Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 4

[KawadaSmile]

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't throw glass bottles and unopened beer cans. Risking the integrity of the performers is very much not good, even if the reaction (making people angry at Cardona) was as intended.

[KawadaSmile]

Also regarding Roman/Cena comps: in-ring, it's close. Cena was booked better throughout his career and even when he was booked against stiffs such as Khali, the writing was good.

Roman was screwed out of a title win at WM31 and spent the rest of the year in dead-end programs against Big Show and Wyatt. The writing was bad yet he still managed to make those matches feel important.

 

On the other hand, as a draw/mainstream star, Cena still takes it. However, given Roman's football background, he does have some mainstream appeal, but not as much as John. He may get close, but I doubt anyone will reach that level anytime soon.

[MoS]

I mean he played college football. That might mean something, but it's not giving him any mainstream buzz on its own. There are hundreds of high-level college football players. Cena is now a legit Hollywood star and prior to that was a constant TV presence. That's not just one level above, it's several levels above. No one in wrestling is in the same ballpark as Cena. He is arguably the only wrestling Superstar (with a capital S) of the millennium.

Same with drawing. People are forgetting how terrible WWE's ticket sales were getting in 2002-04 before Cena infused a fresh life into the promotion. They were doing 7k-8k paid for MSG shows, which was humiliating. Even the TV viewership was something he held steady and increased from 05-07 until the Benoit tragedy, at which point it remained in steady decline. But the decline was very steady and Cena himself was a mega quarter-draw. The only knock against Cena as a draw is that he was never a big PPV draw. Intuitively, it makes sense because his fanbase was younger, so they would watch on TV, buy his merchandise, and convince their parents to buy tickets for live events. But convincing parents to buy monthly PPVs that cost 60 dollars was a bridge too far.

Roman has been on top for a time when every direct consumer metric has nosedived (and I don't think it's a coincidence that this overlaps squarely with the time Cena got phased out of the main event.) It's not just the ratings. Live event attendance got so bad that house shows became money losers. Same with WWE Network numbers. I'm sure he moves merchandise, but I am equally sure that a direct comparison with Cena will do him no favours. None of this is Roman's fault of course. There is a legitimate argument to be made that this crash wouldn't have happened had Roman beaten Lesnar at WrestleMania instead of them swerving everyone and going with Rollins. That long Rollins reign was a knockout blow for WWE business, especially because it was coupled with Mega Heel Overlords and Gods The Authority at their absolute, most heat-killing worst. Then Hunter undercut Roman in their feud so blatantly that you couldn't help but laugh. Do you remember that segment after HHH won the Rumble and the title where a face Roman came to confront him and got his ass thoroughly kicked, as Triple H slammed his face in the announcers' table repeatedly as the crowd chanted along, which is like the ultimate babyface spot. It's crazy that this tribal chief reign is the first time Roman has had a long steady reign as the undisputed top guy. That's one good reign in SIX years of being a main eventer. 

Cena was 100% booked better than Roman, but to play devil's advocate, people forget how terribly Cena was booked as well. He was constantly forced to work from underneath in his first year as top guy, even though he had got over standing up to giants and taking them down with his brute strength. He was undercut thoroughly in the feud with Hunter, to the point that even when he won, the stench didn't wear off. He then had an excellent feud with Edge which often played second fiddle to DX playing literal kiss my ass with Vince and Big Show. He is actually really lucky that Hunter got injured in the beginning of 2007. IIRC, the plan then was for HHH to beat Cena at WM to get back his loss. This injury meant that Cena had a chance to run with the ball as the top guy in the company, even if his booking with Shawn was not doing him a lot of favours.

Roman never had that kind of run as the babyface ace. Cena got really established as the ace in that run before he got injured. When he came back at the Rumble and the Garden went absolutely apeshit for him for several minutes before realizing that they have a reputation to maintain and are supposed to boo him, you knew he was the top guy and the main star. The haters had told on themselves. This meant that the bad booking subsequently didn't affect him because he was a legit draw and the man and was bulletproof. For all the criticisms about Super-Cena, we should remember he was not booked well between 2008-10 before the Nexus angle made him Superman again. First, Hunter made sure he got his W back. He got a visual pin on Cena at WM, then got an actual clean win over him later in the summer. He did a job to Batista, which is fine, and then to JBL, which is a lot less fine. He was also booked in a lot of throwaway feuds, something that actually has rarely happened with Roman. Roman is obviously a bigger victim, but the WWE booking had done Cena no favours either. Roman is a better bell-to-bell wrestler, but Cena is truly unique and special, and no one has since come close to matching his appeal. 

