|
Post by zach volk on May 2, 2012 11:39:02 GMT -5
krz:
I think to most people complaining it wouldn't have been a problem for Cena to eventually go over but not the first match. It killed brock and any momentum to the feud. If Cena had lost you could have given him time off or booked him for month trying to get his shit together and eventually building to a big rematch. Doing it this way what interest is there in Brock v. Cena again? And by Brock losing what interest is there in Brock vs. anyone? How is Brock the unstoppable monster they want him to be perceived as? He has already been stopped in his first match back after getting his ass beat in his last UFC match.
Even if they wanted Cena to go over they could have booked it where as more of a fluky or surprise win, not a straight pinfall. The way it was booked was how you book to blow off the feud. Why blow off the feud one month in?
|
|
krz
Jobber
Posts: 7
|
Post by krz on May 2, 2012 12:59:18 GMT -5
I think to most people complaining it wouldn't have been a problem for Cena to eventually go over but not the first match. I get that, but I fail to see the point in Cena losing. Sure, Brock is a huge star, but I don't think it's a good idea for him to squash Cena, who is THE wrestling star. And I don't believe it's just because it's Brock, if it would have been Overeem who came over with the same deal, these same people would have wanted Overeem to destroy Cena. I say fuck UFC. I like MMA, but taking arguably the biggest MMA star and putting him against arguably the biggest wrestling star, when I'm watching WRESTLING, I want WRESTLING to triumph, not make a comeback a year later after this one guy has dominated the entire WWE. The feud would have died anyway to this big match. Would anyone honestly care about Cena vs Brock 2? Hogan vs The Rock 2 didn't really have the same reaction that the first one had, now did it? I'd say that Cena won because Brock got cocky, the same way Cena lost to the Rock. Cena learned from his mistakes and Brock was super cocky since he's been a major star somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by zach volk on May 2, 2012 13:30:54 GMT -5
I don't see it as a MMA thing, I see it more Brock left on top and returned with a lot of momentum. The point in Cena losing is you build a longer feud and storyline.
If you build it right the rematch could have been a big deal but as it is now there really isn't even that option. When you bring in a new guy like Brock for a finite amount of time you should build him up then if you want have the top guy defeat him. The way it's booked now where is Brock's role?
If they wanted to convey the Brock beat himself idea they should have had Cena catch him in a small package or something not use his finisher and beat him clean in the middle of the ring.
|
|
ciaranhexcel
Curtain Jerker
Objection! IT WAS ME FACEBOOK, IT WAS ME ALL ALONG!
Posts: 102
|
Post by ciaranhexcel on May 2, 2012 15:54:25 GMT -5
I think to most people complaining it wouldn't have been a problem for Cena to eventually go over but not the first match. I get that, but I fail to see the point in Cena losing. Sure, Brock is a huge star, but I don't think it's a good idea for him to squash Cena, who is THE wrestling star. And I don't believe it's just because it's Brock, if it would have been Overeem who came over with the same deal, these same people would have wanted Overeem to destroy Cena. I say fuck UFC. I like MMA, but taking arguably the biggest MMA star and putting him against arguably the biggest wrestling star, when I'm watching WRESTLING, I want WRESTLING to triumph, not make a comeback a year later after this one guy has dominated the entire WWE. Right, except that Overeem wouldn't have been the same deal. Brock is ALSO a wrestling star, he's not just a UFC fighter. if you think John Cena represents Wrestling and he loses....then so what? Its not saying MMA is better than WWE or anything. Does Rock beating Cena mean hollywood actors are better then wrestlers? Of course not.
|
|
krz
Jobber
Posts: 7
|
Post by krz on May 2, 2012 21:57:39 GMT -5
It was far from a clean win. He hit Brock with a chain to knock him out, then gave him the AA on steel steps. Brock had a visionary pin on Cena earlier in the match, that would have been a clean win.
The Rock winning at Mania, proofed that what Triple H said was right. A lot of people were pissed when he said that Triple H and the Undertaker are a dying breed, of men who are on a different level. Basicly meaning that these Attitude era superstars are far superior to the current ones. Think about The Rock. He was away for 8 years. Came back, chumped out the entire Main Event of last years Wresltemania. Then he came back to fight the super evil team of the Miz and Truth, who were so bad, that the entire WWE crew walked out on RAW. Of course the Rock didn't have any trouble beating them. Then at Mania, he won clean when Cena got cocky. Last years Mania proofed everything Triple said to be right. As far as the rematch goes, I can't even remember when a rematch would be bigger than the first match, in WRESTLING that is.
|
|
|
Post by zach volk on May 3, 2012 9:13:21 GMT -5
In the parameters of an extreme rules match using a chain or stairs is in the rules so it would be a clean win.
|
|
|
Post by Reed Benzo on May 3, 2012 12:53:51 GMT -5
Yesterday, I realized that I equate Lesnar losing in his first match back with the booking of the WCW/ECW invasion. I look back on the latter and actually get little upset with how good that could have been had Vince put his pride to the side and booked the invaders strong. I think I'm going to look back on Brock's return the same way in a few years.
|
|