Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

WrestleMania 28 matches planned for April 1 event in Miami

Photo

The plan for WrestleMania 28 is reportedly coming along nicely and, in fact, all but a few matches on the card are already made. Officially, nothing has been set just yet but that will slowly start to change beginning with the Royal Rumble match this Sunday night (Jan. 29, 2012).

Here's how things are looking at present time:

-- The Rock vs. John Cena

Really, no other match is even necessary after this one. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of hype there's going to be for this by the time it actually rolls around. The Rock is now officially being advertised for Raw dates as early as March 12, which is about three weeks out from WrestleMania. I would hope he shows up for a few more than that and he comes around earlier. Either way, this is the biggest match WWE has had in the last decade.

-- Triple H vs. Undertaker

Probably the most controversial match on the card, simply because no one seems to want to see it. Opinions are wide ranging, from those who simply think 'Taker shouldn't waste his few remaining matches on old warhogs like Triple H to those who believe Trips might actually be insane enough to get himself over as the guy who broke "The Streak." I can't ever see that happening. The good news for this match is that Shawn Michaels is reportedly going to be added in as a new wrinkle. Apparently, the angle is going to be that HBK will be the referee and they'll build to whether or not Michaels will help "The Game" because he wants his friend to end "The Streak" or he'll help Undertaker because he doesn't want someone to do something he himself could not. He could simply call it down the middle, but then there's really no point in bringing him in other than the hype. The story sounds interesting but I still can't decide whether to look forward to this or not.

A look at the rest of the card after the jump.

Star-divide

-- CM Punk vs. Chris Jericho

The WWE championship is necessary to make this match work but it's reportedly going to be on the line and be one of the big money matches, probably third down on the card from the two mentioned above. Jericho still has yet to fully reveal his intentions since his return but that's supposed to change at the Royal Rumble this Sunday night, whether that means he attacks Punk or wins the Rumble altogether. The obvious selling point here is that Punk started calling himself the "Best in the World" long after Jericho first used it and now Y2J has come around again to take his title back. Jericho is in the best shape of his life, according to his own words, so hopefully they'll be able to go for a half hour and tear the house down.

-- Shaquille O'Neal vs. Big Show

There is no match on the card I'm looking forward to more than this. That's driven by how much I enjoy Shaq's work, in all aspects of entertainment. He's a mammoth of a man who is still fairly athletic and he's a huge mark for pro wrestling. That mix, added together with the fact that Show is as game as it gets and willing to work with a celebrity to make it something special, and this could steal the show as one of the best matches on the card. I'm literally giddy with anticipation of seeing Shaq (freaking Shaq!) take a bump and his ensuing sell job. This should be rich.

-- Randy Orton vs. Mark Henry or Daniel Bryan

The Smackdown world heavyweight championship match is all but guaranteed to include Orton but who is opponent will be is still up in the air at this point. As pointed out in this post here, Randall apparently wasn't the biggest fan of working with Henry. However, he put him over clean multiple times and gave him most of his credibility as champion during his run as the monster ruling Smackdown. Orton took a backseat on the show to give Henry his run and has been on the sidelines while Bryan has taken over that spot and gradually grown into an awesome heel champion. So it looks like this will come down to whoever Orton decides. Does he want to get his wins back over Henry? Or is he more interested in working a great match with Bryan? We shall see.

-- Money in the Bank ladder match

WWE has been messing around with its schedule, making changes that include dumping shows altogether and simply moving some to separate months. The Money in the Bank pay-per-view is no longer, which would seem to indicate that they are going to bring it back as a showcase match at WrestleMania. Indeed, there are plenty of upper tier mid-carders/former main eventers with nothing to do at "The Granddaddy of Them All." What better way to make sure they get on the show? Possible names include Alberto Del Rio, The Miz, R-Truth, Christian, Cody Rhodes, Kane, Dolph Ziggler, and Sheamus. That's eight guys right there. Wade Barrett would be left out but they could move Rhodes vs. Goldust to 'Mania instead of the current plan of having it at Elimination Chamber and put Barrett in the Money in the Bank match. That would get the 'Mania match count up to seven, meaning one more match needs to be added to the card to get to eight like last year.

-- Diva fun!

Even if WWE doesn't really give a crap about their female performers, they'll most definitely be given a slot on the biggest event of the year. Whether that be a singles match for the Diva's championship or a tag match or even a battle royal, they'll make it on the card somehow.

And there you have it, Cagesiders. That's what we're likely looking at for WrestleMania 28 on April 1, 2012, on pay-per-view in Miami, Florida.

The card is not official, of course, and changes may very well be made but that's how it currently looks. Thoughts?

Comment 87 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I say HHH wins.

First off, his ego is so big you can’t assume he won’t put himself over because we all know that some men have no shame. Kinda like when Kevin Nash became the booker, some people would have thought he would become less selfish but nope he put himself over big time and took all he wanted. Also, last year the match seemed to be mad as if Taker got lucky.

Now, count up your crimes!

by Cyclonejoker on Jan 26, 2012 5:26 PM EST reply actions  

If HHH wants to go over on Taker

He’ll have to have Taker’s approval for it and I don’t see that happening.

by hfl2013 on Jan 26, 2012 6:14 PM EST up reply actions  

But Taker has offered to lose the streak a few times.

HHH might take advantage of Takers willingness to put others over.

Now, count up your crimes!

by Cyclonejoker on Jan 26, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Undertaker offered to put over guys who would've gone from being prospects to legends from beating him.

Undertaker isn’t afraid of any WWE backstage politics because he’s one of the few guys in the company who’s actually a star. Not to mention that Undertaker is no stranger to politics himself, he can protect his neck.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 26, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I hope he wants to though.

