Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been - Page 14 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling Forums

LinkBack Thread Tools
post #131 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 02:51 AM
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
KeepinItReal's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,262
Points: 88
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Originally Posted by KO Bossy View Post
No, winning and losing mean absolutely nothing.

Let's take a look at an example.

Now let's look at Comedy Central...oh, sorry, I mean the WWE. How many times in the past 12 months have we seen literally the EXACT same matches week after week, month after month?

Now let's talk about consequences. I'm gonna go to the perfect example of this, John "golden boy" Cena. Do you remember the build up to Wrestlemania 28 when he cut that empty arena promo talking about how he had to win, that it was essential for him to beat the Rock to carve out his legacy for the future and that if he lost, he was a failure, all so that he could build up interest in the feud? Remember what the fallout from that was? Not a solitary fucking thing. Next night, Cena comes out to congratulate Rock, and he's right into a feud with Lesnar. All of that need to win so that he wasn't a failure? Out the window. The feud was over, so why should anyone care? Heaven forbid he grow as a character. Oh and then remember when Edge came out and said that Cena HAD to beat Brock to defend the WWE from invaders who would try to ruin it? Yeah, I think the fallout from that match lasted all of...12 hours, since they mentioned it a whopping one time the next night on Raw before they moved on to other feuds.

My God, Cena even said in his promo in Montreal that "Punk, even if you don't give me a title shot, I'll just get one later on, I'm confident in my abilities."

When a company never follows through on their stipulations or hype for matches, no one can take them seriously when they start spouting that same shit in the future. Why should they believe them, after all? With the title matches, win or lose, it doesn't matter-Cena is gonna be in the title picture. Hell, he lost to Punk at 3 PPVs this year, was slated to take on Punk at a 4th and when he stopped feuding with Punk, he just went right over to Ziggler to try and steal his title shot briefcase. This is coming from a guy who lost all his previous opportunities that year...shouldn't someone else get an opportunity? Del Rio vs Sheamus spanned 5 MONTHS for God's sake, and even though Del Rio kept losing, he still kept getting title shots. Why? Because the Fed couldn't come up with anything better for them to do, so even though Sheamus kept winning and Del Rio kept losing, regardless of the outcomes of the previous matches, ADR just continued to fail upwards.

So now we've established that people succeed if they win, people succeed even if they lose, there are no repercussions or fallout to matches and there are no longer any novel match ups to be done because basically every intriguing idea they have, they run with and do it so often that they kill the idea (seems that they're even going to be breaking their "once in a lifetime" stipulation on Rock/Cena, though I shouldn't be surprised-Vince would sodomize his dead uncle's corpse if it meant making a quick buck). You don't climb the ladder, and you don't even fall down it. There's no real established sense of competition, either-everything is kind of level and ho hum. So tell exactly do you figure that matches today mean something?


Even CM Punk's reign doesn't mean much-the biggest achievement is that its been long. I will name you 100 better reigns than it right now off the top of my head. What makes a great reign is the substance-some reigns are really short but filled with amazing stuff (see any of Mick Foley's reigns). Punk's reign has largely been disappointing and uneventful. The first really noteworthy thing to happen is this feud with Rock, and it will probably culminate with him LOSING. To think...the best part of his reign is when its finally over...kinda sad. All of the other stuff has been average at best-nothing has really felt special or epic on a scale that you'd usually associate with the most important title in the company. Some has been downright bad and has been tainted with all sorts of bullshit and fuckery. So forgive me if I don't share the same sentiments you do on Punk's 'legendary' reign (I use that word loosely).
(other redactions not indicated by "...")

I understand you want matches to have consequences, but practically speaking they can't 'move down the ladder.' Rock or Austin never got demoted, nor did Angle/Lesnar/Triple H/Undertaker/Batista. The only punishment should be no title matches for a while. Hence, Cena feuding with Big Show, Laurinitis, Kane, Rock, Dolph Ziggler, but no title matches. And it was huge that he lost to the Rock; we get reminded and everyone remembers anyway. It symbolizes Cena's "year of disappointment," and his 1.5 yrs w/o the belt. Losses shouldn't be constantly pointed out, or else half your roster would be shit.