[MoS]

1 hour ago, KawadaSmile said:

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't throw glass bottles and unopened beer cans. Risking the integrity of the performers is very much not good, even if the reaction (making people angry at Cardona) was as intended.

Definitely not something I want to see regularly, or even something I want to see again. But for a one-off incident, I didn't mind it. I wish no one had thrown any bottles, but modern wrestling is so often completely devoid of real genuine heat that I couldn't hate on this. It was compelling for what it was

[strobogo]

I don't even know how you can truly define a draw or not in an era where WWE has its most profitable years and TV deals after 20 years of declining ratings and attendances. 

[MoS]

Attendances did not decline for the primary WWE loop for 20 straight years. As I said, it went significantly up from 2005 for a few years, principally due to Cena. I don't remember when it started declining again, but the decline's pace was not the same throughout. It crashed massively in the last five-six years after the Cena era ended.

There are direct consumer metrics that have nothing to do with international and domestic TV deals. Cena is literally the only difference-maker since about 2009, when Mysterio and Jeff Hardy declined. House shows where he is announced show a noticeable spike. When he moved to SD, that show immediately showed both increased ratings and higher live event tour. His quarters also did excellent numbers regardless of the time slot, which today is the biggest factor in quarter ratings, since there's no positive difference-maker in wrestling anymore. 

Direct consumer metrics are no longer the primary ways through which WWE makes money, so while the concept of wrestlers who are draws might be redundant, that does not mean that those metrics do not exist. Those metrics exist and can be used to compare wrestlers. It's just that the modern business model is such that comparing wrestlers is futile because there is an active attempt to make everyone fungible. Cena was the last true star who broke out of the pack in a clear way before the brand became the only draw, therefore he remains the last true draw in U.S pro wrestling

[strobogo]

I'm not suggesting the metrics don't exist, but do they matter anymore

[MoS]

About them not mattering anymore, we agree. They do not matter anymore. But then is it fully fair to Cena to compare him to any modern wrestler, taking away his unique drawing power? I say that because a lot of the drawbacks and flaws in Cena's in-ring work was also what made him a compelling draw. The sloppiness, the focus on comeback spots, even him doing moves that he was bad at executing, because his entire appeal was that he would Never Give Up

[strobogo]

I'd say it's the opposite, it's not fair to current wrestlers to compare them to the drawing ability of Cena because even in the time that Cena hasn't been full time, the whole concept of what a draw is or isn't for WWE is completely different. 

[MoS]

Has the concept of drawing really changed full time in the last six years? You might be right. It would be interesting to try and figure out when the Brand became the only thing that was actually pushed as the draw. It might be when WWE the promotion became the primary heel in around 2015-16. It's difficult to push anyone as a difference-making star when they are either working for or going against the entire corporation and its ethos. Even Austin went against the evil boss of a good promotion, not the actual promotion and its booking philosophy

[KawadaSmile]

If attracting or maintaining viewers have influence on WWE closing those billionaire deals, isn't that more important now than ever?

[MoS]

Yeah, and I am sure that WWE would love to get another Cena-level star on their hands if they could. But more than maintaining viewers, it's also the volume of content that is instrumental in getting and closing billion dollar deals. WWE has the ability to give you 5 hours of primetime first-run TV 52 weeks a year at relatively little production cost. It's why it's getting those billion dollar deals, and as long as there is no alternative for such incredible year-round volume at low cost, they will keep getting these deals. 