Because we all know Taker is a nice guy and HHH loves to get the big wins even if it’s pointless. And Kane wasn’t a prospect and Taker offered to lose to him so I’m not so sure how this is going to go.

Now, count up your crimes!

by Cyclonejoker on Jan 26, 2012 6:47 PM EST up reply actions  

taker wants to lose the streak if hes putting over a young guy

There is no way he loses to put a semi retired wrestler over

by hfl2013 on Jan 26, 2012 7:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I don't see it for a few reasons

Asides for the mentioned things, it’s a streak that literally will take another 20 years for the WWE to create. Why end it at 19? Twenty is nice and even.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 26, 2012 8:09 PM EST up reply actions  

If Rock wins I will mark out like never before, if he loses I will probably cry. That’s how much I don’t want him to lose to Cena at WrestleMania

Also there’s a rumor that they might switch it up to Punk/HHH & Taker/Jericho

The Legend

by KJ Brophy on Jan 26, 2012 5:36 PM EST reply actions  

I'm all for that

that was my #1 hope when Jericho was announced as coming back. him and punk can always feud post mania.

He knows the guy with the bandage on his ass is going no were. Were you going fucking no were

by Elstriko on Jan 26, 2012 7:34 PM EST via Android app up reply actions  

The Funkasaurus will represent

He’ll be on the card somehow. Just imagine the crowd reaction for his entrance when over 70,000 people start funking out.

If that ends up being the entire card, there are no tag team title, no US title, and no Intercontinental title matches.

by Manolo Has Pizzazz on Jan 26, 2012 6:01 PM EST reply actions  

Need a special ladder to support that much funk

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 27, 2012 12:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

As much as I love Danielson and Punk, the only possibilities for the Streak match this year are Hunter or Orton.

As good as a Danielson/Ziggler vs. Undertaker match would be, neither guy has anywhere near enough credibility with the audience to be seen as a viable threat.

Much as I hate both guys, Henry and Kane do have enough credibility to be seen as a threat to Undertaker’s streak, but both guys have faced Undertaker multiple times, including Wrestlemania, and each match involving some combination of those three guys has sucked a giant monkey penis. It won’t be any different this time.

I probably hate Cena even more than Henry and Kane at this point, but I will admit that Cena has both the credibility and the ability to have a great match with the Undertaker, but he’s busy facing Rocky, so that’s a nonstarter.

Punk, as awesome as he his, has already had a series of matches with Undertaker, and none of them were very good. Not to mention, he doesn’t have nearly enough credibility either.

The only guys left here are Hunter and Orton, and I’m fine with both options. In a better world, WWE wouldn’t be so poorly booked that they only have two realistic options for Undertaker’s streak match, and as much as I’d like to live in a world where the Wrestlemania card is headlined by Danielson vs. HBK, it’s best to focus on the real world.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 26, 2012 6:13 PM EST reply actions  

How's about...

Heath Slater vs. Undertaker

…that’ll put butts in the seats!!

by tkatt00 on Jan 26, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Kane, as much as he sucks, has been an established name since '97.

I have no idea why Kane was chosen back in ‘97 to be a star, or why he’s never been jobbed out at all, but it gives him a credibility with the fans tuning in to see Rocky that Punk, sadly, doesn’t have.

Not to mention, while Punk’s win/loss record has been either on the jobber end or inconsistent for his entire WWE career, Henry has been fed basically the entire roster for the whole year. It was a terrible idea to pick Henry for this, but it’s what happened none the less, and it gave him a credibility Punk still lacks.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 26, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm going to pretend you're not an utter troll/mark...

Let’s re-evaluate here….So you’re saying that first, Kane is a more credible threat to the Undertaker’s streak? wrong.

Kane’s lost twice to Taker at Mania. Not only was Kane WAY more over during each of those programs but the streak was far less important back then, thereby more likely to end.

Kane is a perennial jobber to the stars. For over a decade now. He’s an incredible worker and a bonafide legend, but he doesn’t even have the credibility to challenge Punk right now, let alone Taker at Wrestlemania.

Second, Henry is coming off the biggest year of his entire run and completely rose to the occasion and was deserving of his spot. With that said, his push still pales in comparison to what Punk did last year, and even what Punk has been doing for the past several years.

Punk is the main focus of Raw, where Cena and Triple H have both been active. Henry was the main focus of Smackdown, facing the Big Show, while Orton was injured. Who had the better year? It’s not even a debate.

While legitimate talents, neither Henry or Kane would credibly challenge any of the TOP guys in the WWE….a group that unquestionably includes Cm Punk.

Punk is arguably top 3 in the company right now. Only Cena would be a more credible threat to the streak than Punk at this point, and Punk’s beaten him, so you do the math.

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions  

You missed ** entire point

Punk is a flash in the pan right now. I think everyone expects Punk to stay constant, but he is not really in the best position. He beat Cena over 6 months ago, and then lost to ADR twice, Trips once, and is on somewhat of a losing streak with Raw. Punk is a great talent, but you would have to build him up starting now, and compleatly remove Johnny Ace and Ziggler from his storyline. On top of that, he would have to turn heel to face Taker. Not impossible, but that would destroy any crediblity he has built up with beating Cena and the Lauranitis feud.

Henry, on the other hand, absolutely destroyed Orton, the top guy on Smackdown. He put Kane and Big Show out of commission. His fight with Show recently has stalled him, but WWE, if they wanted to, could easily pick it back up. Have him break Daniels ankle, finally beat Show, and challenge the deadman. It is easy enough to execute.

As for Kane, the dude has a decade plus of buildup. Undertaker and Kane’s story has always been intertwined. He is a monster in this incarnation. A goofy and lame one, yes. But still. Have him beat Cena, or at least not lose due to some wacky finish, and it’s an easy step to challenge Taker.

