Darren Shredd
Each week the best and the brightest of the Internet Wrestling community get together to discuss current events in the WWE, different wrestlers, and answer questions from their fans. This week we discussed The Shield, John Cena, Brock Lesnar,big man wrestling, and more. Make sure to read Part One!
ON THE TOP SPOT
bps21 says: There are 2 top levels in WWE. The John Cena level that no one can get to and the Punk level that Bryan spent some good time on
BZ says: Punk is closing the gap on Cena.
bps21 says: No.
BZ says: I think he received a bigger reaction than Cena in South Carolina.
bps21 says: Doesn’t matter. No one can be on the Cena level
tigger says: The Rock is above Cena level and he wrestles once a year
bps21 says: This is about whether a real roster member can be a real John Cena top guy…and they have no interest in making it appear that way. Punk spent the whole year as champion on the undercard to Cena matches…unless he was hurt or working John Cena
BZ says: The problem with Punk is that he’s probably retiring soon. Otherwise, even though he did not main event much as champ, that entire run along with the matches with Taker and Rock put him at another level in the eyes of fans. Even if he lost.
tigger says: How many years do you think Cena has left, though? Once he’s gone it opens up the floodgate for anyone to be on his level and they will be forced to push people to that level to fill the void.
Laz says: I could see Cena retiring in 4-5, or at least taking on the HBK schedule in that time
DavidHunter says: I think Cena can go another decade. Wrestling isn’t like NBA or NFL when it comes to age and retiring
bps21 says: I think at least another decade is right
DavidHunter says: Undertaker has been over 3 decades… Rock just as long
Laz says: It is, however, like Hollywood in terms of exposure limits. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, could still have been a draw in 1998, but he was so overexposed after the previous 15 years of being a big deal that people stopped caring. Both ‘Taker and Rock have had stretches of inactivity, though, and stops to freshen up the character
BZ says: If you want an example of a guy who does not take breaks and thinks he’s at that level, Triple H.
bps21 says: Cena has been playing the same character for 10 years with no development at all
BZ says: At least Triple H turned heel
Laz says: Triple H, who’s worked 4-5 matches in the last couple of years
BZ says: But before these last few years, he had a run from like 1997-2009?
tigger says: and for some reason thinks he’s the only one who can work with brock lesnar
DavidHunter says: It really will feel weird 10 years down the line when Undertaker, Rock, Sting, Triple H etc. have officially retired
BZ says: It’s crazy when you think about how Austin was a huge deal for maybe 3 years? When you take injuries into account
DavidHunter says: Austin’s run was what 1997-2001, maybe 2002 if being generous. Even Shawn Michaels was 1994-1997 and Bret’s wasn’t that long either
bps21 says: Cena has been on top about as long as Hogan…and that was in an era that didn’t have nearly as much TV and ppv.
Laz says: And even Hogan was getting booed towards the end
DavidHunter says: and one could argue Hogan similarly didn’t have much in the way of competition as a face either
BZ says: So in dog years, that’s like a 30 year run.
Laz says: The market was different, too. More fans seem to legitimately care about talent these days than they did during Hogan’s prime. Hence the abundance of “you can’t wrestle” and “same old shit” chants.
BZ says: I miss the John Cena that was a douchebag US Champ
Laz says: I’ve said it before, but Cena as a face could work if they made him into a legitimate underdog
bps21 says: The internet is everywhere. Today’s marks are that era’s smart marks
DavidHunter says: As much as the IWC gets mocked, I wouldn’t care half as much without it to be honest
ON BROCK LESNAR
BZ says: Brock Lesnar beating down 3MB. Brock was into it, and the crowd was into Brock. It almost felt like he was going to turn face if he F5ed Heath Slater one more time.