The UFC got a billion dollar ESPN deal where they are guaranteed a certain amount every PPV regardless of the performance, and a certain figure every TV card regardless of ratings, because UFC has the ability to put on 40-45 cards a year. It's a business model that is making drawing stars redundant in MMA as well, which is why Dana is perfectly fine with playing hardball with Conor McGregor and Jon Jones. It's the same volume argument. WWE has even more volume. It's why Fox ditched UFC to go with WWE. It's also why they got that Peacock deal. The volume of current and historical content that WWE has is incredible

[MoS]

It's also notable that the ratings for everything have been declining steadily forever. It wasn't until 2016 or so that Raw's decline started comfortably outpacing the non-news TV decline. Brandon Thurston of Wrestlenomics has done some great research on this. Incidentally, one brand that has been gaining popularity worldwide at a tremendous rate is the Indian Premier League, so I cannot wait until all you fuckers are having to watch cricket whether you like it or not

[Strummer]

I know it's not his fault or fair but Roman's 2015-2020 babyface push is going to have the "wwe not listening to its fan base" stigma attached to it. The fans highjacking of the wm 34 main event seemed to be the low/high point of that. The whole "Brock is Vince's boy and the wwe brass are against Roman" was so terrible as no one bought it for a second. The reaction to the 34 main event was a testament to that.

also if Roman won the title at 31 the plan was for him to feud with Kane and Big Show afterwards. Yes better than the Bray stuff but Big Show and Kane were beyond stale at that point.

[Jmare007]

saadasdasd

On 7/3/2021 at 3:40 AM, Coffey said:

I didn't really know where to put this. A buddy & I were talking pro-wrestling today & it got a bit heated over the discussion of me saying that I think Roman Reigns is already better & has surpassed John Cena as a top guy.

I didn't really think that it was that outlandish of a statement but apparently it touched a nerve.

I don't even dislike John Cena, nor want to discredit what he did for WWE, especially when he was pretty much the flag bearer for a decade plus. I just think that Roman's run in The Shield, his babyface run & now especially his Head of the Table heel run have as a whole surpassed, in my mind, what Cena did. 

And The Shield debuted on November 2012, so it's not like Roman hasn't been there long enough at this point.

Granted, I might like Roman Reigns more so than most but I don't think it's that far fetched that I favor him over Cena.

Like others have said, nowadays it's practically impossible for 1 wrestler to be a draw in WWE as full time roster member. Therefore, the threshold a top guy needs to be a considered great are much simpler because it's basically about performance. Given that Roman is a better in ring worker than Cena and that this current heel run has showed us he was as much charisma and can cut great promos, then I can see why you would put Roman ahead of John.

Now, in my book, a "top guy" is someone the company heavily depends on so being good at that role goes much further than just in ring performance. And Cena was way more important to WWE than Roman has been. This is not Reigns faulr, as others have pointed out too, but Cena's star power puts him ahead of Roman in my book if we are talking about who is the better top guy.

 

It's gonna be really interesting if Rock comes back to work a Wrestlemania against Reigns and how that feud affects WWE. If it's a big success and it propels a big Roman babyface run then that could probably make me change my opinion. It would also mean Rock was instrumental in making the last two big WWE stars make a leap by working with them (10+ years apart too).

[MoS]

When the Roman-Rock feud happens, I really really hope this happens once 

 

[Coffey]

56 minutes ago, Jmare007 said:

Like others have said, nowadays it's practically impossible for 1 wrestler to be a draw in WWE as full time roster member. Therefore, the threshold a top guy needs to be a considered great are much simpler because it's basically about performance. Given that Roman is a better in ring worker than Cena and that this current heel run has showed us he was as much charisma and can cut great promos, then I can see why you would put Roman ahead of John.

Now, in my book, a "top guy" is someone the company heavily depends on so being good at that role goes much further than just in ring performance. And Cena was way more important to WWE than Roman has been. This is not Reigns faulr, as others have pointed out too, but Cena's star power puts him ahead of Roman in my book if we are talking about who is the better top guy.

There's also the Steamboat argument too. John Cena never got that turn & heel run in WWE & Roman has. For all we know, Cena might have thrived just as much if he were heel. 

[Jmare007]

2 hours ago, Coffey said:

There's also the Steamboat argument too. John Cena never got that turn & heel run in WWE & Roman has. For all we know, Cena might have thrived just as much if he were heel. 

Yup.