Punk is amazing at what he does. He will be the face of WWE. But for him to challenge Taker this year takes him compleatly out of his story and is not even close to the best matchup. Trips and Orton, especially if HBK is invoked somehow, are the best in terms of match quality and believability for kayfabe.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 26, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah Punk vs Taker wouldn’t work. Punk has been losing to Ziggler and struggling with Del Rio for much of the last few months of 2011. Punk struggled to defeat Job Swagger on Raw a few weeks. Punk is the main reason I am watching Raw yet I have no interest in Punk vs Taker right now.

I do want to see Cena vs Taker so hopefully that will happen in 2013.

Does anybody know if Lesnar is a possibility for Mania this year? Or has that idea been squashed?

I haven’t heard the Taker/Jericho and Punk/HHH rumor before. I think those matches could be really entertaining but I am afraid that HHH wouldn’t put Punk over. And HHH is a more believable threat to the streak than Jericho. Maybe there is something to this rumor seeing that HHH us returning soon and could simply go heel and screw Punk over by joining up with Ace.

by Kanenite on Jan 26, 2012 7:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe you missed my point...

I never said that Punk should or would be a better opponent than Kane or Henry for the Undertaker. He definitely would, but I never said that.

I did say that Punk is a more credible threat to the streak and he is.

Punk is not a flash in the pan by any means, that’s just crazy talk. He’s been at the top or near the top of the card for nearly 5 years now.

I have absolutely nothing against Kane or Henry, in fact I’m pretty big fans of both, but it’s not realistic to say that either of them are higher on the totem pole than Punk. I’m basing my credibility argument on “spot” hierarchy. Punk is above Kane and Mark Henry, no doubt about it.

Kane and Henry are both on the downswings of their careers, while Punk is just now approaching his prime. As of now, Punk is in a better position than Kane or Henry have ever been in. That position being the no. 1 face in the company. He’s being looked upon to elevate Ziggler and Del Rio. Who did Kane or Henry ever “make” by themselves?

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 8:00 PM EST up reply actions  

You are confusing different arguments

Punk is amazing. I’m not doubting him, his abilities, or anything he has accomplished. I’m saying the storyline he is in right now does not have him in a position to challenge Taker. Who has he beaten recently? Swagger and Miz/ADR in a triple threat. He’s lost to Ziggler thrice, lost to del Rio, lost to Triple H. Henry lost to the Big Show, but could erase that easily. Kane hasn’t really wrestled, but a win over Cena would move him to the top.
First tier of challengers is HHH and Orton
Second is Henry and Kane
Third is Danielson and then Punk
Obviously I would rather see Punk or Daniel vs Taker that Henry or Kane, but it terms of story it wouldn’t really make sense. I think you could possibly position Daniel Bryan into that match, but I don’t see how Punk can take on the streak when his biggest win if late would be over Ziggler.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 26, 2012 8:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I see what you're saying

and I disagree.

Punk is made. He’s being used to elevate because he can afford to lose. Kane and Henry cannot afford those losses without tumbling down the card (as we’ve seen with Henry to an extent).

Win/loss records don’t matter one bit. Spots do and Punk has a better spot than Henry or Kane.

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 8:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Please define “spot” in this context. Do you mean a promo? Or a highspot?

by Finian1 on Jan 26, 2012 11:31 PM EST up reply actions  

neither.

I mean spot within the company. Punk’s “spot” on the political pecking order that is the WWE. I’d argue that the only wrestlers above him are Cena, Orton, H and Taker.

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 11:45 PM EST up reply actions  

As much as I'd love the match, no.

You can’t make up for jobbing a guy out for a year with two months of him beating everybody on the roster. It’ll take at least nine months to build up Danielson’s credibility to that degree even if he made Cena, Orton, Triple H, Jericho, and CM Punk submit clean.

Hell, Danielson got pulled from the card on the biggest show of the year during the time when most of the fans were watching. That alone colored his perception in their eyes as a total jobber in WWE. For a guy that low on the totem pole to get the heat to beat Undertaker might take even longer.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 27, 2012 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

True

I think public perception is a little more elastic than you give it credit for, but probally not to that degree. I do believe there is a way possible to get Danielson to that level of credibility in time, but it would take absolute perfect execution and out of the box thinking. Which will not happen. Maybe next year.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions  

All it would take is one good tap out victory

and they can put emphasis on him being a submission specialist. He’s got the loyal fan base that knows how great he is and they can recycle some of the Benoit push for Bryan.

by hfl2013 on Jan 27, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Just a small quibble...

But " Either way, this is the biggest match WWE has had in the last decade." is pretty far from true. Hogan vs the Rock and Rock vs Austin both main evented WM in the past decade :P

by Decado on Jan 26, 2012 7:00 PM EST reply actions  

Cena vs Rock

is far more important than either of those matches (their historical importance not withstanding, a they are certainly some of the biggest matches ever). The Rock is a bigger star than Hogan was in 02(and arguably, ever) while Cena is bigger than Rocky was. Austin/Rock wasn’t even the co-main event of WM19. They’re WM X7 match was big, but not this big. Not even close.

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

On what level, in what area, is Cena bigger than the Rock? Unless you poll nothing but 7-10 year olds, Rock wins every time.

by The so-called Beautiful on Jan 26, 2012 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

No

with women and kids maybe. But The Rock was maybe the biggest star ever, SCSA is a close second though

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Clemson should've stopped turning the ball over" Dana Holgorsen when asked about running up the score in the Orange Bowl

by WVPiratesfan on Jan 27, 2012 12:12 AM EST up reply actions  

No way

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 27, 2012 1:00 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Yes!