DavidHunter says: Those slams of Heath on the railing made me think he’d need knee surgery afterwards
BZ says: Remember when we said Ziggler is the best at taking beatdowns? He’s number 2 behind Heath Slater.
bps21 says: Please…if Dolph was taking a Brock beatdown he would put every beatdown in history to shame
tigger says: The way lesnar works with the “jobbers” seems dangerous. I’m worried he’s going to break somebody’s neck, just tosses them. Don’t forget the funny moment where he threw the chair at The Miz
DavidHunter says: Brock is like our generation’s Andre the Giant. I’m always in awe at his size, speed, and ability
Laz says: Brock Lesnar is the most believable “monster” of the past decade. He’s big, he’s strong, he’s vicious, and he can WRESTLE
DavidHunter says: Scary part is Brock walked onto an NFL team! That’s how athletic and powerful the guy is
Laz says: Scarier part is that Brock proved he was a legitimate fighter, too
BZ says: Yeah he held his own. Brock Lesnar is the most athletic big in wrestling history. If you count him as big
Laz says: The highlight of Brock/HHH at WM29 was Brock’s facial expressions and attitude throughout the whole thing. When he was in control, people were interested. When HHH was in control, though, people zoned out
BZ says: Honestly, I liked the match. But it had no heat. Following Punk/Taker is almost as dumb as following Hogan/Rock. Only one guy is dumb enough to do that.
bps21 says: He did it 3 times. Don’t forget HBK/Taker I followed by that awful Orton main event
BZ says: Oh yeah.
tigger says: The WWE haven’t been using him very well. What a waste of 5mil a year. First they have him lose to Cena, now he’s stuck in a never ending feud with HHH.
Laz says: The loss to Cena was ridiculously shortsighted on every part
DavidHunter says: Brock really should have been how WCW used Vader in that seeing him beat is pretty special
BZ says: If he defeats Triple H at Extreme Rules or whatever, he’ll get some of that heat back.
bps21 says: For what it’s worth I think working this feud with HHH has done more damage than losing to Cena did. As dumb as that was
Laz says: Brock’s return was HUGE. The fact that he made Cena bleed hardway during a pull-apart was HUGE
BZ says: If he defeated Cena, in Cena’s terrible year, the match with Triple H would have been a little better.
Laz says: Brock controlling the majority of that match with Cena was a big deal since nobody had dominated Cena like that in years
bps21 says: At least Cena shows vulnerability, HHH wants everyone to believe he’s every bit the real fighter and man that Brock is when they wrestle. It’s pathetic.
Laz says: Brock winning at Extreme Rules ’12 would further his own angle and build heat on the HHH matches while also actually giving Cena something closer to a bad year. BAM – two matches with build from one decision
BZ says: The best way to build up Brock would have been to do it while CM Punk held the belt. An undefeated Brock Lesnar against reigning champ in Punk would have been a great WrestleMania main event
DavidHunter says: the problem with Triple H is that he can’t convincingly do a face in peril act and Brock is tailor made to be a beat down guy
brody says: Heyman can probably save Brock’s heat with a promo or 2, but he really needs to kill HHH in the cage. I fear the cage is to give HHH a win without pinning Lesnar again.
Laz says: The problem with Triple H is that all the fire that he showed during his epic run in 2000 has waned. He seemed much more willing to sell for people in matches and make it seem like he was actually going to lose or that he was actually in trouble, and now? It’s just a matter of time until the Pedigree ends it
BZ says: Yeah. He made me believe Rikishi was gonna win the belt.
Laz says: He made me believe that TAKA had a chance
DavidHunter says: I think people underrate how important the angle with Kurt Angle/Stephanie was to his run too
tigger says: Do you think Vince is purposefully booking Brock to lose as punishment for leaving the company? Is that how he wanted to spend 5million? Or is it a case of them just not knowing what to do again
DavidHunter says: I think Vince is doing it a bit because Brock publicly made WWE into a laughing stock and Vince takes the WWE dead serious
brody says: Vince made Brock’s wife do the one angle she refused to do when she came back after the law suit, so that’s just one of many examples of vindictive Vince.