[joeg]

I've always thought Cena would have been even more successful as a heel in WWE. If there's one thing I can say about WWE is that for the last 25 years or so they've done much better promoting heels than babyfaces. I also think he had more of a natural heel than a natural babyface. Jim Cornette has made the talking point that had Cena came around 10 years earlier he would have been the top heel in late 90s WWF as opposed to HHH, basically point out that Cena could do everything HHH could do but better. I think that's true.  

[MoS]

Yeah, Cornette has also always said that when Cena was in OVW, he thought Cena was going to be the next Flair, not as good in the ring, but a superstar heel with the same promos and presence and charisma 

[joeg]

8 hours ago, MoS said:

I mean he played college football. That might mean something, but it's not giving him any mainstream buzz on its own. There are hundreds of high-level college football players. Cena is now a legit Hollywood star and prior to that was a constant TV presence. That's not just one level above, it's several levels above. No one in wrestling is in the same ballpark as Cena. He is arguably the only wrestling Superstar (with a capital S) of the millennium.

He didn't just play college football, he was the All-ACC first team, twice. If you watched American sports in the mid 2000s you knew who Joe Anoa'i was. Had it not been for leukemia, he probably would have been a 3rd or 4th round pick and had a decent NFL career. Instead he under performed at the NFL Draft combine and went un-drafted. He was signed by a pro team and released for not passing the physical twice in 6 months. A year later he beat the cancer and had a short career in the CFL. Point is, he wasn't just some guy who played college football, he was one of the best defensive lineman in the country. 

[Hawkeye12]

11 minutes ago, joeg said:

He didn't just play college football, he was the All-ACC first team, twice. If you watched American sports in the mid 2000s you knew who Joe Anoa'i was. Had it not been for leukemia, he probably would have been a 3rd or 4th round pick and had a decent NFL career. Instead he under performed at the NFL Draft combine and went un-drafted. He was signed by a pro team and released for not passing the physical twice in 6 months. A year later he beat the cancer and had a short career in the CFL. Point is, he wasn't just some guy who played college football, he was one of the best defensive lineman in the country. 

He made first team all-ACC once as a senior, he was never an All-American or one of the best defensive lineman in the country though.  I can't find one NFL mock draft from that time that included him and he wasn't even invited to the NFL combine (that's not rare though, only the elite, top round guys usually do get invited).   NFL Draft prospect projected him with a ceiling of a 6th rounder for the 2007 draft.   I have a hard time imagining any sports fans outside of Georgia Tech, whomever he played well enough against in the ACC, and anyone from his hometown would've had any clue who he was in 2007.  College football is very popular, but the amount of players that might gain any amount of notoriety in a season is never more than a handful and  offensive and defensive lineman are rarely among that list.  Ron Simmons, Brian Pillman, Bill Goldberg, and Danny Spivey were all more accomplished d-lineman in their college careers, and they weren't famous either for playing football beyond their schools.  His leukemia diagnosis may have impacted his chance to have a longer stay in the NFL, but that came after he was already with the Vikings, it didn't affect his draft status.  

[MoS]

Yeah, I am sure he was an excellent college football player, but American football is America's biggest religion and because of how high-profile college football is, there are thousands of excellent college football players who perform really well for a year or so and yet have ultimately have no presence in the mainstream. Wrestling has had some very accomplished college football players in the last 35 years, and I don't know if I would call any of them even close to mainstream solely for their football pedigree. From everything I have seen and read about college football, it is the ultimate case of the brand being bigger than any individual player.

Although it does make the idea of a badass former high-level college defensive lineman being asked to cut Looney Tunes promos even more hilarious though. Can you imagine if they had Goldberg saying this shit in 1998?

[Coffey]

To put into perspective how competitive college football in the United States is, Ron Simmons was a 2-time All-American, had his number retired at Florida State & is in the College Football Hall of Fame. In 1979 he finished NINTH in the Heisman Trophy race.

And the athletes have just continually gotten better since then. Stronger, faster. Advancements in medicine, recovery, training, technology, etc. American football is on another level. And we all know Ron Simmons is unfuckwithable. 

[strobogo]

I'm willing to bet the WWE fans/college football fans crossover is pretty minimal and nearly no one but Jim Ross gives a shit about Roman's football history