If we’re talking within wrestling, then Cena beats the Rock on an all-time greats list. Compare their runs at the top…

Cena – 2005 until present (7+ years)
Rock – 1999-2003 (4 years)

Like it or not, Cena has held the WWE down for longer than anyone else in the modern era. He’s been the number one guy for so long, it’s sometimes hard to put that into perspective against the top guys of yesteryear, but he’s surpassed them all (within wrestling).

Rock is a huge star. The biggest star wrestling has produced, maybe. Definitely the most marketable outside of wrestling. But within wrestling, his run at the top was fairly short. Also, during his run, Stone Cold was the No. 1, Rock was 1A. Cena hasn’t had any legit challengers to his throne, while the Rock spent the majority of his career chasing Austin, who was always the company’s most over star. Now whether that’s a sign of the times or not, it doesn’t change the fact that Cena has accomplished more in the business than the Rock.

I could go into more detail, but I hope you get my point. Cena alone has carried the company for a longer period of time. Rock was a major part of a great cast of characters, but Austin was always the main guy. Now, I’m talking about a purely wrestling universe here. Obviously Rock is a bigger star, but if we ignore his movie career and focus solely on wrestling, Cena has accomplished more.

Going back to my statement about 2012 vs 2002…Let’s compare Hogan vs Rock with Cena vs Rock…What more can be said about Rock/Hogan? It was a dream match…but lets take a closer look…

Rock vs Hogan was the alternative to Austin vs Hogan – Rock was the second choice because he Austin was the bigger star. Hogan/Austin is bigger than Rock/Hogan, but politics got in the way.

Rock/Hogan wasn’t the main event – I was there. I’m aware it was the biggest match of the card and Jericho/H couldn’t top it, but it was not promoted as the top match that year. It was only after the match that people realized the significance of it, and don’t forget that was mostly due to Hogan nostalgia, not Rocky. Had it been Austin vs Hogan, I’d bet dollars to donuts that Hogan wouldn’t have been cheered over Austin. Like Cena, Rock had his niche market and coincidentally it was women, kids and minorities mostly. Austin was over with everyone. Compare that to today…

Cena vs Rock was promoted as the main event a full YEAR before. That’s big.

The Rock in 2012 is a huge international movie star. His coming back for a return match is HUGE. There was nobody in 2002 or any other time that could have generated this much buzz. But in 2002, he was not the accomplished actor he is today. He was a wrestler, who acted. Now he’s an actor who wrestled.

That’s why Cena vs Rock at WM 28 is the biggest match of all-time.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 5:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I have to dispute one of your points. Even the Rock/Hogan wasn’t last on the card, the company was using that as the key match to promote X8. I present: http://i2.listal.com/image/productsus/1000/B00005RIYO/dvds/wwe-wrestlemania-x8.jpg

Keep in mind, the Rock was at the height of his fame at the time and Austin was starting to wind down due to physical problems. (Rock was also not long for the ring at that point either, with his film career taking off.) But everywhere I went I saw bus shelters and billboards saying “ICON VS. ICON.” There’s no way you can argue WWE didn’t promote Rock/Hogan over the rest of the card.

by Andre Bennett on Jan 27, 2012 6:09 AM EST up reply actions  

err, **even though

I should hit preview next time.

by Andre Bennett on Jan 27, 2012 6:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Yea, good point

I never said it wasnt big. It definitely was. But Cena vs Rock is bigger. Also note that poster is for the DVD… To the best of my recollection, the actual poster didnt feature any wrestler.

Also, Rock wasn’t at the height of his fame at that time…If he was, he’d have probably got the nod for 1st undisputed champ. He was huge, but I think the fact that he was boo’d against Hogan shows that he was winding down himself. During that time, WWE was switching focus to H, Angle and eventually Lesnar…

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

If there's a living soul that cheers Cena at 'Mania this year, I'd be suprised.

Face it, time on top is irrelevant compared to the business you did while you were on top. Going by the number of crowds of 10,000 or over who were present for the cards they headlined alone, Rocky still decisively beats Cena even though Cena’s been the top guy for far longer than Rocky.

It’s amazing a human being can be this wrong.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 27, 2012 10:06 AM EST up reply actions  

Hmm

So by your logic warrior and Goldberg are the two biggest stars ever. Longevity absolutely means something.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 10:47 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Also

Rock is a natural heel. Given enough time fans will turn on him like they always have. Once the nostalgia wears off…there is a possibility that fans start listening to cena and realize he has the better argument. Also rock is only marginally less corny than cena. A lot People will soon realize this.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 10:54 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

No one will realize this.

Because the Rock isn’t in the WWE long enough to be hated. He comes and goes. Everyone who cheers the Rock aren’t cheering just the Rock, but also Stone Cold, Mr. McMahon, Degeneration X, Mankind, and Attitude Era in general. The Rock should be the heel in this feud, but he represents too much to the fans.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Goldberg is one of the biggest stars

A huge part of that was simply timing. But ask a casual fan who Goldberg is, and they would know. I think the same with Ultimate Warrior.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Sure they were big, but my point is that they were big for a very short period of time. You can’t tell me that they’re bigger than longer-tenured wrestlers. It matters what you do with your time, but it matters more if you can sustain a level of popularity for an extended period of time.

More people would know Hogan, Cena, Austin, Flair…All achieved about the same level of success (the highest) but did it for years (or decades in some cases)….That has to mean more than someone who was on top for a couple of years.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

But it depends how many people are watching

Cena has been on top for more years, but for less of an audience. The WWE wants Cena/Rock to be the biggest headline, but I don’t know if it is. If we judge by buyrates, then we will have to wait. If we are judging by impact, I guess it’s a more personal take. The Rock is absolutely bigger now than Hogan was. Cena now vs Rock then? I want to say Cena now, but I think it may be just because he is now and the human memory overrates the present

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah you really could argue it from either way. Cena wrestles for a smaller audience, but he’s still THE guy. Rock played second fiddle to Austin and also had Foley and H to create compelling match-ups. I’d argue that Cena does this by himself, much like Hogan did in the 80’s.