Almost all feuds take several months. Rock/Triple H, Angle/Lesnar, Batista/Edge, Cena/Orton, Orton/HHH. Austin/Rock was spread out and significant, just like Cena/Punk is significant but not as spread out. Punk has changed a lot in that time: from rebel to dirty, pussy liar. Its not as spread out as Austin/Rock BECAUSE ITS A NATURAL FEUD. Austin/Rock was clash of the titans/icons, like Rock/Cena and Rock/Punk, a big ole cash grab. Cena and Punk are actual rivals who were made to face each other; opposing attitudes, opposing fans. Its far more akin Rock/HHH and Austin/HHH.

For me personally, WWE since Punk's big promo last yr is much better than 2004-2011. Cena/Orton/HHH over and over, Undertaker/Batista/Edge over and over. Their rivalries didn't mean anything. Edge was a cheating pussy over and over, Batista was really likeable (I think he's basically Sheamus), and Undertaker had great matches but no rivalry is different from the previous one. What were Cena and Orton fighting about? Cena's dad or something? Triple H as a face is pretty much conceding that you have no stars anymore. Between Cena/HHH/Orton and Cena/Punk, I'm picking Cena/Punk, Punk gets more evil and dirty every month, and says and does different things. Between Undertaker/Edge/Batista and Sheamus/Ziggler/Orton/Big Show, I'm picking today's group again; I like Sheamus a lot more than Batista, he's more likeable, he's more entertaining in the ring, and being a foreigner makes him unique and like he's fighting for something and not just existing (I like Del Rio, too, but that's wait-and-see). Ziggler will be at least as good as Edge. Between the 'new DX' and Team Hell No, I'm picking Team Hell No vs. Rhodes Scholars (Daniel Bryan and Damien Sandow are very entertaining dudes, and the new DX was just for the sake of it; Orton is as entertaining as a dead giraffe). DX vs. Rated-RKO? This shows that the tag division was as dead then as it is today.

I consider both the current era and 2004-2011 to be better than Raw from 2002-2004, when only Triple H was entertaining, and was the same every week. At least SD had Angle/Lesnar/Undertaker, and Lesnar could never even talk. The only era that I'll say that was definitely better than right now was 1997-2002, when there was just a ridiculous crop of guys, with once-in-a-lifetime stars like Austin/Rock, and Triple H an amazing rival for them (and a RIDICULOUS mid-card of Benoit/Guerrero/Jericho/Angle, aka SmackDown or WCW).

I'm truly excited to see Del Rio try to hold onto the strap against Big Show, to see Ziggler carry the strap, to see Rock/Punk and w/e Punk does win or lose; I'm excited to see the rise of Barrett, Cesaro, and to see where Sheamus and Bryan's careers go. Two yrs ago, I was trying and failing to care about Cena/Miz and Orton/Christian. Then Punk showed up. I like WWE's current trajectory.

WWE favorites: Punk, Sheamus, Lesnar, Ambrose, Rollins, Reigns,
Del Rio, Orton, Bryan, Ziggler, Wyatt, Usos, Cesaro, Mysterio, Kane
DGPW: Doi, Yoshino, Tozawa, Yamato, Dragon Kid, BxB Hulk, Ricochet, Super Shisa
NJPW: Okada, Nakamura, Styles ROH: Briscoes, Fish and O'Reilly, Young Bucks
All-Time: Rock, Punk, Lesnar, Angle

KeepinItReal is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #132 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 06:01 AM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
DanM3's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 845
Points: 0
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

It has been far worse than it is right now. It's not perfect by any means but it's come a long way since the horrible 2007 - 2010 times. I also have been watching since about 1997 and have stopped and started watching many times.

Since cm punks 2011 promo wwe has got better. Wrestlers such as Daniel Bryan, Ryback, ziggler, the shield have all had some main event feuds and wrestlers such as cena and orton have 'put over' these younger talents if you see a strong match but not necessarily winning as putting some one over.

My main problem is stars like the rock retiring wrestling a few matches and leaving. I loved him back in the day but I find him a bit stale and same old same old now. But then I'm a hypocrit as I love takers single match each year.

