The Cum Doctor Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 There was No Way Out '01 against my man Trips as well. That was a clean loss wasn't it? I honestly can't remember. Â Aye, they both smashed each other with weapons and HHH wound up on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2011 Depends what you call heel. He got smashed in the head with a sledgehammer and that loss was going to be used in a heel Austin vs face HHH storyline a few months later to show Triple H's superiority over Austin. So it wasn't like they were beating Austin without protecting their top babyface. I cant see Austin losing in that fashion if it was early-99 and he was bang into his run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I have to agree with what Michael_3165 and Pitcos (that was quite an insight to peoples rise in WWE)Â Also baring injury, Cena will be running wild for another good 7-8 years yet, yes the thought of that terrifies me too, I'm not too fussed about it because I dont really care anymore, not like I used too. Â Who says the likes of Kofi, Miz etc will be in WWE in 6 years? I bet money that Kofi probably wont be, this reminds me of a few years ago when everyone was all over Mr Anderson balls saying he was going to be the next massive star in WWE, and now where is he? being the drizzling shits in TNA thats where. Â You can say that nobody knew the Ring Master would become Stone Cold or Rocky into The Rock, thats true but their wasnt anyone like them before, what I mean is you cant go from Hulkamania to 3:16 back to Hulkamania, which is what Cenation is, people wont buy into it, like before. Â I mean really how do you replace the Undertaker? Have someone do the same gimmick? wont work imo. Â I also believe you need stars to make stars, where would Stone Cold be without his matches against JakeTheSnake and Bret Hart, two really big names, where would Brock be without beating TheRock, Taker and Killing Hogan? Â TripleH without his matches against Foley, theirs always these points that you come across. Â Right now all WWE have is Cena and Orton and they dont lose to new guys, atleast not in a believable way. Â I think most of us have been watching that long that we think everything is set in stone, that their will be another big number 1 babyface like Hogan, Austin etc, perhaps their just wont be one. Â First of all, when you say it terrifies too who are you including? Cena deserves to be at the top. There's probably few who have put on as many great matches as he has in his time at the top, Shawn Michaels is one but who else in 'E has given as many top notch performances during Cena's main event stay? Â As for the rest of what you're saying, really? You just come across as someone who enjoyed wrestling during a particular period, or perhaps mroe accurately the WWE, and now you don't. People's likes and dislikes change. But I don't think its a case of the WWE not being as good or the future workers not beign as good. But the truth is that Austin was given the rub from Bret and HHH was given the rub from Foley when they were definately ready. When the 'E was sure on them. If they were given the rub before that you're not protectign the rub and it doesn't mean as much. The reason the WWE's capable of making the real big stars is because it means a hell of a lot when they get behind you and push you that far. The reason TNA, for example, isn't capable of that is because they're too busy trying to give everyoen a fair shake. You wanna make a big star babyface? You give the guy a rub that hardly anyone ever gets, you push his ass hard and you protect him to the high heavens. That's the truth of the matter. And if you're going to get another 7-8 year out of Cena, who works hard, has been injured once and busted his ass to get back, who's the ultimate company guy and can produce top line quality work than you protect the fucking shit out of him. Â Admittedly it comes across now as a long time for someone to be at the top but we've seen the WWE try and slow things down for a while. Most of the last decade has been about that. The slower and safer style of match, the elimination of blood etc. And, if its their desire, they're probably be able to reducate their audiences to expect people on the top for longer. But considering Cena's a cash cow in terms of merchandise you can undertand why they're not willing to push another number one blue eyes yet or even lay the ground work for it. When they're ready, and they've picked a guy who's got what it takes they'll probably be able to make him in a year. In the mean time see who's loyal and let people improve. Â And to be honest, considerign the way they've put the belts on people before they're really ready, I'm quite happy they're being so protective of the spot. Thins arn't happening as fast in the 'E (with the except of title changes, which I'll admit seems utterly illogicial) and if I'm honest, I kinda like that. Â Edit: Â There was No Way Out '01 against my man Trips as well. That was a clean loss wasn't it? I honestly can't remember. Â Wasn't that the one where Austin stunnered HHH but Hunter luckily fell on top and Austin was too exhausted to kick out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Wasn't that the one where Austin stunnered HHH but Hunter luckily fell on top and Austin was too exhausted to kick out? Â Nope. HHH used the sledgehammer and Austin used a barbed wire 2x4 at the same time. HHH stayed up long enough to fall on top of Austin and get the win. Incidentally, I LOVED that ending and still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted June 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2011 A lot of people went on about Cena's Wrestlemania record, but Austin won in five straight Wrestlemanias. Â Four. Â (hates self) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoryFice Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 A lot of people went on about Cena's Wrestlemania record, but Austin won in five straight Wrestlemanias.  