Rock was a part of an A list team. Cena is clearly a level above pretty much everyone he works with.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

Rock being 1A to Austin doesn’t mean Rock is worse than Cena. This doesn’t mean Cena’s better than all of the non-Austin players from the Attitude Era simply because Cena’s the top guy.

Here’s a simple baseball example illustrating that point. Don Mattingly was the face of the Yankees in the 80’s. Lou Gehrig was 1A to Babe Ruth on the 1920’s/1930’s Yankees. There is no objective way you can argue that Mattingly was a better player than Gehrig. It’s not even close.

Also Cena has been on top longer than Rock, but in a down time for the business. Longevity means something, but longevity does not equal greatness. Rock was so damn good that he didn’t have to keep on wrestling. He was able to find a new career path that would make him even more money and also stop ravaging his body. Cena isn’t good enough to draw the mainstream attention the way Rock could. I don’t think you can just ignore this. This is the main reason why Rock didn’t last on top for a really long time. This isn’t a case of a guy like Lesnar being burnt out or Austin succumbing to injuries. Rock chose to end his run because he didn’t have to settle for just being the top guy in WWE. He became too big of a star for that.

by Kanenite on Jan 27, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I see what you're saying

but I think we’re straying off course here a little bit…

To say John Cena is the Don Mattingly of the WWE is really selling Cena short. He’s more like a Derek Jeter or A-Rod…I duno, I’m Canadian, I dont follow baseball…But what I do know is there was a huge gap in time periods there…so the comparison doesn’t really hold up. It’s a good one though.

My base argument is simple. John Cena is a bigger star now in the WWE than The Rock was in 2002. Agree or disagree, it doesnt really matter, I’ll be the first to admit that point is debatable. But it’s not preposterous in the least.

Rock didnt have to keep wrestling, this is true, but as a wrestler, was he really that great? It wasnt that he was so great in wrestling that he became a movie star…It’s more that he had a look and the charisma to become a viable action star…That’s what separates him from the pack, that’s why he left…But that doesn’t mean he was a better wrestler than anyone else (and I use the term wrestler in a sports-entertainment context, not technical wrestler).

He had some serious skills that are absolutely necessary to succeed in wrestling AND movies…but I think that Cena, and his longevity is a testament to this, is more exemplary of greatness in wrestling, thus he ranks higher than Rock as a wrestler imho, but certainly not as ‘celebrity’.

Was the Rock ever so over that he couldn’t be turned heel because his merch was so hot? (you can argue Cena’s youth fanbase, but money is money no matter where it comes from)
No he wasn’t. Fans turned on him multiple times throughout his career. Wrestling fans. Now this has little to do with his ability to be successful in Hollywood. I’m having difficulty explaining myself so maybe I should stop, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from.

Rock wasn’t the first or the last successful wrestler to leave on his own accord. Ventura, Warrior and Lesnar come to mind immediately. These are examples of guys who were successful in wrestling but chose to leave because they could make money elsewhere. Ventura was better suited for politics…Lesnar for MMA…Warrior for whatever the fuck he’s into…and Rock for movies.
He was just better suited to be an action star. But that doesn’t mean he was a better wrestler(sports entertainer).

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

The Rock was popular because he was heel

The Rock as a face compleatly destroys why he was great. “The People’s Champion” was ironic. Fans loved to boo him. The problem arose when he was too popular as a heel that they had to turn him. The major issue with Rock/Cena is that these are two popular faces matching up. I don’t want to get into “turn Cena heel” debate cause that has been done to death. But I believe that this matchup as no real story behind it other than The Rock is returning and people don’t like Cena. This could be and should be the biggest match in WWE history. But to the fans, the Rock represents the glory days and Cena represents the problems with today. To put it Canadian terms, The Rock is Gretzky and Cena is Crosby. It’s the great one vs the heir. The problem is that Cena is not on top of his game. He is considered weak against the completion of old. And that detracts from this matchup.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 3:25 PM EST up reply actions  

A lot of what you are saying makes sense to me. HBK is probably the best example of an all-time great who didn’t need to break into the mainstream at all. So a wrestler can definitely be amazingly awesomeness without busting down the doors into some mainstream ventures. In fact that is probably how it is mostly done in this business. Rock was an outlier. The fact that he took his star power to Hollywood doesn’t automatically mean he was better than all the other greats.

I was just bringing up that point to show that his longevity issue wasn’t a case of his star power fading away like it usually is in a lot of other “real” sports. The idea of pointing to longevity is to show that a guy was a star and performed at a really high level for a really long time. I believe that if Rock chose to remain in WWE that he would have maintained his status as the top star in the company for as long as he could lace up those boots. This isn’t like a hypothetical great football player only being able to perform at a high level for a few years before his body failed him and that’s why his lack of longevity hurts his case as an all-time great. I don’t think the longevity issue is that meaningful for The Rock.

As for Rock turning heel, I think those decisions were easier to make due to the great talent on the roster around him and the fact that Rock became a mega superstar as a heel, so they knew he was great at it. They also had other huge names that could step right in and hold the role of #1 face while Rock turned heel. I don’t think WWE is really confident that Orton or Punk could just step right in and hold down the #1 face spot while Cena goes heel. And Cena has never played the heel at the main event level so perhaps there is some hesitation about doing it without having any other stars at Cena’s level to serve as a safety net in case it flops. Once again, I don’t think this really gives an advantage or disadvantage to either Rock or Cena in the debate.

by Kanenite on Jan 27, 2012 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't be a dick **

You made your point. Stop with the “I feel sorry for you being so stupid” and “are you fucking re*******.” it is compleatly unnecessary.