I think if we looking back to the guest host times we can see raw has moved in the right direction
DanM3 is offline  
post #133 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 07:03 AM
Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
YamchaRocks's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Poland
Posts: 253
Points: 0
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Though I often find a reason to enjoy the shows, I have to say that this company is wrong on so many levels. Product is so lifeless, it's literally unbeliveable. It's exciting only when part-timers such as Rock, Triple H and Lesnar are showing up.

As everyone else I'm tired of boring writing and generic characters, but my biggest issue are people who WWE is pushing. They're pushing AJ - sack of shit who ruins everyhing she touches. They're pushing Ziggler - a person who WWE, and anybody who's not a blind mark jerking off to small wrestlers overselling moves, knows will fail as Main Event guy, but they're pushing his boring ass regardless. And finally, CM fucking Punk is WWE Champion. Honestly, can it get any worse? And then morons in this company are asking themselfs "Why the hell are people tuning out?" .

R.I.P Damien Sandow's career. Thank you for all the memories.

Last edited by YamchaRocks; 01-13-2013 at 07:05 AM.
YamchaRocks is offline  
post #134 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 07:04 AM
The human torch was denied a bank loan.
Quasi Juice's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 7,576
Points: 12
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Ah, the same old recency bias that plagues the IWC. 2009, 2010 and 1995 were definitely worse.

Quasi Juice is offline  
post #135 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 07:11 AM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,704
Points: 0
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

So many great posts in this thread by KO Bossy. Too many good points to quote them all. Bravo
Originally Posted by KeepinItReal View Post
Winning and losing means something today. What do you mean when you say it doesn't? That you don't care about the wreslters (not saying that's not a valid opinion)? Too much cheating? Sheamus beating Del Rio, Big Show defeating Sheamus, Del Rio beating Big Show? Ziggler losing to Cena over and over but getting a dirty win on PPV (I love their matches, btw)? I'd argue Punk holding onto the belt month and month matters a lot, as well as whomever has the WHC. (Check the sig; Del Rio's the MAN now)
Winning means nothing. If the most hyped matches of the year had no impact what to expect from the rest in WWE? Does Cena losing against The Rock or winning against Lesnar means something? Has it changed the direction of Cena's character or the WWE? WWE made an exception and made the Cena vs Lesnar match bloody and the PPV TV-14 rated and for what? For Cena appearing next week being more cheesy and pathetic screaming "Loooooser". Only the current WWE writers were able to bring The Rock and Brock Lesnar back within a month and being unable to make something big

Winning means nothing. Does it means something anymore who will win between Orton and Del Rio or Sheamus and Del Rio, Kofi vs The Miz for the IC title or Prime Time Players vs anyone for the Tag Team title? When Edge & Christian met the Hardys for the Tag Team title it meant something despite already having already 50 matches against each other, todayeven the feuds for the World Heavyweight titles are not interesting enough.
Even the superstars who improved a little bit were destroyed in ridiculous feuds or jobbing to Cena and when they finally win something big nobody cares.
Who cares if Ziggler wins one time when he jobbed multiple times to Cena on free TV despite dominating? What idiot had the idea to embarrass Alberto Del Rio on the Raw Christmas show by Cena if they had plans to make him world champion? Who will take Alberto "Santa killer" Del Rio seriously as champion?

Yes, the year 2009 or 2010 had terrible stuff but today it's not even pathetic or ridiculous. It's just lame, boring and forgettable. Is there anything memorable and significant Big Show, Randy Orton, Rey Mysterio, Wade Barrett or Sheamus did last year? They won titles but the fact that nobody will even remember their feuds and matches in 1 year tells you all that wins and losses even for the world titles means nothing today
DualShock is offline  
post #136 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 11:24 AM
Yelled at by SCOTT STEINER
krillep's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,953
Points: 1,998
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Who are watching WWE these days?

I'd rather check out a b-movie.
krillep is offline  
post #137 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 11:58 AM
NO!'s Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Tralfamadore
Posts: 3,230
Points: 201
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Originally Posted by KeepinItReal View Post
I think WWE today is just as good as WWE was from 2002-04, with Angle, Lesnar, and Undertaker running SmackDown, and an incredible mid card of fun characters with great technical skills (I think Triple H was the only thing interesting happening on Raw). Cena, Punk, Sheamus, Daniel Bryan, Del Rio, Barrett, Cesaro, DOLPH ZIGGLER. To think this is as bad, or worse, as when Miz, Khali, and Jack Swagger were champion baffles me. Ppl have absurd, unreachable standards. Nothing will surprise you anymore. Oh, and I know it was a bit of a gimmick match, but Shield vs Ryback/Hell No at TLC was my favorite match of all time. It was just awesome, and so was Ryback/Punk this past Monday, and so was Del Rio/Big Show last night.
Sorry, but are you insane?

