WrestleMania - Who has the right?

[Maluco]

Was thinking about posting this topic for a few weeks now after reading interviews from various people talking about The Rock's involvement in WrestleMania. There have been so many different opinions and it is obvious reading through comments from people like Punk and Orton that the reaction was negative at the beginning towards The Rock's involvement (and even his attitude backstage).

I personally think that the discontents in the locker room have no leg to stand on arguing against Rock's involvement. Orton has justified it in his own mind, but you get the impression that many people lower down on the card will see themselves getting excluded from the big event on the basis of Rock's involvement.

The way I see it is, if you are a draw, and your work this year has deserved a Mania match, then you will be on the card, and not only that, your purse will be that bit bigger because of the buyrate and the sponsers that The Rock will bring in.

If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania?

The Rock is one question I wanted to hear some opinions about, but not the only one. I read an interview from Mick Foley this morning which indicated that although he thinks others should get Mania spots that he would like to be on the card. He mentions the Miz as an opponent and this is interesting to me.

I personally would love to see The Miz getting a win over Foley (Orton or Edge style) to set him up for a post Mania title feud, but would the buyrate really increase because of Foley? Probably not at this stage of his career. Should WWE focus on making a credible story for two current superstars instead?

Then we have John Morrison leaving the company, and you have to believe that this all started as a result of the Melina/Trish nonsense from last year, but was he justified? Did Trish add buyrates and interest? Was it worth taking off current superstars for her involvement?

Think this makes for a good debate and would be interested to hear where people think the line should be drawn with Legend's and past superstars' involvement at the biggest stage of them all.

[Xero]

If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania?

This, right now, more often than not relies entirely on the writing than the talent. WWE has made very few people over the last 6 years or so mean much. 90% of the roster flounders because WWE hasn't given a shit about the midcard and tend to yo-yo people like Kofi, Morrison, Swagger, etc. Am I saying that all of those guys were definite draws and huge money makers? No. But WWE doesn't put them in a position to be built up to be draws, and when they do they yank the rug out from under them.

So when they need talent to actually draw, they have to look to the past because so guys few on the roster matter.

In the case of The Rock, I think there can be a special exemption made because it's such a big match and Rock wants to do it. Will he bump the buy rate? Absolutely. But even if they were red hot now, he'd still bump the buyrate because he's The Rock. The guys who are bitching about it, IMO, are wrong, because it's a good business move, no matter what. They may have decent points about it, but I'm sorry, John Cena vs. CM Punk as a first run match would not have drawn nearly as much as Cena vs. Rock.

When it comes to the Melina/Trish thing, I think Melina had somewhat of an argument for Trish coming in because that match was all about Snookie, it didn't matter who was in there with her, they wouldn't have drawn any more. Morrison shunning Trish, though, was a HUGE sign of unprofessionalism in, like it or not, one of the more important angles for Mania last year. He can be pissed about it all he wants, but if he's going to be unprofessional, he can fuck off. I think Melina was more concerned about being a mark for herself and making it on TMZ than actually being in the match and mattering, though.

As for Foley, I don't really have a problem with something like that, because obviously he'd be there to put Miz or someone else over. I think a legit criticism that can be made about Cena vs. Rock is that, no matter the outcome, no one is getting more or less over. They're as over as they'll ever be at this point. The match doesn't make anyone, and doesn't help to elevate anyone. But it's very good for the business of WrestleMania, and that's something that can't be overlooked.

[Majunior]

Well, I remember CM Punk stating in an interview that when a PPV has a guest and the buyrates go up, people want to attribute that solely to the guest, but the truth is that's hard to do. Are buys up solely because of the guest, or was the card built well enough that rates would have been up anyway? Would they have been up anyway but went up another percent because of the guest?

There's really no way to be sure exactly why all the numbers play out as they do.

I have a bit of an issue with your idea of "If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania?" This is scripted entertainment. Some of the most talented and capable in-ring talents don't get the chance to shine, and other talents get crammed down our throats because the upper echelon has decided to push them. So, yes, they can potentially have someone else to blame. I mean, when you are only allowed to contribute so much, your lack of contribution can't really be held against you, in my opinion.

What current superstar was taken off last 'Mania for Trish? Melina has bitched, but wasn't she out with an injury? Honest question, I seem to remember she was but I could be wrong.

Anyway, my overall opinion on the matter is that past superstars should never overshadow the main event, and no superstar or "legend" is bigger than the "sport" or company that made them... so prima donna behavior is never acceptable. While young talent should respect the vets, returning vets should have some appreciation and respect for the people currently busting their asses night in and night out. Having payed your dues doesn't make you bigger than the promotion and respect is a two way street. Being a former superstar doesn't mean anyone owes you shit.

[Kane Knight]

Shannon Moore.

[#1-norm-fan]

It's all about pleasing the people and, in turn, bettering business. People want to see Rock vs Cena, so it needs to be Rock vs Cena. If people want to see Foley vs Miz and another current guy has to be left off the card for Foley to wrestle, then so be it. The job of the company is not to please the wrestlers or even give them "deserved spots".