And yes, people will cheer Cena. He still has a lot of fans. Not everyone sits on the Internet and smarks it up.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

oops

As I was saying…I’m not offended by anything he has to say and I welcome the opportunity to debate some of these trivial issues with fellow passionate wrestling fans.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions  

The problem your debate is based on gigantic logical fallacies.

Ignoring the fact that Cena has been booed to an extreme degree everytime he’s in the same building as Rocky even by his loyal fans, which pretty much kills your argument automatically. Your assuming that just because someones best work comes when they’re a heel means that they’re going to have to be a heel when facing the top guy in the company in the next big match. That’s never the case.

Usually, no matter how detestable the actions in and out of the ring a legend of the past is responsible for, they’ll almost always get cheered over the young up and comer when they’re of greater or equal star power than said up and comer. Rocky is far more widely recognized in the mainstream and pro wrestling culture than Cena, even ignoring the movies, Rocky still has Cena decisively beat for most crowds of 10,000 or more drawn at venues, TV ratings, and PPV numbers. And even if Rocky was lower than Cena on those ends, Cena still wouldn’t get cheered because of the nostalgia factor I mentioned earlier.

My base argument is simple. John Cena is a bigger star now in the WWE than The Rock was in 2002. Agree or disagree, it doesnt really matter, I’ll be the first to admit that point is debatable. But it’s not preposterous in the least.

There’s absolutely no numerical or anecdotal evidence that this is even close to true, and a hell of a lot of evidence that indicates the opposite. Even though Cena has been the number 1 guy in the WWE for far longer than Rocky, the WWE is a shell of itself compared to its Attitude Era self in terms of cultural acceptance, amount of money generated, coolness, and number of people watching both proportionally and numerically.

This is like suggesting that Queen Elizabeth II is a bigger deal historically than George III because she’s been Queen longer than George III was king.

He was just better suited to be an action star. But that doesn’t mean he was a better wrestler(sports entertainer).

True, Rocky isn’t a better wrestler than Cena just because he’s an action star. He’s a better wrestler than Cena because he actually connects with everyone in the audience, and has more coordination in his left ass-cheek than Cena has in his entire body.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 27, 2012 11:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I often times have the Wyatt quote

from tombstone in my head when reading your retorts.
you called down the thunder well now u got it.

He knows the guy with the bandage on his ass is going no were. Were you going fucking no were

by Elstriko on Jan 28, 2012 3:58 AM EST via Android app up reply actions  

Okay...

Where exactly are the logical fallacies, friend?

Your retort is full of opinion, as was my argument. Just because you have a different opinion than I do, doesnt mean my argument wasnt sound. You have not shown me anything to sway my opinion in the least, and I stand by my claim wholeheartedly that John Cena is bigger in 2012 than the Rock was in 2002.

I’ll try to keep this short, since you seem to be getting lost in my words….I’ll really simplify it for you. But let me be clear, these are my opinions. You have yours, and everyone else has there own.

Ignoring the fact that Cena has been booed to an extreme degree everytime he’s in the same building as Rocky even by his loyal fans, which pretty much kills your argument automatically. Your assuming that just because someones best work comes when they’re a heel means that they’re going to have to be a heel when facing the top guy in the company in the next big match. That’s never the case.

The Rock being a heel or face has nothing to do with my point at all. I have no idea where you’re getting that from. I’m also NOT saying that Cena should or will be cheered over the Rock. That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement!

We’re discussing whether or not Rock vs Cena is the biggest match in WM history. I’m saying that it is. The Rock is a huge part of that. So is Cena. Do you think The Rock vs Orton would be as big? How about Big Show? Mark Henry? Whomever it is from today’s roster, John Cena is the bigger star and is rightfully facing Rocky.

The match is huge because it involves the top star of the company vs a huge celebrity megastar. When else has a match of this magnitude taken place so that we may compare it to?

This brings us to Hogan vs Rock from WM 18, as a fellow commenter pointed out. I use this as an example of a HUGE match in history that Cena/Rock will be bigger than.

Now I say this because I’m comparing the level of star power in the match. I think we can all agree that The Rock of 2012 is a bigger star than Hogan of 2002.

The issue of contention seems to be my claim that John Cena in 2012 is bigger than The Rock in 2002.

What needs to be clarified is that I’m speaking from a totally wrestling-centric universe. We looked at the longevity factor at length, and again, we cannot compare Queens or Kings or Don Mattinglys to wrestling. It’s apples and oranges. There are a lot of different factors that have kept Rock away from wrestling and Cena on top of the industry.

Rocky still has Cena decisively beat for most crowds of 10,000 or more drawn at venues

Where is your data?

Just for fun, let’s look at Wrestlemania attendance with The Rock in the main event:

WM 15 (vs. Austin) – 20,276
WM 16 (vs. Big Show, HHH, Foley)- 18,034
WM 17 (vs. Austin) – 67,925

Now compare that those numbers John Cena:
WM 22 (vs HHH) – 17,159
WM 23 (vs. Michaels) – 80,103
WM 27 (vs Miz) – 71,617

Seems to me that attendance “over 10,000” goes to Cena. But, whatever.

WWE is a shell of itself compared to its Attitude Era self in terms of cultural acceptance, amount of money generated, coolness, and number of people watching both proportionally and numerically.

lulz, “coolness”… But anyways, um it’s not quite a shell of it’s former self… Sure they’re going through a down period, but so it America, in case you haven’t noticed? Proportionately, the WWE is still among the highest rated shows on cable. And regardless, none of your criterion can be attributed solely to Cena or Rock anyways.

