[Kamaria]

There's definitely an established totem pole in the WWE. When somebody like John Morrison faces Randy Orton in a match, it's almost a given that Randy Orton will win. When any sort of upper midcarder faces a main eventer, it's almost always a given that the main eventer will win (after the other guy gets some token offense to make him look 'good' before losing). Triple H seems to believe in this general rule, as evidenced by an excerpt from an interview:

"You put C.M. Punk in a 30-minute match with The Undertaker, it's 50-50 all the way and then Punk wins clean, the fans won't accept it. It does nothing for C.M. Punk, and it's also detrimental to the Undertaker," Hunter said. "Some people think we're (HBK and himself) scheming all the time to improve our own situations. But the more people we make stars, the more money we all make, and everyone's happy."

I don't mind it completely. If main eventers could job to upper midcarders more often they wouldn't look very good, would they? But I think this attitude fights against the idea of making stars in itself. CM Punk was ultimately de-pushed as a result of that horrible feud. Making midcard guys look like shit does not help the main eventers. If CM Punk really did face Undertaker in a close match right now (non-Wrestlemania), think of what that could do for Punk. You have to understand, Undertaker (and almost all main eventers in general) are so well protected, losing to an up and coming star really ISN'T detrimental to their stock...IF you book it right. That's how I feel about it, anyway.

If you just push guys against the main eventers but never let them go over in today's WWE, how is anyone supposed to believe in them? Yes, there is a totem pole...but that totem pole is holding down guys. They want to give people big pushes, but balk at the mere idea of giving them legitimate 'shock wins' over their established stars (look at Sheamus and how he won the title, and where he is now).

How does everyone feel about this sort of thing? Should upper midcarders be given a rub more often? Should main eventers be so well protected?

 

[irishboy109]

It's very much a case-by-case basis. Miz beats Cena clean, of course nobody's going to believe that. Miz loses to Cena but puts up a good fight, barely believable.

Sometimes losing is better than winning. HHH made Jeff Hardy a believable main eventer by beating him cleanly after hard fought matches. My only issue with it is the idea that the mid carder can't win even on free tv..

 

[11Shareef]

It's writing. I totally get what he is saying and Punk already had his dirty win against Taker. What they should have done was give Punk a dirty win and instantly started Undertaker with a new feud. Like when Jeff Hardy left and Undertaker was instantly there for Punk that's what needed to be done. This is the reason why Undertaker doesn't avenge the lost to Punk because ______ attacked him and now he's after them.