a younger, more indyriffic generation, is trying to adapt to this style to try to keep up. Note that he didn't face the problem of The Rock with movez, because Rock wasn't a movez problem. With Rock it was more about two WWE stars colliding and the key was signature moves, move stealing and getting the psychological edge over the other. When he faced Cesaro that time, he came up against a guy who could out-Strength him, so Cena busted out new movez and strength spots to show that he had more power. With Bray Wyatt, the problem was a psycho trying to fuck with Cena's mind and turn him into a bad guy, so the focus there was on the big moral battle between Good and Evil, which was faced with overwrought Acting and big smoke and mirrors effects like the cage finish. Rusev was a monster heel, and in the great tradition of Cena facing monster heels, he overcame this problem by using his Strength and Never Giving Up. Cena adapts to whatever the tone is of his current match. He faces a morality issue with morality, a patriotism issue with patriotism, and he faces a movez issue with movez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well Jimmy Redman, you're right. I am completely overreacting here. Obviously Cena is in fact the guy that is going to try out new moves (and waste them in the process but I digress) in big matches. That is very evident from way back in 2011 as you point out. It is nothing new and so I shouldn't be surprised or offended. I guess as good a wrestler Cena is, I don't like the direction he is going in with his evolution as the new Indy Superman. Cena that I am used to is Cena that has conviction over who he is as a wrestler and knows what works for him. He is supposed to be eternally supremely confident in himself. Hell that was the basis of his promos he was cutting after his loss to Owens the first time: Owens got him once but Cena is the man. It will be very difficult to beat him twice. He is the LeBron James of the WWE. You can't stop him when he decides to want to win. This evolution to me is unnecessary. It kind of reeks like he is submitting to the criticisms of him but packaged in storyline of him keeping up with the indy superstars of recent years. Cena in 2006 and 2007 when he was the world's best wrestler or near it, didn't need to do that. But again, yes I admit I am overreacting and I am just gonna shut up about it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well I mean if you put a gun to my head I prefer 2007 Cena as well. But I enjoy current Cena too and I really like that there is, in fact, a coherent thread running through all of his in-ring changes and seemingly random adding of wacky indy movez. I suppose the answer to why he would go there ties into what I was saying in my blog post: mortality. Cena is just getting older. He didn't need to evolve in 2007 because he was at his peak then, he had no reason to. Now he's almost 40 and facing guys who are a lot younger than him, younger, hungrier, with a different style of offense. He has to evolve in order to stay on top, in order to keep his spot. He's struggling harder than John Cena should struggle just to retain the US Title. He has just reached that point where things don't come as easily anymore. He's a little bit more human now, so he has to work a little bit harder. That's why this isn't Kurt Angle kicking out of everything, that's why those two examples aren't equal. Cena's matches now contain more and more kickouts because Cena is slowly losing his Superman powers with age and coming back to the field. Angle's matches have kickouts because Angle likes to kick out of stuff in every match. If I could find a logical narrative reason for Angle and Jeff Hardy hitting 17 finishers in a single match, I'd probably enjoy that too. But alas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I get that but to me Cena is supposed to be like Hulk Hogan of our time. I don't recall Hogan needing to evolve much in-ring. But I suppose his deal was turning heel and surrounding himself with guys that would run in and help him keep his belt so I guess everyone deals with that mortality differently. I guess this is preferrable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 That's an interesting thought. It would probably be an interesting area of research, to look at big stars and how their style of working and presentation changed as they got older and couldn't be booked as dominant champions anymore. Hogan turned heel and used the help of others. He took the shortcut way. You could even tie that into the old "Hogan was really a dick" grand theory. He turned heel when he couldn't get it done anymore. Whereas Cena is the ultimate, uber-babyface. Now that he's slipping he just works harder to try and keep up. Turning heel for him would be "Giving Up". Undertaker dealt with it by concentrating all of his focus on the one match a year that counted: The Streak, and his whole world became about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I get that but to me Cena is supposed to be like Hulk Hogan of our time. I don't recall Hogan needing to evolve much in-ring. But I suppose his deal was turning heel and surrounding himself with guys that would run in and help him keep his belt so I guess everyone deals with that mortality differently. I guess this is preferrable. I think Dylan and others have also raised the point that Cena has had a LOT more exposure and TV time than other long-term WWE aces, so he's arguably faced more pressure to adapt (and for longer) than someone like Hogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I get that but to me Cena is supposed to be like Hulk Hogan of our time. I don't recall Hogan needing to evolve much in-ring. But I suppose his deal was turning heel and surrounding himself with guys that would run in and help him keep his belt so I guess everyone deals with that mortality differently. I guess this is preferrable. If Hulk Hogan did a Burning Hammer, that would be worth at least a star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.