Now let’s get back to that heel/face dynamic… I brought up the fact that realistically, The Rock was the No 2 (or 1.A) guy in the WWE, with Austin being the No.1 guy. That’s significant because it shows that he struggled to connect with the entire audience, just like Cena. You and a lot of others are putting Rock up on this pedestal that his wrestling career just doesn’t warrant.

Now compared to Cena, sure he’s not accepted by a lot of fans. That’s old news. But that’s what makes him so great. The name of the game is money. When has The Rock ever been so profitable for a company that his character was intentionally kept stale? Never. Every single time he was pushed as a babyface, the fans turned on him, and Vince in co. went with it. Cena, on the other hand, has an extremely loyal fanbase that can only be compared to Hogan or Austin in profitability. The company would take a HUGE hit if his character were changed. That reliance on Cena in the face of massive criticism sets him apart from he Rock in my eyes. This has never happened in wrestling, and there have been MANY down periods.

Cena connects with fans brahh. You love him or you hate him. That’s the name of the game. He generates interest and profits.

Rock does too….Rock did too, in 2002. But he didn’t do it as much as Cena does now, in 2012.

by thejasten on Jan 28, 2012 10:11 AM EST up reply actions  

Also, FYI

I’m a Rocky fan and NOT a Cena fan. But I’m also a realist.

by thejasten on Jan 28, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions  

didn't heel rock sell a lot of merch?

He knows the guy with the bandage on his ass is going no were. Were you going fucking no were

by Elstriko on Jan 28, 2012 11:10 AM EST via Android app up reply actions  

I remain very unconvinced that Cena connects more with the fans than Rock did. My belief is that at his peak, Rock was as over as Austin or Hogan at their peak. I have never perceived Cena to be over at that level.

I don’t understand why there is so much emphasis on Rock’s heel and face turns. Rock became a main event player in late 1998 as a heel. Any face or heel turns he had prior to Survivor Series ‘98 are irrelevant to this discussion since he was not established as a main event player before that show. He was the #1 heel until roughly the middle of ’99. Once he turned face in mid 1999 he remained a face until leaving in August 2002 (after dropping the title to Lesnar). He left as a face. So there were no Rock heel turns in there that would have affected merch sales in any way. That’s my memory of it. if you remember any heel turns in there please let me know.

Rock went to Hollywood for the second half of 2002. He came back as a heel in early 2003 to feud with Hogan and Austin and Goldberg. This was his first time as a heel since Nov ’98. In his final extended run with the company in early 2003, it was clear that Rock was on his way out and he was simply trying to get Goldberg over as a megaface before finally leaving for good. WWE was more desperate to find a megaface at this time and Rock was the huge star that could try to make that happen for Goldberg. In other words, this 2003 heel turn was not risking millions of dollars lost in merch sales. Rock was already gone for 5 months prior to that heel turn. He was out of sight, out of mind. That would me more damning to any merch sales than any heel turn. He was no longer a regular WWE performer. But he came back for a few months and so WWE used him to try to get Goldberg over.

How is any of this relevant to the discussion of how 2012 Cena compares to 2002 Rock?

by Kanenite on Jan 28, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions  

You're right

Its not relevant really. But while he was face for that period between 99 and 03, fans also turned on him on 3 separate occasions ( vs Austin at wm17, hogan at wm18 and at that raw special where he had a taped segment that fans shit on). The significance of that is that it shows rock wasn’t as universally popular as some might remember him being. It’s that pedestal that I’m taking about. He was a huge star of course but the company wasn’t completely reliant on him like they are cena. It relates to my point about cena being bigger now than rock then because it’s just another example of the rocks vulnerability to being turned on. Basically if he you think he was bigger than cena now then it couldn’t have been by much because he was constantly turned on much like cena is today. The difference is that cena is the established no.1 guy while rock never really surpassed Austin. It’s definitely close. Up for as much debate as you want. But Im of the opinion that cena now edges rock then. I think enough has been said about this now haha. Good discussion everyone!

by thejasten on Jan 28, 2012 11:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

You mentioned 3 times when fans cheered for Rock’s opponent over The Rock. In two of those cases The Rock was facing guys who were the most over superstars of all-time at some point in their career (Hogan and Austin). These were dream bouts where the fans were going to go insane either way. Just like I’m sure the fans will be insane at WM28 for this match with Rock and Cena.

I don’t see this as a knock whatsoever on Rock’s appeal to the fans. A much larger percentage of the fans embraced The Rock throughout his career than have embraced Cena. Cena’s opponents get cheered over Cena regularly because Cena has failed to connect with a decent chunk of the audience. This happens all the time to Cena. It never happened with that kind of frequency to The Rock once during his face run from ’99 to 2002. I consider that a major blemish on Cena in this argument.

Well anyway I think you are right, we have each said our peace and we likely won’t get much further on this one.

I am curious though who do you consider the top WWF/WWE stars of the Wrestlemania era? For me, it isn’t close between Rock and Cena. Here’s my very rough draft of the top 8 to 10:

  1. and #2 are Hogan and Austin, not sure what order
  2. is The Rock
  3. and #5 are HBK and Undertaker, in some order
    #6, #7, and #8 are is HHH, Kurt Angle and Bret Hart, in some order
  4. might be John Cena

But for me anyway the other 8 guys are clearly ahead of Cena. I’m curious to see your list. Obviously I’m guessing Rock will be much lower and Cena will be much higher. I’m curious to see what you think of some of the other all-time greats compared to each other. I promise not to nitpick your list or anything like that, I’d just like to see it since we clearly value different things.

by Kanenite on Jan 29, 2012 3:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Hmm my numbering is all effed up on that last post. Hopefully you can make sense of that mess. Cena is #9 on my list, after all of the other 8 guys. Rock is #3 on my list.

by Kanenite on Jan 29, 2012 3:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, the point about Rock being turned on is more an attack on his universal “overness” which some revisionist historians tend to point to….It supports my claim that WWE was rarely reliant on him as their main guy, like they are Cena, who has that portion of uber-loyal fans (women/children) that The Rock just never had.