Laz says: Regardless of his motivation, it was the wrong move to have Brock lose at Extreme Rules, no matter which way you cut it
bps21 says: You have to consider that they only had a one year 3 match contract with Brock. Having him win those matches and walk would have been a tough idea. Used one to put over Cena, he beat HHH to set up the rematch loss…which at the time they booked Summerslam they thought could be his last night. Now they know he’s here for 2 more years…he will win more. But they should have changed the Mania finish. HHH didn’t need that win. Well…HHH the person did but you know…
BZ says: Triple H knew he needed the win cause he knows people would boo the shit out of him when he’s forced to retire
Laz says: Personally I would have done Brock/Taker at WM29
DavidHunter says: Would Taker’s body have held up to Brock throwing him around though?
Laz says: They have chemistry together, and Taker winning doesn’t harm anybody or anything
tigger says: Do you want Brock/Taker at WM30?
Laz says: I think Brock/Taker at WM30 would only work if Brock is a 100% unstoppable beast from now until then
DavidHunter says: Agreed. They would have make it convincing that Brock can’t lose to even the top guys
Laz says: He kills HHH in the cage, he kills anybody else that’s put up against him, and Taker comes in to save the kingdom and it costs him his career in the process
tigger says: What other possible opponents would you like to see at WM30? Brock/Rock?
BZ says: Brock/Punk if Austin can’t go
bps21 says: Brock/Rock is the best match they can do from a drawing money standpoint. I still want Brock/Sheamus dammit
DavidHunter says: I’d like to see Brock/Shield personally but doubt that would happen
ON THE SHIELD
tigger says: Let’s move on to discuss The Shield. The WWE seems to actually be doing something right with them, perhaps making up for their fumble with the Nexus
DavidHunter says: The Shield is my favorite thing in the WWE since the original DX run in 1997/1998
Laz says: The Shield are great. Ambrose as the mouthpiece, Reigns as the muscle, and Rollins as the bump machine is just a fantastic combination
BZ says: It’s pretty surprising how well the Shield has been booked. I’m shocked they haven’t lost yet. It’s like they think they’re booking three Triple Hs or something.
Laz says: Each of them is 1/3 Triple H, BZ. Reigns is the look, Ambrose is the promo, and Rollins…ummm…
BZ says: That’s another thing. They picked three dudes who complement each other perfectly. They could have easily had Hero in there instead of Reigns, but Reigns works extremely well. Rollins is the worker.
Laz says: I was going to say “bumper,” but that would’ve been inaccurate for the Triple H comparison
bps21 says: They have awesome matches…but I wonder how much longer than can keep throwing three random people together for them. We seem to be reaching a character growth moment…and that’s when they tend to fumble
DavidHunter says: I love that every member can match up to a guy like a Sheamus or Orton and not look out of place
Laz says: I think the strongest part of their booking is that they’re vulnerable alone, but booked together they’re unstoppable. They’re a cohesive unit. Three guys that trust each other and know how to complement one another so well that everybody put up against them has fallen short. At WM29, the Shield really only won because Orton, Sheamus, and Show couldn’t get along the whole time. If Russo were booking this, the Shield would have lost their first match to Ryback alone
BZ says: Then Ryback would have been revealed as the mastermind behind Shield
tigger says: Is The Undertaker/Kane/Bryan vs The shield booked for this weeks RAW?
BZ says: Yes. They’re going to use it to set up a tag title match. This is the first time in forever that the WWE has taken strength in numbers seriously.
DavidHunter says: Also the entrances/walking through the crowd just paints them as so cool and bad ass
BZ says: Like some shit is going down.
Laz says: One thing to note during the entrances, though, is that Ambrose and Rollins enter together, whereas Reigns comes out by himself
tigger says: Possible foreshadowing for a Reigns turn?