The solution to this problem is not to leave off guys people want to see so that you can use less over young guys. The solution is to make the young guys and the guys people want to see one and the same. But that's a long term goal. For now, it is what it is.

[Maluco]

I have a bit of an issue with your idea of "If you are knocked off the card, do you really have anyone to blame but yourself? Has your contribution been enough to deserve a match? Are you entertaining enough to deserve a story going into Mania?" This is scripted entertainment. Some of the most talented and capable in-ring talents don't get the chance to shine, and other talents get crammed down our throats because the upper echelon has decided to push them. So, yes, they can potentially have someone else to blame. I mean, when you are only allowed to contribute so much, your lack of contribution can't really be held against you, in my opinion.


I phrased them as questions because obviously they are open to opinion and I obviously don't believe that its all down to the talent, but just to play up to the debate, I will give you my opnion about one guy, Cody Rhodes.

Rhodes was deemed by us, the Internet know-it-alls as the man from Legacy with the least talent, and to further that, he was given the arguably "goofy" gimmick of Dashing when he was branching out on his own.

Since then his combination of great matches, but I think, moreso, his facial expressions, reactions and the way he plays his characters have given people no choice put to push him. He has worked hard and it didn't matter the goofiness of the initial character, he played it well and got noticed for that, Rhodes WILL be on that Mania card.

Another example is Ryder, who worked extremely hard to get himself over in a creative way, and if he keeps going the way he is, has a great chance of being on the card.

The attitude era was rooted in guys taking ideas to management and running with it...surely there is still room for guys to be standing up and getting counted, especially in such an interactive era?

[Gertner]

I think Ricardo Rodriguez should be repackaged as a loner submission machine who plays by his own set of rules.

[Captain of Fun]

I think a legit criticism that can be made about Cena vs. Rock is that, no matter the outcome, no one is getting more or less over. They're as over as they'll ever be at this point. The match doesn't make anyone, and doesn't help to elevate anyone.

I do not think this is a legit criticism. In fact, I have seen this point made in regards to a variety of different matches over the years, and I've always thought it was a terrible mentality to have.

Why does someone always have to be "made" or get "over", for a match to be a good idea? Why can't two guys be put together for a match, solely because the match, and program leading up to it, would be entertaining?

There are plenty of spots on a card, for matches that get people over. It's perfectly fine, imo, to have a couple matches made purely to put on a good show.

[Xero]

I do not think this is a legit criticism. In fact, I have seen this point made in regards to a variety of different matches over the years, and I've always thought it was a terrible mentality to have.

Why does someone always have to be "made" or get "over", for a match to be a good idea? Why can't two guys be put together for a match, solely because the match, and program leading up to it, would be entertaining?

There are plenty of spots on a card, for matches that get people over. It's perfectly fine, imo, to have a couple matches made purely to put on a good show.

The only real problem with it is because Cena vs. Rock is what the entirety of Mania will be built around. No match will be bigger. At the end of the night, all eyes will be on someone who could barely be considered part time at best in The Rock and the man who has been at the tippy top of the company for half a decade now.

Don't get me wrong, because this match IMO is the exception to the rule, much like Rock vs. Hogan was. But when you're building your biggest show of the year around two guys who are already established and won't get any sort of rub, in this climate, it just sends the message that "the past and what we shove down your throats is what matters".

I can see it as a legit claim but I don't necessarily agree with it. But when it comes to the long term, when you're just now starting to make guys like Punk, it may be short sighted. Yes, it will bump your rating today, but what does it do for you six months down the road? This wouldn't be a problem if WWE weren't getting closer and closer to the point where they have to start making stars or the company will die. If this match were on at WrestleMania 20, say, as the main event, it would be perfectly fine. The climate is a huge part of why I feel it can be a legit claim.

Of course, the counter to this argument is that Rock can bring eyes to the product and maybe make more fans. But as we've seen in the past, people tune in for The Rock and the WWE fails to keep them on board. They don't have a good track record for that.

[Emperor Smeat]

I can see it as a problem if the spot or potential match was being developed for a while only to be suddenly dropped at the last moment just to rush in a guest star or older wrestler as a way to get a last minute hype or publicity for Mania.

The big differences involving the Rock and Trish was both matches were already being planned and developed for a while so no planned match was suddenly tossed out. In Melina's case, she somehow thought Trish was taking her spot when the WWE didn't have any real plans to have her involved in Mania to begin with.

If anyone has a real reason to be upset, then it should be either Del Rio or The Miz due to the pre-booking of Cena vs Rock really changed the plans for the year for both guys. Miz was essentially dropped out of the main event for most of the post-Mania year until recently so that Del Rio's road to the title and eventual title reign could be rushed.

Punk wasn't even doing anything huge besides rebooting the Nexus angle again until the Summer of Punk occurred which benefited him a lot more than maybe what the WWE originally planned for him in 2011. If anything, Del Rio or maybe the Miz would have staid as the main heels for the year and Punk at the #3 position until Punk's sudden switch to face status which ended up knocking out Morrison from the #2 spot as a face.