A key thing to remember is that we’re talking about Rock in ’02 vs Cena now. Its a weird sorta concept and whichever side you end up on is dependent on which criteria you judge how great a wrestler is.

As for my top 8:
1) Austin
2) Hogan/Flair
3)Michaels/Hart
4)Taker
5)Rock
6)Cena
7)Savage
8)Triple H, I guess.

Overall Rock outranks Cena, but if we look at their careers side by side, ending at ‘02 for Rock and ’12 for Cena, then the positions would be reversed. But that’s just my opinion.

by thejasten on Jan 29, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Cool. Thanks for the response.

by Kanenite on Jan 29, 2012 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I hope they throw together a new, credible tag team between now and then, and have that featured

Why don’t the Uso’s get a chance for anything? Legitimate question. I know they’re not the greatest, but they are an established, legitimate tag team, are semi-over with the audience, have the family connections and all that stuff…

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 26, 2012 8:13 PM EST reply actions  

Cause the Uso's suuuuuuuuuuck

I think they’ll be a stopgap until a new babyface team can arise. But they just do nothing for me. I would rather see the Bellas roll around the ring the the Uso’s. Although, I would rather see the Bella’s than a lot of things

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 26, 2012 9:21 PM EST up reply actions  

They don't do much for me, either

They seemed cool when they first debuted against the Harts, but that lasted, what, two weeks? They then disappeared, and I’ve seen them maybe twice since.

You figure, though, if random pairings of Santino and whoever it was are being thrown to take on Primo and Epico as the good guy tag team to be their foil, might as well throw the Usos a bone.

I am with you on the Bellas. They’re not the most pretty girls the WWE has, but there’s something about them I love.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 26, 2012 10:52 PM EST up reply actions  

It's that twin magic

It’s so wrong, and yet so right

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 27, 2012 1:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Must be it

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 28, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I feel like if they gave the Uso's the championship now

Then they’ll just drop it in a few weeks to Primo and Epico or crush Primo and Epico to make them irrelevant as a tag team. Until the WWE can actually get more than 1 tag team match-up, I think they need to save a title switch for as long as possible.

by hfl2013 on Jan 26, 2012 11:51 PM EST up reply actions  

I need to hear an actual argument to the effect that this is “the biggest match WWE has had in the last decade.” What does “biggest” mean?

by Finian1 on Jan 26, 2012 9:14 PM EST reply actions  

It's going to do the most business.

Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.

by Geno Mrosko on Jan 26, 2012 9:22 PM EST up reply actions  

As long as it doesn’t mean “best.”

by Finian1 on Jan 26, 2012 11:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Heading into the event...

It’s probably the most significant too.

by thejasten on Jan 26, 2012 11:46 PM EST up reply actions  

It might not beat Trump vs. Vince. They set a tough target to beat.

by Keith Harris on Jan 27, 2012 6:11 AM EST up reply actions  

The Undertaker/Triple H match is bullshit. I might get some heat for this, but I did not see the last one as the “classic” that everyone else did. Trips needs to get off his high-horse and let someone else shine. He’s already been in there twice with the guy.

by FarmerInTheCity on Jan 27, 2012 3:17 AM EST reply actions  

Agree.

I absolutely hated Taker vs H from last year. I see no other purpose for it to happen again, unless Taker squashes him to make up for his “lucky submission” last year. It’s sad that WWE is forced to go back to H again but it’s really their own fault. Aside from Cena, they really haven’t built anyone up that would make for a compelling match vs Taker, so a trilogy with H may be the most viable option. The sadder part is that H may just be crazy enough to put himself over this time.

by thejasten on Jan 27, 2012 5:39 AM EST up reply actions  

It was a great match

but yeah, I don’t think it was the best match of the year like many have said (and the WWE clearly wants to believe).

by hfl2013 on Jan 27, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

I thought it was a bad match last year, and with both guys a year older, I’m not thinking it’ll be much better.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 28, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Part of this is how badly WWE has de-emphasized the actual in ring product. I’m not one of the guys who shits all over Taker/HHH from last year, but it wasn’t nearly as good as Taker’s matches with HBK, Angle, Edge, or hell, even Batista. But here’s the thing: The only match last year I can 100% say for certain was better was Punk/Cena from MITB.

by The so-called Beautiful on Jan 28, 2012 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

2011 was a really bad year for interesting one-on-one matches and feuds in WWE. You basically had Cena/Punk and Orton/Christian, as well as the HHH/Taker match. Aside from those matches, the best matches were probably the MITB, Elimination Chamber, and Royal Rumble. And let’s face it, those matches don’t require much or any of an actual story behind them. WWE has really made it easy to not be emotionally invested in what 95% of the roster is doing in the ring, which is one of the reasons why they currently have no main event caliber heels.

by Kanenite on Jan 28, 2012 6:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"Behind you there may be one, or there may be many, waiting to stick a knife in your back. But you don't have to worry about me ... I'll shoot you right between the eyes." -- Kevin Nash

The General

Solidsnake_small Geno Mrosko

Editors

Small Keith Harris

Bane2_small Jesse Holland

File1684_small Sergio Hernandez