Laz says: If they continue giving a shit about booking them properly, I could see that being the case
tigger says: Perhaps he gets the Batista treatment
BZ says: foreshadowing the future singles main event push
Laz says: He’s already greatly improved since his debut
tigger says: Definitely has potential to be the next impressive big man, which brings us to our last fan question and final point of discussion
ON BIG MEN
tigger says: “What is the role of the big man (Big Show, Kane, Mark Henry, Brock Lesnar) in today’s WWE product compared to even 10 years ago? Has there been any evolution?”
bps21 says: It’s funny because 10 years ago those were the same big men
BZ says: haha
DavidHunter says: I think they are finally getting back to the “monster” aspect in terms of Big Show’s punch, Brock’s beastliness, and Henry’s raw strength
BZ says: The problem with the WWE is they never know how to end a big man feud.
bps21 says: Sure they do. Cena wins.
BZ says: Mark Henry was great away from Cena on Smackdown
Laz says: The problem with the role of the big man is that Vince has always tried to load his roster with them
DavidHunter says: It seems like for every halfway successful big man, they have 3 or 4 failures
Laz says: Look at time periods where there were one or two big men, and they were monsters kept apart from one another until the inevitable confrontation. Now, load the roster with big guys, and they have to actually work instead of just throw people around and no-sell. So, in that way, I think the role of the big man has changed maybe for the better, at least in WWE
DavidHunter says: It’s interesting because the “dead” mid 90’s had Undertaker, Diesel for basically 2 years in 1994/1995 and maybe Mabel but nobody else
bps21 says: YOKOZUNA!
brody says: They had useless fat guys then. Man Mountain Rock, Mantaur, Bundy, etc
Laz says: It’s not as big of a deal for the big guys to lose these days because they’ve all lost at some point (or, in the case of Show, quite a bit), but they seem to put forth more effort into making themselves seem like a threat, too
BZ says: Big Show has finally been interesting in the past few years at times, more than usual, and he’s the best actor on the roster.
DavidHunter says: Mark Henry it seems like he should have been doing this type of gimmick from the start. A nasty, powerful man who beats people down and likes it
Laz says: If there is one SET role for them, it’s to be the unstoppable monster for the hero face to vanquish, or the massive threat that the sniveling heel has to find a way around. Which, I guess, isn’t much different than it was decades ago
DavidHunter says: Interesting you say that because it seems the biggest difference today is their in-ring ability. Brock even has a “manager” in Heyman as his mic man
Laz says: The role hasn’t changed, though. The ability has and for the better
tigger says: One thing’s for sure, if you’re a giant WWE is going to be quick to push you right to the top, see Ryback for example. I can’t believe Khali was champion
JackDonaghy says: Khali is easy to explain – they wanted the Indian market
DavidHunter says: For those who attend events, do the young kids have that “awe” when they see the size of somebody like Big Show?
bps21 says: Everyone does. Kevin Nash walked by me at Night of Champions a couple years ago and you just go “Damn”.They’re all bigger than they look on TV
Laz says: When you think about it, you can probably blame Mike Awesome for fans wanting more out of their big guys than just to be big. No, I retract that statement. UNDERTAKER. The best big man ever, the best gimmick ever, and the man changed with the times and to match his opponents
BZ says: With Triple H signing indy stars, the big man is slowly dying. It’s all about getting guys who can work, especially with the new policies
Laz says: The great thing about the surge on signing indy guys, though, is that it will make the big guys stand out that much more. At least, as far as it relates to the topic at hand (since signing indy guys also gives you experienced workers ready to take over)
DavidHunter says: The big man is always going to have a role because it’s almost a throwback “carny attraction”… come to the events and see this 6’10 or 7’0 giant
BZ says: After Kane, Taker, Henry retire there’s like no one left. The small hoss, Ryback and Big E Langston.
Laz says: I can’t even think of a single indy guy worth noting who’s over 6’4”
tigger says: Perhaps with the steroid policy, and signing indy workers, as the roster on average becomes smaller and smaller, then they can bring in people like Samoa Joe as the “Big Men”. Although much smaller than today’s giants, will still be big in when compared to the average guy on the roster, and have a better work rate than your traditional big men.
BZ says: I’m surprised he hasn’t been picked up
Laz says: He’s still in TNA. I think Vince may still be sore that he turned down the Umaga role, too
photo credit to WWE.com