Four.  (hates self)  He missed 2000, so I'd say he won 4 Wrestlemania matches in a row, rather than 5/4 straight Wrestlemanias  (loves self) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 He missed 2000, so I'd say he won 4 Wrestlemania matches in a row, rather than 5/4 straight Wrestlemanias  Forgot he missed 2000. Good call.  I was gonna credit air raid for it, but he clearly hates himself, so I thought I'd add to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Either way, really absolutely anyone could catch on regardless of how long they've been about. Not true. Someone really good, yes. Not absolutely anyone. And it's a lot harder when they've been around for years and not made an impression and, in a worst case scenario, already sickened everyone by getting inordinate amounts of TV time for years before they've caught on. Â You're right that they're trying to slow things down in a lot of ways, but they've not really figured out a new formula for how to do it. They're still using the attitude era format, just with less going on. They deviate from it sometimes as far as stretching it out and filling it with nothing. Ted DiBiase now gets about three times the TV time per episode than Godfather did back in the day, but has about 15% of the creative support. The way things are at the moment, it does nothing to protect or help young/new talent from overexposure and audience boredom. And that's a shame because most of the new talent now -- the generation that has got fuck all experience outside of shitty indie feds and WWE in-house training and has less active veterans to learn the ropes from -- needs the help more than any previous one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonworden Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I was going to pretty much say the same as the above post.  What I would add is that Austin and the Rock were really freak rises to the top in the grand scheme of things. Mainly the Rock that he was so super over 2/3 years after his debut. Most had many years in the WWE (unless they had a certain element about them or were super over elsewhere) during the 90's before they got the belt and were at the top. Even Austin with his 2 years had plenty of experience from WCW and must have been remembered by fans to some degree even with a massive charecter overall.  Look at Bret Hart, he was in the WWF from 1986 - 1991 before he was used as a singles star and got a run from 92-97 with the belt  HBK was there from 87/88 - 96 before he was at the top  Undertaker had to even slog his way through crap opponents for 5 years (his short 91 title win aside)  This is what I think there trying to go back to which is going to be better in the long run at creating bankable stars. I dont like cena but dont want him to dissapear and watch the other people flounder without a star babyface to prop them up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 This is what I think there trying to go back to which is going to be better in the long run at creating bankable stars. Only if they do it right, though. Proper elevation is dependent on fans going "I want to see more of that guy, and I don't want to miss anything he does." And we see so much of the midcarders already, and see them doing nothing for ages, that they're far from unmissable and we could do with seeing them less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenhill Promotions Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Zack Ryder! Â Also, some of R-Truths actions/expressions etc recently have made me think he could become so entertaining that the fans warm to him, and as long as he stays away from the rap stuff, could become quite a big babyface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffbag Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 no one on the current roster stands out. Bearing in mind that Cena will be on top for the next three years at least, there is no one out there that will reach Cena / Austin / Rock heights. Â The Miz is a possibility in the same vein as the did with the Rock but in the fast changing world will WWE give the slow burn turn the time to get over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 where would Brock be without beating TheRock, Taker and Killing Hogan? Â Nowhere. Which is pretty much the same place he was after beating those names. Â Â Can we stop pretending like Brock was some sort of megastar please?. At least on a "top guy" level. Cena, Batista, and Orton have all easily surpassed his level of stardom since he fucked off. He's irrelevant in a "number one babyface" topic. Â Brock was massive. If he'd have stuck around longer, who knows how much of a star he'd have been? Him being a physical specimen combined with the push he gave made him massive. I know more people who cared more about Brock than they ever have Batista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted June 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 13, 2011 Brock was massive. Â Size wise, he was. In terms of being a star?, no, not even half as much as people pretend. Â I know more people who cared more about Brock than they ever have Batista. Â Good for your friend circle. It doesn't change the fact that Batista was a megastar, who legit drew millions for the company, and was on a par with Cena at times. Â Â Lesnar never reached that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 13, 2011 I know more people who cared more about Brock than they ever have Batista. Thats such bollocks, its not even funny. You must have forgotten the time the fans turned Batista into a star in 2005. Batista was the man. I'd put him way ahead of Lesnar as far as their WWE runs go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.