I mean, the quality of the PPV's in 2002 was off the charts. Classics like Summerslam, No Mercy, Survivor Series... nothing in 2012 even comes close to those. Smackdown today is filled with pointless matches that do not further any storylines or build up to their PPV's. In 2002 we saw the rise of Brock Lesnar and WWE failed to make a star like that in 2012. Sorry, but just because Punk holds the title for over a year doesn't mean he is now a huge star or something. He took the backseat to John Cena and was never booked to be on the same level as him.

We also didn't have 3 hours of replays every week and constant "go on twitter and vote!" nonsense.
NO! is offline  
post #138 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 12:05 PM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 664
Points: 0
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

wins and losses mean absolutely nothing in wwe anymore like people have said before, ziggler is by far the worse out of this, he wins money in the bank and then losses to the like of orton, sheamus and cena, which shows that he doesn't deserve to be in the main event and doesnt even deserve to have the breifcase, thats why when he wins the title i don't think its going to be a very big deal. i could talk more about cena, del rio and sheamus but i cant be fucked.
wrestling immortal is offline  
post #139 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 12:10 PM
NO!'s Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Tralfamadore
Posts: 3,230
Points: 201
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

Originally Posted by SinJackal View Post
Cena hasn't been on top in a year and a half.

You have to develop a logic ruler to use as a measuring stick, then compare the top guys to see who's really been on top. Cena would not be on top using any sort of common sense. Examples of criteria to use: title reigns, days as a world champ, PPV win/loss record, air time, fued wins, record vs other top guys, etc. The only thing Cena beats everyone at is PPV main events wrestled in (due to still being the biggest draw despite not being the hardest pushed), and he's lost half of his PPV matches anyway.

One thing doesn't mean as much as 10 things. Cena's #3 at best behind CM Punk who's way ahead of everyone in first, Shemaus is in 2nd, and then Cena is in 3rd. Big Show gets an honorable mention as well.
Sure, if you merely go by title reigns and "victories" then maybe Cena won't be number one. But he's still the one being presented above all the rest. CM Punk holding a title for over a year doesn't make him bigger than Cena, because they're still presenting him as a midcard performer. And obviously it's only going to make it tougher for someone to become as big of a draw as John Cena if they aren't booked to look as good as him. Punk and Sheamus never got clean victories over anyone with the popularity of John Cena. John Cena became a star by defeating Triple H and Shawn Michaels in back to back Wrestlemania main events for the companies top championship. He is always booked as the guy who cannot be defeated cleanly. Punk on the other hand has to work his butt off to get a program with Ryback over. His matches with Ryback just weren't anything special because Ryback truly is just another limited power wrestler. That TLC match on RAW was alright for a tv match but I've seen TONS of better ladder matches.... and this was for the WWE title and was also hyped up weeks in advance. Punk has had to scratch and claw to stay over with the audience, while Cena is handed free opportunities all the time... title shots for no particular reason.
NO! is offline  
post #140 of 160 (permalink) Old 01-13-2013, 12:10 PM
Marv95's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Near KOP, PA
Posts: 5,003
Points: 4,118
Re: Been watching WWE for 16 years and this is by far the worst it has ever been

nWo returning, rebirth of Hulkamania, rise of Brock Lesnar, 5-star matches each year, television geared towards US, outstanding PPVs, arguably the best roster of all time in terms of in-ring skills and overall talent, matches and entertaining feuds which had meaning, no stupid crap which had nothing to do with wrestling like muppets, guest hosts, twitter, apps, etc. Yeah, it's just as good as then.

Originally Posted by blazegod99 View Post
You fucking politically correct morons are quick to defend WWE for every pussy ass decision they make, but complain about the show lacking attitude and intensity... SMH.
Right on!
Follow if you dare:
Marv95 is offline  

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome