Originally Posted by sharkboy22
The problem with Punk/Cena is that once you've seen one, you've pretty much seen all. It's the same chain wrestle for a bit, bust out a sub, counter it, Punk hits a GTS, Cena kicks out, Cena hits AA and Punk kicks out, Punk attempts to hit a high spot but misses. Some more finisher kick outs. It's just the same crap all the time. It's like watching a watered down version of an ROH match. And by watered down I mean, it's missing about 20 more kick outs and a couple more high spots to be classified as an ROH match.
Eh, if you're going to generalise a match like that then it can be applied to almost any formula/style of match. Lawler matches are going to be slow start, punch, brawl, blood, strap down comeback, finish. Flair matches are going to be beginning full of schtick, extended Flair in peril segment, transition into Flair control, comeback, finish which more often than not isn't decisive. Lawler & Flair are two of my favourite guys period, let alone just strictly US wrestling. The point I'm making is that almost any wrestler who develops a style is going to build stages/phases of their match and then work a lot of spots/sequences around those themes. Punk/Cena has the character dynamic between the guy the company adores and the guy the older fans embrace as what they want in a pro wrestler.
Most of their matches play off of Punk being billed as a more complete 'wrestler' and Cena trying to play his game with more chain wrestling and 'putting the marks in their place' than you'll get in a typical Cena match. The general theme of their matches tends to revolve around building a match which highlights their chemistry and Punk in particular being a perfect foil for Cena, who in the process puts in a performance you don't get out of him on a nightly basis and which ensures we get an intriguing match dynamic.
Their matches have finisher kickouts, but that's been a staple of WWE Main Event storytelling really since the Attitude Era exploded. WWE is built upon a live experience, hence why guys are given specific movesets and spots they'll plug into their match in order to generate a reaction: Orton doing the Viper coiling, Cena and the 'you can't see me' schtick, Edge having a meltdown in the corner setting up a spear, HBK nip up and SCM motion, Batista spinebuster into Warrior esque pulling of the ropes etc. Finisher kickouts aren't a problem per se, its when the finishers aren't protected, built to, sold extensively or generally just poorly timed that problems occur. People generally don't react to finishers on the Indy scene these days because very few are protected, because a lot of guys believe kicking out of it creates a better nearfall than building to the move being hit and the struggle the opponent has in trying to avoid certain defeat.
Punk had to kick out of two AAs at MITB, as well as not tapping to the STF. The match was built on elevating Punk character wise as well as the eye's of the casual fans as something far greater than they expected. He wasn't portrayed as a man whose mouth was talking a game he couldn't deliver, it was done to make fans question how they'd slept on a guy being able to take Cena to the limit. The nearfalls were also obviously done to milk the partisan Chicago crowd as well as the online audience who were hooked on the sympathetic workmanlike Punk trying to climb the mountain and disperse the golden boy Cena. I do wish that post MITB, they might be a little more creative with their finishes, but I like the way they build to and successfully counter the others' arsenal. Basically I don't get the impression especially from the MITB match, that the finishers in themselves aren't protected. Cena's image means the AA always feels like a victory even if plenty of people up and down the card have kicked out of it, and the GTS sans Cena is arguably the most protected finisher in the company, which made Bryan kicking out of it all the more impressive and unexpected.
The point about ROH and twenty finisher kickouts again feels an unnecessary generalisation. I'm by no means an endorser of 2012 ROH or a lot of the big Indy scene, but like WWE, New Japan, CMLL or other companies ROH has a style that when executed well lends itself to being unique whilst also embracing elements that make a great match: storytelling, build, character work, selling and pacing. I don't see how someone could watch Joe, Danielson and Nigel in their reigns and not get the impression that they're building a match with far more depth than strikes and kickouts. I just feel that sometimes you're too alienated and biased against independent wrestling that you'll throw unnecessary putdowns into an argument which doesn't need to be made. You didn't have to draw upon ROH or the indy scene when discussing Cena/Punk, or at the very least you could have made a better comparison instead of something that resembled a strawman's argument.